Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Aces 518
I agree that it is an oversimplification to say if you care about profit you aren't a 'rec', but I think akashenk's post was a gross oversimplification as well to say you aren't a 'rec' unless you are willing to give up some structure to get in the money faster.
Most recs that I interact with want slower structures (although it is usually phrased in a MOAR CHIPS way). Over 7000 entrants in the Monster Stack also disproves that 'recs' want faster tournaments generally.
Certainly, some prefer faster tourneys, but many want deeper stacks and slower tourneys.
I don't think I would ever claim that all recs want this or that. Excuse me if it came across that way. "Recs" are not a monolith, any more than any other group are. However, I do think there are some general characteristics which the majority of recs share, and these primarily revolve around the place poker has in their lives compared to regulars.
As for the MS, a single tournament does not prove or disprove anything. However, this tourney was really popular because it broke the mold for $1500 events at the WSOP. It appealed to both recs (as I have defined them), and regulars. I suspect it will not be as popular this year because of the scheduling change. And frankly, those regulars or others looking for the slowest possible structure could and probably should gravitate towards the marathon, so that too may take away from the MS this year.
As for me, like I said I am not a typical rec. My occupation affords me a great deal of flexibility and time when it comes to traveling to Vegas, or posting on 2+2. However, I don't play poker for a living. I guess I'm somewhere in between. Nevertheless, I do gravitate towards tourneys that I feel will have lots of recs in them. I feel like this is beneficial both from a competition standpoint and also from a prize pool (ROI) standpoint. I feel like tourney schedulers should do everything in their power, all else being equal, to make their events attractive to rec players. Unfortunately, I see that many TDs have begun doing the opposite, and attempt to make up for lost revenue by introducing concepts like unlimited rebuys. If they didn't make poor scheduling choices, they wouldn't have to resort to such tactics.
And lastly, I don't see why one has to be for slow tourneys or fast tourneys. I am certainly not a proponent of fast tourneys. I don't believe I have ever paid more than 250 for a single day tourney, and I never play turbos. I feel like 30 minute blinds and skipping of multiple traditional levels for buy-ins $500+ is borderline criminal. That being said, I don't think playing for two full days before the money is reached in anything but a "special" event like the WSOP ME represents a good use of anyone's time. Fortunately, there's a happy medium which can be achieved. Tournaments can easily be structured so that players start with a good amount of chips to avoid early pitfalls, and play reaches the money in 1.5 days or less, and the tourney wraps up in 3 days or less.