As Henry ford put it, most people wanted faster horses. You say you want bigger prize pools but how often are you winning a tournament? Do you want more for your min cash? How about a softer field with happy players who are enjoying themselves and not miserable? I think that would be better long term for the game.

And to say poker sites are doing their best, is laughable to me. If you play wsop.com, aside from the series they run, the daily tournaments haven’t changed except for smaller guarantees for years now. Whoever is in charge of the daily schedule must be getting a salary. There’s been no attempt to mix it up. Every series is multi entry except for the one freeze out they run. I love WSOP.com, but I mean come on now.

No pkos, no freeze outs except for the daily $50 and two $20 ones. Like 4 rebuys and nothing added during the the wsop when loads of more people could be playing.

It’s like wsop is trying to not lose money. When you try to make money, you usually end up making money. When you try not to lose money, you usually end up not losing money. The tourneys don’t hit the guarantee for just one week, and they lower them.

And acr is late reg hell, but at least I’ll give them props for trying to add pkos and now multi day tourneys that play out on Sunday’s

IMO that is reg thinking. Recreational players want the chance to win a big prize, it is like buying a lottery ticket for them. People would rather a bad shot at 20 million than a good shot at 20 dollars.

I respect that opinion. I think recreational players would much rather want to have a tournament environment where the "regs" that they do bust, don't have 4 hours to come back with information and incentive to come after them.

We're not talking about cash games, we're talking tournaments. Information from previous hands to a reg vs information to a rec is processed differently. That's why people liked tournaments because they didn't have the luxury of being able to rebuy after learning. Regs learn quickly, recs do not.

Also, the advantage to a reg vs the advantage to a rec being allowed to rebuy an unlimited amount of times, favors the REG vastly. There should be no argument in this. Being allowed re entries increases the edge that Regs have over recs. Simple.

Last point, if recs want bigger prize pools, why are charity events so popular and fun? Money is taken from the prize pool to support other causes, which results in less of a "big prize". I'm not sure if most charity tournaments allow 12 hour late reg like other tournaments either.

People make less money, but they enjoy themselves that much more. Why? No extended late reg. No regs trying to clear make up. No "big prize", yet, people still love these events. They smile. They laugh. They look forward to them. Why would that be if recs just wanted a bigger prize?

Edit: And one more thing, I don't think recs actually think of playing poker as buying a lottery ticket. Recs in my opinion, think that they can actually win the tourney even more than Regs do. That's why they will be losing players, yet they will continue to play. The better poker player you are, the more you realize how much variance dictates who wins a poker tournament

jamie staples used to do this on twitch when he was losing and he permabanned me when i asked about it in his chat

dont think it was 2, but selling action and hiding previous results is scummy

Truth.

And also late registration gives the opportunity to play with shorter stacks, which some people enjoy more than starting with 250 big blinds(watching paint dry).

Right, and some people enjoy getting 2nd place because they get to see the excitement in the person who got 1st!

No.

Shorter stacks normally means you are closer to the money. People cashing is a huge part of the positive feeling a rec gets from tournament poker. Doubling up from 10 big blinds to 20 big blinds doesn't get too many people off from my experience. People cashing, you see celebrations. I'm sure a lot of people saw the video of the guy who cashed his first tournament and started crying. I've never seen a video of someone doubling up from 10 bigs to 20 bigs, and then crying. If it's out there, show me.

And you do realize theoretically, if you had a tournament with no late registration, you could be in the money one hour in. With late registration, that is impossible. If you get close to the money with late reg, as you can see online, you will see 50 people enter at the end. And then tank to the money and make the game miserable. And these players aren't wrong. They see value and they exploit it.

But save me the "people like playing with shorter stacks". Please

This would only be an issue if everyone was of equal skill. As a winning player your biggest ev gain comes from registering early and playing deep against bad players (most of whom bust out very quickly, making early reging even more important). Whatever small slice of ICM equity you can carve out by max late reging (which is overvalued by a static ICM model) pales in comparison to the ev gained from playing deep vs bad players.

If anything it's the rec players who should take advantage of this to minimize their loses. There's no edge here for big winners.

He has some point that the ability to re-enter generally benefits the stronger players but the bottom line still comes down to

a) what does the site offer?

b) what do players choose to play?

We don't live in a fantasy world where a network can expect to offer minimal MTT tourneys per day with zero late reg and still expect to compete with other networks that do offer those options. Sites still offer SnGs and other shorter field MTTs, etc.

The players choose to play what they play and the popular MTT format has generally been the ones with larger guarantees and those guarantees are often achieved by increasing the late registration time as well as allowing re-entries. Most networks have lowered the late registration time to a reasonable time frame and some networks like PokerStars still offer many freezeout daily tournaments. We aren't living in 2003 anymore. 180man SnGs that kick off every 20min at all times of day no longer exist online for instance. The networks moved on with the times. So should the players. Now that still doesn't mean that the sites shouldn't analyze the data and consider all variables, as well as especially considering possible added rewards for those early entrants.

Here are my reasons why despite 15 years of online poker I never participate in online tournaments (in no particular order)

1) Rebuys.
2) Late registration.
3) Last too long due to long timers, disconnect protection, and no multi schedule.
4) Run it once mode (I have less trust online due to EXP)
5) High stakes lead to rare, but big wins, which means a bigger risk to not get paid.
6) 10-15% rake per person out of hundreds or thousands? It's a scam, 2.5-3% should be at low, 4% medium and 5% at high stakes.
7) Deep runs is decided by all in flips, which becomes less skill, and more determined on gamble (luck).
8) Poor prize redistribution. I rather see the top 150-200 evenly receive a split prize from 1000 participants than 10-25 people get a lot, and the rest peanuts. More losers also means more people will not feel they were close to winning to continue participating.

Sadly, it is what it is which is why these networks have lost thousands in potential profits from me over the decades. I am not the market they're targeting.

Thank you for sharing with the class

Does anyone have any information on optimal time to late reg in a tourney like ACR site ? Clearly, the structure matters etc....I have to ask - is there a website to run the calculations ? I'm sure someone has created the site and the math since it is 2021.

DM me if needed. Thanks !

I appreciated your analysis, viewing the "late registration" feature through the lens of product marketing and sales enablement.

As late as possible.

I think you have that backwards. The higher the stakes the lower the percentage should be. The costs associated with running a tournament go down as a percentage of the prize pool the larger the prize pool gets. Add in the desired profit and the cardroom has the vig it needs to make it worth having the tournament.

Back in the day, Binion didn't even charge a fee for the main event, and provided a free buffet for the entrants. Of course there were few entries, the event was great publicity, and he may have made money off the TV coverage. Plus he filled his hotel rooms and restaurants with both players and observers, and made rake off all the side games that wouldn't have ran without the tournament. But I digress.

With respect to this general discussion, there is no doubt that registering late has advantages. And as others have posted, it was all the rage a couple of decades ago for chips to be removed from stacks for late registration. However, this lost appeal for good reason. Too much was being removed from the stacks and this discouraged late registration. A better approach is to increase the cost of the stack based on the percentage of players remaining (compared to total buy-ins). For example, let's assume 200 players started the tournament on time, the entry fee was $100 and at some time during the second round a player wants to buy in with 193 players remaining with no other late buy ins or re-entries. The player would be charged 200/193*$100=$104 (rounded up). Some time later another player wants in with the total number of entries at 224 with 180 players remaining. He would pay 224/180*$100=$126. Someone entering just before the late entry time expired with 284 entries and 165 players remaining would pay $173. And so on. Re-entries would be charged the same as late entries. All of this would discourage intentional late entries by players trying to game the system, as well as erratic play from some players trying to win big stacks quickly, knowing they can re-enter at a "reduced rate", while at the same time allowing players to register late or re-enter at a fair price as the tournament progresses. Tournaments with registration problems (I'm looking at you, WSOP) caused by long lines could institute such a policy starting with the second round.

Such a policy would probably reduce the prize pool somewhat, but not as much as some might think. They'd be fewer entries overall, but the late entries and re-entries would be paying more into the prize pool, and more players would make an effort to register on time. Cardrooms would probably like the idea of taking their same percentage from the higher entry fees which would offset the fewer entries to some degree.

I'm curious what the 2+2 community thinks of a policy like that.

So you just need to register in the last possible minute to increase your chance to the max ?

I can't believe I'm actually typing these words, but I agree with Mason Malmuth.

Anyone who asserts that long late reg isn't an advantage to the late-reggers is bad at simple mathematics and logic.

I'll prove it right now.

Say that there's a 1000-man NL Holdem tournament which pays 15% of the field, and allows late reg all the way until the bubble (1 away from the money). Once the bubble bursts, you can no longer register.

Would it be an edge to register as late as possible here (on the bubble)? Of course, and you'd be an idiot not to do so. In fact, it's such a huge edge that a monkey could be trained to register on the bubble and simply fold his cards every hand, and he'd win a ton of money over time.

What about 2 from the money? Would it be hugely +EV to register then? Again, of course.

This proves that there is some point before the money where late registration becomes +EV, and then becomes bigger +EV as it gets closer to the money!


It does not matter how "bad" the field is at the beginning of the tournament, and how "good" it is near the bubble. Registering on the bubble would be huge +EV, even if the remaining players are the very best in the world.

Now, it's a fair question as to WHEN the change occurs. If you're an average skill player, at what point does the late-regging become +EV compared to starting on time -- or is starting on time the absolute worst for EV, given the full remaining field? That's a debate we can have, but anyone who says, "People regging late aren't getting an advantage" are just stupid, because obviously there's some point where it does become a tremendous advantage.

I feel that there should be a short penalty-free late reg period (maybe 2 hours, perhaps 4 hours in a slow-moving event like the WSOP Main), and then late-reggers need to start losing chips as a penalty for coming in when some of the field is already gone. Furthermore, even with this penalty, it should still end earlier than it does now.


Finally, in response to the question of, "If late reg is so advantageous, why doesn't everyone do it?"

That's because people play poker for different reasons. The tournament grinders do it strictly for the money and titles, so they don't care how much play they get. They're totally fine starting short (if it saves time AND is +EV for them to do), even if they last 2 minutes.

However, a recreational player -- or a non-rec who doesn't play many tournaments (like me) -- is there for the entire experience. I don't play the WSOP for money. If I win money, great, but honestly I could spend that time more profitably playing cash. I do it because I enjoy the experience of playing some events each year, and trying to win a second bracelet. So it wouldn't be any fun for me to register late, shove in what looks like a good spot, and then pray I win. I want to play it out in full, even if it costs me a bit of EV.

That's how most people think, unless they grind so many tournaments that it doesn't matter what kind of "experience" they have at the tourney.

In short: Late reg needs to be severely reduced, or at the very least have a penalty after a short grace period.

GOLD!

Or a second bullet for 2.0 markup as a latereg.

Does this result also hold for Bounty tournaments? What about progressive bounties? I would assume no for the former but yes (maybe to a lesser extend) for the latter.

Since you're a big fan of our stuff, you should of been aware of this 30 years ago. See Post #20.

As for your example, see Post #3.

MM

What happens if 200 players start the tournament, and with re-entries + late regs there are now 250 players? Do the late regs pay 200/250 * $100 = $80?

A simple late fee per hour would probably resolve the +EV situation.

How come even when I agree with you, there's still a snarky response?

Also, I never claimed my opposition to very late registration was a recent discovery. I've always been against it.

Regarding your "post #3" (actually #2, if we're being accurate), yes it's the same concept as my example, but yours talks about registering at the final table. One could put up an incorrect counter-argument stating that your example isn't good, because everyone is in the money at that point.

My example expanded upon your point, showing that registering before the money, but very late, is still hugely +EV. That gave it more clarity.

You started it by writing "I can't believe I'm actually typing these words, but I agree with Mason Malmuth." This implies that much of what I say, which has nothing to do with late registration, is wrong.

Again, Post #20 is an excerpt from my book Poker Essays which was published almost exactly 30 years ago. But the essay is actually an article that I wrote for Card Player and it appeared a year or two before my book.

By the way, as long as we're at this. The conclusion that appears in Post #20 is based on what is known today as The Independent Chip Model (ICM). This is something I introduced to the poker world in a 1986 article that I wrote for the original Poker Player Newspaper. It also appeared in the first edition of my book Gambling Theory and Other Topics which was published in 1987 (and the chapter where the ICM is used it's still there today for anyone who wants to check it out [and I did not call it The Independent Chip Model]).

And one last thing. When you say something like "I'm actually agreeing with Mason Malmuth" you're implying that I've expressed a controversial opinion which for some reason you're agreeing with. But the Independent Chip Model is just a simple conditional probability problem, and all you're doing is agreeing with the mathematics of a simple statistical model.

And as for your opposition to late registration not being something new, that's fine. But I strongly suspect you weren't playing poker 30 years ago.

This stuff was addressed in Gambling Theory and Other Topics in a much more thorough and rigorous way.

No. This would not be a good counter-argument. For that to be the case, the value of the chips that you purchase would have to be equal to or less than the purchase price. But ICM shows the opposite. And it doesn't matter if you're in the money or not.

MM

No, I wasn't playing poker 30 years ago, because I was 19 at that time. I'm not sure why this is relevant. I don't believe I ever asserted that I was in the poker world longer than you, nor did I claim I knew about ICM before you did.

The "I can't believe I'm agreeing with Mason Malmuth" line was said half-jokingly, because we are frequently at odds in our postings to one another. It wasn't meant as something degrading.

By the way, ICM doesn't fully answer this 'late reg" argument. For example, Daniel Negreanu is very familiar with ICM, and is an intelligent guy, yet he seems to believe that late registration doesn't provide an advantage.

ICM is definitely part of the equation, of course, but the important thing is to demonstrate that the advantages from starting on time (higher percentage of bad players in field, not starting short stacked) are still less than the advantage of being in a field where a substantial number of players are already out. ICM doesn't address skill gaps, so therefore it doesn't completely answer this question.

Therefore, the better way to do it -- and for the average person to understand -- is to simply cite the bubble example. If it's huge +EV to register on the bubble -- something nearly everyone can agree is true -- then there's obviously some point before the money where late reg is largely +EV. That by itself destroys all counter-arguments stating late registration isn't an advantage.

High rollers in vegas (e.g. Aria 10ks), incentivize showing up for hand 1 by giving players who do so a rake free buyin. In other words, if you are there for hand one you pay 10k+0, if you are there after hand 1 (or rebuy) you pay 10k+500 rake. This is probably the cleanest way to do it, and should "work" so long as late reg isn't too crazy.

End of the day, regular tournaments will incentivize max late reg (whatever max late reg is), and early registrants pay this "tax" to all later registrants. Reverse is true with PKOs, where all late registrants pay a tax to early registrants.