Savage also claims that roughly 1% of people who qualify proceed to buy in again in an effort to increase their stack size. I have no idea how accurate that figure is, but I don't think it would be a stretch to say that players who qualify, especially those with a fairly large stack as has been your contention in virtually every example, are not likely to buy back in. And of those that do... how many are cheaters?

And you claim that its "rather easy to get heads up with a friend who needs chips". Really? I agree chip dumping happens, but to claim its rather easy at a full table is so far off the mark.

In the end, I think we all can agree that whether or not there is best stack forward, there are incentives at various stages of re-entry events for players to either play sub-optimally, or cheat in one way or another. This is the nature of re-entry events. The concerns over chip-dumping, or chip-palming are real, but have little to do with the existence of the best stack forward format.

/thread

Best stack forward becomes even more exploitable in these new pay as you go formats like chicago poker classic and aria wpt 500.

When you play flight a and advance with a big stack, then play b and make the money again, but nowhere near your first stack, there's a huge incentive just to dump your chips to someone you know at the end of day 1, since only one of your stacks will continue play on day 2.

So now your argument is that a maybe a 1/5 chance of min cashing after playing for an additional 13 hours is going to significantly induce people to re-buy into this tournament, despite already locking in a large chip stack? This scenario is looking less and less plausible. And certainly doesn't represent a potential problem that is in any way more worrisome than what happens to short stacks at the end of these flights when there is no stack forward option. Here's a hint... there are far more short stacks with an incentive to play poorly or cheat than these mythical players who lock in a big stack and then decide, what the hell, here's another $565 bucks, maybe if I'm lucky I can double my money in 13 hours.

Its a huge issue. You have 300k advanced chips in one flight. You've already made the money in another flight and have 200k worthless chips.

Obvious solutions seems to be forfeit them, dump them to someone you know, palm a few to add to your other stack.

Its only a huge issue if you can explain how its a common issue and how removing the BSF option solves the issue.

As for the common part, this is what I keep telling you... I don't think its very common at all. Players who have already booked a large stack are not going to re-buy into this tournament in any numbers that matter. There's no reason to. They're basically just throwing their money away. If I were to tell any player that they have to finish in the top 12% of a tourney to make 50% ROI or finish in the top 5% to make 100% ROI, and there's no guarantee they could make any more, very few would think this is a good idea. So, I just don't see how there's going to be this large number of players who just keep pumping money into this tourney after securing a large stack for day two in a previous flight.

There are, however, likely to be a good amount of players who do re-enter if they have secured a short or sub-par stack. In these cases, especially the former, they have incentive to try and get a bigger stack for day 2. However, this is exactly the same situation as if there were no BSF. At the end of the day, you will have short and sub-par stacks who have an incentive to play aggressively (or wildly, if you like) or even cheat in order to get a bigger stack or allow themselves an opportunity to buy back in. And so, removing the BSF option makes little difference when it comes to this much more common scenario.

Now, there may be reasons why one might prefer a re-entry format to include or not include BSF option. Inclusion of it incentivizes re-entry, and there are people who are really opposed to re-entry. So, I don't really have a problem with people if they are one side or the other on this issue. But to claim that BSF, on its own, is somehow a format which induces bad play or cheating, and to be so vehemently opposed to it on these grounds, is fairly indefensible. Which is why, I suppose, you keep repeating the same arguments that make no sense.

Too many angles that allow collusion, this tournament format is terrible for the game just make unlimited repechage tournaments with multiple day 1s/reentry but once you're through you can't play any more flights - if people want to take a big stack through or play more flights they can just gamble at the end of the day playing aggressively

Mr. Kessler does not have to have run a tournament to know exactly what it entails to run one well. He has played so many tournaments, his knowledge is immense. To use an analogy, many actors turn into great directors, often on their first try. Simply because they have observed what works and what doesn't work. Multiple re-entries and best stack forward tournaments are geared toward the pros trying to get back the edge they once had when the vast majority of tournaments had a soft field. Really, how many times do I have to bust Ivey to win one of these tournaments?

Exactly and spot on. Although Allen might come off as a complainer to some, I've said this before - the regular tournament player is lucky to have a guy that puts a lot of time and effort in his ideas/suggestions to make these events the best run possible(from structures, collusion issues, formats, etc...) Plus he is a very intelligent guy and as you stated has played so many tournaments over the years that I think it is safe to say he can be called an "expert" at knowing what makes a tournament great from start to finish.

Remember this little tidbit Akashenk - love him or hate him, at least us players have a strong and very well known voice looking out for our best interest. You seem to either not know that or not care about that.

akashenk,

Allen is a professional at playing poker, he's good at that, and has identified a serious issue here. That said, he has a unique personality which has the unfortunate by-product of causing people to attack him as an individual rather than address the underlying issues.

I don't know much about you as an individual, but if you do care to put some effort into understanding what risk factors increase the chance of collusion, then you will eventually learn the following basic philosophical underpinning behind collusion and tournament design:
DUCY?

(I slightly revised the wording of my quote to seek to improve it)

First off, the notion that because someone is good or experienced at something automatically leads to them being able to manage that thing is preposterous. It does happen in all sorts of arenas. I think its more the exception than the rule.

That being said, the purpose of my comments was to point out that many of Allen's gripes, however unsuccessfully or awkwardly they are put forth, exhibit a complete lack of understanding of the gaming and/or poker industry. Now, he can come at things from a player-perspective, and that's fine. There's a place for that. But even so, players need to be aware that they are consumers of a product in the end and the providers of that product operate as a business. At some point that reality has to supersede the solely-player perspective. Players can like it or not like it, but if they don't like it and want to change it, they need to make rational, defensible arguments. Allen has a lot of trouble doing that.

I would say my problem with Allen is not primarily his personality. Its the fact that the justifications he makes for his opinions are so often flawed. This entire thread is predicted on Allen's contention that BSF induces collusion/cheating. In order for that to be true, removal of BSF and doing a straignforward single stack forward format would have to significantly reduce the prevalence of collusion/cheating. It has been repeated by myself and others ad-nauseum, that it is not the BSF format which induces collusion/cheating, but rather the re-entry format, because without BSF, three will still be incentives to collude and/or cheat in some other way at various points in the tournament This does not mean that cheaters cannot find a way to exploit BSF. It only means that they can also exploit non BSF formats. So to have a vendetta against BSF, when that format might produce some desirable results, is wrongheaded.

In your comments you mention you are against re-entry. That is a separate topic entirely. I have mentioned that there is some reason to respect that point of view. And maybe there is a middle ground between creating a re-entry format that gets the largest number of entries, and one which is purer. But BSF has nothing to do with this. If Allen would like to start a thread on a useful topic, such as where is the middle ground for re-entry formats, I'm game. But if he's gong to launch into a tirade into something which no one should be overly concerned about, then I have a problem with that.

What are your thoughts on the tourneys where you get a bonus for making multiple day twos. The Chicago Poker Classic had one where each flight paid down to 4% of the field. If you made two day two you got some kind of a double cash bonus and kept your bigger stack. The person giving up the most chips got a WSOP ME seat and I think they had prizes for the top 3 or 5 surendered stacks. (I think second got 5k or something).

I didn't here the final number on how many people double qualified but if I had to guess it was somewhere around 10-12 (going into the second to last flight of 8 only 5-6 people had made it). Given all that how many people would have had an opportunity to benefit from that format in a way that the couldn't in a normal re entry?

First of all I would venture to say most people don't cheat and off the percent of people that would. They would have to have a stack that was not there biggest one (which would get to play in day two) and they would have to not be in contention for a prize for surrender the most chips. There stack would also have to be safe from blinding out as when you're playing down to 10-18 people these bubbles often last a while.

I didn't love the format of this tourney for a few reasons but I think the format did a good job in insuring some game integrity? Thought?

Its well known that people cheated in this event last year, and it wouldn't surprise me if it occurred again this last series in chicago.

Events like chicago and the upcoming aria one where you get paid for advancing stacks and only your best stack moves forward are just begging for cheating.

The 2013 Chicago event they played down too 10% and this year they played down to 4%. I'm guessing they reduced the the percentage to give less opportunities for people to cheat.

FWIW I do agree with you that this format should be eliminated. I just think the way the recent Chicago event was set up with a small percent advancing to day two and giving out several bonuses for biggest stacks probably reduced the probability (or number) of cheating (cheaters)

If it were well known that people cheated in the event last year, then I assume the cheaters have been caught and punished. I'd be interested in knowing what punishments they received. Can you fill me in?

This re/multi entry parade began on full tilt out of desperation.

Now it continues with live venues unwilling to actually do any work or offer a decent product. Why bother?

Its much easier to slap a giant guarantee on and let people enter 1,000 times. The sad part is now the guarantees are inflated to unrealistic levels and the only way to maintain them is make the tournaments worse and worse over time.

Nothing happened. Even though players dumped chips to affect day two stack sizes and the points race, its near impossible to prove even though players outwardly discussed doing so.

Dont be fooled by comments like "we've run many of these events in the past without any issues".

If done "properly", chip dumping and moving chips from one flight to another are nearly impossible to catch. So the td is led to believe everything ran smoothly even if it didnt.

Thanks for your support mike.

dusk till dawn poker room aka "DTD" , best poker room in england, has been giving the option of playing day one live or online for a while now in some of their monthly tournaments.can also satellite into their live tournaments online .

I challenge any player or td to bring up this topic at the tda conference.

No reason this format should even exist.

If a room is gonna drop more with a best stack forward format isn't that the choice that's gonna be made? If the chance for a biggish prize pool event only comes to your local once a year they don't give a flip about having the most fair equitable format least vulnerable to dumping versus dropping half as much more.

Your challenge has been accepted.

It is coming back soon, as mentioned at the TDA Summit.

Where are you seeing this

As long as there is no cheating why would anyone care if someone makes -ev plays so they can get a better stack?