blonde poker forum

£5 NL at Brighton last night paying top 9 finishers.  12 left and someone suggests taking a small amount off the top to pay 10th.  Everyone agrees except one young fella who openly states "I want to win it all."

Not too ruthless you might say.  However, this same young man busted his own mother out earlier in the tournament too!!!   :o

So, what say you?  Selfish or determined/ambitious/focused etc.  I say the latter.  A few people were unhappy with his anouncement though.

I think this may blend into the other thread about not doing deals and playing to win etc.

i liked the guys thinking the money is paid out too deep as it is

i prefer a smaller number of players making the money and whats the point of playing for £20 its problery cost more that £20 to play,
i agree if he can take out a relative then take them out its not a team game

i say the guy is focused in the right area making money

If I were just starting out I would say paying ten players would be a nice way to do things however after saying this and playing 20 tournaments I might change my mind, in fact im sure I would.

What I'm trying to say is although I will be a newbie to real tournaments I think the kid is right. If your good you want to make the biggest amount of money possible for finishing 1st 2nd or 3rd etc.

In the Brighton tourny final table (9) get the money, so why pay 10 when twelve are left.
This was probably suggested by low stack, who guessed that in the 5 pound biginners tourny he could bully the others into agreeing an extra payment.
so good on the guy that held out, he probablly had the silent approval of meny of the other mainly new players. 8)

An interesting point and i am generally in favour of a smaller amount of prizes, however this is if time allows.  For example in a 2-day comp with say 100 runners i think only 10 prizes should be paid as you start taking too much from the top to pay the stragglers - and i am a believer in playing to WIN....... HOWEVER...

In the £20 comp at nottingham last night there were 108 runners and over 100 runners means 20 prizes (thats the rule) - there were a few groans by the regulars but it really does speed up the competition (which is only a one-day jobbie).  The comp is due to finish at 4am with a chip count and had 10 players been due to be paid then  it would have really slowed down with around 16 to go and i reckon there would have been about a 9-way chip count at 4am (not a good conclusion to any comp!).

What happened...... Players 20-11 were all given £80 (4* entry fee) and it really meant we got to a final in good time.  The slow period was from about 25-21 (the revised bubble) but as soon as the £80 threshold was cracked and we were down to 20 players the action really speeded up and we got to a final by 2:30am - this wouldn't have happened had only 10 players been paid.

Another good decision and idea by Mr. Nightfly and the team.

IMO.

That would seem logical but not the case this time.

I was the small stack and it wasn't suggested by me.  I was one of the few who defended his right to decline the proposed idea.  Most of the 12 left were regulars and paying 10 is not uncommon.  Being a cheap, mid week event, players are not pros and most have jobs/lectures to attend early next morning so a 6 way chop is not uncommon either just to get to  bed at a reasonable time.

I went out straight after this with K-K in sb.  Button was at it with a medium stack during this tightened up stage.  He goes all in (again). I go all in, bb folds as do the remaining limpers.  He shows A-3o and you know the flop already.  I left straight after so didn't see if it was chopped or how the young fella did.

I benefited from this Gala rule on Tuesday (£30 for 11-20)...must say though I think its a bit silly in a small buy in comp. The prizes for winning should reflect the effort of getting a win and on Thursday taking £800 out of the pool to refund your buy in for lasting to 20th was a bit silly. Can't remember seeing many comps where you get 4x buy in for getting 20th (Not everyone has 4 buy ins). Just my opinion... 8)

The other problem with agreeing to give some money to the extra places is it suddenly changes the game. The tension is removed and all of a sudden the small stacks start throwing their chips in with anything.
There is a very logical reason for saying 'no savers for the extra 10th place, especially if you are comfortable'. All of a sudden the game has become unpredictable...

Yes Dave, I agree with your reasoning, but do you make the stand and be the only one to refuse when the rest agree to a saver?

I find it hard if Im the only one

I think if the players are called back on the second day one off the money ( as happened at Blackpool) then they should agree to a saver .... bit bad if someone has had to pay for a night in a hotel and still cops nothing ... someone objected at Blackpool and some poor guy got nothing.

I think its a judgement call and every situation should be treated on its merits.

Yeh you are right there DOG. All of Minus's greek crew used to hate me at Walsall because I used to be the only refusal.

hehehe, i know what you mean Dave......... ;D
I have known occasions when said "same village" have refused deals themselves when they have had a few chips between them.
So now a few of us will refuse point blank to deal with any of 'em.
"they don't like it up 'em"

Ian

Juniors comment: "and we got to a final by 2:30am "

Am I the only one who thinks this is just so crazy?!? How many people are being kept out of the game by timings like this? Most poeple could not entertain this on a "school" night.....

More ammo for a 7:30pm start.

Could not agree with you more, I had this conversation as Leeds last night. It seems most of the best games game are played during the week with such late starts. I guess due to the fact that at weekends they do not need to generate custom at  i suppose. I really would like to see earlier starts and up in our region larger buy in's on a weekend.

it is a little silly when you think about it.  I think everyone i have ever spoken to about this is in favour of earlier starts.

apart from those guys that still arrive at 9:10 for an event with last registration at 9pm

EVERYONE is in favour of earlier starts. It's been said a quillion times. Everyone except the Casinos, that is. And they ain't listening.

It's little wonder that more & more Poker Clubs (Gurtshot, the new one in East London, Tomz, etc etc) are opening. They've had this absolutely brilliant idea - giving the customers what they want. It will never catch on.

At the level I can afford I'd prefer an earlier start £30 freeze out (in place of the £5 rebuy crapshoot) with a no deals policy and 30-35% 1st place payout.  Otherwise I don't see there is much to be learnt at these rookie nights to keep players in the game/sport long term.  I still hear many saying "There's no skill.  It's all down to the luck of the cards. I'm off to the blackjack tables."  I think this is because the structure forces/allows too much preflop all in play.

If b&m rooms want to increase their customer base long term I think they would benefit from looking at the structure of the rookie and/or low buy-in nights.  I have been playing since March and am seriously thinking of quitting b&m and sticking to online only.  I really enjoy the benefits of live play but am finding it hard to justify continuing until I have built my bankroll sufficiently to be able to play at a level just above the crapshhots.

I've asked the earlier question start at Notts a few times and my understanding is its because the main staff shift starts at about 8.30-9.00, thats why they don't have earlier starts apparently, I could be wrong though.

One COULD take the view that most businesses tailor their staff rostering around the customers needs, not the other way round....... And this point is NOT directed at Gala Notts, by the way, most Casinos think the same way.

But bit by bit, we are forcing them to think......