Re-Entry and Late Reg - Your Views please?

[cambridgealex]

I'm sure that everyone will agree that a "pro" with the ability to have multiple re-entries will have a considerable advantage over a "pro" who only has one bullet.

I do not agree with that! It's one of the logical fallacies I mentioned earlier.

There is no advantage.

If I can play the DTD deepstack with 6 bullets all that does is reduce my variance - I can get in more volume than the pro who can only play it with 1 bullet. Over a year, I will play 72 "tournaments" and he will just play 12.

[david3103]

I'm sure that everyone will agree that a "pro" with the ability to have multiple re-entries will have a considerable advantage over a "pro" who only has one bullet.

I do not agree with that! It's one of the logical fallacies I mentioned earlier.

There is no advantage.

If I can play the DTD deepstack with 6 bullets all that does is reduce my variance - I can get in more volume than the pro who can only play it with 1 bullet. Over a year, I will play 72 "tournaments" and he will just play 12.

If you need six bullets at every deepstack you may want to consider a change of career 

But, if you and this other guy who only gets one bullet are of equal skill, which of you will have most chance of being profitable over those 12 (72) tournaments?

[Karabiner]

I'm sure that everyone will agree that a "pro" with the ability to have multiple re-entries will have a considerable advantage over a "pro" who only has one bullet.

I do not agree with that! It's one of the logical fallacies I mentioned earlier.

There is no advantage.

If I can play the DTD deepstack with 6 bullets all that does is reduce my variance - I can get in more volume than the pro who can only play it with 1 bullet. Over a year, I will play 72 "tournaments" and he will just play 12.

I don't completely agree as you can alter your style to gain an advantage imo but that's a moot point.

What is indisputable is your advantage being enhanced over recs by your ability to have multiple re-entries, resulting in the recs going busto faster.

[cambridgealex]

Altering your style to gain an advantage? Just makes no sense. Going from winning poker to losing poker? If a fold is correct then it is correct. It doesn't become a call if you can re-enter, or become a raise if you can re-enter.

I feel I've ran out of ways to explain my point, so don't want to keep posting the same thing. I'm out guys

[rfgqqabc]

I'm sure that everyone will agree that a "pro" with the ability to have multiple re-entries will have a considerable advantage over a "pro" who only has one bullet.

I do not agree with that! It's one of the logical fallacies I mentioned earlier.

There is no advantage.

If I can play the DTD deepstack with 6 bullets all that does is reduce my variance - I can get in more volume than the pro who can only play it with 1 bullet. Over a year, I will play 72 "tournaments" and he will just play 12.

If you need six bullets at every deepstack you may want to consider a change of career  

But, if you and this other guy who only gets one bullet are of equal skill, which of you will have most chance of being profitable over those 12 (72) tournaments?

How is this even a question. Lets make this a little bit more extreme. If two people have the exact same skill edge in the same tournament, and one plays 12 tournaments and one plays 12k tournaments, of course the person playing 12k is more likely to be a winner. The only problem with reentry is the higher variance (due to the increased blind levels) for the winning players, but this is somewhat mitigated by a) the lack of better games/hourly elsewhere b) lowering the fixed costs (hotel/petrol etc.) If the question was about rolling a 1000 sided die and landing at least one 1000, you would obviously pick 12k over 12.

Alex's post was excellent and I agree with it all. I do feel some sympathy for Sharpleas argument about the reentry/bingo stuff but I don't really agree with it. Its not just professional players doing a reentry after all. I also have some sympathy for someone who knocks out Alex and then gets him seated on his left shortly afterwards. I think it kinda sucks too, but I don't think stopping reentry is a great solution either. I don't think this means you can complain about bingo players knocking you out though. Generally after I bust a live comp I'll be heading towards the bar fairly quickly, reentry or not! What I will add is the "advantage" Alex gains by reentering is largely moot due to the fact he has already lost his initial buyin! Just like he can rebuy in a cash game, it isn't an advantage if he has already lost. I know what you mean, he gets to reenter and make £1500 on his £1k buyin but he is still entering the tournament again, and paying the privilege to do so. If you said to me, only professionals reenter, I would say its a bad thing, but I don't think that is the case.


Btw, I'm not 100% on this and I was talking about it with a few friends recently and no one really convinced me either way, but I think if you play a 1k runner field for a 100$ buyin and everyone has the same skill level, your chance is winning is 1/1000. However, if you have starting stack with 500 people left, you chance of winning is probably 1/700? I guess your chance of mincashing has diminished and this might make up for it, but I feel like lateregging is good for the player due to the ICM factor of having dead money in the prizepool. After all, if you doubled up first hand, your chance of winning isn't 1/499.5, its like 1/750.

I guess this isn't too much of a factor, as literally every site offers latereg, so maybe the effect isn't really there.

As my own personal view, I do like reentry and I don't really have a problem with latereg. I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the day 2 latereg, but I guess its ok. I did feel a bit ridiculous firing 5 bullets at the Sky UKPC thing. I think a balance has to be struck and at least some major festivals should be freezeouts or perhaps 1 reentry.

[Karabiner]

Altering your style to gain an advantage? Just makes no sense. Going from winning poker to losing poker? If a fold is correct then it is correct. It doesn't become a call if you can re-enter, or become a raise if you can re-enter.

I feel I've ran out of ways to explain my point, so don't want to keep posting the same thing. I'm out guys

You ignored the second part of my post so I assume you agree with that.

[Doobs]

Altering your style to gain an advantage? Just makes no sense. Going from winning poker to losing poker? If a fold is correct then it is correct. It doesn't become a call if you can re-enter, or become a raise if you can re-enter.

I feel I've ran out of ways to explain my point, so don't want to keep posting the same thing. I'm out guys

You ignored the second part of my post so I assume you agree with that.

If only alex re-entered then a Rec in the same comp would get slightly less EV.  If only a rich idiot re-entered a rec in the same comp would have slightly more EV.  Without knowing the ratio of pros to idiots in the rebuy stats it is impossible to say if your Rec wins or loses.

If we assume pros are making bad calls because they have loadsamoney, then the Rec gains EV, but that seems far fetched to me.

[ThudNBlunder]

Re-entries- As much as I hate them personally the genie can't be put back in the bottle. They've been adopted world wide and universally accepted even if disliked. There are just too many reasons for them from both sides of the fence and I won't bore everyone with the arguments that have mostly appeared here already. HOWEVER- the ease of re-entry can lead to some very marginal poker decisions and the consequent cascade of bad feelings and opinions. One thing that I've tried, on a small scale, is a delayed re-entry. They can have one re-entry but have to miss a level/ set period of time before taking their seat. This doesn't completely eliminate the bad decisions but as most of the re-entries tend to come from the same crowd (gamblers to a man) the threat of delayed gratification can make them re-think that bottom pair call.   Depending on the tournament software used it's not too difficult to manage. It has the added benefit to the venue of having those with a gambling bent and time to kill hanging around.......

Late Reg- A difficult one to get right. There is undoubtedly a need for it as not everyone can get to a tournament for the start. However there's a tendency of poker players to seek out the 'angle' in anything so if the stack at last entry is a decent multiple of the blinds or proportion of expected average stack they'll let the 'mugs' rebuy/ re-enter and build the prize pool. Early bird chips can help but again need to be balanced so as not to totally dissuade late entrants. I do think that late entry periods need to be shortened as it makes it virtually impossible to plan dealers/ tables when more than two thirds of the field turn up after the start! Shortening the late reg period will doubtless generate the normal plethora of moans but it's an issue that needs to work for the benefit of the majority, venue included. Less money wasted means more in the prize pools in the long run.

[arbboy]

Just for some balance what was the format of the first ever monthly deepstack at dtd back in the day?  £300 2 days 10k chips, starting blinds 25/50, 40 min clock, proper freezeout/no late entry at all and only 1 day 1?

[baldock92]

Surely freezeouts are great for introducing new players to the game? I had some friends who wanted to play for the first time so took them to the local genting for a £20 unlimited re entry comp. They loved the game but hated the fact that when a player got knocked out he could simply dive into his wallet and be back in the game a hand later.

I could be incorrect completely and maybe novices generally prefer rebuys, but this is always how I've perceived it. If freezeouts are preferred, surely they should be there to bring fresh blood into the game, a game which is in decline.

[Karabiner]

Altering your style to gain an advantage? Just makes no sense. Going from winning poker to losing poker? If a fold is correct then it is correct. It doesn't become a call if you can re-enter, or become a raise if you can re-enter.

I feel I've ran out of ways to explain my point, so don't want to keep posting the same thing. I'm out guys

You ignored the second part of my post so I assume you agree with that.

If only alex re-entered then a Rec in the same comp would get slightly less EV.  If only a rich idiot re-entered a rec in the same comp would have slightly more EV.  Without knowing the ratio of pros to idiots in the rebuy stats it is impossible to say if your Rec wins or loses.

If we assume pros are making bad calls because they have loadsamoney, then the Rec gains EV, but that seems far fetched to me.

Stop obfuscating.

Only an obstinate fool would dispute that re-entry tournies favour pros.

[Honeybadger]

If Alex re-enters a tournament just think of it as two different players both called Alex Goulder entering the same tournament, with one of them late regging or choosing to play a different day. The fact that it is actually the same person makes no mathematical difference at all, at least not in terms of 'edge'. Those who are saying stuff like "re-entry give bigger edges to the pros" are not understanding things correctly.

However, they are not totally wrong... and there are a few ways in which a re-entry option could lead to some sort of edge for Alex. It may make Alex play with more confidence in certain spots, and thus play better poker. For example, he is in a very close spot that if he gets right he will gain a big stack but if he gets wrong he will be busted. Maybe from an EV perspective this spot calls for him to make a big hero call. But Alex is not a perfect playing poker machine, he is a human being with emotions, feelings etc. One of these emotions could be that he does not really want to bust the tournament early, especially if he has travelled to get there etc. So he might be tempted to make a cautious fold in a spot where a hero call is the correct play. To preserve his tournament life, wait for a better spot etc. This would be him playing worse poker than his absolute A-game. If he knows he is able to re-enter the tournament if he busts then he will be more likely to make the correct but high variance play. In other words, re-entry allows those with the ability to re-enter to have an advantage over those without this ability since they are able to be a bit more cold-blooded in their decision making and do not feel as many outward pressures on them.

I do think the above is a legitimate argument that re-entry ability can give a very small additional advantage to a skilled player. He will be able to make optimal decisions a little more easily in certain high variance spots. However, IMO the effect of this is going to be pretty damn small in the great scheme of things.

That said, there are other arguments against multiple re-entries that IMO are much more important than the 'it gives the pro players a bigger edge' line. The biggest one is simply that it makes the tournaments much tougher (for everyone!) because it upsets the rec/pro balance. Pros (or non-pro good players) are presumably more likely to re-enter a tournament than recs or weak players. If we have a 50:50 rec/pro balance in a pure freezeout then half the entries will be from pros and the other half from recs ldo. If this tournament becomes a muliple re-entry then you might end up with something like 65 rec entries and 100 pro entries. i.e. the % of pros in the field has increased. This does NOT mean that the "pros have an edge" btw. But what it does mean is that everyone's expectation in the tournament is reduced, since the field has become tougher. So EVERYONE loses out in terms of overall EV through a tournament being a re-entry instead of a pure freezeout.

As regards more practical considerations, well I suppose it can work both ways. Of course there will be some guys who travel a long way with only one bullet and get upset when they get busted first level to a guy who is punting his stack since he can re-enter. On the other hand, there will also be players who are very relieved that they can re-enter after losing a massive race, since they have travelled a long way to play and would hate to be out of action after one hour given that they have planned their whole day/weekend around playing the tournament.

BTW, anyone who is complaining that "re-entries are a bad thing because they allow people to punt/play badly and they might outdraw you with their bad play" needs to stop right there and think a bit harder about what they are saying. This is a huge argument in FAVOUR of re-entry!

In the end it comes down to balance. Multiple re-entry allows huge prize pools to be generated which creates an excitement and buzz around DTD. But on the other hand, it makes the tournaments tougher with a worse rec/pro balance. My personal opinion is that the long-term health of the games would be best served by reducing re-entries as much as possible. But that is only my own opinion.

[Doobs]

Altering your style to gain an advantage? Just makes no sense. Going from winning poker to losing poker? If a fold is correct then it is correct. It doesn't become a call if you can re-enter, or become a raise if you can re-enter.

I feel I've ran out of ways to explain my point, so don't want to keep posting the same thing. I'm out guys

You ignored the second part of my post so I assume you agree with that.

If only alex re-entered then a Rec in the same comp would get slightly less EV.  If only a rich idiot re-entered a rec in the same comp would have slightly more EV.  Without knowing the ratio of pros to idiots in the rebuy stats it is impossible to say if your Rec wins or loses.

If we assume pros are making bad calls because they have loadsamoney, then the Rec gains EV, but that seems far fetched to me.

Stop obfuscating.

Only an obstinate fool would dispute that re-entry tournies favour pros.

 If only this was the 2nd paragraph you wrote and not the one you wrote about recs going busto quicker. 

Recs are going busto quicker these days simply because there are a lot more competent players than there once was.  The effect of re-entries and late registration is going to be pretty marginal.  Most of the tournaments on stars are not re-entry, but I am still doing far worse than I once did. 

Of course those recs that choose to do lots of re-entries will go busto quicker than those that don't. 

[ThudNBlunder]

However, they are not totally wrong... and there are a few ways in which a re-entry option could lead to some sort of edge for Alex. It may make Alex play with more confidence in certain spots, and thus play better poker. For example, he is in a very close spot that if he gets right he will gain a big stack but if he gets wrong he will be busted. Maybe from an EV perspective this spot calls for him to make a big hero call. But Alex is not a perfect playing poker machine, he is a human being with emotions, feelings etc. One of these emotions could be that he does not really want to bust the tournament early, especially if he has travelled to get there etc. So he might be tempted to make a cautious fold in a spot where a hero call is the correct play. To preserve his tournament life, wait for a better spot etc. This would be him playing worse poker than his absolute A-game. If he knows he is able to re-enter the tournament if he busts then he will be more likely to make the correct but high variance play. In other words, re-entry allows those with the ability to re-enter to have an advantage over those without this ability since they are able to be a bit more cold-blooded in their decision making and do not feel as many outward pressures on them.

The flip side of that is it becomes impossible to put pressure on players early doors. It used to be a workable strategy to put extreme pressure on knowing that you were never getting played back at with less than the nuts. Correct me if I'm wrong but I always understood part of poker was to try and force your opponents to make -EV decisions and the re-entry option makes that FAR more difficult. Alex is a good player so if I can put him off making the risky (but correct) hero call I want that edge!

[Honeybadger]

However, they are not totally wrong... and there are a few ways in which a re-entry option could lead to some sort of edge for Alex. It may make Alex play with more confidence in certain spots, and thus play better poker. For example, he is in a very close spot that if he gets right he will gain a big stack but if he gets wrong he will be busted. Maybe from an EV perspective this spot calls for him to make a big hero call. But Alex is not a perfect playing poker machine, he is a human being with emotions, feelings etc. One of these emotions could be that he does not really want to bust the tournament early, especially if he has travelled to get there etc. So he might be tempted to make a cautious fold in a spot where a hero call is the correct play. To preserve his tournament life, wait for a better spot etc. This would be him playing worse poker than his absolute A-game. If he knows he is able to re-enter the tournament if he busts then he will be more likely to make the correct but high variance play. In other words, re-entry allows those with the ability to re-enter to have an advantage over those without this ability since they are able to be a bit more cold-blooded in their decision making and do not feel as many outward pressures on them.

The flip side of that is it becomes impossible to put pressure on players early doors. It used to be a workable strategy to put extreme pressure on knowing that you were never getting played back at with less than the nuts. Correct me if I'm wrong but I always understood part of poker was to try and force your opponents to make -EV decisions and the re-entry option makes that FAR more difficult. Alex is a good player so if I can put him off making the risky (but correct) hero call I want that edge!

Isn't that sort of the point I was making in the part you quoted?