Tourney Allow Late Buy-in? (1 Viewer)

There are ICM calculators that are available and just play around with them a bit? Or read the white papers if you’re a math guy?
ICM calculators are good for chops, as everyone is now getting paid. But when there are limited payouts, starting with fewer chips is still a disadvantage. Yes, you have an advantage over players with fewer chips, but so what? An advantage over 60% of the field, and a disadvantage over 40% of the field when 20% are being paid out is still a disadvantage.
 
ICM calculators are good for chops, as everyone is now getting paid. But when there are limited payouts, starting with fewer chips is still a disadvantage. Yes, you have an advantage over players with fewer chips, but so what? An advantage over 60% of the field, and a disadvantage over 40% of the field when 20% are being paid out is still a disadvantage.

I should have clarified that late registration is an advantage in non-bounty tournaments. Late regging into a bounty tournament, when bounties have been removed from the prize pool that you don’t have a chance to win, is lighting money on fire.

As to ICM, heres some samples from one calculator. You can see the prizes are constant, and total chips is 100,000.

At start: $100
133CFD15-3F25-4A44-B563-ECD1AFAF0F86.png

After some chips have been moved around but everyone still in: $101.50
5DFCE30E-ACAE-4F95-9FEB-8854DDB8EE4F.png

After two bustouts and more chip dispersion: $105
9E6909F4-7A00-489D-B2D1-6311AEFCAAAC.png

After 4 bustouts, still 3 off from the money, and buying in as THE short stack: $109
DECFCD70-B988-4985-B919-EF9E2AAFD74F.png
 
I should have clarified that late registration is an advantage in non-bounty tournaments. Late regging into a bounty tournament, when bounties have been removed from the prize pool that you don’t have a chance to win, is lighting money on fire.

As to ICM, heres some samples from one calculator. You can see the prizes are constant, and total chips is 100,000.

At start: $100
View attachment 323193

After some chips have been moved around but everyone still in: $101.50
View attachment 323195

After two bustouts and more chip dispersion: $105
View attachment 323215

After 4 bustouts, still 3 off from the money, and buying in as THE short stack: $109
View attachment 323214
Again, ICM is the fallacy. It's a mathematically built concept that has no real world implication in tournament victory. ICM assumes everyone is getting paid. That simply isn't true. If the top 3 get paid, only the top 3 stacks have an advantage. Everyone else is at a disadvantage.

I will accept that if the late buy-in puts you into the top 3 you are better off being late.

Example: player 1 wins every hand, and all the other players have lost hands. "Larry Late Entry" shows up now and buys in with a full stack. Larry is now sitting in 2nd, and has an advantage over the rest of the field - but is starting at a large disadvantage for finishing first. However, this is an unlikely example, and not one that Larry could exploit by continual tardiness.
 
ICM doesn't assume everyone gets paid -- it calculates the *equity* of every player (not the same thing) based on changing variables.

Numbers don't lie.
 
I've always looked at it this way, which may or may not be true: If you're a good player you should play from the very start. You get more time to capitalize on your skill and playing deep is to your advantage. If you're a bad player you should enter as late as possible. The less time that's left of the tournament the more luck comes into play, which is what you want. Also, the shorter the stacks the better.

However, a major flaw in this reasoning is that big time pros regularly buy in late, so I just don't know... :tdown:

Very interesting to see the ICM numbers, though!
 
I've always looked at it this way, which may or may not be true: If you're a good player you should play from the very start. You get more time to capitalize on your skill and playing deep is to your advantage. If you're a bad player you should enter as late as possible. The less time that's left of the tournament the more luck comes into play, which is what you want. Also, the shorter the stacks the better.

However, a major flaw in this reasoning is that big time pros regularly buy in late, so I just don't know... :tdown:

Very interesting to see the ICM numbers, though!
I think one of the big reasons pros buy in late is because they are frequently in another event, as I gathered from Daniel Negreanu's blog this year.
 
ICM doesn't assume everyone gets paid -- it calculates the *equity* of every player (not the same thing) based on changing variables.

Numbers don't lie.
Let's break this down to One Card Poker (as Nash did). High card wins.

64 players, all-in every hand. $100 per player, 1st takes it all. T1000 to start. Player 1 has T63,000. You buy in late and have T1000. ICM says you have equity. (you do). I say you are going to lose (you probably will).

You say you have the advantage, because you bought in late? :confused
 
so it's takes only 6 consecutive all in to be even and 7 to win?
Easy!
It took 20 consecutive all-in to Gus Hansen to be known as nuts


big reasons pros buy in late

Phil Hellmuth said once that was to avoid a large field with stupids and tourists that will playing a tournament on a coin flip, by showing up late the risk is reduced as those stupids were already busted by someone else.
 
Let's break this down to One Card Poker (as Nash did). High card wins.

64 players, all-in every hand. $100 per player, 1st takes it all. T1000 to start. Player 1 has T63,000. You buy in late and have T1000. ICM says you have equity. (you do). I say you are going to lose (you probably will).

You say you have the advantage, because you bought in late? :confused
No ICM at all if winner take all.
 
Does the math change if there are 2 spaces paid out, with the late player buying in for T1000, against Player 2 and 3 each sitting with T63,000?

If you buy in with a shorter stack, you have less of a chance against players with more chips. This isn't rocket science. More chips are better.
 
Does the math change if there are 2 spaces paid out, with the late player buying in for T1000, against Player 2 and 3 each sitting with T63,000?

Let’s put player 2 and 3 at 31,500 each to maintain the idea of 64 original players. And if you are paying out 2nd, the math changes a lot. You still have the same chance to win % (it’s just your chips divided by total chips so 1 out of 64). So no advantage to get the 1st place prize. However, the chance to win 2nd place is NOT 1 in 64 as it was for the other 63 players. It’s almost double that. Close to 1 in 35.

That’s the crucial concept - buying in later gives you the same shot at 1st, but a built in advantage for all other prizes.
 
Players 2 and 3 still have a significant advantage to take 2nd, but I see there can be no convincing each other.

We need to make a meet-up together. Me, you and Mrs Zombie. $100 each. $200 first, $100 second. Me and Mrs Zombie will start out with T31,000, you with T1000. High card flips. You are obviously in, as you have a "significant advantage".
 
Players 2 and 3 still have a significant advantage to take 2nd, but I see there can be no convincing each other.

We need to make a meet-up together. Me, you and Mrs Zombie. $100 each. $200 first, $100 second. Me and Mrs Zombie will start out with T31,000, you with T1000. High card flips. You are obviously in, as you have a "significant advantage".

Y’all need to be in for $3100 each, and it would make the prize pool something like $5000/$1300. Not sure when the next meetup for me is though
 
Y’all need to be in for $3100 each, and it would make the prize pool something like $5000/$1300. Not sure when the next meetup for me is though
If we pay for all the busted out players, we would be dead even. No advantage for anybody. Like betting one number on Roulette if the zeros were pushes and we paid 36x on a win. You are unlikely to win, but a lucky hit evens the odds long term.

I don't deny that a late buy-in has an advantage over players that bought in on time and busted out or lost part of their stack. They had an equal advantage and then lost it. The late buy in though, has a tougher time trying to score the win. Pros may not care (because they're better), but on a pure luck/flip scenario it is a zero-sum gain.

At any rate, while I always try to show up on time (I have never been late to a home poker tournament), if I arrived and found out I had a smaller starting stack than everyone else, I would not buy-in.
 
If we pay for all the busted out players, we would be dead even. No advantage for anybody.

Start stacks of 10k/10k/1k, buy-in of $200/$200/$20. And the prize pool is 220 for 1st, 200 for 2nd. You think it’s even. I think that I have a $7 advantage. I’m happy to pay you each $2 to play this game, as many times as you like. If I’m right, I’m making $3 a game. 15% edge. If you’re right, I’m losing $4 a game.

We can also do this in Microsoft excel for no stakes if you are more of a “seeing is believing” type....
 
..."Larry Late Entry" shows up now and buys in with a full stack. Larry is now sitting in 2nd, and has an advantage over the rest of the field - but is starting at a large disadvantage for finishing first. However, this is an unlikely example, and not one that Larry could exploit by continual tardiness.

I'm highly offended by this unwarranted abuse...
 
Didn't read much past @moose 's post.
My comment is that if you are going to allow late entries*, then you should allow re-entries* and also allow people to resign their stack and reenter*.

Resignation to re-enter is much, much better than having stack dumping to re-enter.

* - at whatever point in the tourney this is allowed - usually first break.
 
Start stacks of 10k/10k/1k, buy-in of $200/$200/$20. And the prize pool is 220 for 1st, 200 for 2nd. You think it’s even. I think that I have a $7 advantage. I’m happy to pay you each $2 to play this game, as many times as you like. If I’m right, I’m making $3 a game. 15% edge. If you’re right, I’m losing $4 a game.

We can also do this in Microsoft excel for no stakes if you are more of a “seeing is believing” type....
It sounds as if you agree the late buy-in is at a disadvantage to win, as long as they are risking less than the player(s) in the lead. In reality, the leader pays the same amount to enter the tournament.
 
It sounds as if you agree the late buy-in is at a disadvantage to win, as long as they are risking less than the player(s) in the lead. In reality, the leader pays the same amount to enter the tournament.

I do not agree and I am not sure why you got that impression. I think the late buy-in is at an advantage to win all prizes other than 1st, and even money to win 1st place. I am comparing this to an original entry in every case, because that is what we are talking about - Is it an advantage to enter early vs late.

You had a scenario where you started with more chips, so you gotta pay more. I know that in a normal scenario the leader pays the same amount, but they also start with the same amount of chips.
 
You had a scenario where you started with more chips, so you gotta pay more. I know that in a normal scenario the leader pays the same amount, but they also start with the same amount of chips.
But I don't pay more to enter a tournament. Everyone starts with the same amount of chips, and pays the same amount to enter. Changing that basic truism alters the entire dynamic of the scenario.
 
Like I said, the numbers don't lie. Sorry Zombie, but you're wrong on this one.
 
I accept that I'm wrong if math is involved. I just dont see buying in for less as an advantage. If playing fewer hands was so advantageous, wouldn't you leave the table every hand, except when you were the blinds (or paying an ante)? Other players will get eliminated, you'll move up. I don't see that as an advantage. Yet I'm being told that coming in late (missing hands) is beneficial.
 
In the article about Hallaert's consideration, and when using ICM in all but chop situations, the big qualifier that I see is the phrase 'excepting for skill', or there abouts.

If your decisions have a positive additive value, why would you want to make less of them?
That is the skill part.

I suppose that if your decisions have a negative additive value, then you would be better off making less of them. I guess that's why people who make poor decisions often prefer like to play no-limit. Being able to jam and be done making decisions limits the downside, and the stress, of making poor ones.
 
I should add that I am generally in favor of having some provision for late buy-in/rebuy/re-entry, but they should be capoed at some reasonable about of time; like a couple hours/first break.
 
Why not? I dont see how it hurts to have one or two show up late.

You have 10 players sitting at a table and somebody unexpectedly shows up 20 minutes after the tournament starts. Now you have to squeeze everybody on one table or move a bunch of people to a second table.

You have 20 players sitting at two tables and no room for a third table. Somebody unexpectedly shows up 20 minutes late. Pain in the butt!!!

Not to mention that you, as TD, have to pause your game to get the player a stack of chips, take his/her money, and randomly determine which seat he/she takes.

Also, what if everybody decided it was OK to show up late? It’s simply rude and very poor form.
 
You have 10 players sitting at a table and somebody unexpectedly shows up 20 minutes after the tournament starts. Now you have to squeeze everybody on one table or move a bunch of people to a second table.

You have 20 players sitting at two tables and no room for a third table. Somebody unexpectedly shows up 20 minutes late. Pain in the butt!!!

Not to mention that you, as TD, have to pause your game to get the player a stack of chips, take his/her money, and randomly determine which seat he/she takes.

Also, what if everybody decided it was OK to show up late? It’s simply rude and very poor form.
I'll add...
  • Chip sets. I have a set that can only handle 14 players. If player #15 shows, I need to change out chipsets, or everyone is treated to a night of change making.
  • Food/beverage considerations. I try to be a good host, but I hate cooking food for someone that isn't going to eat. I also hate not having enough. Just make a commitment, stick to it, and be on time.
 
I'll add...
  • Chip sets. I have a set that can only handle 14 players. If player #15 shows, I need to change out chipsets, or everyone is treated to a night of change making.
  • Food/beverage considerations. I try to be a good host, but I hate cooking food for someone that isn't going to eat. I also hate not having enough. Just make a commitment, stick to it, and be on time.

I suppose, for those, it doesn’t really matter if they are late or not. It’s still, just rude not to RSVP, but you are right. It’s even more rude to not RSVP and show up late.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom