Agree with this initial post for all of the reasons stated, but especially the "chip security" reason, which is something the poker world really needs to figure out ASAP anyway.

of course the simple solution to this is to always have verified chip counts at the end of the session. i.e. the dealer counts and verifies the chips stacks at the end of the nite and verifies them again at the start of the next session. thereby eliminating an easy point to add chips.

you also, assume that many people who enters these things cheat and add chips. maybe its 1 percent of the field who would do this (maybe a little higher)

but yeah when you add like 40k to a 100k stack its probably not worth the full buy in price. so even if someone was adding chips in this way they would be donating to the prize pool most likely (although increasing their chances to win)

but in general i think its a flawed assumption to assume there are many cheaters in a given field. A big big majority of the field just would never consider cheating or adding chips.

The current system just needs some tweaking. As Ive pointed out many times the biggest threat to the viability of tournaments long run is the increase in rake that is rolled out every year. Its a bigger problem than cheating if your someone looking to make money playing.

I don't know if this has been mentioned in this thread or not. These "best stack forward" tournaments are called multiplay tournaments (not to be confused with reentry tournaments). I also agree they are terrible for poker. I recently played a tourney at Borgata last month that was a multiplay AND reentry tournament. I really hope this isn't a new trend that's gaining steam.

Counting down at end of day and beginning of next day accomplishes nothing as smuggled chips are likely added coming back from a break or during a table change.

This was my exact thinking as well.

Seems ridiculously -EV to forfeit a buyin for a the marginal value of a bigger stack. How can it be profitable? Especially since you can run bad by finishing with a similarly sized stack.

From a $ev standpoint, I'm not sure there is any difference from building a stack on just day 1a and building the same exact stack from days 1a and 1b. The latter case has one more buy-in in the prize pool and more chips.

If you just take first place into consideration for the ICM, your $ev from your chance of winning first place in the day 1a-only case is

(your chips)/(total chips)*(first place prize).

Let's say your buy-in increases the prize pool by 1% and the number of chips in play by 1%. Now the $ev from first place is

(your chips)/((total chips)*1.01)*(first place prize)*1.01.

The 1.01's cancel out and you have the same $ev. These 1.01's also cancel for 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. and mathematically the ICM $ev is the same. However, you are a buy-in short from playing two days instead of one.

However, the comparison is not really with the same exact stack playing one day. Your stack from day 1a is what it is and you can't change it. The question is will you increase your $ev starting day 2 by more than a buy-in on average from entering day 1b.

If you plan on not cheating, then the $ev will only increase if you do better than day 1a. If you somehow ended day 1a on a micro-stack and you feel you can play good enough on day 1b to get a stack with $ev worth more than a buy-in, then that's fine. But with any decent sized stack, if you don't plan on cheating, then it seems extremely unlikely you will increase your $ev starting day 2 by more than a buy-in on average. This equation needs to be true for you to enter another day 1:

(prob. of finishing with higher stack)*((average $ev of day 1b stack when you finish higher than 1a) - ($ev of day 1a stack)) > buy-in

Most of the time you won't finish with a higher stack, especially if you have a mentality that you should play like a maniac to try to luckbox into a monster stack. So when you do finish with a higher stack, you have to finish with a MUCH higher stack to be worth more than a buy-in.

If you do plan on cheating and adding chips from your small stack to your big stack, then there is more uncertainty. Now you just don't have to go bust on day 1b to add $ev to start out day 2. Depending on how bad the average player is, that could very well be the case.

Ok so I'll comment on this statement since nobody else seems to have.......

Are you being serious?

if you are talking about my plans to take my "favorite" stack and not my "biggest stack forward" I was very serious.

see below

if you are talking about etables then kinda joking kinda not



now I'm maybe a bit superstitious but not dumb, not talking about choosing a 20BB stack over a 60BB stack,

but if I had a 30BB a 28BB and 24BB, maybe I like the mojo of my 24BB. flame away. don't care . Barry G was correct... "Math is idiotic"

ongoing joke with me and TD while playing was that since no def of "best" was published, then I could decide.

didn't matter cuz binked my first four bullets. made it day 2 on day 1G (last chance). so that was pretty much my best and only stack. and was also best mojo as it carried me to the FT chop

below is where I originally brought it up in MTT thread for that tourny

Fair enough I guess if you're only talking a few BB's

Nothing to stop someone from taking almost all their shorter stack chips and adding them to their larger stack the following day. More than a few bbs.

That's not what he was saying though

Except the fact that its against the rules, other people may be watching, the floor may be watching. I'd guess a large percentage over 95 percent would never consider doing it. Add in the fact that you are losing money most likely doing this means its not likely to happen.

There are some sick people who would throw away money and risk cheating to give themselves a better chance to win. But a huge percentage of the field just is not going to do that.

Add in some very harsh penalties for cheating and i don't think its a problem.

I skimmed through this thread and reviewed the Horseshoe Cincy's series coming up here and wanted to see what you all thought about this, pretty shocked it hasnt been posted already.

http://www.horseshoecincinnati.com/c...ng-poker-3.pdf

Maybe I am wrong here, but this super re-entry tournament just reeks of ways to cheat the system. I play day 1A and run my stack up, peel chips...play day 1B run my stack up, peel chips. Lather rinse repeat, and I get an added bonus of $2k for each stack I forfeit headed to Day 2. What a joke.

Wow this begs for cheating. I will text jack effel about this.

I don't need casinos to cease offering these tournaments because of their inherent problems. I simply don't enter them.

I was meaning from the perspective of other players

It seems that the main issue that people arguing against multi flight tournaments is a cheating. Which when you think about it is a weak argument when all factors are considered. For the multi flight format to be manipulated someone has to knowingly and actively CHEAT by taking chips off the table in one flight and adding them to another flight.

Considering that most casinos AT MOST have 3 sets of tournament chips and re use those various sets through out the week/month/year there is no difference between taking chips from flight 2 and adding them to flight 1 of the same tournament or taking chips from event 1 and adding them to event 2.

EV is zero-sum in tournaments. So EV of other players the same in your question. EV of other players generally helped if somebody rebuys with decent stack and does not cheat. EV of other players may be hurt if somebody decides to cheat and they are good enough players to have their expected chips be worth more than a buy-in.

The people are going to cheat anyway argument doesn't apply. Casino offering formats that facilitate cheating does apply.

View: People who feel tournaments with "best stack advance option" should be ceased immediately should stop playing them immediately, and continually warn people how bad they are until no one enters them anymore...

Those structures don't "facilitate" cheating in any way. If someone is going to cheat the system by taking chips from flight 1 into 2 or vice versa that's no different then from taking chips from event 1 into event 2. The set up doesn't have anything to do with whether or not someone is going to cross the line to chip dump to themselves.

or members of their 'team' during any break

While might be pedantically right in saying that different tournament structures don't "encourage" cheating, you are fun fundamentally wrong in that the impact of collusion is different with different tournament structures.

A simple example is the way that Double or Nothing formats are very vulnerable to collusion because of the huge bubble that exists. You can extrapolate this to a simpler rule that the larger the divergence between cEV and $EV, the greater the vulnerability to collusion.

Josem.. I understand why prob best for you to keep away from the main Borgata chipgate thread. but we have another thread where we can discuss possible improvements to MTT procedures (sans the madness in the main chipgate thread) and regardless of tourney structure. I think you could add a lot value to that discussion.

Improved procedures for Live MTT organizers to avoid future cheating scandals