By ‘people’, I meant some people, not all people. Some people on here and Twitter.
Are you saying his rant wasn’t inspired by WSOPE? Of course it was.

He loves the WSOP and doesn’t want to see it screwed up long term, which he believes unlimited re entry will do. He wants to protect those players in your local game who might want to take a shot at the WSOP one day. Whether or not they know Norman Chad is looking out for them is irrelevant.

My point is not what may or may not have inspired his rant. My point is; I question the whole "doom and gloom" angle that re-buys/re-entries are somehow "destroying" poker for recreational players. And using 2+2 and Poker Twitter as some representative demographic that espouses the view/perspective of everyday regular poker players is (in my opinion) not accurate. Saying nothing for the fact that the "I'm trying to protect recreational players" is (unfortunately) often double talk for "I want something the way I want it": i.e. I don't want re-buys/re-entries because I think it hurts me. I will concede I could be a tad cynical in my view; but often people in the "poker community" actually espouses the situation that benefits them personally, while using the "I'm trying to protect the little guy" mantra.

I play mid stakes tournaments and have for a while. To the tune of XX,XXX thousand tournaments online at average stake of 20. For over 10 years. Profited then and still profit now. Re Entry or not. I adapt. I know what I'm talking about and I don't want anything to be easier for me, or the way I want it. I want people to use common sense. Adding the variable of Re Entry to a poker tournament, changes how everyone plays for the worse. I used the basketball analogy.

Imagine the NBA allowed you to buy back in after fouling out. This would change every single players strategy from the start of the game. The stars who make the most, who are rich enough to buy back in, who are already good and aggressive, are going to be much more aggressive towards all of the other players. And that aggression, is going to be immediately absorbed by the other players.

The other players, who were already cautious of the stars, are now going to have to strategically adapt, to the stars having an even bigger advantage, and being even more aggressive, since the rules now allow for them to buy back in after making mistakes, or fouling out. Which is a part of why tournaments were created imo. To give players who stood no shot in a cash game with pros, a chance to actually beat them.

But the problem is, it's not just the advantage that's bad. It's the actual gameplay. The other players, who once enjoyed playing the game with the stars, who had something similar to them to lose, are going to have a much less enjoyable time, since they have to deal with the stars unlimited aggression. Almost artificial aggression, since it's not really how players play in a "tournament", if they play correctly. The new "artificial aggression" is being given to the richest players, by the casino changing the rules. The aggression, only has to be dealt with by the other players. Making their experience less enjoyable imo.

Poker tournaments were great because if a billionaire and a broke man who have never played before, started with the same amount of chips, they had the same chance to win. No longer is that the case. The billionaire now has an advantage, solely because of his money.

Not being able to come back, or re enter, leveled the playing field, and anyone playing, enjoyed that aspect. The players who "expected" to win, are the ones who ***** and cry until a game is created where they can actually make money.

Everyone enjoyed seeing the little guy come back from nothing. But now, no one comes back from nothing. If you have 100 chips left after the first hand of the tournament, just shove and re enter. There's no more stories of people coming back from the brink of nothing. Losing the first hand and being down to a chip and coming back. Even if it did happen, a player having the ability to re enter in today's age, changes his strategy. It changes how much he cares, and when people find out that if he lost, he didn't really lose, it will change how much they care.

If you found out the guy who you saw on the news risking his life to save his dog, wasn't actually risking his life, would you still care? Of course not. Which is why less and less people are caring about poker.

If you don't play poker tournaments, your opinion is worthless

And perhaps your view from xx,xxx thousand online tournies are not potentially relevant to the majority of average players that don't partake in the online variety of poker. Likewise; perhaps the person watching some PokerGo and seeing a "pro" firing multiple bullets in a high profile tourney may not be potentially relevant to the majority of average players that don't play high profile events with "pros." Like it or not (clearly you do not); but it seems to me that venues/tourney organizers will continue to favor re-buys/re-entries until such time as they believe it no longer is in their best interests. Sorry mate; but I'm not trying to change your mind, you are entitled to believe what you want: difference between you and I is that I can accept that which I cannot control/change. And finally; I do not play xx,xxx thousands of tournies: I am very much one of them run of the mill average poker players, a recreational player. And this should go without saying; but saying my opinion would only matter if one plays tournies: sorry mate; your attitude is more "what's wrong with poker" more so than any unlimited re-buy/re-entry tourney is.

The problem with rebuys or late entry is that if you rebuy, you have a smaller stack than those who haven't rebought or entered late, so your chances of cashing may increase compared to players who have played for longer in the tournament, and so risked being knocked out more than you. But your chance of winning from your comparative small stack is lower than the big stacks.

Plus the others have exploited the fish who get knocked out early, meaning only the better players are left in the later stages of tournaments.

So the scenario of lots of min cashes from rebuy and late entry means it is not as profitable a tactic as people suggest.

The attitude comes from you saying that I "am using double talk and want things easier for me". If I want something easier, I will say it. I don't beat around the bush to make people like me, or pretend to say something I don't mean. I could care less than you could possibly imagine, about whether you or anyone you know likes me, or what I say. I want the game I actually play, to be enjoyable again. I want to imagine a game, where people actually have a decent chance of winning as individuals.

And the attitude is here for a little longer, with you saying that if you don't play tournies, you should still voice your concern. That's ridiculous and it just sounds like you want someone to talk to. PM me if you want. I'll lose the attitude. But stay out of the thread where we are talking about a product, that you self admittedly rarely use. Normally when you don't use something, it's because you don't know how to, or don't want to.

Thanks tho, and seriously I'm good at rambling as you can probably tell, so go ahead and PM me if you need to rant or whatever.

Mate

I really do not mind re entries from time to time. Over here in the UK we have a big tournament called the Goliath for £100 entry you get a shot at winning £100k for first. Without re entry this would be impossible. It attracts most of the recs and a few pros so it has to be a good thing right?

One thing I cannot stand is hours upon hours of late reg. To me I feel thats what is killing the tournaments. I remember when 5-10 mins before the tournament would start the card room would be buzzing with people. Now its dead at the start. Imagine if someone who had never played poker before walked into that room with a few players I would imagine they would just switch off. However if the room was buzzing full of people I would guess that would attract them more.

I am not saying kill off late reg but maybe just have it for a level or two and have re entries until the fourth level.

I think we might be over complicating things, or thinking of them too much as a forum posting player.

The reason why there's tons of re-buys is human nature. By that I mean, people ****ING HATE LOSING, and if you give them the option to rebuy, alot of times they take it just to NOT LOSE.

The same cardhouse that has that big guarantee freezeout and much bigger tourneys, has a few thousand dollar and a $2500 freeroll(s) for a $20 seat charge.

You can rebuy as many times as you want, and you can add on for 20 bucks if as well if you drop below starting default.


Man, not to crap on others, but sometimes it's wild to see someone drop 200 bucks on a freeroll. where top place is like $450 It's like damn dog, save that for the freezeout or the other tourneys damn.

But yea, people hate to lose and if you give them a chance to "get up and atom" again, they'll take it out of pride.

up and at 'em

up and ATOM!!!!!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=457nGTf4fsQ

that's funny

Sadly, it matters not whether something is good for the game (ie. the recreational player). It has come down to whether a proposed change is good for the deep pockets willing to pay any amount of money.

And yet the powers that be continue to proclaim that poker interest remains strong because, entries are up. Never mind that they continue to push away the recreational player who used to view some of the events as a bucket list item or who has reached a point in their life to where they have the time to go play and fire off entries for a particular series.

I am in the latter category...plenty of discretionary income but unhappy with the changes. It is not worth entering an event that is not player-friendly which means those funds just go elsewhere instead of the poker tournament eco-system.

Everyone keeps giving their opinion on how they feel. Why don’t you try using the perspective of a player who has never played before? What are his chances in re entry tournaments? What tournaments should he play, and what strategy should he use?

Who would you get to play the game, that has never played? Do we actually have a game that anyone new to the game can enjoy anymore?

If there’s no new money in poker, then we just pass around the current poker money, while the casinos and venues take their percent. Until there is none left. Or we get consistent losers to believe they can still win, and just take their work money.


It’s like we’re building a poker ecosystem that benefits the richest people, and the most educated. The ones who would already do well, have now gotten the people in charge to change the rules, to make sure they do.

but it seems to me that venues/tourney organizers will continue to favor re-buys/re-entries until such time as they believe it no longer is in their best interests

That is the whole thing in a nutshell. What is good for venues is not what is good for players as a whole. I am sure they would charge a rake the same as the buy in if that thought players would go for it. You can only vote with your feet. if enough players do not play they will have to change the format. Until that happens they could care less about the average player (or for that matter the pro). They only pay lip service to both.

Rebuy tournies are good. People generally play looser and spewier in a rebuy tournament knowing they can just rebuy later. Late reg is fine, unless its someone registering after then end of late reg because he's buddies with the TD (Phil Hellmuth). Late reg is +EV assuming equal skill but if you are a better player than the field (especially deep stacked) then playing from the very beginning will yield the best results.

That being said I don't think you should have any rebuys in WSOP events since that cheapens the value of the bracelet, but I don't really care that much either. Still gotta win it.

I never said you were double talking; I said it's often the case. If you are not in the "often" category, good for you and so be it. In addition; I never said I don't play tournies, I said I don't play xx,xxx thousands of tournies. Translation; I play tournies, but not xx,xxx thousands of them. So to be clear; as it appears you cannot correctly read/comprehend what I have posted, the attitude I take exception to is the belief that a recreational player such as myself (who plays far less than xx,xxx thousands of tournies) needs to be told by "pros" that play xx,xxx thousands of tournies what is best for me. Perhaps I'm the only one that sees it this way: but "pros" constantly trying to dictate to "recs" what is "best for them" will do more to keep "recs" away from poker (tourney or cash) than a particular tourney structure some "pros" disagree with.

Experience at local card room. 3-4 times/yr the room runs tournament series' with at least two prize pools that end up in the $200,000-$500,000 (45K-90K to 1st). These attract players from surrounding states and the best local cash players. The better tourney players and deeper-pocketed cash players routinely play much more aggressively than the 50%??? of the field who can only afford one bullet. The more aggressive players, especially in the last 2-3 years have ramped up that aggression and typically fire anywhere from 3-5 bullets.

The results have been eye-opening. A large percentage of these bigger tournaments have not only seen a cash-gamer win, but entire final tables have been filled with those who have fired multiple bullets. Unlimited re-entry does change the dynamics in favor of the player with more disposable income.

All that said, I don't want re-entry to disappear; but, I would like to see more evenly split tournament series' in regards to the percentage of freeze outs vs. re-entries.

Re-entries allow card rooms to set higher guarantees, thus attracting more players. But, in time, players with smaller bankrolls will start to catch on to the reality that their chance of not just winning, but simply cashing in the local and national mid-range and higher tournaments, which use unlimited re-entry, is seriously compromised.

Solution: Keep a good percentage of events in tournament series as freeze outs. Smaller guarantees will be a reality, but everyone will play with the same bankroll and only skill and luck will determine the winner.

Re-entries are here to stay. Freeze out is still the OG.

You've said nothing to make me assume you know what you're talking about. Again, you sound like you want someone to talk to. PM me. It's nothing personal but you've added nothing but "I don't know if you should trust people wanting change, because normally they're selfish and want it for themselves". That's an awesome generic life strategy. I appreciate it.

And one last thing. I'm not a pro. I'm actually trying to make the game easier for you, the run of the mill recreational player. You don't see how much of a disadvantage you're at, well, because, you're a run of the mill recreational player. The vast majority who play re entries are losers in them. I'm trying to make the game of tournament poker, have a fairer chance for all it's participants, like how it used to be.

And the amount of tournaments I've played, is to show the amount of experience I have in the games I'm talking about.

theman200050, it is very clear, jal300 is simply telling you he plays xx,xxx thousands of tournies and need to be told by "pros" that play xx,xxx thousands of tournies what is best for him.

Meanwhile you are telling him you are in full agreement with his views.

Again; it might be hard for you to comprehend, but some of us "recs" do not need to be told what would be/could be "easier for us." I make my own choices based the information I have: if I don't like re-buys/re-entries, certainly I will not play them. When I do play, I am making a choice: everyone makes their own choice. You may want to be the "white knight" fighting the good fight for "recs", that's clearly your choice. I take no exception to you voicing your opinion on the state of tourney poker. However; when your opinion enters into the "I know what's best for you guys", you're opinion turns into a preachy/self righteous/big brother attitude: talking about your xx,xxx thousands of tourney experience is just a misguided appeal to authority.

You're the one repeatedly making terrible sports analogies, repeatedly making unsubstantiated claims thats re-entries scares off recs, and contradicting yourself left and right

You are basically agreeing with my point. People keep saying "re-entries is unfair since a rich person can buy a bracelet" but here, you're admitting that actually doesn't happen at all. And sorry, anyone who doesn't admit that Negraneau is winning these things because he's a world class poker player whos' totally deserving is just arguing in bad faith. If a system is designed to recognize top players and top players are in fact being recognized by it, the system is working as intended. This hypothetical scenario where a weak billionare just fires 40 bullets to scoop up bracelets for fun is not what's actually happening.

We need to break the argument down into Bob's Casinorama $500 tourney, and the "prestigious" tournaments. Honestly I really don't care about the rules at the $250k and I already stated that those tourneys are boring, and I do think freezeout is better for TV. My major point is, you can't say "Re-entries cheapeans the value of a bracelet" AND then say "Re-entry just makes it too hard for anyone, even a rich person, to beat the best players." Because if re-entries is making it more likely for the best players to walk away with the wins, then that should make the bracelet more meaningful, not less. That is the fundamental contradiction.

If you want to win the $50k pokers championship, you need to have $50k. Most people would say it's MORE prestigious because its a high cost to play, even though that means many good players just can't afford it. But we all see the point that, if you can swing $50k to play in the first place you're more likely, not always but more often than not, a tougher player.

Re-entries just extends that concept even more. People need bigger rolls to make sure they have enough bullets for a given price point that they themslelves can re-enter, but if it smooths out the variance of a tournament a bit, and makes stronger players more likely to succeed, then making bracelets unlimited re-entry does not make it less prestigious but more prestigious.

Poker is a game that requires money to play, and any given tournament is a lot less meaningful than results across a big sample. Comparing it to tennis, NBA, or golf is always fundamentally dumb. If you made a free-to-enter tennis tournament with a huge bracket and some prize for 1st, the winner would almost certainly be one of the best players in the field. If we made a WSOP freeroll freezeout so people can be on a "level playing field" the winner would likely be some random donk who went on a heater. Putting people on an "even playing field" makes sense in sports and no sense in poker. Poker is not a sport and trying to draw comparisons to any sport is always going to be incredibly dumb.

If casinos make more money by offering better formats that people like more, that's called a good business model, and is fine. I'm not shilling for casinos, if I think a format that makes them more rake sucks then I'm against it, if I think a format that makes them more rake is good, then I'm for it.

The main points I'm trying to make is, we shouldn't conflate bracelet event formats with $250 Sunday's at Bob's Casinorama.

For bracelet events, if you're saying that re-entry gives the best players an advantage, then that's actually good for the prestige of the bracelet, it doesn't cheapen it but the opposite. People interested in chasing bracelets just need to factor in re-entries when deciding if they are rolled for a tourney.

For small rec tourneys, you are repeatedly, repeatedly making crazy, unsubstantiated claims that it's turning off all the recs because they can't "put pros to the test" and they're not "profitable." But the truth is that a rec who's not profitable in a re-entry is also not profitable in a freezeout, a losing player is a loser in any format, and what attracts rec is big prize pools and a fun structure that lets them keep playing if they bust early instead of going home early to the wife.

The reasons that re-entry is a good format for bracelet events and $200 small casino formats are entirely different, but in both cases, the arguments against it flies in the face of reality:

1) Arguments against re-entry in bracelet events is that it cheapens the value of it, but actually it makes better players more likely to win a bracelet, which does the opposite of cheapen it

2) Arguments against re-entry in small weekend casino tourneys is that it turns off recs who feel like they can't win it, when most recs don't even consider that, and are attracted to bigger prize pools and and more play

If you want to go on yet another rant where you rehash the same talking point that you can't introduce new players to the game because they're losing players who aren't "profitable" in re-entry when they also wouldn't be profitable in freezeout, because they can't "put pros to the test" even though they obviously can as soon as late reg closes, any other of the same rehashed arguments, be my guest, but they're the same rehashed, debunked points over and over.

Another thing worth noting is that a lot of times, yeah the pro made sure to fire bullet after bullet until he had a stack to make a deep run with, but now he needs like 4th place or better to break even. And if a one-bullet-rec happens to catch some rungood at the right time, he gets to reap the rewards of a massively inflated prize pool. At some point late reg closes, it becomes a freezeout, and you need to win coin flips, a lot of live structures are still pretty fast compounded by the slow pace of live play, anyone can go on a heater and ship any given tournament. This idea that re-entry makes it impossible for a rec to win is just obviously untrue. Re-entry is an advantage for pros but the size of the advantage is getting massively overstated. Yeah if there's 5 flights and a pro wants to fire bullet after bullet, he can come close to locking up a mincash but that also doesn't make it easy money when he dug himself a huge hole.

Last post to you bro. You're a rec because you wanna be, right? If you wanted, you could easily smash these high stakes Re Entry tourneys? Or the mid stakes re entries? If you wanted, right? No. As a rec, you stand no shot, without severe studying. And no one is talking about turning recs into regs. I'm talking about turning people who have never played, into players who will actually play. Poker will survive without your $1000 you spend on poker tourneys throughout the year. Harsh but true

And my opinion, or attitude as some people call it, is just battling someone who I think is trolling. I'm not a white knight fighting for recs. You're a "rec" and you're the last person I would ever fight for. You seem, again, to know nothing about what I'm talking about in terms of GENERAL STRATEGIES OF A GAME BEING OFFERED.

The general strategy of the game you rarely play, is corrupt for no other reason than money. I'm trying to remove the corruption by explaining something to people. Kind of like folding to 3bets out of position. Until explained, I'd bet you didn't know why you should do that, did ya?

Again, I'm not talking about turning recs into regs. I'm talking about turning people who have never played the game, to actually play the game. And people like you, telling players who want to play tournaments but don't think Re Entries are fair, that they're wrong and they're just "double talking" for wanting things easier, is worse for the game than my attitude, or any re entry structure.

You seem delusional about the game you play. But again, I'm still waiting on a PM

Ok. I was gonna reply longer but the Casinorama word you keep using tilts me. But a couple things. First the terrible sports analogy isn't terrible. You want to see the stars, so they change the game to give you what you want to see. The problem is the game ISN'T A TELEVISION SHOW. PEOPLE ACTUALLY HAVE THEIR OWN MONEY ON THE LINE. Taking away participants potential edge, to please viewers so you can get advertising money on ESPN, is what will kill the game. The same if they let Lebron and AD buy back in, so the fans can see "Those great big nice stars, YA!". Yea kill the game, make a show. You'll be happy I'm sure

1. Rich people do things that make them money for the most part, or things they enjoy. If poker isn't enjoyable, why would rich people keep coming back? Why would a billionaire fire 40 bullets in poker, and consistently lose because he has no edge except having the most money? Especially with the structures being changed.

2. In poker, no one deserves anything. That is again, one of the dumbest things I've ever read. This is simply sales. Do you want your product to reach a larger audience, or do you want your product to be used more, by the people already using it? There are very few people in charge of everything. It may not seem that way, but Matt Savage does something and the world follows. It's not like a thousand smart people battling. It's like 100 people following what 10 people do, and all of them saying "Great Idea Mate!"

3. System designed? Why do we care if the best players win more often or not? So we can watch it on TV? Or, oh, so you, can think, one day, if things go right, you may be able to be one of those players too. I'll bet against it and use the winnings to invest in casinos. They sell you dreams if you don't remember...

4. LOL but you obviously can as soon as late reg ends. Like, does someone that plays poker say this? I'm just confused. It feels like tournament directors are in here saying why it's good for them. The second you entered a tournament, your life was on the line. That was the rush. The thrill. Now, you have to wait 8 hours. Which, guess who makes it to the 8th hour Late Reg Ending period most often? Pros. Guess who doesn't make it, therefore not getting to put those pros to the decision/test? Amateurs.

And if you don't play tournaments, because it seems like people are talking about something they don't use, then please go back to Bob's Casniorama (If I ever use that term again I might hurt myself)

Even saying the word Casinorama, makes me think you have no clue what you're talking about as well.

Again, do we, as poker players, expect anybody who has not learned the game, meaning the 100,000,000 kids on instagram, youtube, and all the ones playing fortnite... do we expect anyone, to learn the game of poker?

How do we get these people to play poker? How do we get new players, to have a shot?

Yes, we are both supporting an ecosystem of "corrupt" games: you with your xx,xxx thousands of tournies played and me with my supposed 1k per year! LOL!