nonsense like "tarnishing the brand" "sticking with tradition" is one of the reasons poker wont grow. Be willing to try new concepts and not instantly demonize them. So much self serving nonsense in here. You potentially have softer day 1 as people who can afford 10k will skip that so could accumulate more chips.

its fascinating the lengths people go to protect their interests. "REBUYS ARE OK" "REENTRY ISNT" "NO BEST STACK FORWARD" "FREEZEOUTS ONLY"

Each stop is an option to attend or not, if it is worth it for YOU.

Announcing a boycott is a joke allen. Just go or dont go. This nonsense of "Many people won't be attending because of rule change" is bull****.

People aren't going because of florida or winstar or laziness or other obligations, but very very few people are going to be swayed by the day 2 entry policy.

Its one stop, its an interesting concept that adds money and brings some whales to the casino and im just so sick of all of your complaining.

Its sad because in general I think you have your head in the right place and try to advocate, but too frequently you are pushing your own agenda and disguising it as a noble cause. If you were an impartial fighter for players that would be much more admirable.

im super stoned and not proofreading and just rambling but **** let the bike breathe

It's just plain stupid. You need to earn your way to day 2 whether the buy in is 100 dollars or 10000. No other multi team sport allows a late entry for a price of money/ points/field position. All this becomes is a way to make more money and hit a guarantee. It's a well thought idea that should never be used. Enjoy the extra revenue. Glad it's none from. You are taking away from the purity of the game. Constantly evolving? You mean profiteering is.

Think of it as a 10k buy in event with 3 $3500 satellite days. The official "Day 1" is when the 10k buy-ins start. The $3500 "satellites" can be more valuable than a normal satty. All this "day 2" stuff is irrelevant. You can get a head start on accumulating chips and force people to pay a large premium for what may be much less chips than you have at that point.

I'm generally for freezeout structures, but I can see how different structures can be a good thing for a wider array of players.

How come you don't just let ppl buy into day 4 for like 35-40k?

How much would it cost to buy into the final table ?

I mean, why waste time playing the actual tournament, when you can buy your way into the later stages ?

This one is easy.

The prize pool must be finalized before the players are in the money

In essence, multiple Day Ones of multi-day events were always "qualifying heats" for the Day Two. But your Quantum Reload format takes away the "qualifying" part of it - players no longer have to qualify to get into the Day Two - they can just buy in (or satellite in). Giving the Day Two the moniker "official day 1 start" is just spin that doesn't change the actual nature of the new format.

While this new format may have a place in the poker world, it has no place as part of a National WPT Main Event. As you indicate, this format favors skilled players and deep-pocketed players. No National WPT Main Event should be different than the others on the circuit in favoring a certain type of player as it lends an advantage to such players in other aspects of the circuit such as POY, qualifying for the WPT Championship event, etc. There should be a level playing field across all of the National WPT Main Events.

100% agree with Chainsaw. Unlimited re-entry is another problem (and should be eliminated, IMO) but this new form where players can totally skip day 1 is ridiculous. I honestly don't know how anyone could put this format together and think it is a good idea and will attract new players.

You shouldn't be catering to the elite players with deep pockets, the targets should be amateurs or mid level players who are on the fence about coming to the event.

The rules and procedures for these tournaments are posted for everyone to see before they decide if they are going to play. Not liking the format of a tournament is certainly a reason to boycott, and even to try and get others to follow. Pretending that it is somehow unfair or that there is a general concern for the betterment of the game is just silly. There are plenty of freeze outs with any range of buy ins with and plenty of titles.

"It's easy to see how this format will dissuade recreational players from even entering, or even trying a satellite." If this is true, perhaps these tournaments would stop crushing guarantees or providing massive fields. Maybe you should wait until this actually happens, then point out why.

"The World Poker Tour has the obligation to step in and provide a fair tournament for all players." This is a game where the amateurs play against the pros. No matter the structure, it is some form of "unfair." If they let people know what they are in for, and make sure everybody plays by the same rules, then they are being perfectly fair.

"I urge others to study all the rules of any tournament prior to making a decision on whether or not to attend." Perhaps the most important thing mentioned that really makes sense. If you're right about everything else, and people do this, then there will be no need for any organized boycott, because players will stop playing, and casinos will change their structures. Constantly misusing phrases like, "overwhelming opposition," then watching record numbers of players show up to play these "horrible" tournaments, is revealing to how inaccurate you really are with these posts.

This format favors the skilled players. So does increasing the size of starting stacks, and having longer times for each blind level. But I don't recall Chainsaw being so outspoken about how doing those two things would hurt the chances of a rec player winning. IIRC, he was quite the advocate for those changes.

Not true. I'm playing a tourny right now where I've bought into the money at the bike.


also this looks like a pure money grab considering last year they let you buy into day 2 for same price and starting stack. This is just a way to do the same thing but get more rake

"Overwhelming"is accurate. Id say over 95pct of the responses to my post between twitter, Facebook and this forum strongly oppose this concept.

I mean if they want to have three 3500 sats into a 10k event, then they should just do that.

The only difference is that players in these sats get to say they were in the first day of the main, so instead of "thinking of day 2 as day 1" why the **** not just have day 1 as day mother****in 1 and have your sats beforehand like you do with every tournament.

You don't lose money, people stop complaining

#InfiniteStacks

I don't think the format will prove to be popular among the players. If you look at the totality of the poker world the amount of people wanting to play a 10K buy in has decreased quite a bit. While the numbers who are willing to pay 3500 for a main event type format (see Borgata) have been pretty solid.

The problem with the format is the guys who can afford the 10k buy in have a way better chance to win this tourney. This is not the case with re-entrys as much.

I think allowing re-entrys for 6 levels and allowing a 3500 buy in into the second day with the same starting stack is a much better concept. (even though there are people who don't like this either.)

It's a marketplace, obviously, so if people like the idea fine. If they don't than you won't see much of this anyway. I don't think it will prove to be popular and might hurt overall numbers but who knows.

So it's "like a satellite" except for, you know, all the things that make a satellite a satellite.

Posts like these just discredit your position. You should be able to argue the pros and cons of this without resorting to broad, unfounded, logically unsound declarations that don't really make any sense. I'm sure there are tons of people out there who thought televising hole cards, or allowing rebuys or allowing late reg compromised "the integrity of the game," but if that's the only leg that you've got to stand on, then your argument probably sucks.

Who are YOU to say who they should or should not be catering to? They made a choice to cater to elite players. Almost all the evidence I've seen so far says that amateurs don't care, elite players bring extra money, and mediocre regs complain about it but play anyway.

It's a free market and they're making some innovative decisions. If you don't want to play, don't play, they'll lose your rake. Elite players will show up and play, and they'll gain their rake. Eventually, they'll figure out whether it's a good idea or not.

I suspect that the 5k Day-2 entry to the $230 mega millions is a good idea, and I suspect the $10k Day-2 entry to the $3.5k is not. But, who knows if I'm right? Let 'em run it and see what happens.


A great counter example are the Venetian deep stack tournaments which run concurrently with the WSOP. Elite players prefer super fast structures in those, where they can get in after they bust a WSOP event, run it up or bust out of the Venetian quickly and go home. Instead, the V makes the structures incredibly long and slow, and caters to the recreational players who want to come play cheap tournaments and have a ton of hours of play to enjoy themselves, rather than the fast structure elite players would prefer.

So, they made their choice, and good on them. I don't think I've played a V side event in two years, and I know they lost the business of many other pros who don't want to waste their whole day grinding a 100bb stack in a 1k. But, they got TONS of support from recreational players, and I'm sure it has been very profitable for them.

It would be one thing if it were exclusively 1 venue\stop that did this. The issue is if it turns out to be a wild success everyone will want to adopt it.

Hollywood, Hollywood, I'd say they want to almost guarantee the elite make the final TV table.

If it turns out to be a wild success, surely there isn't an issue.

Actually one of my biggest fears is that the affluent, pro laden l.a. market produces more 10k buyins than expected and that the whole concept is considered a huge success.

I was going to play this but not with this format.

The idea of higher payouts for lower buyins is not really relevant when the level of difficulty significantly increases. It'll certainly dissuade casual players and mediocre regs from playing knowing that day 2 will be stacked with good players with 60bb stacks.

As a recreational player, I don't mind playing against the top pros as long as it's a level playing field. Even when multiple reentries (or rebuys) are allowed, a player starts with the same starting stack. Yes, multiple reentries allow deep-stacked (in real money) players to adopt a double-up quick or reenter strategy, but it also allows recreational players to benefit from it. (I can double up when they use this strategy.)

But the Bike's new format has no advantages for recreational players. I have to survive day 1, and then face deep-stacked pros who supposedly will be "short-stacked" with 60 big blinds. (Or do they start with an average stack? It's unclear from reading this thread and the Bike's website on this format.)

I do agree with Mo that no one is forced to enter this tournament. I also agree with Mo that any player can enter any or all of the day ones or day two. In that sense, it's a level playing field. In all other senses, it's anything but.

what i was trying to say^

I'm against this structure for a tournament, especially a wpt. In previous years I have satellited into the 3700, knowing that others would fire multiple bullets, but this switch to allowing people to pay more and get more chips has pushed me to the side of not even attempting to sat into the event. Seems really strange that anyone except the very elite who don't mind playing against the very best would support this concept. Don't you want the amateurs playing?

If a pro busts on day 1 they would be crazy not to buy into day 2 where a good percentage of the field are la regs and amateurs taking shots. This tells me that the field will be more difficult at the start of day 2 then in years past and why would an amateur taking a shot want to subject themselves to that? The bike should not look at the total prize pool to determine if this is a good or bad thing, they should consider that it could hurt the growth of poker if this attracts more pros and turns away amateurs which are the future of poker. As an experiment they should look at the profile for each player that buys in for 10k and figure out how many play poker for a living.

The buy into day 2 in the last series where it was 2100, but you got an immediate min cash for 400, was also a bad deal for most the field. It favored deep pocketed players and pros over the amateurs. The cost per chip was less than the other starting flights which is crazy.