Tourney Quantum Reload Tournaments - Good Or Bad For Poker? (1 Viewer)

[Anthony Martino]

Within the past few years there's been a change in some guaranteed poker tournaments where players are being allowed to buy into Day 2 for a higher price than playing on Day 1, and being given a decent sized stack.

As an example, you could buy into Day 1 for $300 and get 25K chips or pay $1500 on Day 2 and get a 250K stack.

Or you could buy in for $1100 on Day 1 or $4,000 on Day 2, etc.

These changes really favor the deep-pocketed pros, and I think are long-term negative for poker. The whole appeal to draw in the recreational players is that they can come in and compete with the pros and have a chance to win.

The change from Freezeouts to Rebuys and Re-Entry events already gives an additional edge to seasoned pros who can fire multiple bullets while the recreational player may only have 1 bullet or may have won a satellite seat in.

Now the pros can play super nutso on Day 1's even more, taking risks the 1 bullet players can't afford to try and build up a monster stack. And if they fail to do so, they can just buy into Day 2 with a decent sized stack.

It's really the wrong direction, in my opinion, for poker to be taking. In my local Tampa market I've noticed a disturbing trend now where 1st place is paying more than 2nd and 3rd combined, not sure when that shift started but it's just getting ridiculous. The vast majority of events in my area are being chopped 6-8 ways at the final table a lot more lately, because the payout structure is just stupid.

 

[DoubleEagle]

I’ve not seen or heard of this before, but I hate it. Gives way too much advantage to the pros.

 

[Pesto628]

I don't like this format at all although this is the first I'm hearing of it. Extremely long rebuy periods are a put off for me in general as it makes the tournament last so much longer.

 

[Kain8]

Play cash.

 

[Frogzilla]

Isn’t this the same principle as satellites?

 

[Wils]

As an example, you could buy into Day 1 for $300 and get 25K chips or pay $1500 on Day 2 and get a 250K stack.

Is that an actual example? Seems a bit daft. 10x the stack for only 5x the cost.

Who would bother to enter Day 1 based on that? Ah yes the peasants.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Isn’t this the same principle as satellites?

Not exactly. In a satellite you can buy in and get the same starting stack as someone that played their way to the top. In a "quantum reload" you can be short stacked and buy into the next day and have more than the player with 1 bullet that is treading water, hovering around their original starting stack.

I dislike the endless rebuys - it's also (one reason) why I dislike cash games. Freezeouts are the ultimate equalizer. The vacationer with only $X in his wallet (because no sane person hits an ATM in a casino) has the same chance to win as the local pro with a 6-digit line of credit with the casino. Everyone enters with the same amount of chips. Lose them and you are done.

I wouldn't pay to run a race if the rich guys got a 1/2 track lead.

 

[Anthony Martino]

Is that an actual example? Seems a bit daft. 10x the stack for only 5x the cost.

Who would bother to enter Day 1 based on that? Ah yes the peasants.

I can't find the exact one, but it was something along those lines. I believe this silliness started way back in 2014 with the WPT. Fortunately it hasn't caught on a ton, but it is still out there in some events and just makes me sick.

As others have said, the unlimited rebuys for the first 6 hours of a frigging tourney is ridiculous enough. What's next? People can buy into the final table?

 

[Mojo1312]

IMO, no one should be allowed to enter a race part way through on equal ground, but as you stated they haven't caught on since their inception, so why are you raising the alarm?

The change from Freezeouts to Rebuys and Re-Entry events already gives an additional edge to seasoned pros who can fire multiple bullets while the recreational player may only have 1 bullet or may have won a satellite seat in.

I truly don't understand why you are complaining so loudly on this point. Which tournaments are you playing in where you see all of these "pros" buying in multiple times? I play in a fair share of tournaments at different casinos and I have seen plenty of bad players re-entering, which adds money to the prize pool thereby making these tournaments profitable. All the more power to the pro who continues to re-enter a tournament after being eliminated multiple times by less skilled players. The reality is any edge the pro's may gain from re-entries is marginal.

Why is that? The "stupid" pay-out structure for one. You have to make it to the top three percent in a lot of these tournaments before you get any real return on investment. I am playing in a $440 300 player tournament next month. (Assuming they book out) 42% of the prize pool goes to the top two finishers and another 9% to whoever finishes in third.

Re-entries = more money into the prize pool, not to mention multiple shots at eliminating a pro. "Ridiculously" top heavy pay-out structures means that players who re-enter numerous times are less likely to make any sizable profit.

Outside of Quantum tournaments, I really have trouble following your logic.

Just tell me your solution.

 

[Wils]

[QUOTE="Anthony Martino, post: 604910, member: 1159"What's next? People can buy into the final table?[/QUOTE]

Don't go giving people ideas. Maybe a $100 satellite into day 1, and another $500 satellite into day 4? I never play in casinos so I've no idea if this is already a thing

 

[Anthony Martino]

Just tell me your solution.

MPGA

-Eliminate Rebuys/Re-Entries
- No Buying Into Day 2
- Flatter Payouts (less top heavy)
- Pay 15-20% Of The Field

 

[Poker Zombie]

MPGA

-Eliminate Rebuys/Re-Entries
- No Buying Into Day 2
- Flatter Payouts (less top heavy)
- Pay 15-20% Of The Field

I strongly support these solutions.

 

[Mojo1312]

We share the same p.o.v. regarding players having the option to buy in late at a higher rate for an average size chip stack. IMO, fattening out the pay structure, eliminating re-buys and increasing the percentage of the field who makes it in the money will kill the attendance level, especially those that have a low buy-in. Casinos are going to take their cut.

Come up with a top 20% pay-out structure for a freeze-out tournament that you think is fair and would be attractive to players after deducting the entry fee and dealer fee.

I could send you the structure for the WSOP events that Foxwoods hosted last month as well as the $440 tournament I mentioned yesterday.

Resolving the issue is challenging once you actually start punching in numbers.

Ideally, it would be nice if casinos paid out 12.5 to 15% of the field and stuck by a guideline of only allowing players to re-enter up until the first break or during the first four hours in your multi day events. Frankly, I am somewhat amazed by the number of players who re-enter into $300 tournaments multiple times. In terms of quantity, re-buys favor amateurs. Generally, they are the ones I see taking advantage of the re-buy option, which balances out some of the advantage that pros have under this format.

And I think the word "pro" is being applied loosely here. I don't see pros playing in these $300+ or $400+ events, which is why I am curious to know what tournaments you are playing in.

At what level do you observe this being a problem? $550 or $1100 tournaments, where the cost to play is typically 10%?

 

[Kain8]

Rakes are going up in both cash and tournaments more and more often these days. The casino industry is becoming the snake that eats itself in regards to even spreading poker in the first place.

 

[glom]

When I started playing casino poker in 2003 the entry level game was 1/2 NL max rake of $4 with a max buyin of $100.

Today that would be a 1.37/2.74 game with a max rake of 5.48.

Foxwoods is still max rake of $5. So are most Vegas rooms I’ve played lately and so was MD live last time I was there.

I’m not sure I agree with the rake assessment.

 

[Ghoti]

Agreed. I always had a bad feeling about those tourneys. I do love a good rebuy tourney, though!

 

[glom]

MPGA

-Eliminate Rebuys/Re-Entries
- No Buying Into Day 2
- Flatter Payouts (less top heavy)
- Pay 15-20% Of The Field

Talk to your casinos. Why not just do a survivor tourney while you’re at it. With a flatter pay structure there’s little incentive to play down to first. Play down to 20% and payout immediately the money evenly distributed.

Better yet, just give everyone their money back minus the rake when it starts.

</sarcasm>

Of course, all poker favors those with better bankrolls. They have lower ROR. The games are getting tougher, and the small winners are becoming small losers. The things you are advocating seem to be an effort to preserve win rates for those becoming losers, or to lower the variance of those who are slight winners. These are not the things that attract the fish. The fish want a shot at a big score, and don’t understand how outmatched they are. Your suggestions don’t look like they’re gonna do more to attract more amateurs, they’re just gonna lower win rates at the top.

JMHO.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Of course, all poker favors those with better bankrolls. They have lower ROR. The games are getting tougher, and the small winners are becoming small losers. The things you are advocating seem to be an effort to preserve win rates for those becoming losers, or to lower the variance of those who are slight winners. These are not the things that attract the fish. The fish want a shot at a big score, and don’t understand how outmatched they are. Your suggestions don’t look like they’re gonna do more to attract more amateurs, they’re just gonna lower win rates at the top.

This is my concern about the future of poker. Other than the rare natural poker phenom, everyone entering the game is a fish. If the fish never get the chance to cash - be it multiple rebuys from better staked players, a tougher game, or smaller pay fields - the perpetual losses will eventually drive the fish away. This has been studied ad nauseam by sociologists. It's why slot machines are so popular. Pay out lots of little times and players lose sight of the long term losses they suffer. Deal them nothing but losses, and the prize, no matter how big, is viewed as unachievable.

 

[glom]

This is my concern about the future of poker. Other than the rare natural poker phenom, everyone entering the game is a fish. If the fish never get the chance to cash - be it multiple rebuys from better staked players, a tougher game, or smaller pay fields - the perpetual losses will eventually drive the fish away. This has been studied ad nauseam by sociologists. It's why slot machines are so popular. Pay out lots of little times and players lose sight of the long term losses they suffer. Deal them nothing but losses, and the prize, no matter how big, is viewed as unachievable.

This is why limit cash games will hopefully make a comeback.

 

[JustinInMN]

Isn’t this the same principle as satellites?

This was my instinct as well, but I guess I see the difference in being able to buy a guaranteed stack on day two. I don't think I'd ever enter such an event personally however.

Poker tournaments are supposed to eliminate people by design, like home Monopoly rules (calling to another thread in which I posted today) these changes just needlessly prolong the game.

I like limited early reentry for the same as a starting stack. But anything beyond that is just silly imo. If you want a game to last forever, play cash.

 

[SendThatStack]

The beauty of a rebuy is that you get more money into the prize pool with less rake taken, which is probably why most series got rid of them for re-entry instead. I’m not opposed to a 1 re-entry event but it’s out of control with the quantum stuff or the big events that you can enter up to 4-8 times.