Mods, please do not delete this thread. WPT 500 tournament director Justin specifically requested that I start this thread to express my views on issues I have with this type of format, currently the rage in California and also being offered at the Aria this summer.

These are my views on this format, and that's what this forum stands for.


Rather than continually posting my objections to the WPT 500 in a thread dedicated to players attending it; the tournament director from Aria asked me to start a separate thread stating all my concerns.

I have nothing against Aria casino, the tournament director Justin, Matt Savage or the wpt. These are just my thoughts on what players should consider prior to entering the event.

A brief description of the event can be found here.

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2015/0...t500-21180.htm

"The event will feature a $565 buy-in and 10 starting flights. In 2014, the $1 million guarantee was nearly doubled after a prize pool of just shy of $1.8 million was generated from 3,599 entries. This year, more money will be awarded and it will all kick off on Sunday, May 31.

The remaining nine starting flights will then be spread out over the course of June and the beginning of July, with the final flight taking place as a turbo on Sunday, July 5 at 8 a.m. local time before Day 2 starts at 1 p.m. Day 3 will be the final table and take place on Monday, July 6."

"With 10 starting flights available, players will be allowed one reentry per day, plus the chance to play any and all starting flights. If a player who plays multiple starting flights advances to Day 2 in more than one instance, he or she will be able to carry the largest stack forward to Day 2."

They also employ a "pay as you advance" format.

There are several guaranteed payout points.

There will be a set min cash for day one flights.

From Justin:
"If you reach the top 12%-8.6% youll get $750. Top 8.5%-5.1% get $1000. Top 5% get an $800 bonus that day, and come back on Day 2 to play for more."

Here are my objections.

1) The scheduling is problematic. There are several series in Vegas running during the same dates that have "normal" schedules.

Invariably some players will enter one of the first wave of flights assuming it was a "normal" tournament, only to find out that they have to return over a month later to play day 2.

2) The event uses a "best stack forward" format. This format allows a player to play multiple flights and carry only their best stack forward.

This format has several issues.

Once you advance with a playable stack; several scenarios can arise when you enter subsequent flights. Even if you advance to day 2, your chips will have no value unless they exceed your previous qualified stack.

Here are a few scenarios to consider.

A player has advanced to day 2 and is playing a subsequent flight already in the money again. It's near the end of the round.

A) The player is guaranteed an extra $800 for advancing again to day 2. Their prior stack has more chips. They collect the extra $800, forfeit their stack, but pocket a few high denom chips to add to their already advancing stack during day two.

B) The Vegas tournament scene sees a lot of the same players entering similar buyin events. Often late in an event some players at the same table will know each other. Assume it's late on day one. Players are guaranteed $1000 and are playing to make day 2 and an additional $800. Player A has already advanced to day 2 in a prior flight with a playable stack, his friend Player B has not yet made day 2. It's near the end of the flight. Player A will have to forfeit all of their chips once the 5% number is reached but will receive an $800 bonus for advancing with even one chip. There is a huge incentive for Player A to dump all but a few of their chips to Player B during a hand between both players. Player A still gets their $800 for making day 2, and can make a deal with Player B for a percentage of whatever Player B ends up cashing for.

Matt has claimed to have run these events several times at commerce casino with no issues. Both scenarios described above are nearly impossible to detect and could go undetected hundreds of times before being caught.

3) Playing down to a set percentage of players rather than to a set level on each flight.

The wpt 500 plays down to different percentage of players remaining per flight, rather than the standard way of playing to the end of a given level.

The standard playdown system is completely fair. Each player plays the exact number of levels as their opponents before advancing to day 2.

The play down to a percentage system that this tournament employs has inherent flaws. Matt was kind enough to provide data from last years event.

As you can see below some players play one or even two levels more to reach the money and again later on to reach day 2.

Looking at the chart below; a player in one flight can make the money at 1500-3000. On another flight the same player would have to get all the way to 2500-5000 just to make the money. Players in the longer running flight actually can advance further than those in the shorter one and not even cash. Hitting the 5% mark to advance to day 2 and the $800 bonus ended anywhere from 4-8k all the way up to 6-12k limit.

Another issue is skill factor. Tournaments have players of various skill levels. Having players play different numbers of levels on a day one flight is a huge advantage to skilled players. If a skilled player enters every flight, they will have the opportunity to play extra levels against weaker players on some flights, thus having more chance to build up a stack for day 2.

Matt has said "well the averages are always the same when you play down to a certain percentage". Obviously the averages will be the same once they reach 5% of the field; but allowing some players to play one or more levels than others in the same event, and having some players cash at levels that others bust at, is inherently unfair.

Matt Savage:

"We are staying to the same percentage of players

Extreme example:
1,000 players, 5% advance, 50 players advance with an average of 300,000
100 players, 5% advance, 5 players advance with an average of 300,000

Again I have done this with numbers varying from 500 to 100 and and the average is the same, they finish around the same time and level, and the chip leader has come from both heats on different occasions. I you have some kind of statistical analysis that shows something different (which is impossible) than prove me wrong but you cannot because I have the data to prove it.

On the turbo heat they will play to a higher level that the others and whether it's an advantage or a disadvantage there is no proof and again I have done these before and the statistical data is that the average will be 300,000 and there is no advantage or disadvantage.

Here are the actual numbers from last year
Day 1A-433 Players
ITM Level 16 500-2K-4K 10:50pm
Finish at 1K-5K-10K 35:49 at 1:19am
Chip Leader 767,000

Day 1B-366 Players
ITM Level 16 500-2K-4K 10:46pm
Finish at 1K-4K-8K 4:23 at 1:15am
Chip Leader 1,143,000

Day 1C-457 Players
ITM Level 15 500-1,500-3,000 10:09
Finish at 1K-4K-8K 22:22 at 12:56am
Chip Leader 897,000

Day 1D-780 Players
ITM Level 16 500-2K-4K at 10:48pm
Finish at 1K-5K-10K 6:50 at 1:40am
Chip Leader 961,000

Day 1E- 879 Players
ITM Level 17 500-2,500-5K at 11:21
Finish at 2K-6K-12K 38:42 at 1:50am
Chip Leader 842,000

Day 1F (Turbo)-684 Players
ITM Level 19 1K-4K-8K at 12:37
Finish at 5K-15K-30K at 1:37pm
Chip Leader 865,000

3,599 Entries over the 6 heats
432 players in the money (12%)
180 players advanced to day 2 (5%)

Day 2 finished at 5:20am with NO DEAL being made"


4) My final objection is combining a turbo flight with the previous 9 standard flights and having all merge into day 2.

Not only are the individual 9 preceding flights playing to different limits and times, but now they are adding a turbo flight into the mix.

As you can see by the chart above, the turbo flight reaches the money and day 2 at much higher limits than the standard run flights. Again, of course as Matt said; the average stack will be the same, but allowing players to reach 15-30k in a turbo flight when other flights have ended as early as 4-8k is just asking for huge variance.

"Well this worked out last year" isn't a sufficient response to the huge chip stack discrepancies that this turbo flight can produce.


Those are my objections in a nutshell. I won't be playing this event. I offered this information so other players can make an informed decision.

This is not NVG BRO. put it in live tourney poker. B&M

collusion and pocketing chips are blatant cheating and should be treated as such....taking chips off the table at the end of day can be pretty easily policed...collusion is much more difficult...although if someone bets all but a couple chips on the river and gets raised and folds getting 100-1 on their money....I certainly think the floor might have the right to look into that.

As to the multiple starting flights over a month and the discrepancies in finishing points/stack sizes....it is YOUR responsibility to read the terms and conditions on the tourney sheet and know what you are playing.....if those terms aren't agreeable to you....don't plop down the $565 to play it.

While I understand and appreciate that you are well known as being the squeaky wheel that gets structures fixed and that's a noble thing.....ultimately all you can do is vote with your wallet....there are tons of players who will pay $565 for a shot at a 6 figure score....so your absence probably won't hurt the attendance much.

Actually i cross posted this on my Facebook. Many players had no idea of the exact rules of the event, and thanked me for pointing these things out.

Thats all i was trying to do.

Hi doublejoker:

Even though I hardly ever play a tournament, my comments are embedded below.

Best wishes,
Mason

You need to remember that the Aria Poker Room is a business. Perhaps they're doing this to keep poker customers coming to The Aria during the WSOP. I think they should have that option.

Again, this is their business model. I do agree that The Aria should make every effort to make sure that their customers understand this point.

I'll read on before making another comment.

Yes, this sounds to me like a potential problem, but couldn't this be fixed by using different chips on Day 2?

Okay.

I doubt that the second scenario would be undetected since I think that many players would complain. However, the culprits would of course deny that there was any wrong doing, and perhaps getting it resolved would be difficult. That's where a skillful tournament director, and I believe this describes Matt Savage, is important.

Actually it's not unfair. Suppose when comparing Day1A to Day1B one of these plays many more hands. But ahead of time, you don't know which of A or B that will be. So regardless of which day you choose, assuming you make it through, your expectation is to play the same number of hands.

What you're saying is only true given how you calculate advancing. In a standard tournament, you're certainly right, but this is a different format.

Another way of looking at it is this. Suppose in a regular tournament, the winner plays 500 hands. But in another regular tournament the winner plays 700 hands, and in each of these tournaments the buy-in is the same and the number of players is the same. Thus the prize for first place is also the same, but by your argument he should get more.

It seems to me the opposite would be true. That is the flights where more hands get played might have something to do with their being a larger number of skilled players. Thus the experts can't quickly crush their competition.

I would be open to hearing comments from others on this one. But keep in mind that probability based events are often counter-intuitive.

Perhaps with just one tournament like this, but over the long run of many tournaments shouldn't things average out? So the question becomes, how common are these tournaments or how common are these tournaments likely to become?

Okay

doublejoker, I'm not sure what your point is.

Perhaps I now see what you are talking about. Even though the average, in these examples of 300,000 may be the same, the variance (or standard deviation if you like) should be higher in the turbo. Thus the chip leader in the turbo is more likely to be the overall chip leader in the tournament, and this would not be fair.

These results don't show what I just said since the chip leader of the Turbo is not way in front of the other chip leaders. But the finishing stakes were higher so the potential is there for that to happen.

Okay

I addressed this above.

I agree that this can be a problem and again this was addressed above.

But if the turbo flight was dropped or the last flight was a regular flight rather than a turbo, I assume you would be okay.

Actually mason I came up with a resolution that would solve a large part of the issues im concerned with.

Just allow players to advance one time.

Only 5% of players advance in a given flight, and most of those never enter again to better their position.

Why create a potential problem by allowing those who already advanced to play again?

Too many bad situations can arise when certain players have an advanced stack to fall back on, while other players are still trying to advance for the first time.

Regarding Matt, or any tournament director for that matter; with events of this size its nearly impossible to have an all knowing, all seeing control over every hand played and every chip in an event.

Its nearly impossible to prove soft play, chip dumping or collusion as there are valid explanations for playing hands a variety of ways.

Here's a comment from steve gee. Respected high limit cash player and tournament pro.

Allen has brought up several valid issues, but the most egregious is the best stack forward with 10 different flights. This tournament format is so vulnerable to collusion and cheating that only the naive, blinded by huge guarantee, would play in an event like this. With so many flights and reentries I fail to see how casino can ensure integrity of all stacks moving forward. And the excuse that Matt has run several tournaments using this format with no issues is laughable. Just because cheaters have not been caught doesn't mean that cheating has not occurred in past or will not occur in future when there are so many vulnerable points in terms of security.

The only way to win is not to play

Matthew Broderick in war games.

actually I misremembered the exact line, it is : the only winning move is not to play

I agree with the concerns about the best stack forward aspect of this event (and any other that uses it). I do believe that running an event with that feature is just asking for players to cheat, and creating an incentive for them to do so.

However, I disagree completely with the concerns about each day one ending at a different time because they are playing to a percentage of the field rather than a set number of levels. I see no problem with this, as long as you are in the money when you finish each day 1. Nobody can gain an advantage by picking and choosing one starting day over another, so there is no problem with this format. I have seen it used successfully many times at different poker rooms. And many players prefer this format, as they know that if they make it back for day 2 and beyond, they are going to get paid, and not just come back to open-shove a short stack early on day 2 and maybe bust without making the money.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

What about merging a turbo flight with others into the same day two Greg.

Also good players who play all the flights eventually do have the advantage of playing extra levels vs weaker players.

I think the question of potential cheating is overblown given the relatively miniscule number of players who actually take advantage of BSF. And given that any re-entry format is going to provide some incentive for sub-optimal play or even cheating, I don't see removing BSF as some sort of guarantee there will be no collusion. That being said, I'm not sure a handful of extra rakes is really worth the trouble, or the appearance of trouble. There are plenty of people, some of them knowledgeable, others less so, who are convinced BSF presents a huge potential risk. What is the big upside of having it?

As for the uneven day one play-down format, at first I was completely against it. And I tend to agree with Allen that playing more day one levels will benefit certain players to the detriment of others. I don't really think its necessary to provide proof of which specific players will be benefitted (skilled, un-skilled, etc). Its just obvious that an uneven playing field is created, and tournament procedures like balancing tables, for instance, typically try to avoid uneven playing fields if they can. Therefore having a structure which specifically imposes imbalance is a bit odd. However, having gone back and forth on this issue with others in different threads, it was eventually explained that playing down to a percentage below the typical 12% is necessary (due to space limitations) in order to accommodate the combination of so many day 1s. And having so many day 1s is necessary in order to provide such a large guarantee for such a small buy-in. So in the end, the promotional aspects of the tournament probably necessitate the introduction of the play-down imbalance. I'll leave it to potential patrons to decide if the big guarantee/small buy-in combination is worth the imbalance.

The inclusion of a turbo flight is more problematic, IMO. Its not necessarily a show-stopper or anything like that, but if it became a trend instead of an exception, I think it would damage the game by furthering it down the road of becoming little more than another game of chance instead of the intellectual and skillful pursuit I think most of us feel it is. I understand why a casino might like the inclusion of a turbo flight. Its a pure money-grab. and I am usually perfectly willing to accept many of the measures a casino will implement in order to improve their bottom line. They are a business, and poker players tend to forget that. However, there are lines that can be crossed.

I think most of us, whether we like the format or not, recognize that re-entry tournaments are the norm now, and I think most of us understand why. But that doesn't mean there should be unlimited re-entry at any point in a tournament. That would be crossing a line. So there is some reasonable limit which can be imposed which would both serve the casino's needs and not alienate more traditional-thinking players.

Inclusion of a turbo flight comes awfully close to crossing the line. The pace of play is one of the fundamental intrinsic characteristics which differentiates tournaments from one another. Its critical to the determination and proper execution of strategy... in other words, the application of skill. And that is what sets poker apart from other gaming activities, at least historically. There are things a TD could do to entice even more entries which I think (hopefully) we would all find un-kosher. They could have a flight where players just cut cards, the highest cards advancing to day two. They could have coin-flipping flights. I mean, if the idea is to cram as many entries in within a small amount of time, I'm sure there are lots of creative things TDs could do. My aim is not to equate a turbo flight with these other "flight ideas". Its just to say that a turbo flight is a step in that direction.

Just like with the play-down imbalance, potential customers will have to decide whether the inclusion of the turbo flight is or is not enough to make them not want to play the tourney. And I am not even saying that it would preclude me from playing it, depending on what alternatives there were. But I do hope it remains the exception rather than the rule. Because continuing down that path might turn this game into something unrecognizable, and probably not worth fussing over when it comes to things like structure.

One easy fix to alleviate a lot of the issues is just to allow a player only to make day 2 once.

Another way would be to have 2 of these each with a milly GTD one beginning of June, one beginning of July.

I was planning to play this but now that I know Day 2 is mid july I won't.

That option wouldn't work. They want a bigger prizepool to promote their brand.

They would also need 5-6 starting days to have a $1MM guarantee at the $565 level buy-in. It likely wouldn't work scheduling-wise, particularly with all the other stuff going on in the earlier timeframe.

Scheduling flight 1a against day 2of colossus where at least 3000 of their potential customers have advanced wasn't a great idea.

Was it bad for PHo to schedule their $565 against Day 2 of Colossus too? Isn't the more important thing the 10,000 or so people who are busted or who got shut out but are in town, not the 3k or so who advanced to Day 2? Also, with the original Day 2 Colossus start time, they would have been able to capture some of the Day 2 early bustouts. Obviously with the new 5pm start, that won't happen.

I'm tired of all the players who get an unfair advantage by getting a soft table draw.

Everyone should have to play everyone at the same time.

But ph is an ongoing series. Aria is only 5 flights. They could have avoided the conflict completely by starting a day later. Just my opinion.

I will make a friendly wager against you on which Aria flight has more entrants, tomorrow or Monday's, which doesn't conflict with Colossus. $100, cash payout at the Rio this week?

I want tomorrow's.

Sunday rates to be higher. More rec players

So you agree they will get more people Sunday than Monday but think they should have waited til Monday to start?

I think you still owe me from our monster stack over under bet from last year.