Vegas & The Aftermath - Diary

[dik9]

Flushy's example is a piss take

Luton are charging £60 reg no problem

Luton are not taking anything away from the prize pool

I am surprised someone in the industry can't see its the same thing!

Yes there is a small increase in % as i stated quite a few pages back, my point was the argument of they are robbing the prizepool or something.

Am very surprised Tighty can't see its the same thing!

So you want me to brutally honest?

Pre, my current employer, I have been in meetings with management, when this has been discussed, when they were looking past the 2005 act.

I have also been there when someone suggests this as a way to increase revenue as " poker players will never see this", The same meeting also brought to the attention that figures of upto 25% were discussed after the 2005 act came in. I left the industry in disgust, after hinting on the APAT thread many moons ago that this is the way casinos may well be going.

Swallow at your peril, I don't play much live so doesn't really effect me. But if you like the way that Vegas does it, and the amount they rake the pool then thats your choice?

[gatso]

My opinion is it isn't!

however surprisingly. 

lol, it's maths, you don't get to have an opinion, it's either right or wrong

[TightEnd]

My opinion is it isn't!

however surprisingly. 

lol, it's maths, you don't get to have an opinion, it's either right or wrong

no its not.

[tikay]

Its the principle of it more than the actual amounts and where it might lead.......

One man alone understnds my concern. and we may both be 100% wrong - it matters not one iota to me if I'm wrong.

My point, 100% only, is this.

By taking the juice out of the Prize Pool (which makes a small, but to me, insignificant difference), what we are agreeing to is dilution of our Prize Pools willy nilly by Venues. And before long, we will have deductions of Vegas magnitude, softly softly catchee monkee style.

When they removed "League Contirbution" from Prize Pools at Luton a while back, there was uproar, & quite right too.

Now Walsall are deducting the Reg Fee from the Prize Pool - & even worse, advertising it as "NO REG FEE". That's misleading!

I don't personally care if the Reg Fee is 2.5%, 5%, or 10%, even more. But I do care that all the Prize Money we contribute remains the property of the players.

Luton take x% from the GUKPT Prize Pool, as has been suggested? Not at all. The Buy-In is £1,000, all of which accrues to it's owners - the Players. The £60 Reg Fee is added on top, as it should be. As it always was.

[tikay]

Oh and Sorry Tikay for hijaking thread 

I shall stop now

Not at all - continue please, it's a great debate, & extremely important that players understand that the door has been opened to unlimited deductions by Venues from our prize money.

[dik9]

I don't know how else to say it 

It WILL lead to vegas style percentages coming off and out of the prize pool.

[Longy]

Lol at the last 4-5 pages, Flushy is absolute master at causing an arguement over nothing. Reading all of this all i could imagine was Flushy laughing at his computer while ppl get completely whooshed by his levelling.

[gatso]

Its the principle of it more than the actual amounts and where it might lead.......

One man alone understnds my concern. and we may both be 100% wrong - it matters not one iota to me if I'm wrong.

no Tony, everyone (well most) understands your concern but that's not the conversation that's just been had

we can all see that this 'could' lead to other things, indeed I'm pretty sure that's walsall's plan, the next move may well be to deduct from r/b prizepools, but we've been talking about what is currently happening and whether advertising it as one thing or another makes an actual difference. It doesn't, that is an undeniable mathematical fact.

I'm sure we also all agree that advertising as 'no reg fee' is wrong but, again, that's not the discussion we've been having.

 SINCERE APOLOGIES Gatso - In attempting to quote your Post, I accidentally Edited YOUR Post. Sorry!

[dik9]

So what was the discussion we were having?

, but we've been talking about what is currently happening and whether advertising it as one thing or another makes an actual difference. It doesn't, that is an undeniable mathematical fact.

Ah yes.

It is completely different!!!!

[tikay]

for those who haven't quite figured it out yet....


IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS BEFORE!!!!

Tikay should be careful in slamming venues given the weight his word carries in poker, especially when its not justified.

Nio it is not James, & well you know it. You are being disengeneous.

The amount taken is not relevant, or of interest, to me personally. Where it's taken from is.

I don't give a monkeys if they take 10%, or 11.5%. I just don't. But it must be transparent, up front, & seperate from the Prie Money. Start mixing those two up & it's a long slippery slope.

Slam Venues? Hold up. I have been called from a dog to a pig for larging up Grosvenor, I always have, & probably always will, support Grosvenor, & have done so yet again this week. Without Grosvenor, UK Tournament Poker as we know it would not exist. Have you seen the mainland Europe Tourney Scene? No, because they don't have one to speak of. Because they don't have a Grosvenor.

I am 100% Grosvenor supportive. I just think everyone should be aware that taking 10% off the Prize pools - or is it 5%, 7.5%, 12.5%, or 15%? - is the wrong route to go. And so I wrote to Walsall, & told them so.

"The weight his (tikay's) word carries in poker"? Since when, & with whom?!

I make my points with care. You should read them with the same care, or, more likely, stop being mischievious. I don't mind if it's 5%, 10%, or 15%, (because I have the choice whether to pay & play or not). If a £1,000 Event costs a £250 Reg Feee, I know up front that's a lot, & can make my decision before playing. I might never know that the "rake" was 25% if it's deducted from the prize pool - which is ours, the players.

To reiterate. I'm not bothered about the semantics of £180 + £20, or £200 + £20. There's a small difference which I'm not fussed about. (Though Walsall advertised the Comp as a £200 Freezeout", when they should have said £180 Freezeout").

I'm bothered that once Venues - ALL Venues, not just Grosvenor - click on to the fact that players don't mind their Buy-Ins being diluted, there's no telling where it might end. Have you seen the deductions they take in Vegas? Let's not go there.

Now, behave, or I'll wazz you good & proper Heads-Up. You don't want that, now do you?

[tikay]

that's not the discussion we've been having.

It may not be the discussion you guys have been having, It is the discussion I've been having. With myself, I fancy......

[tikay]

Lol at the last 4-5 pages, Flushy is absolute master at causing an arguement over nothing. Reading all of this all i could imagine was Flushy laughing at his computer while ppl get completely whooshed by his levelling.

Yup, he got the lot of us - he just ain't that daft to believe what he was saying!

I'm gonna slap him tomorrowz.

[kinboshi]

Most interesting fellas.

[dik9]

[X] Teh nasty manz pwned me

[steeveg]

 i think there is one major difference in casinos being allowed to take deductions from the pool, expenses ,if they add 10% to the entry fee ,no problem everyone knows where they stand, what happens if its a small turn out ,would it possible for them to  now deduct a larger % , in other words they may claim in the future it costs £300 for the casino to run a comp regular, if 150 people turn up and paid an entry of £20 ,the pool would be £3000, 10% would be £300 which covers expenses which is no different from paying a fee, i  am wondering if only 100 turn up they would still deduct £300 but the pool is only £2000 a £300 deduction would now be 15%,
i imagine you could get a lot worse deductions than this if the casino can justify it is to cover expenses ,i assume it could be anything up to 27%, dont know for sure though