I agree with your argument, but one key assumption that you make i believe is wrong.

Playing several bullets does not give you an advantage. Its just like playing several tournaments.

Whether you have an advantage depends on if you beat the field + rake. If you play twice or 5 times you have simply a better higher chance of realizing that EV. + or -. But this is true for playing several tournaments as well.

For playing a tournament X entries vs X players, it does not really matter if one entry is from one guy or another. the player composition does play into this aspects, but overall entering or re-entering does not give you an advantage. Your just playing twice.

... because the math-fanboys who's theories were developed for microstakes bumhunting mistakenly believe they can be equally applied to a live $5K re-entry/rebuy.

How can you say money doesn't work for you in poker when a rebuy absolves whatever fatal mistakes you made and gives you new life?

I agree this is the key issue. However i believe what you are saying is not quite so.

1. If we are assuming the "pro" player to be the top players there is always a small amount to them relative to the rest of the field.

2. If you play better, you tend to win more vs lose more. Especially when u are really bad you tend to lose quickly and have a much higher chance to re-buy.

3. Most players that play a poker tournament play more than just one in their live and as such are actually pretty prone to re-buying. In my experience live and online people re-buy a lot, whether good or bad.

4. If players play to bust, its usually -EV negating the entire point we are making anyway (i.e. IVEY example)


Even if this skews the player composition negatively, there are many other effects that are positive for the game.

If the beat-ability or rake due to changed player composition would be an issue this could be solved very easy with other measures (such as putting some of the rake back to players in other ways).

However I agree its important to think about this aspect much.

Overall though i can't see that live re-entries are creating a real problem, but i see many positive effects they have.

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, yes mathematical theories change based on the stakes. stupid math fan boys.

wait i think i figured it out, do u think the MTT ends when the rebuy period ends?

edit: serious question joe, why do u think it is that phil ivey hasnt won every rebuy/reentry event hes played? i mean hes the best and has unlimited $$$.

I'm saying poker math theories / strategies do not change according to the stakes (or even with a structural change like a rebuy), and that's the problem.

The tournament begins when the rebuy period ends.

Ivey may not win everything but, as you say, he wins more than anyone else.

lol do u even think for a second about how dumb ur posts are before hitting submit?

if the tournament begins when the rebuy period ends u should be even happier. if u cant figure this out well theres no hope.

and LOLOLOLOL ivey certainly does win more then anyone else, but in CASH games. but since u havent let facts or math stand in the way of ur stubborn ignorance thus far i highly doubt your going to suddenly start using your brain now.
it was fun having this little back n forth but ive filled up my "making trolls look idiotic" for the day so guess someone else will have to take over. shouldnt be too tough since ur kind enough to make it super ez to do.

As the case in any rebuy/reentry with [somewhat] of a significant buy in.. Players who can afford to play a more volatile style early can certainly gain advantages. An advantage that doesn't always come without a heavy cost. There are a handful of players in the poker community that can afford to consistently drop 20,30,60k on reentries without feeling a considerable hit to their worth after a dry couple of months. (Im sure reentries have attributed to many fast fallen bankroll stories as well) It's a tough call because its an advantage that comes at an appropriate price and therefore the appropriate added risk. Symbolic of the way capitalism and the free market work, having money grants one the power and ability to apply pressure on others which usually increases their chances of success. At the same time, doesn't rule out the possibility of more shallow pocket contenders to 'play' well or be innovative in their techniques and be victorious. The best way to keep any free market heathy is through some form regulation and reform and I think the same applies for this. Limit # of times.... Or they can emulate the philosophies of late which is to just accelerate the inevitable flow of money as fast as possible and suck the market dry! A judgement the casinos will have to make.

...but a poker tournament is supposed to be a test of poker-skill, where everyone plays by the same rules.

A rule that permits the wealthy to re-enter several times while some other player cannot do that even once seems inequitable.. no? What does personal wealth have to do with poker skill and what justifies it having the slightest influence on the tournament's outcome?

I guess you just can't have any tournaments at all then since there's always some hobo that can't afford to play.

Poker tournaments are about donking your way to a large sum of money

So someone who has 200k in savings earned through a professional career who is also a competent skilled player is a hobo because he can't fire 6 bullets in a 5k comfortably ..however a live backed grinder whos 150k in makeup isn't a hobo because he's allowed by his own and one other persons standards...just kind of a shallow minded comment

I'm pretty sure he was joking. And also, I'm pretty sure the joke was something more along the lines of that with a thought process that was sorta expressed above, we can't have $15 tournaments because there are some people who wouldn't be able to afford it.

No,

How does the ability to buy into a game change the ability to play more volatile? And how is this an advantage?

What you are saying is logically wrong. Any time you play there is an optimal way to play. Every hand you play has an optional way of playing it. It does not really matter if you can buy in again, or what the name of your grandmother is. It also does not matter that you can play another tournament.

Winning a tournament comes at a price, its called the buy in. If you pay twice the buy in and you get twice the chance to win that does not give you an advantage. It gives you twice the chance to win at twice the cost.

There are certainly bankroll requirements for certain styles and to enter into a tournament in the first place etc. But these things have nothing to do with fairness of the tourney. there are also folks that should play at all etc.

I agree with you for the most part. but I was commenting with an assumption that the enormous added value for the casino by this format would most likely never be forfeited entirely just for the sake of the games integrity.

If you don't object to the wealthy using money to their advantage in a tournament, you shouldn't care about hobos doing the same with their poverty, and would allow them free entry.

After all, the principle is the same: Allow some group to have a disproportionate influence on the tournament because of a common characteristic unrelated to poker.

The math says a hobo might knock out Phil (pick a last name) and enhance your chances of winning, and that might offset whatever value was lost in the free entry.

I seriously can't believe that you aren't a troll. You're so good at it though, I can't help but entertain you.

First point: Someone else probably also said it but, LOLOLOLOL at math changing over stakes

Second point: Re-buying does not absolve you of any mistakes from your previous tournament life for no less than two reasons:

1. Re-buying/Re-entering does NOT guarantee that you will cash

2. If you re-buy/re-enter, you must now cash for 2x as much as before you busted and re-bought, to achieve the same return, as you have invested 2x as much into the player pool.

come on man

its simple

I agree with you there.. just got an email from the venetian about a deep stack 3.5. The structures I saw were re-entries and multiple starting days / pick your best stack, very similar to the SHRPO.
They will go with the rebuy-re-entries as long as money stays tight.

ahahahahaha ya ur def trolling. no one smart enough to turn on a computer could be this stupid. well played bro well played.
ur dedication is admirable, u would make stealthmunk proud.

As I said before, the math does not change when the world around it changes... and that's the problem with math.

To the math guys, math is the world.... and that's the problem with them.

people still argue with joeschmoe?

I sure hope I never get AA in vs. 72o 17 times in the same tournament, that would just be terrible for me.

mass destruction

The mouth is right, there has to be better security for chip forfeiture events. I'd like to hear from Matt Savage about how his staff prevented people from skimming chips and using them on later day 1s.


If there is an issue I think that unique chip sets for each day 1 are fair considering all the extra rake.

God forbid different types of games exist. That would be just ridiculous.

Seriously... if you don't like rebuys, don't play them. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.

You cannot apply your genius strategy to re-entry tournaments since you can't do that "over and over" again in re-entries. It's not that easy to get 60-40 dog situations all the time. You might have to settle for worse odds. And say you lose 2 and win 1 you are just breaking even. And then you have to go in being a dog once again. you lose, you are back to square one and have to win a few flip from behind to make it work.

And this: "If you are allowed to bet heads over and over again, you will win with 100% certainty over the long run" <- Plain stupid. If you mean you will win ONE coinflip then you are almost right. If I was being an a-hole I would say it's not 100%. But OK, close enough. Now so what if you win 1 coinflip after your villain has won a few? You are still behind and once again flipping from behind.

So you are basically saying martingaling is a good strategy (even if you were 60-40 dog. In Roulette you can get 48,6%)? If so, I would advice you to go and work this strategy to a nearby Casino. It's a 100% win afterall, right? jeez.