Vegas & The Aftermath - Diary

[ifm]

Paul this is misleading though, it was taken as a % of buy ins so even if you didn't cash once its still some of your money in the pot!

its irrelevant as to whether one is or isn't a winning player over the period as to the inequitable nature of the promotion

Precisely.

[celtic]

If thats the case then the people that are 'dead money' but go 4 or 5 times a week then they get the chance to qualify for the heads up and get something back. no?

[TightEnd]

If thats the case then the people that are 'dead money' but go 4 or 5 times a week then they get the chance to qualify for the heads up and get something back. no?

they did

if you went often enough you didn't need to make a single final to get into the final 128

then you had a "punchers shot" at £10k

[celtic]

kept the 'dead money' coming back then. Isnt that what poker players want?

[TightEnd]

kept the 'dead money' coming back then. Isnt that what poker players want?

i think it is quite presumptuous to call it "dead money", but yes you are right except that this piece of dead money qualified in the first section and then didn't go for six weeks.....there's always an exception to the rule!

[M3boy]

Paul this is misleading though, it was taken as a % of buy ins so even if you didn't cash once its still some of your money in the pot!

its irrelevant as to whether one is or isn't a winning player over the period as to the inequitable nature of the promotion

Misleading? To a certain extent I agree

Consider these 2 scenarios :

Scenario 1 - Player A plays once a week for the 3 months (spends £1300 on entry fees say) and does not make a final table - ie his winnings are NIL (with or WITHOUT league contributions). If the league was not running, he would of had the same tournament entries and the same NET result.
Therefore the league contributions DO NOT cost Player A at all.
Player A STILL qualifies for the 30G league and has a shot at £10k.

Scenario 2 - Player B plays the SAME tourneys as Player A (ie spends the same £1300 on entry fees). He, on the other hand, wins a couple of the tourneys AND final tables a few more.
Now if the league had NOT been running, his "winnings" would be £XXX's more than when the league contributions were being taken.
Therefore the league contributions have cost Player B £XXX's
Player B ALSO qualifies for the 30G league and has a shot at £10k.

Therefore, entrance into the 30G league with a shot at £10k has cost the players :
Player A = NIL
Player B = £XXX's

I do not think I can explain this any better.

Do you NOT agree that Player A's "loss" because of the league contributions is NIL. AND he has in effect GAINED a shot at £10k for free?


I am just saying that "some" people also benefited from the way the league was set up. Thats what I meant by a balanced argument (wrong choice of words I know)

BTW - Does anyone know who won? 

[TightEnd]

ITS NOT AS SIMPLE AS THAT!

one needs to consider the following equation

(a+b)^{2} = a^{2} + 2ab + b^{2}

where a is the EV of the losing player and b the EV of the winning player to get a proper exposition of the inequitability of the promotion of a cross-section of Luton players

but you'll have to estimate the starting values yourselves

[celtic]

ffs my head hurts!!!!!

So that was A = er , nope forget it.

[77dave]

Paul this is misleading though, it was taken as a % of buy ins so even if you didn't cash once its still some of your money in the pot!

its irrelevant as to whether one is or isn't a winning player over the period as to the inequitable nature of the promotion

Misleading? To a certain extent I agree

Consider these 2 scenarios :

Scenario 1 - Player A plays once a week for the 3 months (spends £1300 on entry fees say) and does not make a final table - ie his winnings are NIL (with or WITHOUT league contributions). If the league was not running, he would of had the same tournament entries and the same NET result.
Therefore the league contributions DO NOT cost Player A at all.
Player A STILL qualifies for the 30G league and has a shot at £10k.

Scenario 2 - Player B plays the SAME tourneys as Player A (ie spends the same £1300 on entry fees). He, on the other hand, wins a couple of the tourneys AND final tables a few more.
Now if the league had NOT been running, his "winnings" would be £XXX's more than when the league contributions were being taken.
Therefore the league contributions have cost Player B £XXX's
Player B ALSO qualifies for the 30G league and has a shot at £10k.

Therefore, entrance into the 30G league with a shot at £10k has cost the players :
Player A = NIL
Player B = £XXX's

I do not think I can explain this any better.

Do you NOT agree that Player A's "loss" because of the league contributions is NIL. AND he has in effect GAINED a shot at £10k for free?


I am just saying that "some" people also benefited from the way the league was set up. Thats what I meant by a balanced argument (wrong choice of words I know)

BTW - Does anyone know who won? 

Maybe then dont you think the players should of been given a say into how the league was run  so it could of been made as far as possible for all. Or even at least have discussed it with the players committee.

Also Paul do you also think it would of been such a good comp if you werent a fan of playing heads up matches

[M3boy]

Jim

I totally agree that players should of been consulted. AND that the format suited some players better than others.

You know my views on the whole league tourney - if it is was better set up, better communicated and transparent then I would bet that there would not be too many complaints - this suggests to me that it is not the tourney that is wrong, just the communication etc..

Fair assumption?

I also take Tikays point about "Our Prize Pool" and his comparrison to Vegas tourneys where the organisers take far far too much money from tourneys - and we all agree we do not want that to happen here.

My argument was honestly just playing "Devils Advocate".

[AlexMartin]

I thought it was awesome. Im petitioning for it to be a regular quarterly fixture.

[tikay]

Good grief, seems I touched a nerve........!

First up, I dont wish to tarnish those who won the Event, which I gather was a 4 way chop (£4,500, £4,500, £3,000 & £3,000), I'm genuinely pleased for them. Special congrats go to the "official" winner, M3Boy, I'm very pleased for him.

My main points, which seem not to have been noted really, were....

1) I am wholly against deductions from Prize Pools. That is OUR money, & they do NOT have the right to take it. I note other Venus do it without complaint - Rendezvous Brighton & Grosvenor Walsall, & maybe others. Well maybe they communicate properly with their Clientele. This is a must-do.

2) If the Players are to contribute (allegedly) £24k out of £30k, surely they have a right to know the Format & Structure at the outset? Note despite asking many times, I was never, ever, made aware of the Structure, & I was only made aware of the Format a few days in advance of the actual Play-Off! This is bang out of order. Some players were informed of the structure 24 hours in advance of the play-off. Why some, & not others? It was, largely, for these reasons that I declined to play the event.

3) Everyone who qualified was entitled to £50 - IF they turned up on the day. Why should those that qualified, but never turned up, be denied their £50? And where did those spare £50's go? I shall vigorously insist that I am paid the £50. I don't want the money for money's sake - it can go in the Luton Charity Box - but I demand to be paid my £50. Jeez, guys, are we really gonna allow ourselves to be pillaged like this? A stand has to be made.

4) Accountability. We have asked on countless occasions to see the breakdown of where the money came from, how it was arrived at, etc.  I intend to obtain this information. It's not that I suspect Luton G of malpractice - I most certainly do not - but for £24,000 of OUR money, the most trusting soul on earth is entitled to ask to see how the numbers were arrived at. Even if I'd turned up on the day, I'd have refused to start the event until this info had been made public. It's OUR MONEY.

Luton G, I'm personally assured by Carmel, will never repeat this affair, so that's that, we move on. But this matter needs clearing up first.

It's well-known that I'm a huge fan of Grosvenor & their Poker Tournaments, even more so of Luton G, Luton being the Venue I prefer above all others, & where I've had some dozen or more Fessie Cashes, more than anywhere else. I adore the place & the people. But this League thing needs sorting properly before it's body can be laid to rest, & just because I support Grosvenor & Luton G does not mean I'm gonna shy away from asking "difficult" questions. As long as they are asked in a civil manner, we are entitled to ask where our money went.

[tikay]

I thought it was awesome. Im petitioning for it to be a regular quarterly fixture.

I'm petitioning for you to be summarily shot.

[tikay]

In my mind everything should be down in black and white clearly explaining what happens to any money that is paid that does not form part of the main prize pool, with the exception of whatever the buy-in fee is which should be listed as seperate to the tourny entry.

Spot on!

[tikay]

Bumped into a few faces who were playing The Western £200 tonight. (I was not).

Frankie Knight, who's older & tighter than me, for which reasons alone I like him.

Whacker Bush, & Carlo Citrone. I've not seen Carlo since pre-Vegas, after he left Sky, but he's in good heart, though the sunbed suntan has gone. I gather he cashed 3rd in the Full Tilt Biggie the night before last for $40,000 - well done him.

Kevin "Lovejoy" O'Leary, fresh from his tidy Heads-Up Cash at The Vic a few weeks back, told me he plans to dip his toes into the EPT waters in 2008. He'll run well in those, he has awesome game, very much in the Thewy style, with whom, as it happens, he shares a good & long friendship, as he, Thewy & me pretty much started out at the same time. Them two did right good, whilst I had to make do with earning my living off rather than on the tables. But we all three found much fun in poker, &, in our own different ways, survived, albeit in my case with the help of that wonderful thing called Luck.