blonde poker forum

I understand the rationale behind allowing a re-entry into a tournament.  Getting eliminated on a cooler or bad beat in an early level sucks. Especially if you've travelled some distance to play. But shouldn't there be a limit?
How many times should you have to be felted before your tournament is done?
Twice? Three times? Four? More?
Yes it builds the pot but it also removes the purity of a freeze out tournament.

Let's imagine we've got it in pre with AA vs Phil Ivey who has the other two bullets but we make a flush. That's great because not only do we have more chips now but we've also eliminated one of the best players in the field. Should we have to face him again?

Multiple entries with the 'highest stack through' have this issue and a few more. Maybe it's time to just run it once...

I can't actually remember the last time I played a proper freeze out.

Freezeouts are a relic of the past for the <1k buyin market.

Prefer comps that are just different day re-entry tho.

It's cool that EPTs and WSOPs are still just straight Freezeouts tho.

Oh for the days of proper freezouts

With a lot of your chain casinos guaranteeing prizepools in their midweek ~£30 comps, they probably have to allow re-entry or some sort of add-on to give them a fair shot at making their guarantee.

If they didn't allow re-entries, then they'd have to increase the buy in I think.  £30 with 1 x re-entry or £70 freezeout for the same prizepool. I reckon the recreational tourney crowd would take the £30 option way more often than they would take the straight freezeout, even if they have to get through a field maybe twice the size. 

Even if you don't plan on having more then one entry, the option to flick it in again is nice to have if you get coolered early doors. I would draw the line at 1 x re-entry personally.

Comps that are structured to get as many re-entries/re-buys as possible are different IMO - small starting stack, turbo levels, add-ons, sizable guarantee. They need as many people as they can to gamble it up for £20 a time.

Off the top of my head though, I can't think of a time where I've played a local casino comp that has been a straight freezeout.

Yeah dont mind the 1 re-entry for the same reasons but thats it.   Anything more and i loose interest in playing.  Just a personal thing.  Entering a tourney 20 times to go through to day 2 with your best stack............... not for me

I absolutely detest this new concept and will not play any tourney as a re-entry.

I do occasionally play them but they are freezeouts for me, just a one bullet shot like the one I took at DTD on Friday in the $1M grand prix.

Having said that I did always used to enjoy the good old honest £10, £20, and even occasional £100 rebuys of yesteryear, but they are obviously not that great for the house compared with today's multi day-one re-entry tourneys.

I actually think that it is now becoming more obvious to the recreational player that these multi-day one re-entry tourneys now give them far less chance of actually winning, and a hugely enhanced chance to the highly skilled and well-bankolled or staked professional players, which could well lead to a decline in numbers of recs.

They used to have a good £100 rebuy at the Palm Beach on a weeknight, back when I lived in London.

Was when they had the tiny cardroom, and normally only used to be 3tables, but used to pay about 4 grand for the winner.

Sportsman for dinner and the £250 on a Monday night.

Palm Beach on a Tuesday or Thursday for the £100r.

Almost 10 years ago now, and seems like yesterday!

Doubt I'll play in a better comp than the old £50r at Eccy Road Naps in Sheffield

They still ran it every week even though it never finished before the place closed at 4am, was always a forced chop

It was considered very poor form for the winner to decline a trip up to Owlerton for a couple of hours of dealers choice before that place closed at six

I think about 40 day 1s with a single re-entry for each is about right.

LOL

1. rowing back from multi day one re-entry tournaments would be the end of the nosebleed guarantees in the uk market

do you think this would be good, bad or neither for the uk players? for the operators business models?

2 i think it is generally accepted that a reutrn to freezeouts is unlikely, the market has moved on. what tournament buy in structure would you suggest to satisfy players and the operator?

3 is there any evidence that multi day one multi entry tournaments are won by non-recs compared to recs, in general? isn't the whole notion that it favours deeper bankrolls theoretical rather than something seen in practice? 

I don't particularly mind the concept of a re-entry and a logical extreme of that is multiple re-entries - once you accept one then why not multiple. But, as time has gone by I markedly prefer this when the re-entry period is quite short in a local bowl or bowl + comp e.g some of the GUKPT sides - probably sneakingly like the fact that only one re-entry is possible generally and I aint gonna do too much on a single comp whatever happens

These multiple day 1s, online/ live, stack forfeits, stack aggregation leave me absolutely cold and I don't find myself attracted to them in terms of value or the nosebleed prize pools. Pretty much too lazy to spend any time trying to figure out when/where/how/what's the optimal approach etc.

Stuck in the past I'm afraid - used to love to rock up to the 3 hundo deepstack with the odd shot at a bigger comp - even if I wasn't the most frequent attendee, I always wanted to go. Now, for the complexity reasons, I really can't be bothered and there's very little makes me want to make the journey.

Accept that I'm probably in a diminishing group of dinosaurs who probably didn't help the clubs make ends meet and that the market has probably moved on - no axe to grind and doesn't vex me in the slightest but the OP stimulated some desire to throw my tuppence in.

I understand why DTD do it but I'm not a fan of the flatter payout structure and seats inc in dtds flagship comps.

However I also understand that the guarantee would perhaps be lower otherwise so it balances it out

 :goodpost:     ;iagree;

agree too.  again no axe to grind but just doesnt appeal.  guess I am another dinosaur

Umm, excellent.

Ideally I would prefer all MTT's to be freeze outs. However I think re entry tournaments are necessary for the long term health of live poker.

I agree that it can be frustrating to see a tough opponent re emerge on your table having been knocked out earlier and also that players with bigger bank rolls have an advantage but I believe it is unavoidable if we want the live game to continue to thrive.

The re entry format helps casinos and organisers meet the guarantee. Without them the guarantee would have to be reduced resulting in less entries overall as the guarantee does have an effect on players deciding to travel and play tournaments.

There are often choices to be made when deciding which tournament to play on any particular weekend and I have lost count on how many times I have heard players state that they are going to play the one with the biggest guarantee.

Personally I'd rather play one with a smaller field resulting in a better chance of making the final table etc. but I seem to be in the minority.

I do think a limit on the number of re entries would be a reasonable compromise.

1. Personally, the nosebleed guarantees don't have a huge influence on my decision making. I understand that they may do for others. I understand also that they generate publicity for the operators.

2. One re-entry seems reasonable, or, one add-on/rebuy but limited to the early levels, along with late-registration.

3. I don't have sufficient information to answer your question. I wish someone would analyse it and let us know. Be interesting to see the % itm of those who had multiple entries.

One thing I can't understand is why re entries don't count when working out places paid.  Doesn't really bother me I'm just curious.  ie.  A comp paying 10% of the field gets 150 unique entries, and 50 re entries, most places pay out 15 places here, not 20.  Imo there has been 200 starting stacks in play so 20 should be paid.  Most of the money paid out at the lower end of the scale recirculates around anyway so surely this would create more people 'winning' and playing more often, increasing prize pools and trade for the operators.

This ... Average stack was nearly 15 x starting stack at the Grand Prix's bubble

Think that's a very solid argument to adjust the  ITM % according to entries. Totally agree