It discourages rec players?

So if Binnion's had patented freezeouts and trademarked the word Freezeout (TM), charging money for any casino who wished to use the invention, that would not have had no impact on the development of tournament poker?

Is Quantum Reload Tournaments a wholly owned subsidiary of Bwin.Party Digital Entertainment plc? If not, with Mr Pliska being president of both the WPT and Quantum Reload Tournaments (according to its website linked ITT) the appearance of a potential conflict of interest in choosing the absolute best possible structure for WPT events could be bad for the wider image of poker, even if no conflict of interest exists.

It's just different. It allows people to bet more and get potentially different odds than the people who bet less. I'd compare it to a video poker machine that pays 8-5 when you bet $1 but pays 9-6 when you bet $5.

edit: 30,000 chips for $3500 or 72,000 for $10,000 8.57 chips per dollar versus 7.2 so it's a non trivial mark up...

So, it punishes rec players at the expense of skilled players? Or it reduces skill and punishes skilled players? It's either one or the other guys, make up your mind.

This isn't an argument. This is an unfounded, unreasoned opinion.

An "argument" would be something like this:

Allowing people to buy in to Day 2 causes more elite players to play the event, who otherwise would have skipped. It also, like re-entry, gives elite players more ability to continue to enter the tournament. Recreational players do not like this, and therefore will choose not to play, and therefore money that would have entered the poker economy does not enter the poker economy, and therefore, this hurts the economy.

Unfortunately, I have a hard time buying either of the premises that this argument is based on.

ALL the evidence I have seen thus far has shown that recreational players really don't give a ****. They enter the tournament in the same numbers regardless of whether it's reentry, rebuy, multiple reentry, Day 2 entry. Pretty much all the data I've seen from entry numbers corroborates this.

In fact, anecdotally, the shooting star tournament is a format that brings MANY elite players who otherwise would not play the tournament AND ALSO gives them a ****ing huge monetary discount compared with recreational players. And yet what happens? MORE recreational players flock to the tournament so that they can play with TV pros, not fewer.

You're going to have a really hard time convincing me that recreational players are less likely to play a tournament when elite pros play when all of the field sizes don't bear out that fact.


Secondly, the premise that recreational players will choose not to play and that money won't enter the economy as well seems really dubious. With so many tournaments in LA, if they choose not to play the WPT (which again, I am skeptical about), then many of them would likely just enter other tournaments instead.

It's both.

That's how bad it is.

(Similar to when Coca Cola changed its recipe. It drove off new and old customers alike)

This tournament that we're talking about is IN L.A., right? If what you're saying is actually true, and these mindless, bottomless pocketed idiots will show up for any structured tournament and pay any amount, why on earth would an L.A. casino not try to make as much money as they can? Because they are supposed to look out for the "long term interest of the game?" Something that nobody on here has mentioned, with any specificity, how it would even be detrimental toward?
They can only squeeze rake out of people that are willing to pay it. It's their business to find as many as possible to pay as much as possible. It's easy to generically say it's bad for the game without ever explaining how or why.

I think it benefits the rec players at the expense of the higher buy ins.

lol okay guys, you win

this is what I get for posting in NVG

Yes. I was just pointing out how bad some of the posts itt are, not actually asking the question.

Right, I think it's important to note though. The roi of the $3500 bet is higher than that of the 10k entry and the roi of the 3500 stack increases as the number of 10k entries increases. It's a nit discount, AK should love it.

I mean, any sort of re-entry format is going to reduce the ROI but increase net expected dollars for an elite player, and adding in the 10k entry option further does both of those things.

Generally, elite players have big bankrolls, so they choose where to play based on net expected dollars and expected growth. So, if you're say, a Vegas based pro, you'd probably choose FL over WPT LA without re-entry, but with re-entry AND the 10k day2, I think WPT LA is a slam dunk over FL when considering effort and travel costs.

ESPECIALLY when you get to play that 5k Day 2 as well

By the way, to clarify, I don't think there is anything shady about Mr Pliska using or recommending his company's patent-pending structure for the WPT tournament. I know myself, that when one is involved in a small business, one believes in its products and would recommend them anywhere including to people one is doing other work for even though that might not look right to outsiders. The point is that one loses objectivity so an open letter like this won't have any effect.

Actually this is incorrect, as an extreme example, the roi of a $3500 field made up of entirely rec players and sattys winners would actually go down as each skilled player buys in on day two.

Are u stating wpt has an interest in the quantum reload concept patent. Where are u seeing this?

Wow I found it myself.

http://quantumtournaments.com/wp-con...dam-and-mo.png

Talking about tournaments and prestige is always so dumb to me. Poker tournaments are a money grab for everyone and entertainment for the recreational players who play them.

The casino runs them to make money.
The WPT televises them to make money.
Pros play them to make money.

Allen's argument has nothing to do w prestige or the poker economy. It has everything to do with his own self interests.

I think he has a flawed view point on how this form of reentry will effect the tournament anyway. Being able to buyin for a starting stack on day 2 is much more profitable for players then paying markup for 2.4 times more chips. I'd expect few pros do it. If they do they either skipped day 1 ( which makes day 1 softer) or they played poorly enough to bust 3 bullets in a WPT on day 1 and I wouldn't expect them to play spectacularly on day 2 when in a 3500$ tourney for 21k+. This form of reentry also gives LA businessmen the opportunity to play a tourament that no longer takes a week to play out.

Either way I think boycotting a tournament because of a change that will have a miniscule effect on the tournament itself is laughable and overly dramatic.

I am European and have no direct information but this site linked ITT:

http://quantumtournaments.com/about/

says that Pliska is president of the company. I don't know if he is there as a partypoker/WPT nominee or it is a separate personal business interest of his, or if the website is genuine/up to date at all or if it refers to the same Adam Pliska.

I just thought I should post what I noticed so people closer to the action can find out more.

The site doesn't look like it has a company like partypoker behind it though.

So how will this (and other "Quantum Re-Load Tournaments") be weighted by GPI ?

As a 3.7k, a 10k, or a 20k cap if they go that far ?

BI's for this tournament could range from $3,700, to $21,100 in BI's , but GPI does not track total entries into an event ? So a player who cashes in this event will be scored according to which GPI weighting multiplier ?

I presume as if it's a $3,700 BI

Side note: When is GPI going to start tracking player BI's to determine who the truly elite players are vs. those buying points to compete in various POY races ?

pretty sure this and Galen's first post hit the nail on the head.

You're overestimating how many people are going to do this Allen.

Also, lol at the guy who suggested that RICH FISH who buy into day 2 have an advantage now. IF THEY ARE THE FISH, let them buy in. Hell, let them buy into day 3 for 20k.

Ok I got the bottom line.

Adam is not president of quantum reload only of wpt.

He sent me this note as to the picture.

Hey, Allen, Actually, I have no personal interest in quantum reload (I don't take a personal interest in anything related to WPT because of conflicts) They used my photo becauce of a patent that WPT shares related to the concept.

Allen, what is your stance of re-entry or rebuy or whatever tournaments that are $560 buyin or less?

The photo of Messrs. Pliska and Fathipour shaking hands in front of a wall-sized Quantum Reload logo is titled "Quantum Management" and captioned, "Seen Above are (left) Adam Pliska President and Mo Fathipour CEO of the Quantum Reload Tournaments." I can easily believe that "of the WPT" was omitted after "President" due to no fault of Adam, and further that he has no personal interest. It must have been an Executive decision of Quantum Reload to have this title, photo, and caption as its entire "About" page.

Either that, or they confused him with Obama

@goldenbears

You didn't consider in your analysis that "quantum reload" is just something people find distasteful and off-putting. You can hypothesize all you want about ROIs and whatnot, but the reasons why people enter poker tournaments are often not the reasons you think they do. Rec players don't consider EV as you stated. A lot of rec players enter to have fun and enjoy the gamble/competition.

If rec players think "quantum reload" is unfun and ruins the competition in some fashion, they will be less likely to play and less likely to play satellites. I think that Allen is more in touch with the average player and if its really true that 95%+ of people don't like it than its probably something that shouldn't be implemented.