Agree the tda could even say it's a bad policy but they can't stop a casino from running a tourney.

I think some formats that might not be perfect could be more fun, draw bigger prizes pools, etc.

There is no rule in the world that says every poker tournament must be perfect.

I saw/heard it in the TDA Summit.

If there is a video online, you can see/hear it.

Maybe the TDA could ban the word Championship being used to describe these "events".

grunching:

Best stack forward is a silly format to begin with. Entering a tournament a second time knowing that in your best case scenario you have to forfeit another stack is an absurdly losing sucker's proposition unless your existing stack is a pretty small fraction of starting and/or your edge in the tournament is completely off the charts. Either of the above criteria being fulfilled is quite unlikely since BSF is usually used in relatively low buy in, high rake, large field, fast structure events.

Allowing people to do it just punishes suckers who don't understand how tournaments work. I'm not categorically opposed to exotic tournament structures that offer people the opportunity to make mistakes with their rebuy/reentry/addon decisions, but I tend to think it's a pretty unfun way to get an edge and a trend that shouldn't be encouraged.

Add in the fact that this particular format really facilitates both outright cheating in the form of sneaking chips out of worthless stacks into usable ones and "soft collusion" from all of the awkward chip value nonlinearities, and it's hard to see why anyone should ever run a BSF event.

Does anyone really love this format? Would anyone be sad to see it die?

Recreational POV:

A person who is only going to fire 1 bullet, or can't play 1a so they play 1b is at a huge disadvantage. On 1a everyone is on the same footing, on 1b you have no way of knowing who may already have a lock for day 2.

I got a hard enough time without trying to figure if the guy to my right is crazy or if he's a lock and trying to build a huge stack.

BSF is BS.

Excellent post. I should have sent you to tda meeting. Apparently they refused to even discuss this.

ike

I'd never heard of this kind of tournament before today but I'd certainly never play a tournament like that. It sounds awful and unfair. I don't see how the following isn't just /thread because it's exactly what should happen if they want to keep a similar format.

I dislike this format, but I understand the realities and if the choice is best stack forward or forfeit your stack upon re-entry, I think best stack forward has a lot of merit. Multi-flight tournaments with re entry are going nowhere, so it's one or another.

1. There should be less crazy play or chip dumping, since there shouldn't be as much in the first flight. Bagging a short stack and trying again beats -EV attempts to run it up or bust.. In a re entry where you forfeit your first stack, you may as well try to run it up if it's below the threshold where you'd buy in again. While anyone with a useless stack in the second flight would go crazy, some will have already busted naturally, reducing the frequency. Delaying the run it up or bust dynamic until the end of the last flight means fewer people face that situation.

2. Being able to play two or more iterations of a tournament means more opportunities for volume, which is good.

3. People making bad decisions with their stack are good for the value of the tournament, which we should like.

4. The people who are likely to chip dump intentionally are probably doing it anyway, and they gain less equity in bigger fields - which BSF creates. While there is unintentional chip dumping, such as a blind shove...

5. Everyone knows the rules going in, so make your choice by not playing them if you don't like the dynamic. Having some percentage of live MTTs use this format is fine, as long as it doesn't become the only format or primary format. Getting rid of the format is a massive long shot, so we're better off discussing methods to police intentional chip dumps and sneaking chips out of one stack and smuggling them into another.

A TD (don't know who) brought it up in the general questions/comments session at the end of the Summit. Matt Savage and (IIRC) others pointed out that cheating is possible in any tournament; that BSF is no worse than forfeiting stacks -- a player who plans to forfeit has just as much incentive to dump to a friend or (if same chip sets are used on different starting days) to pocket chips. More generally, Matt reiterated his opposition to multi-entry.

Different chip sets on different starting days is a good idea... although combining down then becomes an issue. Unless the field is kept segregated by flight on Day 2 until a color up enables the staff to get everyone on the same chip set. It would be tricky, but some form of that might be possible.

Why not just run them like the Colossus, where if you make a day 2 you are barred from further flights?

Single re-entry events are not unusual. Matt's problem with re-entry in general is not opportunities for cheating, but that it discourages some recreational players and hurts satellites and cash games.

What a lame response by matt. Of course he would defend the format since he runs it at the commerce and wpt 500.

As ike explained better than i could, bsf creates scenarios once you have an advanced stack, that dont exist in any other format.

I was there. He did not defend the format.

He runs re-entry events yet argues against them despite the "conflict of interest."

What bad scenarios does BSF make that forfeit-and-re-enter doesn't?

Take the wpt 500 for example. A player has advanced in a prior flight with 250k stack. (There are actual players who have done this.)

He has 175k in a subsequent flight and gets the exact same payout if he makes top 5% day 2 with 1 chip or 100k.

He will have to forfeit any amount under 250k.

Huge incentive to collude with someone who hasn't advanced, or smuggle chips to already advanced stack.

Also blind shoving becomes a viable option which is legal, but causes huge disparities in chips among tables which shouldn't normally occur.

My biggest problem with your argument is you act like smuggling chips is easy. what percent of players are going to do it with a dealer, players and a camera watching in a 500 dollar tourney.

Chip dumping also requires you to get to a table with the person you want to dump too.

The format is not perfect but some people enjoy them because you can get a huge prize pool for a small buy in.

I don't really get Allen's crusade against this. Tournament poker is about winning money. If a couple people cheat it really most likely effect my expectation much. People who could actually pull it off well have better things to do like play bigger games.

Horrible response. Its ok if only a few people will cheat.

There is cheating in every form of poker. There probably is more cheating in the 10k small fields where sitting with friends is common.

Obviously if someone takes chips out of play and gets caught they are going to be arrested.

You likely have never seen someone takes chips out of play.

It's super hard to chip dump late in a big field event because you have to be at the same table, .

How about you go after every soft play, collusion in bigger buyins???

The problem s that they created a format which incentivized these actions. Read Ike's post from a few days ago.

Well yeah there is still more cheating in 10k plus events since horses and backers sit together, friends sit together. If you wanted a perfect poker world you would look at these things first. Should we stop big buy in small field events???

The main goal of the reentry events is to created huge prize pools.

I haven't looked at the details of the WPT 500, which I'm not playing, but I assume 250K is in the realm of the chip leaders -- a huge Day 1 stack. Are there really multiple players who have accumulated big stacks and re-entered, in this event or other BSF ones? If so, is there any information as to their motivation?

Yes there are several who have done this. You get paid every time you advance to day 2. Regardless if you have 1 chip or 250k.

Huge incentive for impropriety near the end of day 1.

Just wanted to chime in and say, as a recreational amateur, I really enjoyed taking my 3 shots at the WPT 500 (didn't make it to day 2 (shocker), but did cash once). I will not have many opportunities in my life to play a WPT event and this format was one that worked for me. While I understand the points Chainsaw & others are trying to make, I think they are describing the "perfect storm" of what could happen in these events. Are all these things they claim are happening possible? Yes. Are they truly happening? Probably not, and if so, probably to a very small degree, a risk I was willing to take by playing these games. What's most sad is all the scumbags in poker who would consider using these angles, that's the real problem and it will never go away it seems. It's also not helpful to have guys like Chainsaw repeatedly screaming out ways for people to collude in this format. The only likely reason someone is abusing this structure in the manner Chainsaw thinks is because he helped them figure it out by continually screaming about this format. Thanks dude!

His points are off because you would need a huge cheating team to pull it off or be willing to flat out steal chips right off the table (which is a dangerous thing to try.).

At the 500 level the worries of being cheated are not that great.

Like I said there is probably way more subtle and intentional collusion in the small field big buys. Of course it's likely bad for business for someone who wants to play these events to point that out.