New article by Mike Lacey - The rise of re-entry events

[MM]

A new article has been published on the website:

The rise of re-entry events by Mike Lacey

[MattF]

Re-entries are no different from rebuys mathematically and they give no more advantage to those with deep pockets than normal tournaments.

Happily many stupid people believe otherwise.

[ruffjustice]

Murder playing a "nifty" comp until 6 in the morning though. re-entries i cant stand them.

Not saying where but a punter done £2500 in a 100 re-entry, a few weeks back. your playing for 2 hours and not lost 1 single runner.

Nice money if you cash but 10,11 hours is murder for a smallish field.

[Grafter]

[StGilmore]

Maybe I'm figuring it wrong - but it seems to me rebuys have to be different maths-wise than re-entries.

I like re-entry T's - was glad to have the choice to re-enter a GPS, and though I didn't improve, enough do (Monty!!!)

But rebuys are: no extra juice but bigger prize pool, if you run well in the re-buy period (2-3 BI's including the add-on) you've paid the min to get the max. Many re-buy R's have a guarantee that meets or even exceeds those offered for the same money in freezeouts if you can get there with 3BI's.
_________________
"I find it's best to start the day with no composure and then you've got nothing to lose." B. Boatman

http://midlifepoker.blogspot.com/
http://outthescammers.blogspot.com/

[DCSW7]

[Alex B]

Who cares if people with deep pockets have an 'advantage'?

I don't think they do any way.

People with an edge have an advantage, people with an edge and deep pockets have a bigger advantage. Fish with deep pockets spend more
_________________
http://www.alexbowler.com

[bergeroo]

How can you have an article about re-entry tournaments without mentioning re-entry vs rebuy and how with re-entry you have to pay the juice every time. This article was obviously written by someone who runs poker tournaments!

[kungfu panda]

Being an organiser and tournament director I can see the merits of the re-entry system from the business point of view, i.e. the extra entry fees, the increase in the prize pools thus making the event more attractive in the future, keeping eliminated players at the event who might have left if this facility wasn’t available and hopefully take part in other games from which the organiser can make more revenue.

Before reading on let me make it very clear this is not an attack on Mike Lacey and his business. I know Mike and have worked for him on a couple of occasions( although after this I mightn’t be getting too many offers from him) it is just my view on his article on the Hendon Mob site and is in no way meant to insult or demean the great work he and his partner have done to promote and encourage poker.

While Mike says it benefits the players who play the live circuit as it reduces their travel expenses by being able to play in the next main event the following day at the same venue, I would question this as being a “benefit” to all the players in the tournament. I would contest that it only benefits those that can afford and opt to do so. Whilst it does give those players that have travelled to the event the chance to stay involved is it really good for the game? It may be good for the business, but for the game I don’t think so. If 25% of the players eliminated on day 1a rebuy what does it say about the other 75% (the majority)?

Giving players a “second shot at the main event” only benefits those that wish to avail of it and the operators. It does not, in my opinion, benefit those who did not avail of this facility as they may find themselves up against a player they already took a gamble with and eliminated earlier on in the tournament and then have this same player eliminate them from the tournament, possibly at a key stage of it, like the bubble. The only benefit I can see to these players is that it does increase the prize fund for them. With regards to the prize pool distribution I think players are entitled to, and want, better prizes when they make the money and this is something that is not as “cut and dry” as Mike may think. To sit and play an event for 2, 3 or 4 days or more, only to receive a sum slightly more than originally invested is not, I think, everyone’s idea of good value and a worthwhile endeavour.

I have always maintained that freeze out tournament poker is as close as we can get to having a level playing field for all and after that it’s down to luck and skill. We can’t do anything about how players get their money to play or how deep their pockets are to allow them to play, some are even sponsored. These are all factors as to how a player approaches the game, if he gets his entry money easier than others or can afford it more than others then he can certainly take more risks and this is an advantage we can’t control, but we can certainly limit this edge by sticking to the true freeze-out format and when they are eliminated they are eliminated for good which I think is the fairest way for all.

I am probably going out on a limb here, and almost certainly going against the majority of organisers and promoters in the business, but I don’t think that re-entry tournaments are good for the game, if we want to keep players around or in the game longer then why not just make them re-buy tournaments.


I do understand that hosting these events is expensive for the operator and why they encourage the re-entry system to help cover their overheads, but is it good for the game? My answer would have to be “No”.

In trying to give some justification to the re-entry system let me just make the following point. The game is changing and not necessarily for the better with the introduction of certain rules. Poker tournaments are no longer only about providing prize pools to be won or lost, they are about entertainment and there are costs that are incurred in providing this form of entertainment which the industry standard of 10% no longer cuts it in low level tournaments (less than €500 buy-in) and the players that try to make a living from the game have got to understand this. In the days gone by traditionally poker tournaments were held in casinos and they were looked upon as loss leaders to get the punters in and hopefully they would migrate to the cash games or more importantly the gaming tables. With the emergence of operators like D4 Events the tournaments were taken out of this environment and hosted in hotels or similar venues and so the operator had to make these profitable by increasing the reg. fees substantially more than the casinos were charging and also encouraging side events and side games (cash games) to make their business profitable. This does not always work out for the operator, if they don’t get the side events or more importantly the side games they have no other way of covering their overheads never mind make a profit and so they look for new ways of covering their overheads and hence the emergence of the re-entry tournament, an understandable but not necessarily good change to the game.

At the end of the day, I suppose the whole crux of the debate is not whether re-entry tournaments are good for the game or not, but whether or not players care enough about playing in this type of tournament. I have worked at these tournaments as part of my job and now I have made my view known and it would be interesting to hear what players think, so over to you, the players.

[darrensprengers]

if you are playing a tournament and cannot afford to rebuy in the next day 1 then you are not using correct bank roll management and should play smaller tournaments. this approach will clearly favour real poker players using correct bank roll managements in tournaments they feel they have an edge it at the entry level they can afford.

the point about travel costs is relevant as you are effectively entering two tournaments out of your planned schedule.
_________________
The next best thing to gambling and winning is gambling and losing.

-- Nick "The Greek" Dandalos

[stowjon]

I really want to disagree with you KungFu Panda! but i cant.
i cant say im a fan of the re-entry but then again im not opposed to it.
I think one of the appeals of the IPO for me is that its not re-entry.
_________________
"There's not enough hippies to save our lives, We need more hippies"

[stowjon]

[Alex B]

[stowjon]

[darrensprengers]