Just based on some of the posts here, I think the numbers are a bit down, with the exception of a few events which seem to have a small uptick in entries, though a downtick in unique entrants.

Elsewhere in Vegas, it seems like most of the other series are doing quite well.

I set o/u at 1200 and picked the under and got it wrong just based on last years $2500 NL buyin event even though it was not a Soltice event.

Is there any chance you or someone else might know roughly how many runners those 8pm MEGAs have been getting? Is there any site that keeps up w those numbers?

I understand this sentiment. If you fire 2 or 3 bullets and if a min cash is only 1.5x then you will lose money if you min cash. But you need to think of each bullet as an entry into a new tournament. If you fire 4 bullets and min cash, you just need to think of it as min cashing 1 time in 4 events. When you rebuy, the seat at the table does not know you are a new player or an existing player doing a re-entry. Therefore, min cash thresholds based on % of field paid should be done by total number of buyins, not uniques. So an event paying 10% of the field with 100 uniques and 50 re-entries should pay 15 places. In theory you could have 100 uniques and 1000 re-entries which means 110 would be paid. In that case you pay all 100 and just spread the extra money to all places.

In general, I feel most events at any casino generally pay about 20% too much to 1st for field sizes over 300 players. Here is an example of how the millionaire maker at wsop which had 7761 entries and paid 1.2 mil for 1st could be paid if you just fixed 1st at a flat 1 mil. Note the gap from 1st to 2nd is reduced by over 200k and only 1st takes a real hit and 1161 of 1165 players get a pay increase, most from 100 to 1000 extra. While it might not seem much, it adds up and allows more money to cycle thru the poker economy than having an extra 220k going to a guy already getting 1 mil and having it taxed at almost 40% vs. taxed at 10-20% at the lower payout levels.

I played in what I believe was the first installment of this tournament back in 2015. It was called the "Extended Play." It had a little over 1,900 entrants. I loved the structure and found the quality of player much higher than the standard $1k or $1.5k WSOP event.

I agree min-cash % should be based on buy-in, not # entries or uniques. And that number should be fairly high... at least 1.75x buy in if not a bit more.

However, I still think 1st place % should be based on uniques more that total entries, or the % should be much higher than the 11% in the MM, or the 6% in the Colossus that first year. These things ought to be top-heavy to bring in the recs.

I hadn't thought about tax implications. Of course, it depends on the individual, and doesn't matter for sums over 380K, or whatever the top threshold is. But, I wonder if there would be a way to figure in the tax table so that each payout represents the optimum amount. Since the thresholds and tax rates are known, it seems like this would be possible to figure into the formula. A venue that did this would stand out.

I thought this year's Marathon would have just about the toughest NLH field in the series, at least out of the large-field events. Haven't heard much about it in this thread from participants, though.

Did not look at the breakdown on Seniors, but it was a very sizeable increase compared to last year. Not sure that level of increase can be attributed solely to this being the first year of re-entry...close to 5400 runners compared to (I believe) ~4400 last year.

That being said...I much more enjoyed the play of the Aria $465 Seniors (20K starting) and even the PHo $600 (also 20K starting) than I did the 5K starting stack at WSOP.

I would be interested in hearing how the Marathon plays against The Monster Stack from anyone who has played both. Given the Marathon is another $1,120 and levels are 40 minutes longer is it a better overall structure or does the extra buy in negate the structure advantage, etc it might have?

Just a heads up; if you wired monies and attempt to withdraw, it's either chips or wire back. I had withdraw in previous years and it was in cash; in my case no problem, just went to the cashier in 2 stops and cashed in $1500 .

If you value patience, then of course the Marathon in a better structure. However, the money bubble wasn't bust until early on day three, so it definitely was a lengthy tourney (which I guess fits given the name)

posted this in a diff wsop 2017 thread on this forum but gonna repost here...


1) what's the difference between purchase and cash advance when paying with cc?

2) i purchased my ticket online for monster stack, but did so to avoid long lines as i heard big fields have super long lines, but it looks like we still have to go to the WSOP total rewards/fasttrac area to check in and get out table/seat. I arrive the morning of and am wondering if I will get screwed over time wise? anyone have any insight on how long this checkin process will take?

3) anyone know if wsop will send a bunch of promos and crap via mail if we register online? is there a way to opt out?

thanks

Cash advance typically charges significant fees and/or large amounts of immediately accruing interest, whereas a purchase is same as if you go into any store and buy something. A cash advance is basically a very high interest loan. The reason casino transactions are typically classified as cash advances is because otherwise you could buy chips as a purchase and then exchange them immediately for cash, giving yourself a free loan for the month, but since you can't cash out from a tournament, some places are good enough to classify them as purchases.

Question about Crazy 8s WSOP event. Are 8s wildcards? Or is it just 8 handed and buyin is $888?

Cash advances on a card can OCCASIONALLY incur additional fees (such as when you take it from an ATM), although the card-specific fee is usually five-percent or less. The Vegas ATM cash advances out of machines gouge people far more than if, for example, you went to the bank and did a cash advance at the counter.

Interest begins accumulating immediately, often at a higher rate than purchases, and because of structures on many cards, mean that any additional purchases may take longer to pay off outside of paying the card in full ASAP.

I've had occasions where I was deciding at the last minute to go directly from the office to the airport to play overnight in NOLA and hit the bank downstairs because it was easier than going to the house (and MUCH less cheaper than doing it onsite at Harrahs NOLA). It was worth the 5% to save the hour of time. Make a payment online while at the airport and interest was next to nothing...

That being said, if the WSOP or other properties began coding cards as a cash advance for tournies, then I would likely suck it up and wire funds since I hate carrying more than a few thousand in currency.

see above

Lines at the TR desk are not bad unless you wait until an hour before the event. If the event starts at 11A and you were there around 9-930A, then you likely have about ten minutes or so in line if the Seniors event was any indication.

I've not seen a bunch of WSOP material. Caesars/TR sends stuff out daily but you can opt out. Most of the email offers are not really that good for the Vegas CET properties, or at least the ones I have seen are not.

thanks for the response. anyone have same experiences? i unfortunately land an hour before the event so think i might be getting screwed over a bit...

I actually was not planning on playing the marathon but ended up playing because I decided not to play Colossus and could not commit to the week after Monster so i decided to go the week from MM to the next weekend. When I did not make day 2 of MM, I was there with nothing else of interest to play on that Monday and Tuesday. I even went to window, put my marathon buyin down and then backed out. I thought of playing the limit first and then buying into the marathon if I busted the limit. After thinking about my options, I decided to skip limit and buy into the marathon to take full advantage of the deep structure of the tournament.

Don't get me wrong, I like deepstack play but this one just seemed too long with 100 minute levels. Playing two full days without making money was the major turnoff for me. I really didn't want to play 3 days and min cash. Day 1 & 2 were 12 hours, day 3 was 14 hours and I busted 8 hours into day 4. The field was very tough throughout. I did enjoy it but it was a grind by day 4.

I usually play 10-15 tournies including Main Event every year so I have played deep before. The most fun was playing deep (19 hours for me) while in money.

IMO, The tournament would be better if levels were reduced to 90 minute levels (maybe even 75 minute levels) with same $26k ss and exact same blind structure. With 90 minute levels, the money bubble could burst at end of day 2. Other than that, it was a great tournament if you are willing to put the time in.

Your comments are pretty much why I avoided it. If I had only one tourney to play, it would be attractive. But it seemed like a big time commitment to compete against a tough field in a relatively small tourney (compared to the Monster Stack, for instance)

No wildcards. 8 handed, $888 buy-in, $888,888 guaranteed to first place.

4542 uniques in 2017 wsop seniors vs 4499 uniques in 2016 (and no re-entry)
270 re-entries in the super seniors event.

Has anybody else noticed people at the tables taking secret pictures of other players while they are playing? I saw two players do this today during day 2 of the venetian 2 mill. The first guy forgot to turn off the flash, was pretty funny.

Here is a look on how paying less to 1st would lower the tax rate on last year's wsop main event. The tax savings would be $550,000 or about $544 per cashing player. Only 6 places take a pay cut and 853 get a pay jump. While 1st taking a 2.35 mil cut might seem excessive, (only 1.42 mil cut after 39.6% tax rate) he still would get 5.6 mil which means he will still never have to work again. While 450 players will see a 9%+ pay jump.

The flatter payout reduces that crazy $3.3 mil jump from 2nd to 1st to a more reasonable $1.4 million. And you still have over 35% of the prize pool going to just 9 players out of 6737 which is still a LOT of money if you think about it.

What accounts for the discrepancies in the shootout chipcounts?

some tables are not full.