on: Today at 01:55:03 AM
Started by MintTrav - Last post by MintTrav
Ugh. This election goes from bad to worse.
Hillary has reportedly invited Mark Cuban to sit in the front row at the debate. Cuban is a billionaire who owns an NBA team and other stuff. He has been one of the most visible critics of Trump, frequently described as trolling Trump. Clinton's team said they were putting him in because he has been so successful at highlighting Trump's negatives. Seems a crappy move, but there you go.
Trump's response? Unbelievable. He has dug up Gennifer Flowers and invited her to sit in the front row. If you don't remember her, gee that's sweet, you rugrat. Long before Monica Lewinsky was heard of, Gennifer Flowers was Bill Clinton's paramour. It all came to light during Bill's first Presidential campaign and nearly derailed it until Bill and Hillary undertook a joint interview of denial that succeeded in limiting the damage. Gennifer claimed she had had a 12-year affair with Bill, which he denied, though he did admit a few years later that they had done it, but just once.
Trump suggested the idea, apparently as an empty threat, but Gennifer then tweeted that she is up for it. Hopefully, Trump didn't really mean it. How low can you go?
Donald J. Trump Verified account @realDonaldTrump
If dopey Mark Cuban of failed Benefactor fame wants to sit in the front row, perhaps I will put Gennifer Flowers right alongside of him!https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/779729180334387200
Gennifer Flowers @gennflowers
Hi Donald. You know I'm in your corner and will definitely be at the debate!https://twitter.com/gennflowers
Sometimes I feel like I don't want to read anything more about this year's awful election. What has happened to the powerful American system that it has been brought to this?
on: September 24, 2016, 11:09:15 PM
Started by TightEnd - Last post by Doobs
Simon posted as follows in response to questions about the sample payout
"Just a point on payouts.
What has happened over the past few years is operators have not adjusted their payouts to reflect re-entries [which are effectively the same as a ReBuy], so instead of the traditional 10% getting paid, in reality some events are paying as much as 20-30% of unique players because there are not factoring in re-entries.
This has resulted in low min cashes and low payouts in the final table. For example, a Grand Prix can have 3 X £75 average spend per player, so the min cash should be nearer £500 to give players value for their time and travel and buy-ins invested, with a the payout based on unique players IE if a player has 5 bullets - he is still just 1 player - this is the same as how payouts were previous to invention of re-entry.
Another example would be a £20 ReBuy with average spend of £60, say you get 100 runners, total rebuys would be 300 - but you would never pay 30 players [30% of the field], you would pay 10 +, we believe re-entries should be treated in the same way, paying 10%-15% of unique players depending on the event as there is effectively no different between a ReBuy and Re-Entry - it's just the same person putting more money into the prizepool.
I guess the most infamous example of how re-entries can scew a payout is the WSOP Colossus - when everyone was up in arms that the rake was more than 1st place - if this payout had been based on unique players this would not have happened.
Why are operators still doing this?
Of course it's best for the live or online operator to pay as many places as possible! Re-entry allows them to look like try are still paying 10-15% of the field but in reality, multi re-entry events are now paying at least 20-30% of the field which is perfect for the operator but not for the players.
Firstly, as I posted first in this thread, I just love the idea, and I am not really bothered about a whole bunch of unknown day 1s/day
that will happen in the future. You clearly have to get somewhere near the guarantee by whatever means are reasonable, and I don't expect you just to spew £4m just because people don't realise this is likely to happen. But...
The whole payout structure just looks very wrong to me, and I don't even think the explanation makes much sense.
Either this is a £5000 tournament with £500 satelites or it is a £500 one. The balance feels all wrong if you are marketing this as a £500 one. If you are marketing it as a £5k tournament, it might look different.
The structure quoted has 144 payouts ranging from a million down to £5000. Maybe my maths is wrong but I get very close to £5m (4,850,000) so I don't think there are any payouts missing and maybe a 3% deduction. Whether it is 4.85m or 5m isn't my main concern so I won't dwell on it. (my maths could easily be wrong, as I had to hand type them into a spreadsheet, but I can't be far out and I don't want to waste time on it, as it isn't my main point).
If this is a £500 tournament, and it is marketed as such, and it will only ever be that for me and the vast majority of entrants, there are effectively 10,000 entries and 144 prizes. So I am going to be playing an awful lot of days/hours to get to the cash. In the past I have played the main event twice and reached day 3 twice and not cashed. It is a pretty brutal thing to gothrough, so much so that I just don't play it anymore. The main event pays 15% of starters, this is paying less than 10% of those (1.44%). Maaybe that will please some absolute punters, but it doesn't suit those of us who really value £500.
I know you can say it is a rebuy, but maybe rebuys were always viewed wrongly and not the other way round. I get knocked out of a £500 tournament that money has gone. If I re-enter this, and I am not even certain to do that. it is something that is an entirely new tournament with an entirely new £500 cost. If I get a cash, the comparison is between that cash and the £500 entry, and not the other £500 entries to this tournament or all the other £500 entries I have spewed away over the years. Those are sunk costs in economic terms, and will never be seen again no matter how many other tournaments I play. I don't suddenly get a double stack on my second entry, so I think I am viewing it in a rational way.
I just don't want, or need, this kind of volatility when I pitch in £500. It just seems a massive overreaction to the people who complained about the 20% payouts at EPT Barcelona. There is a place where most wil be happy and that is somewhere between 10 and 15% payouts. Nobody is going to be unhappy if you do this. Where as if that example payout goes ahead, I can't see anything other than an even bigger reaction than happened in Barcelona.
The people who enter on day 3 with their 5k know that they could lose their 5k or most of it if they min cash on a standard structure. Most of those that pay in their 500, know in a standard tournament that 85% or 90% of the time they go home with nothing. Don't make it 98.5% for most of us, just to please the big swinging dicks with their 5k entries. It is going way too far, it is at the expense of the smaller/newer players. And the smaller players are those that are important for the future, and not those who have enough that they can pony up with 5k on day 3.
It is just a minor aside, but the top payout in the Collosus was screwed by a decision to pay a smaller proportion of the prize fund to the top player and nothing to do with uniques or re-entries. If they had 21613 uniques with no re-entries and paid 15% and just paid a million for the top, the end result would be the same and the expenses would be higher than the first prize. The same people would still whinge in the same way.
This post is already a bit TLDR, but this is the payout structure for 10,000 5k entries on the DTD website right now. It is included, just so people don't understand what the post is about.