Agree with this the whole OP is based on ignoring rake. Once you factor in rake regging everything with 10 big blinds and paying 10% rake isn't a advantage at all imo. Why don't you try it on stars and let us know how big your downswing is. Using this strategy your variance is also massive so you may bink quickly but if you don't you will lose big and fast.

There’s no reason why it wouldn’t work it just isn’t ever used because it’s basically irrelevant.

EV of playing more hands deeper stacked vs fish >>> value of "stolen" ICM in large field

It's not even close

I think every single player should reg at the final minute, imagine day 1 of the WSOP broadcast, just a room of dealers sitting at tables, waiting patiently.

This. Yes your chips are worth more for regging late but your EV was even higher earlier when more fish were in. There's also a lot to be said for variance and realizing that extra edge after rake, especially when your ability to maneuver is so tiny. When you have 8 blinds after regging and your stack is 1/6 the average you're forced to win multiple all-ins which can be greatly reduced if you just stacked some fish earlier and are now mainly chipping up.

Don't confuse ICM with EV and just because your chips have more value after people have busted doesn't mean your EV would actually be better.

Phil Hellmuth has been taking advantage of this exploit for decades!

Not sure how many win, but my guess would be more late then early but who knows. I like to start with at least 10 bigs online and 20+ live but as others have said it really depends on many factors like re-entries, structure, starting bigs and your type of play. I agree that more fish play early rounds but that also means they play more hands and hardly ever fold ect that means Variance is multiplied IMO. In the later rounds you can isolate and bluff more often and that works for me, but everyone has there own method.

Maybe a new tournament format could be payed out by amount of time spent in each payout spot. So if you double up first hand and coast for 2 hours as chip leader you get paid. It is quite a dynamical system approach to tournament poker, but with the dawn of quantum computing we might be able to pull it off.

For many years it was common practice in live events to remove some amount of chips from late registrants to mimic the effects of blinds that would have been paid. It was even done in situations where alternates would be "forced" to late reg because there wasn't enough space.

Normally this was done by removing an amount equivalent to x number of orbits (so might be 1.5 BBs at the early stages) or could be slightly larger due to the later end of reg.

It didn't really matter though as calculating the exact right amount of chips was close to an impossibility (this was before ICM was a "thing") and in general most live events decided to simply give a full stack for late entry.

It's probably generally accepted that this is not optimal but it also makes sense that the conditions are known to all players and they all have the option to join the tournament when they like. In other words, if you don't like it, don't play.

-BD

In fact, it was usual that there were dead stacks in the table, then, the late registers (usually 2-3 levels only) starts as if they were playing since the beginning, but away from thetable -therefore losing some blinds). When register was over, floor took out of the table the remaining stacks without player

1. Most players were unhappy arriving late and not getting a full stack when that happened

2. Less people registered because of not getting a full stack and the casino makes less money

3. Weigh that vs the extremely small minority worried about the tiny unfair ICM advantage and complicated systems to fix it. It doesn't seem like much of a choice.

Yes but there were flaws with this method;

1. Misdeals happened a lot when the dealer forgot to deal the dead stack
2. There was an advantage to some players at the table by having a dead BB on their button which also made for awkward play
3. There were issues when a player late arrived to the table (this was before the "first card off the deck" rule)
4. It meant almost every table was playing short from the start which many players didn't like

-BD

It can be complicated but I think that it shouldn´t give an advantage to late players. Why do not to pay slightly more to enter to the tournament, for example?

It can be many choices, like to pay slighlty more for the buy-in

In the UK they often give a bonus number of chips for registering the tournament early.

I guess its the same as taking chips away if u late reg. Just marketed better

This is like offering people a movie that misses the first 30 minutes and charging them more for it. Most people treat poker as entertainment, not some investment they have to get a return on.

Get over it, the majority will never go for it. Use your wallet to vote and hope others do to but be prepared for nobody doing what you'd like them to do.

The complexity of change you're asking for is insane based on the slight problem you're trying to fix.

Also you're forgetting this is still a business based on customers. More customers will be angry about paying more for the buy in than compared to the customers who upset about the slight advantage you're talking about. Over 99% do not know it exists.

ICM value is not the actual value

o.0 did i just blow your minds

no need to act like the rain man over poker fellas. lets put these big brains to work solving the destruction of the earth instead. akuna matada

They do this at the Poker Masters, so I don't see why it is complicated (early buy-ins don't have to pay rake, but late buy-ins do). And it used to be the normal rule in most tournaments that late buy-ins got a chip penalty if their stack wasn't already being blinded off.

So how were the entrants numbers at Poker Masters? Lots of fish coming from all parts of the world to play these?

My impression is that attendance was up at the Poker Masters across the board, especially among more recreational players, with the exception of the $100k final event. There certainly weren't fewer players than you tend to see at that price point.

So that way is less complicated I'll give you that. But i don't think most casinos are on board with your "earn less money strategy".

I understand it used to be the rule. It made customers complain and unhappy. The casino went with let's make the customer happy, especially when it doesn't cost us anything strategy.

I am very against strategy talk at the table. I feel like I would hate listening to supervisors explaining ICM to players when they ask why they had to pay more or get less chips.

You're trying to solve a problem that is barely noticed and just not worth it tbh

That should be one solution. You are late, then you should be in disadvantage, instead advantage