Just one opinion, but the one who gave the “Mis leading” stat, works for the venue being discussed.

If the casinos are making more money off the tournaments, which I’m claiming they are, then the stats aren’t misleading at all. And actually, the stats they give, are leading customers in the exact direction they consider the right direction. Which is the direction to where they make the most money. Who knew?

I would agree that it is more interesting to see the breakdowns specifically in the re-entry events. I don't know if WSOP releases unique entrants numbers for each event; as that would be needed to extrapolate the numbers. That said; looking at Palansky's Oct. 30th tweet there is some interesting data. 42 of 90 Vegas WSOP events were freezeouts, 32 were single re-entry events and 16 were multiple re-rentry events. That's 42 vs 46 freezout vs re-entry: it's close to 50/50, certainly not the "doom and gloom all events are unlimited re-entries" scenario. Moreover; 34.9% increase in unique entries over 2018: certainly it would appear that people aren't being "scared away" from the WSOP Vegas due to re-entries, although it could be possible that increase may have been higher if there were no re-entry events, but there really is no way of knowing that. All in all; although I get some do not like re-entries, at least as the Vegas stretch of the WSOP is concerned, it's a somewhat "balanced" series with close to 50/50 freeze-outs vs re-entries.

I suppose buying more than one 50/50 draw ticket is a re-entry of sorts.
For the record, it's has to be -EV because I never win

I have certainly re-entered a bunch of 50/50 draws.

You are totally twisting my point. I am NOT In favor of more rake for the same product. If a tournament entry fee or cash rake goes up I'm hugely against it. Live MTT rakes are already stupidly high esp with "optional" dealer add ons on that are not optional at all.

Since you're saying my paragraphs are "complicated" I'll make it incredibly simple - if a casino runs a freezeout on a Sunday, is it awful if they also run a new one on a Saturday because the casino will generate new rake from the new tournament? By your logic, yes, since it's "more rake". And "more rake" is always bad. But in reality they are just getting more rake by offering more play, same as the re-entry, that's why your logic makes zero sense. Once you go busto, it's like you never entered the tourney at all and it's now "Saturday". A re-entry is not more rake for the same thing, it's more rake coming from a brand new entry, just like a Saturday tournament isn't more rake hurting players just because you added a new tournament. Think about that for 10 seconds before you keep going on and on and accusing me of being a shill. I'm not in favor of "more rake" in a vacuum.

Yes, if an economy is booming, more tax revenue will be generated which is a good thing! The opposite is called a recession. You seem to want a poker recession. It's the exact same concept - more taxe revenue because of more economic activity is good, more tax rate on the same activity is bad. I'm against higher tax rates/rake rates. I'm FOR more tax/rake generated by additional economic activity, because I grasp very basic economics.

And ANYONE can point to ANYTHING in the last 15 years and say "oh well we used to do X in 2003 and there was a poker boom, but now that we don't do X, there's no poker boom, it's because of X" When obviously there's a billion reasons but the primary reason is that 2003 was a once in a lifetime boom that we'll 99.9% never return to no matter what.

This is really the most important point, to me the simplest way to make everyone happy is a mix of freezeout, 1 re-entry, and unlimited re-entry. If we currently have a good mix then there's really no need for an argument. And bring back a few rebuys as well. The people who insist that you need it to be a freezeout for it to be some sense of pure competition can always have the Main Event, I don't think there is a single person advocating for it to be re-entry and if we need to maintain "poker as a sport" illusion for Norman Chad to keep his job and to attract some new donks, we can always put on ESPN and have the Main Event freezeout and watch 9 unknown donks donk it out and Norman to say he was a kid with a dream.

Let's just focus on fixing late late late reg since that seems to be the most obvious actual weakness.

Are you for real? If you enter a tournament twice you still can only win the 1st prize once. If I enter 2 different tournaments I can also win these two so you argument makes no sense. Reentries are a cheap way to keep people in the casino when they made the trip to a live event. The alternative would be starting fresh tournaments every two hours or so but that would include planning etc..

I’d bet 10 to 1 he works for a casino. His arguments are of “if a casino is making more rake, then I’m hugely against it”. A 500 person freeze out tournament usually has 40 minimum blind levels, and 60 minutes at some venues. In a re entry, they shorten it to 30.

Less people enter, they need less personnel because they speed the structure up and can bust tables quicker, and take a higher percentage of rake (is that better?) from the same players, who were playing the tournament.

The same players playing, at an 18% re entry rate, have ONE chance to win $7,000 in the scenario I posted. While the casino takes 7 thousand more, for less personnel and less space used. It’s the same pool of players, spending almost 7,000 to add almost 7,000 to a first place prize pool. But you were told it attracted fish. And guess what? It got you. It’s ok tho. They got me too.

They were genius. Let’s all clap, and demand a change.

The argument; which I believe you failed to understand, is that there is a difference between Apple selling more iPhones vs raising the price of the iPhone. All things being equally, both those things would lead to Apple generating more revenue, but there is a very big difference in how that additional revenue was raised. Now; when it comes to re-entries; is the casino/venue/operator "selling more product" or "increasing the price" to generate additional revenue?

Maybe all these analogies are confusing people more than helping.

It's really, really, really simple. If you are an MTT player with an edge in the field, whether a pro or a good rec, then that means that when you show up at 9AM and give the casino buyin + rake you are expected to make money.

If the very first hand you get all-in as a 95% favorite and lose to runner-runner and are now busto, it's now 9:15AM and the same blind levels, then if it was +EV for the first bullet, it's still +EV. Nothing's changed. The only thing re-entry does, is give you the opportunity to realize that edge, instead of going home. If the rake was ok to pay for the first bullet, it's still ok to pay again. If you are a winning player, the re-entry makes you money. And in a high variance game like poker, and especially MTT, the more volume you get, the closer your actual profit will get to your expected profit, on average. If you can't understand this extremely simple concept, you are just a donk and I'm done trying to explain it to you.

If you hate re-entry because it's less fun, or because it dilutes a bracelet, or because it you thinks it turns off recs, or you hate late late late reg because it's annoying and has weird ICM implications, that's all valid discussion. But if you come in here and say, re-entries is bad for making money, or re-entry is just a rake trap, your opinion is just the irrational spew of a losing player.

Mannerplease and jal300 are casino employee trolls that I’ll stop feeding. But...

“I’ll tell you what else is for real, every single good poker pro will tell you that re-entry is an advantage for strong players”

Well, they didn’t tell me. And I don’t normally check to see if poker pros are single, but, there’s many boats in the ocean, you know what I mean? Sail whatever way you’d like pal. No judgements here.

But you have made nothing but childish remarks about potential possibilities, and I provided math that used important variables given to me by a wsop employee.

You just seem like you want someone to talk to also. You and your little buddy jal3000 can both pm me if you want. Lost my job so got a lot of free time if you can’t tell.

And quit talking for people that you aren’t apart of, or have never been apart of. If you used common sense that would be fine, but you saying “every single pro“, is like you saying, every man that gets ass, wants this.

You don’t do either. You’re talking from groups you’ve never been apart of. People are trying to get the money back to poker players. You’re argument that “1st place will be a lot bigger with more entries”, is like me being asked how much rake did the wsop collect last year?

And I stretch my arms out and maneuver my hands to show that I think it’s, “This much”.

I produced stats in an actual $600 tournaments and then a hypothetical $600 tournament, both re entry and freezeout. The first place prize increase is nominal, but I gave an actual number as to what it is.

You’ve given childish opinions which in sales is “turning maybes to yess”. I know what you’re doing, and you will fail against me. Trust me. I learned sales 8 months ago. And I’ll just say, they taught the wrong one. Try anything, and I promise you I’m ready.

The game isn’t dying. We’ve been sold that as a way for people making money to kill it. No one should be blamed, if change happens

Based on your WSOP Event 9 example; the 18% additional entries means just over 47k for the winner and an extra 492k in the prize pool for the players that cashed: I don't believe that is merely a "nominal" difference. And why would people making money off the game want to kill it? That makes absolutely no sense.

theman200050,

1. We've already established that the 18% figure is not a true reflection.

2. 8 months eh? How come you just lost your job then?

Peteblow,

1. 18% was the stat given which I assumed and did the best I could with scenarios to show the beneficiaries arent players, or casinos in the long run. A player playing a re entry might be at the tables for 12 hours getting drinks. Sitting at the table re entering is bad for everybody as I’ve tried to show.

Customers getting more “perceived” value from your product, brings them back, and has them bringing other customers to do what they like doing. Theres not a thread on if there should be delis. We know there should.

2. I’m actually writing a book about it so be on the look out. I’ll make sure to thank you for your detailed input in the thread. It was needed

Lol it costs the poker community as a whole, 70,000 to get that 47k, to the one winner out of 6000+. And the difference was from 350,000 to 398,000. In a $600 tournament at the wsop during the summer, I’d say to most players, that is nominal in the terms of, is it worth it?

Do we want 70k more taken from the community? Which remember is just players, no casino is adding money at these venues for these tournaments except maybe a seat to a main event. Only players are giving up 70,000 extra, to play a tournament that I think takes the same time if not less to run, than if it was a freeze out.

You're only looking at 1st place money. 492k is the increase in the prize pool that goes to all the players that cashed. So to be more accurate; it isn't 70k more to venue and 47k more to players: it's actually 70k more to venue and 492k more to players that cash.

You play poker tournaments to win first hopefully. Otherwise you’re probably cheating or selling more than 100% of yourself

I don’t play poker to get $492k more to players that cash with me. Casinos try to get that, so they can make 70k more in this tourney. That’s what they sold you on

You can not win 1st thru 10th no matter how good you are. You got sold. We all did. They did good. Watch the game flourish if it’s allowed to

Why you play tournies or what you hope for when you play a tourney doesn't change the fact that (as far as WSOP Event 9 is concerned) 923 players received an extra 492k, assuming the 18% figure held true for that particular event.

What I learned in this thread:

- jal300 has the worst grammar I've seen in quite a while;
- theman200050 is really a super-annoying guy who probably gets punched in the face a lot (if he ever interacts with people irl, which possibly he doesn't since he plays xx,xxx online tourneys in his mom's basement); he also makes the classic "I could care less" grammar mistake; and
- the misuse of the word ecosystem has become endemic in society: look it up; it doesn't mean what you think it means and doesn't apply to poker, society, industry or anything else other than a naturally interacting system of organic and non-organic elements.

Without intending this to comment on any person in particular, I think it's reasonable to say that "poker ecosystem" (within the community of this forum) and "I could care less" (more generally), while they might not be completely literally correct, are sufficiently common and universally understood that they have become idiomatically correct.

Getting something wrong long enough should never make it right.
'I could care less' and 'irregardless' are the absolute epitomes of this.

You mean like Re Entry tournaments and Freezeout tournaments? Taking that much more money from the player pool every tournament, for that long, doesn't make it right because it's how it's been.

Says the guy who can´t even spell Spaceman.

As someone who plays both re-entries and freeze outs I have a somewhat different take on this.

First I think we can all agree that casinos are in the business of making money. If running tournaments did not contribute to the casino economy they would not run them. I use the word economy because people that play tournaments may also lose a little something at the tables or slot machines as well as drop money on a expensive dinner. As long as you put your little card in the machine they can do the calculation.
Part of the calculation is based on the value of casino floor space. If banks of slot machines is a better use of the real estate that is what will happen. I guess there may be some value in the prestige of having a poker room but most large corporations do not care about prestige unless it transfers to dollars.

Forgive the background but I will now get to my point. There are a lot costs that go into running a poker tournament. Some are variable like the cost of dealers (the more players the more dealers) but other are fixed such as tournament management staff, utilities, advertising, the cost of not being able to run other activities in the area needed to run the tournament, and lastly the amount of profit required to justify running the tournament. The fixed amount of a tournament is a substantial piece of the pie(certainly far more than half). Since this amount is fixed the cost per player is divided by the fixed amount needed, So if that number is (to keep the math simple) $10.00 and the number of players is 10 each person has to contribute $1.00 to the fixed overhead. If that was a freeze out tournament and changing to a re-entry got you 20 entries than each player only has to contribute .50. In theory the rake on a re-entry tournament should be less that it would be in a freeze out. Of course that rake only represents the minimum needed to justify the tournament. They will charge more if the players will pay it. The only thing stopping them is what other venues charge.

I remember sitting in a room with some executives of a major car rental company with locations all over the world. At the time certain locations were introducing a additional tax for airport rentals (based on what they were paying to the airport). The person in charge wondered if we could get away with introducing a tax at the Toronto airport (even though there was no tax charged to them). The decision was lets try it and see if people will pay for it. They did not have an issue and soon all the other rental companies also added a tax helping to contribute to the bottom line. We used to call it the all people are idiots tax.

so more player should equal less rake per entry. My question is does it?

If I'm a person that bought an iPhone after Apple had already recouped all of their fixed costs, do I get a lower price or do I pay the same price as all the other people that bought the iPhone? And making up "a tax"; although I'm no Canadian law expert, just might run afoul of deceptive marketing laws (if Canada has such laws).

If you are first to market with something you charge a premium to recoup your R&D costs. As time goes on and others enter the market you must lower your selling price or offer something that makes you different and therefore better than the crowd. think of the cost of a VCR, DVD and blue ray player when they were first introduced.

That's still not analogous to re-entry tournies.