Its not about whether any single player in a tournament has an advantage over any other single player. Of course, a player's EV in a tournament has to do with a lot of things which are out of the casino's control.. their skill, their table draw, etc, etc. What my comments has to do with is TD structure representing as level a playing field as possible.

Virtually every rule in the TDA is meant to try and keep a level playing field. This is why tables get balanced when people bust out. This is why there are table re-draws. This is why we play hand for hand on the bubble. You could never say specifically who would be advantaged without these rules because it is totally dependent on the players involved and the specific circumstance, however the rules and procedures still exist. So, the fact that something is "different" is enough in my book to judge whether it is "good" or not.

The inclusion of a turbo flight and allowing different starting flights to play as much as two levels more or less than each other is totally antithetical to providing a level playing field. There are, of course, plenty of other wacky things the TD could do which would be far worse than these. I have mentioned some of them in previous posts. But there is clearly a line. I happen to think the inclusion of the turbo and play down structure cross it. If Matt or anyone else could provide some really good empirical evidence of why the inclusion of these things is in fact a really good thing, I would be open to changing my mind.

I will repeat what I said pre-tournament. The risk is no greater with BSF as any re-entry format. So if they're going to have re-entry, BSF doesn't cause any additional problems. If they got rid of it, I wouldn't really care and I agree, like I also mentioned pre-tournament, that there were probably a relatively miniscule number of players who used the BSF to re-enter. But Allen, you know very well that the BSF was not the real problem with this tournament's structure. You eventually came to that conclusion yourself in an earlier post.

There were more than zero and less than 10 that reentered already having stacks with Mike Sexton being one of them. The BSF has NOTHING to do with more entries and everything to do with giving the super short stacks a chance to get a better stack coming into day two. A player should not have to forfeit their short stack or dump their chips at the end of the day to have a chance to play another heat. Repeat: It has nothing to do with getting more entries!

The turbo heat was a HUGE success, many players played it as their first heat played because they wanted the option to play the entire tournament in one day, not available other days, and believe it or not some players like playing turbos.

It is impossible to make every player happy even though I have tried, If you think it is a disadvantage/advantage then play it or don't play it but I can tell you in the two previous turbos it has not been either.

If less than 10 people of a few thousand who entered took advantage of best stack forward just drop it.

Somehow I convinced borgata and hard rock Hollywood that the risks associated with this format far outweigh the benefits.

I have no doubt that SOME players enjoyed being able to play just the turbo heat. I doubt very much that it was a significant number, though I suppose you could tell us how many played the turbo and the turbo only. Most players who played it did so because it was their last chance. They would have been afforded that same last chance with any final day 1 flight.

And I'm sure many people would love to take part in all sorts of gimmicky ways to get into day 2 that are different than playing a regular flight, especially if it takes less time. When you put out a million dollar guarantee, people will do just about anything even if it has nothing to do with poker. You could hold a raffle. You could hold a series of coin flips. You could have side tables of rock-paper-scissors. You could do any one of a large number of ridiculous things to get people to pony up an entry fee at a shot to get into day 2. I can't think of a single example in other "sports" or competitive environments where certain entrants get to play under such a drastically different set of rules. At some point, it becomes less a competitive poker tournament and turns into some sort of circus side-show. Its hard for me to say whether the inclusion of the turbo is already over this line, but I have no doubt that TDs will look at the marginal benefits of these gimmicks and say, you know what, let's do that too because it helps the bottom line.

Now, I hope you, Matt, aren't lumping me in with the typical whiners and complainers on these boards and others. I realize that Aria and the WPT can do whatever they want and players always have an option as to whether they will play your event or not. I don't think any sort of capital crime was committed in the way you structured the event. But if it gets to the point that live poker tournaments cannot be profitable without these sorts of gimmicks, I think it will be a sad day for poker.

I think I've said my peace as far as the turbo flight is concerned. I don't necessarily see a reason to go back and forth on it. I understand the reason for including it. Its about increasing the profitability of the tournament, and in general, I'm all for that... just not in the case of gimmick flights.

I would, however be interested in your reiterating the reason for having the play-down structure you did. At first I thought it would allow you eliminate more players and therefore have a more manageable day 2. But as we saw, you actually eliminated fewer players than had you done a straight 20 levels (or whatever) for each of the day 1 flights. I don't have a huge problem with you paying 12% of the field instead of the traditional 10% even though your pay structure sort of gutted the top and middle of the curve in order to have a flatter tail. But regardless of these issues, what is the great benefit to paying as you go and having the irregular play down structure? The end result is you have as much as a two level difference in the amount played by people going into day 2. I think that is HUGE issue and it would take some really great benefit to justify it. What is that benefit?

I'm fairly certain it was not you, Allen, who convinced them to change the rule. There is certainly a chorus of people out there that share your misguided view, and I'm guessing the casinos figured it wasn't worth the hassle. The claim that BSF causes a security risk which is significantly larger than any other re-entry format is absurd. Whenever players can re-enter, there is potential motivation for them to cheat and/or play sub-optimally towards the end of the day 1 flight. Elimination of BSF does not eliminate this threat.

That being said, even if most player who are opposed to BSF are opposed for no good reason, it doesn't mean it should be in effect. If fewer than 10 players actually took advantage of it in the Aria tourney, I see no reason to include it. The sheer appearance of a problem caused by the misinformation spread by you and others makes it not worth the trouble.

I already laid it out and like I said I have done 50+ of these events, playing to a percentage works and it works VERY well TBH. The only reason the last day went so late was the unfortunate amount of alternates we had.

If you've laid out the case somewhere in this thread, then I apologize. I'm not trying to be argumentative for arguments sake. But to just say something works well is insufficient. I'm glad you like it, but it works well for whom? What's so great about it? I have laid out two specific reasons why it does not work well.... A) It causes a disparity of play going into day 2 and B) it eliminates fewer players than the alternative, thus lengthening the tournament over what it would be otherwise. These are irrefutable and, at least I believe, pretty significant drawbacks. So I am assuming there must be some sort of tremendous upside to structuring the flights this way which you are being coy about revealing. If not, I hardly see how it can work "VERY well".

There IS no disparity going into day two and we revert to the lowest finishing blind level of all the heats plus average chips are the same. Getting into the money and deep into the money on day one is the goal so the tournament can be completed in two days.

It worked VERY well

Thread/

later chirps

According to your post #348...

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=348

flight 1C ended with 22:22 remaining in level 19
flight 1E ended with 38:42 remaining in level 21

No disparity? The flight 1E players played 1.5+ levels more of poker. The fact that everyone plays the same amount starting on day two (thankfully), doesn't change this.

As far as I can tell, the ONLY benefit to this format is that players have a chance to earn SOME money on day one. And your claim about the goal being to make sure the tournament finishes in two days is also questionable since this format necessitated that you STOP some flights short of where they might have otherwise have stopped. You could have had all flights play through level 20, thus eliminating some number of additional players. This would have led to a shorter tournament. How much shorter?... its hard to say. But clearly eliminating more players would have shortened it.

Now, I guess I can see how some players might view it as a benefit to be able to get some cash on the first day of play and not have to wait till day 2 (perhaps 4 or 5 days later) to even know if they will cash. And I know some players like survivor-like formats. But I don't think this minor benefit even comes close to justifying having any disparity in play, never mind more than 1.5 levels. Furthermore, I would bet that virtually no one who played this tournament did so exclusively because of this format feature. In other words, I think you would have gotten the same exact turnout without it.

I really think you need to rethink this aspect. The turbo inclusion is screwy in my opinion, but at least one can see an economic benefit to the feature (not as great as many might think, but certainly demonstrable). It seems there is really very little justification for the play-down format. If I'm missing something about why this format is so much better that it justifies its obvious drawbacks, feel free to set me straight.

Do you think it is an advantage or a disadvantage to play extra levels?

Akashenk for once makes a valid point. A skilled player getting the chance to play nearly 2 extra levels and then getting to replay those same levels again on day two has a definite advantage.

So no disadvantage having to play extra time to make day 2? bc you have said the extra levels are a disadvantage. They cant be both.

And a skilled player getting to sit to the left of a player who folds aces and shoves 32o has a definite advantage, but he has no way to choose that seat. That's how it's fair.

Disadvantaged weaker players trying to make the money and move on.

Doesnt every poker tournament disadvantage weaker players trying to make the money and move on? You worked to improve the PHo structures even tho that disadvantaged weaker players trying to make the money and move on, yeah?

All this talk of advantage and disadvantage misses the mark, IMO. Maybe someone can prove there is an advantage or disadvantage, but I think its highly dependent on circumstance. Some players may prefer the dynamics of shorter play. Some may prefer to play longer. I think Allen's contention that longer play is an advantage for better players is probably true, though I don't necessarily think this is the reason why this format is bad. There are lots of things about tournament structure that favor better players. This is probably the way its supposed to be.

However, once a tournament starts, there's this expectation, in my mind, that everyone is on as level a playing field as possible as far as the structure is concerned . That means everyone plays the same number of levels. You can't make it so everything is absolutely equal for everyone, of course. The TD cannot control whether or not every dealer is efficient, or how quickly players play. But they can control how many levels are played.

I mean, sheesh. If it becomes acceptable for two players to play a single day and end up playing as much as two levels more or less than each other, what's next? Should we have additional evening flights that don't start at the same level as the noon start. Maybe they should start at 200-400. The difference between 50-100 and 200-400 isn't even equivalent to the differences in play brought about by the disparity between level 19 and 21.

If there were a really compelling reason why this play down format was beneficial, maybe this disparity would be acceptable. And maybe one could even ignore the fact that it necessarily leads to a longer tournament. But I just don't see it, and no one, in particular the guy who is its biggest cheerleader, is able to explain that benefit.

it attracted a huge field as structured

I'm fairly certain the vast majority of entrants in this tournament didn't know anything about the play-down format ahead of time. There were people making numerous posts on this thread who didn't even know about it till long after it was explained.

I believe the huge field was attracted by the guarantee, and the guarantee only. If you would like to make some sort of argument about how playing a longer tournament with significant play duration disparities for its contestants (not to mention gutting the middle portion of the payout structure) is something that is attractive, by all means, go ahead.

I loved the turbo heat and I'd love if other tournaments did the same.

That would be a shame if it became reality, but the turbo heat is not what we're talking about.

Akashenk, can you confirm that you're a real person who's not posted ITT under a different account? link to your HendonMob?

??? What are you doing.... Dave?

The WPT500 format is back in November in the UK. I will play in at least Day 1D on November 14.

The FUN last-chance turbo on Day 1E has been improved to 20 minute blinds. I remember the 15 minute blinds at Aria were not enough to get a full orbit of hands before the blinds were up again, especially with clueless players forgetting to put in the ante every single hand or taking their time as if it was the WSOP Main Event with 120-minute blinds.

Unfortunately, it seems that the next WPT500 has become much worse:

- While WPT500 Aria had a maximum of six re-entries, it looks like WPT500 UK will keep charging the full rake for up to FOURTEEN re-entries.

- While Matt Savage ensured that the terrible SAME-day re-entry format was not used at WPT500 Aria and we could only re-enter for the next day, the Dusk Till Dawn casino is allowing same-day re-entry for all seven days of WPT500 UK.

- The last-chance Turbo flight used to have 20 minute blinds listed, but it has now been changed to only 15 minutes. This means that players won't even get to play a full orbit before the cost per round escalates yet again. Believe it or not, there is same-day re-entry or second last chance for this Turbo heat.

As Matt correctly said, “If you have multiple entries within the same heat of an event, you lose players in the cash games, you lose players in the satellites, and you might miss bringing them back to the tournament the next day. When players are blowing their bankrolls on one tournament, they’re not going to come back to play your other events.”

I'm not sure why any of these issues would cause fans of this event to fret. After all, the inclusion of the turbo even is "FUN". What does it matter if players don't actually get to play much poker?

And if given the option of having players re-buy right away or MAYBE go and play cash/other satellites/next day, the casino will choose right away every single time.