blonde poker forum

Most, if not all, Live Tournament providers are offering re-entries to some of their Live tournaments

Whether its a WSOP or WPT event, a DTD/GUKPT/Genting event or a smaller local event held over a couple of day ones

The Poll attached to this thread asks for your opinion, as follows:

I prefer a tournament where;

1    I have the option to re-enter the same day AND also the option to re-enter into future Day 1’s (max 4 bullets)
 
2   I only have the option to re-enter into Day 1b (max 2 bullets)
  
3  There is no re-entry option (max 1 bullet)


Please take into account the type of tournament you usually play, and your circumstances as to bankroll/travelling expenses etc, and indicate what you would like to see as the norm

All posts and feedback on the subject welcomed

thanks

This was written a few months ago on the subject...referring to some of the upsdies/downsides of re-entries


One of the most polarising issues in the poker world today is the emergence of re-entry tournaments and whether or not they are good for the overall health of the poker industry and economy.

A re-entry event is different from a rebuy event in that a player cannot “re-entry” until he has been already eliminated from the tournament. While some events allow players to buy back in immediately, others force them to wait until the next starting day.

The concept is nothing new, but in a down economy, re-entry events have become the latest trend on the always-evolving tournament circuit.

The theory is that by lowering the buy-in and allowing players to re-enter the tournament, you’ll get the best of both worlds. Those with the bankrolls to gamble it up in the early levels will juice the prize pool and those with smaller bankrolls will get to enjoy a shot at a big payday for a smaller entry fee.

Bellagio tournament director Jack McClelland’s current main event isn’t a re-entry fan, but he did experiment with the new freezeout variation during his preliminary events. When asked whether it was casino profit, the need for change or customer demand that motivated him to host the event, he said, “all of the above.”

“When things were really rolling in the poker world, we had tons of players for our regular freezeouts,” said McClelland. “Then when the economy took a dive, we tried to increase our prize pools by offering rebuys. Those didn’t really work out, because they scared away those with lower bankrolls who couldn’t afford multiple buy-ins. So far, it looks like re-entry events appeal to players of all bankrolls. The buy-ins are low enough to bring in casual players, but still allow the pros to come in and do their thing.”

The World Poker Tour has popularized these events in the last year, lowering their buy-ins at some marquee stops in California, New Jersey and Florida to $3,500 from their traditional $10,000 and creating multiple starting days. The end result has been bigger fields, but also more money for the host casino. Not only are the players raked on each re-entry, but they are also staying at the casinos for longer periods of time, taking up rooms in the hotel and filling the restaurants each night.

In the UK major festival events are becoming re-entries. For example at a recent DTD Supersized Deepstack of 643 total entries over 100 were re-entries. In some cases, players had four entries. Of course this swells prize pools, and is good news for venues. However does it put those without the bankroll to do this at a disadvantage in game play?

Unlimted re-entry not an option ?

Not in the poll, but if that is your preference please say so and why.

If you're going to have it all, I just can't see a reason for it to be capped.

Really hope its re-entry on the same day-  to travel 4 hours and busto early with no chance of a 2nd bullet would probably mean more accomodation costs

Do you prefer re-entry over no re-entries at all?

In an Ideal world I would pick option 3 (no re entries at all) as its a pure poker game played as a freezeout  , however with the emergence of re entry tournaments , I prefer the option of a second bullet on the same day , so If Im travelling or have to have my kids or other commitments for one day that weekend I can plan my time a lot  better .

Simon has stated in the 500K guaranteed tournament ,It is capped at 333 runners per day (3 day 1 starts) so 999 makes the 500K guarantee but so as to avoid a sweat come day 1C  I would of thought you would want as many entrants" in the bank " as possible . Surely  restricting re entries on the same days will affect the final figures ?

If its the case that DTD can only accomadate 333 runners fair enough but of course every time players want a re entry it will mean there will have been knocked out and effectively freed up their own seat so unless Im missing something  re entry on the same day just seems like a win win situation

Dusk Till Dawns poker initiatives have been absolutely awesome and I hope they see my comments as constructive to help the cause rather than demanding

Keep Up the Good Work Guys .

I voted for option 3 being the pure freezeout as it suits me personally. Having said that I've usually played 1b of Dtd's comps and had to use a second bullet the last three times. On pure freezeouts I prefer to play 1a knowing that I can't buy back in it I bust and having a days rest before returning for day 2

Apologies if this is in the wrong section.
In relation to the re-entrees, payouts ect. Sorry if it is long!

Firstly, Re-entry on the same day I reckon is a must. Especially the guys within the 1-3 hour travel bracket, which I'm guessing is 60% of the field.
After busting first bullet, sometimes you just cannot be arsed to drive back the next day or spend money on petrol, hotels etc (see my second point below). But, having the reentry will put more money in the prizepool! Increased numbers and bigger pots as the online qualifiers, distant travellers and others, are more willing build a pot to get it in with a sicko draw, rather than hit first then ship. If they can use a second bullet, they sigh..have a ciggy, sigh again and buy in again.

Secondly, I know its better marketing wise to see £200k/£300k top prize and make the headlines.
But from a customer point of view, for tournaments that are 2-5 days, making only 1.2 on investment is sometimes disappointing. Only as it doesn't cover expenses - Petrol, Hotels, Food, Drinks, and occasional spews on roulette or that stupid Pharaohs Fortune!

People nit up stupidly and ruins the play and momentum of the tournament.. look I know this payment structure is pretty standard across the European board, but this is why play is so slow pre and post bubble. People want to make there money back. For a £500 buy in, I don't see a problem with min cash being £900-£1000. Just chop it off the top. This is general feedback from a majority of non-regular players I have asked. YES, I know the bubble and play before will last longer, but the better players left will take advantage of it, leaving the nitty guys less space later on in the torney. It would give more play from 2 tables to the final. No 3BigBlind limp/fold player on the final and no guy with 9bigs set mining with deuces, who wants to bag his £900 jump up.

Honestly, I am not fused either way. I will adhere to any changes DTD make. But generally, the Non-Regs (unqiue hits) are dropping, causing the total numbers to drop and guarantees to drop and still not be hit. There isn't much money about. It just shows with the tournaments at the moment; £20 comps getting more runners than a super £50. Super £50 sometimes getting more than a £150 DS etc.

Its about general value. And lately, people just don't wona put up the dollar.

Tournaments originally started purely as ways to attract players to play cash games when they busted out.

How have cash games done at DTD since reentries were introduced?

I understand the first two lines...then it becomes white noise.

The re-entry format has been an interesting development in the game. I always think you should never chase your money so mentally I find it hard to re-enter a tournament having said that if you are +EV for the first bullet then you are +EV for the second so re-entry favours the better players.
     The re-entry format has certainly changed the early play in tournaments and you can normally pick out who is conscious of the fact they have a second life relatively quickly again +EV for the better players.
     In conclusion option 1 gets my vote and my personal strategy is to play the last starting day and not re-enter most of the time purely as this suits my mental attitude. It will be interesting to read peoples views though.

Do re-entries toughen the field up?

If a good player gets knocked out early is he more likely to re-enter than a donk? I would have thought so so that will mean a higher shark/donk ratio than there would be in a freezeout?

One the arguments for rebuys was that the good player benefitted from the gamblers treating the rebuy stage like bingo, bumping up the prize pool. I assume that doesn't happen in a re-entry (few players will throw the chips around on the first bullet simply because it's the first bullet)

Not well.

For me personally a re-buy  Is a must, travelling for 3 hrs and maybe going out on the usual bad beat lol after a couple of hours can be frustrating, I think only one re- buy on the day,
Unlimited re-buys is a no no !
Also usual great work at DTD , keep it up!!!!

Has to be a Re-entry and its not even close.

ty.

More votes required please, looking for a decent sample size of members

thank you

So far clearly showing that having to wait to the next day to re enter is not favoured at all.

Personal preference is no re-entry at all in bigger tournaments, but that's solely due to size of bankroll.

Would never vote for unlimited re-entry - just call it a rebuy and stop taking the extra rake ffs. Pure profit winner, which is why I can see it coming very shortly.

The current system works, I think, no need for change.

If we are talking about DTD tourneys here one thing that I would like to mention again although it might be something of a sidetrack is the payout structures as despite previous calls for an ovehaul they do remain flawed and unaltered from the outset when Rob(who came from gala Nottm.) designed the original graph.

The minimum payout of 1.5 x the buyin  is considered too small by most people for starters.

The payouts should increase incrementally with each increase being larger than the previous one such as 2%, 2.5%, 3.5%, 5%, 7%, 9.5% and so on which they do not currently as there are instances where they jump up 2.5% and then the next jump is only 2% for example.

I know that this was discussed at length in the "no deals" thread/poll some months ago where there seemed to be a huge majority of people who were in favour of a flattened payout structure including a a superb post by skolsuper which even included an excellent template for payouts as implemented by GUKPT events, but despite all of the suggestions there was no response that I am aware of and the payouts remain the same.

I'm a big fan of DTD and have been since the very outset so I just want to see things evolve in a positive way.

I know that DTD are considering payout structures currently. Looking at re-entries now, obviously..then a thorough debate on payout structures. I will then send Rob and Simon the comments made during the "deals debate" as Keys and others made some excellent points

The Genting tour are doing it slightly different to the options above.

Only one re-entry, which can be the same day, or another start day.......which seems OK.

Either none or unlimited. I think this is the only logical conclusion as most things eventually travel to their logical extreme.

I would favour none based on my ability level.

I'd expect great players like Dean Morris to favour unlimited.

I can't imagine why anyone would favour limited re-entries.

If I was DTD and wanted to continue with very ambitious guarantees;  I'd probably just favour unlimited over none as prob more to gain from unlimited than to be lost from alienating people who would prefer none

I prefer re-entry. and also the option to re enter on the same day so that means a total of 4.

But higher on my list of wants is amendments to the payout structure. The min cashes at DTD are the worst I've seen for live venues. I had already decided not to play any more Monte Carlos (if there are any more planned) for that reason only and probably won't enter any more of the £500's unless I satellite in. Payouts are far too top heavy. The difference between 1st and 2nd is usually huge. A deep finish should be rewarded with a decent payout but unless you're in the top 3 they are very disappointing. Better payouts for the lower finishers will put more cash in more players pockets and keep them returning more often.

Limit it to one a day.

If it's unlimited, then it's most definitely putting an advantage in place to those with deeper pockets.

i think the option of having 1 re entry is a good idea and this can be used at any point weather it be on the same day or the next day then players can pick and choose

I do think the re entry system favours the sharks with larger bankrolls i think is more likely that there will be a loarger proportion of good players re entring rather then the fish because the fish usually are made up of sat qualifiers that are very likely to only fire one bullet!

It isn't actually at all, although I understand how in one specific vacuum instance it seems like it is....

It actually offers no long term advantage at all to the people buying in more than once, what it does do though is it makes the prize pools bigger (albeit a little tougher in field strength) which is great if you're on 1 bullet. a £1k with a £150,000 prize pool is now, for you, a £1k with a £350,000 prize pool :)up

and the bigger the prize pools the more likely people are going to make an effort to "take a shot" either step up a little or take a few more bullets at satellittes therefore swelling the prixze pool even more

Not an advantage to those with deeper pockets per se, obviously it's a significant problem for those players with deeper pockets who are bad at poker.

Not sure what lilD is getting at here though, obviously if we're talking about winning players then of course reentry makes it worse for the fish. Extrapolate the problem to a heads up tournament where the good player wins 60% (for the sake of argument). Without re-entries, assuming zero rake, his ROI is 20% and thus the fish's ROI is -20%. With a reentry allowed for the good player (Mr. deep-pockets), he wins 1st bullet 60% of the time, then treating the 2nd bullet consistently i.e. he wins 1 buyin 60% of the time and has to do that twice, he wins from 2nd bullet 36% of the time. EV for the fish: 60% of the time, he loses 1, 40% of the time they play on, from where he still loses 1 36% of the time but wins 2 64% of the time:

(0.6*-1)+(0.4*0.36*-1)+(0.4*0.64*+2) = -0.232 = -23.2% ROI

Actually, now I think about it properly, when the fish wins the 1st, loses the 2nd but wins the 3rd all in, the winning player still has a 36% chance to win from there, it's a geometric progression I think and the fish's ROI gets even worse:

(0.4*0.6*0.4*0.6*0.6*-1) = -0.03456 = -3.5% so total -26.7% ROI, without the extra permutations where the chip lead goes back and forth more than 3 times. It probably tends towards 30% or so as x --> infinity

So, without spending any more money himself, the losing player's ROI goes from -20% to -26.7% if the good player is allowed to re-enter once. It gets much, much worse if the fish decides to re-enter as well.

All the above said, I am very much in favour of unlimited re-entries.

yada yada yada let's all play a £50 sng

Thank you for the nearly 100 votes so far. More required please, takes under a minute to click a preference, thank you

Nice work Jimbo ;)

1 re-entry on the same day and the option to re-enter on later days seems the most sensible to me.

I don't have a problem at all with re-entries, it's good for the venues and it's good for the players on both small and large bankrolls.  If it means there are more games and bigger prize funds, I'm all for it.

For me it depends on the buyin.

Lower buyin comps i'm happy with them. But on the other hand if it's just a nightly comp then i'd rather they were done within a few hours so i'm not a fan of big stacks/long structures for these, and re-entries only make that worse.

For higher buyin comps where i'm taking a shot i'd rather they weren't there. If a good player gets knocked out then I want them to stay knocked out. I don't want them back in the tournament. Seeing as i'm not going to be re-entering then it feels like an added advantage for the better players with deep pockets.

For me the poll needs to differentiate by bankroll. As it doesn't i've voted for generally no re-entries.

Oh and as an aside I think the length of buyins/re-entries is important too.

I understand why places like DTD have them open for so long for travelling players.

But for a nightly comp then this period should be 1 hour max imo.

Can anyone give a rationale for limited re-entries versus unlimited

Can't you get unlucky/ do yourself twice in such a long re-entry period ? Why not 3 times.

Really, why limit them ?

Agree with Cf's post 100% about this being a bankroll (and some relationship to ability) question. I'll flick in another 50 for a night out but I'm not ever flicking in another 500.

One reason for not allowing re-entry on the same day is probably to encourage those who bust out to play cash instead of re-enter, and for that reason I'm in favour of limiting it to 1 entry per day.

Certain tournies should have them. These bigger events shouldn't!!

playing the WSOP structure with 50k stacks. Not sure but is the ME  a re entry?!  ;)   

As for people saying well if i get a bad beat and have traveled 3 hours etc etc to play and they went out to bad play. So be it, its poker if you cant get used to a donkey knocking you out don't play poker... Simple's. Yes its annoying but its part of the game there is always the next event to play. If you cnat handle going out early then don't travel the distance to play.

Reentry on same day better for travelling players like myself.

Would like to see min cash increase though as it doesnt even cover hotel and petrol for one night most of the time.

Does there have to be an ongoing shedule of one or other (or other)? why cant there be a mixture of formats at all levels going forward? Is it because some will get confused?

i don't see a problem with re-entries but i have never really seen them as making financial sense.
using the last £500  deepstack as an example

308 entries...if you are prepared to throw a rebuy in then you are prepared to spend £1000 which means min cash wont even give you a profit. we all aim to win but only 1 player will ever win a tournament.
so effectively in this tournament if you are spending £1000 to play you are looking for at least double that as a return minimum which would have been 13th place...14th-27th although in the money is only returning part of your buy in or a bit of froth...so you need to beat 96% of the field to get a half decent profit.

It's different online as min cash is usually 4-6 times the buy in.

so for me i can't see any benefit in live poker with the current payout levels but can online,  if players are willing to throw extra money in to the pot then that's up to them...it beefs the total prizepool up which otherwise wouldn't be so high.

It certainly isn't on stars.

I am not sure what you are getting at in the rest of the post tbh.

in a nutshell my view was i don't mind having rebuys but i can't see the benefit when min cash wouldn't cover the 2 entry costs...the chances of getting in to a profit regularly if you rebuy regularly are very slim.

I was working on the assumption that everyone had a =ROI for saying that deeper pockets didn't gain an influence, what you're saying is that better poker poker players are going to gain more profit over weaker players by being able to play what is affectively 3.something tournaments in the time/space we could traditionally play 1. Which I think goes without saying that if you have a losing expectation in a £1k (for e.g) you're going to lose more buying in 4 times than you will buying in once.

Given everybody has a positive EV in tournies these days doesn't everybody win? 

More seriously as a traveller to DTD  with a family, same day reentries are way better than next day ones.  Dunno why it favours better players, surely spewtards as likely to reenter as better players, maybe even more so as they will bust more easily?  Would love to see an analysis of the skill level of your typical reentering player though realise it is v difficult

No my point was that even if you still only buy in once your expectation goes down if better players are allowed to re-enter.

I've always thought one of the differences between tournaments and cash poker is the romance of being the last man standing. I can't think of any sporting tournament where you can re-enter after being knocked out. So any sort of re-entry back into a knockout tournament compromises the integrity of the event imo. Nobody would think it proper if Man U could re-enter the FA Cup after playing badly and losing. Fortune wasn't on their side or they didn't play well enough and now they're out, end of. But what if they paid to re-enter and it 'boosted the prizepool' for the rest? None of the other surviving teams would care one bit about that and it would still be gg Man U. As a poker player if you only care about boosting the prizepool and not about the romance of the tournament why not just play cash instead? Personally if the comp is guaranteed at say £100k I'm already happy to play for that pot and don't think boosting it by a few k is worth compromising the romance of the competition for.

What's more a lot of regular joes do stuff fearing their tournament life is on the line. Not having their tournament life on the line will impact the integrity of the game to some degree. You could fold because you decide some regular joe wouldn't jam with nothing early in a £500 comp. But guess what, this guy just won £10k on roulette so his first bullet is aggro. Without knowing how many bullets your oppo has in his gun you are without information. The great thing about tournaments is no matter how affluent people are in the real world everybody is on a level playing field. Again this notion is compromised because with re-entry how affluent you are in the real world does have some influence on your chances of lifting the trophy.

Poker venues are meddling with a lot of fundamental aspects of poker tournaments and many of them are mainly in their own interests. I remember the last debate was about a no deals rule which I also don't agree with. The argument for no deals was because it taught players to 'go for the win' and people weren't forced into deals. Now I read that if the comp isn't finished at a certain time all players are forced to deal. Pretty ironic if you ask me.

so wealthy people dont have advantages in cash games?

errrrr ok

sometimes you just try to hard Mantis

cheesecake IMO

I said tournaments are good because it's more of a level playing field. I quite agree affluent people have an advantage in cash.......which only adds weight to that point??

Sometimes you don't try hard enough.

Chocolate fudge cake imo.

So a tournament player who is just concerned about money should learn a completely different game because they don't care about the romance of the tournament too much?

[  ] makes sense

I played the Grand Prix VI at the end of April. I'm a low stakes social player and I can afford to buy-in to tourneys like this every now and again(£55). It gave me the chance to play in a bigger prize pool tourney than I'd normally be able to with out having to try to satellite in. This is the value in tourneys like this for me. I'm happy having the one bullet but I like the fact others have the opportunity to stick more money in the prizepool. The fact I only have one bullet doesn't influence my play and hopefully I'll be on the receiving end of some looser/spewy play and pick up chips. I like the re-entry concept and hope that more of these are run.

If you don't have re-entry, your gona have an issue with DTD hitting there Guarantees. 10-20% of the field re-entering makes alot of difference to the club. And if DTD reduce their guarantees, the runners fall to.

+1

4 points:

1) More reentries = larger fields= bigger prize pools but more variance. From a theory point of view you need a bigger bankroll to play a tournament with 600 entries than you do with 400 entries.

2) Lots of people saying reentries make tourney tougher because all the good players re-enter but the fish don't. This might have been true on the old Full Tilt, where you could make multiple entries from the get go and have to play against 1 of me but 8 Shaun Deebs. However, in my experience of playing DTD re-entries, there are far more fish re-entries than there are good players. I don't think they make the fields tougher at DTD.

3) In my opinion they often let people re-enter for too long at DTD. You shouldn't be re-entering 6 hours after the comp starts. Stop re-entering when the starting stack is 40bb or more. After that it becomes more of a "rebuy" feel where people can successfully keep reentering to build a stack. 20bb re-entry's are not bad-beat insurance, they're a different kind of comp.

The rebuy stacks getting shorter are the main cause of people just wanging it in and it becoming a shove fest. If people want to open shove 100bb blind, then good luck. They'll soon get bored of picking up 1.5bb, until they run into AA.

4) Run another DTD rebuy! Nothing wrong with a good rebuy from time to time. I know DTD did their bollocks with the last ones they tried to run, but I thought the format was bad. Didn't they used to do a Wednesday night rebuy that got 300 runners? £20+6 unlimited rebuy, 3 x 30 minute levels, only one add-on, rebuy at starting stack or less (this is where I think they went wrong before), 20 minute levels after that, 2000 chips starting stack/rebuy/add on, 7K guarantee, easy game.

Interesting point seems to be a comp that casinos will run but not DTD

In sheffield for a while now the biggest game of the week has been an equivelent comp run by 1 of two different casinos!

I personally dont tend to play them much but they are a good spin up and surely DTD would get lots of travelling players for a similar game with a guarentee of say 10-15K if they had 100-150 individual buy ins then that is £1000 for a wednesday comp in rake for them and also 100-150 gamblers in the casino for spins and cash games!

During the WSOP the Prague poker festival will be announced for Nov/Dec. There will be 3 day ones and it is a 3300 Euro Re-entry event. The reason we have chosen this is that we have had substantial feedback from players that the benefits far outweigh the cons. I know that this is always going to be a contentious subject but given the boost to the prize pool and players travel costs I believe it will be part of the poker circuit for quite some time.
 What I believe is a more interesting question are bounty tournaments, we are considering running a 1500 Euro bounty as these are becoming much more popular events

Totaly agree with this - IMO the whole point of a re-entry is so that you get a decent chance of some play, and aren't left scratching your balls after 10 mins. I think re-entries should be no more than 2 hours - if you've fired all the bullets you're able to after that time then it's just not your day.

Re-entry has to be available to the end of late reg imo.

Dave 1961 can you quantify this substantial feedback from players in favour? Have you got results from a poll that you can publish for eg?

In our particular poll a lot of players are voting in favour of no re-entry. Slightly more are voting for re-entry but I don't see this as substantial feedback in favour of such a change. In fact our forum poll prob expresses the views of the better players along with venue supporters. So I would be genuinely interested in the results if you were to poll every runner in your upcoming festival. I think an average player votes against re-entry into big tournaments. If that isn't the case there are a lot of average players with big bankrolls out there imo. Think the re-entry format is the desire of venues and the small % of better players rather than 95% of average players, the value players. Anyway a few questions for this debate...

a) If most players love the prizepool being boosted by re-entry why limit re-entry?

b) Ref the expenses. Travelling to one multi-day comp is -Ev compared to loading up 6 comps at home. Does the concept of re-entry now make it a +Ev coup for the average player? In fact better players being able to re-enter makes the situation even worse doesn't it?

c) If we stake a horse into a big comp and he goes on to take it down under his own steam on a personal second bullet do we feel fine about it? Think I would feel sore seeing him fistpump the trophy and the big comedy cheque, but in actual fact his second bullet has nothing to do with me or the original stake right?

d) Is cash poker a completely different game? Think eg rugby union and hungy hippos are completely different games.

Absolutely - implicit in my post was that the super late reg is ridic as well. If you don't think many people will turn up until 5 hours after the tourney start time, then maybe you've set the start time wrong.

Hi

We run tours across Europe and the US. Our staff poll players on the ground to gauge their reaction to various events, structures and buy-ins. The players come from over twenty countries and we feel that this gives a more balanced viewpoint based on the nationality of most events.

How do you formally record that data Dave? You say your staff poll players so can you publish the results of those polls? If you can't then it's just casual convos and I wouldn't be so confident that quantifies as substantial or indeed accurate feedback.

Hi

I understand your concern but we do not publish any of our client data as we believe the research helps shape our future investment and we want to try and stay ahead of the competition. We will be launching two new services as a result of the research and will be investing over 100k Euros into Prague this year so we listen to what the players say and try and act on it. In the U/K we have limited exposure mostly because DTD has the market sewn up and we already work with Genting on that tour. We would always welcome any player input and anyone who wants to contact us and assist in improving any tour experience is welcome. In this economic environment all input is gratefully accepted :)

Dave

Sweet Dave thanks for your help. You said after all your staff had canvassed opinion from all your players there was substantial feedback in favour of re-entry. If you do want to stay ahead of the competition I wouldn't have revealed the results of your market research on a public forum in the first place but there you go.

You'll see repechage in many events at the Olympics, such as the rowing, judo, wrestling and taekwondo, and in the sailing (I think).  That's similar to re-entering after being knocked-out as it's a second chance at getting through to the later stages of the event.

Sometimes you are so smart when I read your posts a little sick comes up in my mouth.  You have a smart answer for everything. Next time I am in court you can come with me. You are ten times better than my brief :)

:D  Bet he gets paid 10 times more than me though :(

and probably 10 times more often

When he eventually gets it he probably is ;)

A topic that is close to my heart at the moment :)

Firstly on the rare occasions that I get to play a live tournament I am greatly in favour of the re-entry option. Due to where I live any tournament I play I am going to be a travelling player and being able to re-enter on the occasions I bust early is must if I am going to make the effort to travel.

I am a believer that starting a tournament late is giving up EV as when the stacks are deeper compared to the blinds I think a better player has more of an edge. Therefore I think a re-entry a few levels in has a slightly lower EV but factor in the travel costs being split between what is effectively two different tournaments and it levels it out somewhat.

Initially from a business point of view I was a little sceptical of re-entry tournaments but once I understood them properly and what the true effects and demands for players are I was quick to implement them in every event we are involved in.

In the early days of re-entry tournaments I think there was a lot of misconceptions about how they would affect the play and who they really benefit. In my personal opinion I am 100% sure that it does not give anyone a specific advantage in an individual tournament. If anybody is playing a re-entry in the same way as a re-buy they are giving up EV to the rest of the field. In a traditional re-buy tournament there is definitely an advantage to playing loose and trying to gain chips. If you lose your chips you are still on the same table and have a chance to win your chips back and also the payout structures are different with a min cash usually being considerably more in a re-buy.

When you use the re-entry option you are effectively playing a second tournament and should not take the first bullet into account when calculating your roi on this tournament. A lot of people who played our deepstack this February and re-entered suddenly realised this when approaching the bubble and seeing that the min cash was only money back if they had re-entered. Our policy on payouts is that a min cash is around double the initial buy in.

Like Dave has mentioned above we also extensively canvassed our player base before making the decision to bring in re-entries and it was an almost unanimous "yes" from them. Caveat here being that most players who play the tournaments we are involved in are travelling players so they are more than likely to see the benefits of playing a "second tournament" for the same set of exes. At a recent GUKPT before re-entries were introduced 100% of the players I spoke to after busting would have re-entered if it was an option. 70% of players who busted Day 1A of our Deepstack in Dublin re-entered.

From an organisers point of view it does bump up the prize pools and encourage more players to travel but can be at some cost to them in certain situations. I would imagine in a venue like DTD where players might travel but not stay overnight it would have a negative impact on their cash games as players might normally jump into them after an early exit. This loss of revenue is also exaggerated by the fact that most tournaments run at break even or a loss unless the reg fee is over £50/€50 for a multi day event. Bigger loss-making tournament + smaller cash game revenue is not a good business model! For our Dublin events this not so much of a concern as players who re-enter are less likely to check out early and jump on a plane home so we have more of a chance of getting them into a cash game. Similar applies to GUKPT where a lot of the player base may stay overnight.

The poll results are interesting but I feel they have little meaning unless the voters are separated into specific categories or there is more than one poll taking into account the different tournaments/festivals on offer to players.

Non scientific point - people are generally quick to point out things they do not like and slow to comment on the good things. Since we have introduced re-entries no-one has come up to me asked me to change it back yet many have said how much they like it. Some, like Da Bookie, have said they themselves would not use the option often but like they way the prizepools are bigger because of it. (caveat: this does not include forum posters who have never played our events before).

I also think that in the long run players who are losing will go bust quicker than normal as they are effectively going to get in more tournaments than before. They are also more likely to take a re-entry as you would assume that bad players bust out earlier on average than good ones :)

Just for clarity, how many did you ask, and how many of those had satellited in?

Why do you think DTD are making the mistake of implementing poor business models within their organisation?



The way you conduct market research and collate data needs improvement. If you ask somebody if they want to get back into a game after busting, especially when they can't actually commit to their answer, your results will be massively skewed. Hence why 100% said yes. Unless you really do believe 100% of all players favour re-entry you can see how inaccurate your polling method is. Yet you are using this data to add weight to your arguement whilst dimissing our far more balanced poll as having 'little meaning'.

Lol. Yeah kick a guy in the bollox and ask him if he wants another :)

DTD are not necessary making a mistake, I merely pointed out a possible downside for a poker room offering re-entries. Certainly from experience in running tournaments I know that unless you get players into cash games at a tournament you are not going to make any money. Not at sub £50 reg fees anyway. Alex's comment about cash games being affected would imply to me that this is the case. I have only had time to go DTD once (for one of the 150 deepstack jobbies) and whilst I was very impressed with the place I was surprised at the low numbers playing cash considering the amount of players in the tournaments.

Re: The GUKPT comment, this was one of many occasions where I have spoken to players. It was only a small sample but with the players concerned I am pretty sure that their answers were valid. I took almost a year of evaluating direct player feedback from our events and others as well monitoring forum feedback before adding them to our events.

This poll means a lot if all the players who have answered are part of the target market of the person creating the poll. It may do but I doubt it. One of the best things about Blonde is that it attracts a wide spectrum of poker players.

Just to back up my point on the validity of the poll take a look through the responses in the thread. Almost everyone who has bothered to offer an opinion is in favour of re-entries in some form. Even some that voted no did so only because of their current situation. The replies and opinions in the poll are much more valuable than the actual poll itself.

Thanks for the replies luckyblind.

You said you were surprised at the low numbers playing cash during a DTD tournament and add that a DTD reg confirmed cash games were adversely affected by this measure. I wonder then why ANY cash game player would have voted in favour of the re-entry format??

Don't forget cash game players are an integral part of the customer base in a card room business. Obv any cash players looking to get juicy side games going are going to be disappointed because that £500 or whatever is going back into the comp rather than finding it's way to the cash tables. Thus rather than canvass opinion from tourney players who have busted why not go and ask cash game players looking to get a game started what they think and I'm sure you'll get a markedly different result.

You have said re-entry adversely affects revenue for the venue, adversely affects cash games for the players, and as you can see lots of the players polled don't want it, yet you are very convinced it's a winning idea. The only argument you present in favour is because some players have travel costs to meet.

I think you have missed the bit where I said "certain situations".

For an event where a lot of the field are travelling and in particular staying in a hotel then from an organisers point of view you want as many in a tournament as possible. At some point a lot of the players will end up in a cash game. In my experience (which is only 8 years of running major festivals) players are most likely to book a new flight home when exiting early on Day 1 after that they usually (not always) stay.

Where an event is populated by players who are going home each night the longer they play in the tournament the less likely they would be to end up in a cash game (IMO).

Without doing the math (and I am not likely too as it does not match our business) I would imagine at some point the extra numbers added by offering re-entries in a locals-centric tournament the cash game revenue could go up. F&B will certainly go up.

From a tournament players point of view I can't see a reason not to want re-entries if you are correctly rolled for the buy in level. Even then if you are playing out of your roll's level I still don't see a valid objection. Romantic reasons are not valid - again IMO.

I would imagine all "predominantly cash game" players would vote for no re-entries. There are more relevant questions that I would be asking cash game players than those about tournaments.

This is all just my opinion as I presumed this is what this thread asked for.

I don't mind them in cheap comps, ( though I think the rake should be less the second time ; you are getting less play and have already paid a fee which didnt cost them a lot) but in big comps where the more skilled players will typically be better rolled and therefore more prepared to reenter, I think it is a bad idea. Tournaments will get tougher and the allure of qualifying less attractive for casual players once they realise how slim their chances are when pitted against opponents able to reload and therefore take more risks and be less prone to getting two outered early on.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ plus 1 think he got some gud points

Unless Dubai turns up I can't see many players flicking £500 a hand in for fun in the bigger stuff.

Much more likely to happen in the small comps.

I completely agree Mike. Your posts make a great deal of sense based on many years of experience running large tournaments and doing it well. Your tournaments also have a good payout structure.

I believe re-entries are what the majority of Tournament players want. There are cash game players that go to events just for the cash action so clearly they are not a fan of re-entries as it slows down the flow of players to their cash games.

You make a point that re-entries should be treated as two separate tournaments and this is correct. Any tournament player with a +EV should be in favour because they play more MTTS over a shorter period with less travelling expenses etc,

As you say in an earlier post, EV would be effected by re-entering late with shorter stack relative to the blind levels as they are not as deep and many of the weaker players have been eliminated and gone home.

Using the re-entry on another day 1 (if there are more left) would maintain a players +EV at the same levels. (providing they have got over the bad beat that eliminated them on the previous day!!!).

But all in all it's about choice. No one is forced or coerced into re-entering.

Speaking personally and from a max of £50-75 I've ever bought in, I think at this level and below it should never be a re-entry as a regular std tournament. Exceptions for the GP style events I understand.

My thinking around higher buyins sit 2 fold.

If you can afford £100+ buy in then a 1 re-entry would seem to be within your budget too. Swells the pot and gives a better reason to play at this level.

That said, (2nd fold) any re-entry option, again speaking personally would totally put me (and others with similar BR/budget restraints) off playing as I would figure lots would be playing with a re-entry in mind so massive disadvantage. So this therefore would limit chances to play at this level.

As most poker players I'd suggest are at less than £100 buyin you think it would be sensible in general to keep the majority happy!!?

Just a personal view.