EPT buy-ins

[Ironside]

then the ept
then the wpt and wsop

Personally7 I don't see why there should be any gap between the ept and the wpt/wsop events. The clear divide hear is geographical. Why shouldn't europe try and put on events to rival the wpt/wsop.

The only defining factor in the ept events, as in any event, is demand and if the demand still exists at the higher level then so be it.

only difference i see is a bit like football

you have the euro champs then the world cup with both being important but the world cup being slightly more important

personally i would prefer to see a range of comps inbetween the gukpt and the wsop with a buy in range of about £2-4k  so people can progress slower up the ladder instead of jumping from one big win on the gukpt to then be facing £5k buy ins which even after winning a gukpt you only have about 20-30 comps before the well runs dry

[Milkybarkid]

It's because they didn't want to move to a situation where they would need three day ones. Most players wouldn't want to play Day1 (a) if there was then a two day wait to play again!

Maybe at some of the bigger venues that can take 300 players a day they could reduce it back to where it was.

The prize pools haven't really been affected by the increase in the buy in which is what they were looking for i guess.

Its above what most players can stump up unless sponsored. Some of my mates used to have the odd shot.... but at £5000+ a pop its too much.

[AndrewT]

then the ept
then the wpt and wsop

Personally7 I don't see why there should be any gap between the ept and the wpt/wsop events. The clear divide hear is geographical. Why shouldn't europe try and put on events to rival the wpt/wsop.

The only defining factor in the ept events, as in any event, is demand and if the demand still exists at the higher level then so be it.

Yes - I'd imagine this is what John is planning. He sees the EPT with a great chance to become much bigger than the WPT (which took a hit with the pullout of the US market by many poker rooms). Not increasing the buy-ins leaves a space for the WSOP to make inroads (as they have begun to with dipping their toe in with the WSOPE).

John wouldn't want to see a situation where the WSOP starts a circuit-type series which then competes with the EPT when it comes to getting TV coverage.

[dealerFROMhell]

Well, the APAT is below most casinos highest buy-in weekly comp...

wrong casinos are foing what the punters want now

£10 £25 £50 freezeouts are popular some casinos even supllying dealers for these small comps

not everyone plays in the vic where they need to get people paying higher fees ect to pay for the cost of having such a prime location

There is a good ratio of casinos that off at least one £100 competition on a weekly basis. Whether it be a freezeout, or with one rebuy. Or even a £50 re-buy.

As far as The Vic goes, it's naive to say that they rely on the Card Room to cover their running costs. It's almost inconsequential when compared to the table drop.

The reason they have higher buy-in competitions is down to the fact that players in London simply have more money available than provincial players. And it also attracts bigger punters.

[Ironside]

my point about the vic was they rely on getting people out of the card room and into the table games to get money to cover costs

[Irishdenis]

Surely the real question is not the cost of an event. In my opinion I see a lot of players who were week in week out travelling the length of the country to play in events. The reason for this was two fold. The buy in was manageable and the strike rate for final tables was high. Now with less and less dead money the strike rate is less.

 Just think about the burn rate on your money. If it was a business would you do it ! ! !

Average entry fee  £1000

Rake  £100 / £150

Hotel 2 nights  £150

Travel   £100

If you take these costs as an average and with lets say 300 runners the prize structure and burn rate would be as follows

Total costs of event £1350 / £1400

They will pay the final 30 players. Normally 30 down to 20 get their money back £1000.   Good news so far you have to beat 270 players to make a loss of £350 / £400.

If you make the last two tables this will normally need another day.  £70 for hotel min.  For this you are guaranteed £2000 so a profit of £530 for three days work.

Not until you final table do you earn real money. Lets say £10k -£13k - £17k etc
How many final tables would you expect to make. A number of years ago you could say six to ten a year. Now if you make two you are doing OK. So unless you win one of these then you make a loss for the year.

The situation is worse if you travel earlier in the week to some of the smaller events. The overheads remain but the prize pool is lower. I have to say this is one of the reasons I don't travel as much. I was away from work so much it was costing me a fortune. 

The only way to make the circuit work is to play cash. The downside is you might do your boll...s.  The upside is you can make more in a few hours than all but the final table.
               

[AndrewT]

I would say that there is no player whose edge over an average EPT field is greater than that needed to cover costs - ie playing the EPT tournament circuit without a sponsor is -EV for everyone.

In the olden days of tournament poker, just about any unknown player could be safely assumed to be dead money. Not so now - that kid has played 50 million MTTs in his bedroom and knows his stuff.

[TightEnd]

Good post

I haven't played a fesitval event since February. Some of the reasons why are contained in that post

[doubleup]

Good post

I haven't played a fesitval event since February. Some of the reasons why are contained in that post

Hmmm I'm pretty much the same and have decided only to play festivals in places that I actually enjoy going to and have smaller fields buy-ins.  BUT the EPT fields are still holding up, so who is playing them?  There really aren't that many sposored players and cash internet grinders surely aren't plonking down a month's profit?

[The Camel]

I would say that there is no player whose edge over an average EPT field is greater than that needed to cover costs - ie playing the EPT tournament circuit without a sponsor is -EV for everyone.

In the olden days of tournament poker, just about any unknown player could be safely assumed to be dead money. Not so now - that kid has played 50 million MTTs in his bedroom and knows his stuff.

This is so wrong it's almost laughable.

Let's take the EPT Barcelona for a player from London:

Flight £100
Hotel for a week £400
Food/Drink/Misc £200
Juice on the tournament £200

That's £900 expenses on a tournament of approx £5000. (And this is without buying in through pokerstars using w$ which you can buy at 92%.. saving £450 of your buyin).

Are you seriously saying Ram Vaswani, Julian Thew, Roland de Wolfe John Kabbaj and several others haven't got a 40% edge on the field? If you are... I feel a prop bet for season 5 coming up.. I pick 10 players over the course of the whole of the EPT season and we add up the totals of their buyin and see if they make a profit of more than 40% over the course of the whole season.

Are you up for this?

[AndrewT]

I would say that there is no player whose edge over an average EPT field is greater than that needed to cover costs - ie playing the EPT tournament circuit without a sponsor is -EV for everyone.

In the olden days of tournament poker, just about any unknown player could be safely assumed to be dead money. Not so now - that kid has played 50 million MTTs in his bedroom and knows his stuff.

This is so wrong it's almost laughable.

Let's take the EPT Barcelona for a player from London:

Flight £100
Hotel for a week £400
Food/Drink/Misc £200
Juice on the tournament £200

That's £900 expenses on a tournament of approx £5000. (And this is without buying in through pokerstars using w$ which you can buy at 92%.. saving £450 of your buyin).

Are you seriously saying Ram Vaswani, Julian Thew, Roland De Wolfe John Kabbaj and several others haven't got a 40% edge on the field? If you are... I feel a prop bet for season 5 coming up.. I pick 10 players over the course of the whole of the EPT season and we add up the totals of their buyin and see if they make a profit of more than 40% over the course of the whole season.

Are you up for this?

I don't think they have a 40% edge.

I'll take you up on it  - pick your ten players.

I'd guess we probably have different levels of stakes which we would respectively find meaningful but I'd have, say £250 with you.

[doubleup]

Camel, I think you are missing the point of the thread, the buyins are too high for most players.  You could be good enough to get in money 20% of the time and it would not be statistically remarkable to go 20 tourneys without getting a payout.  This means that regular players of these events are either hugely bankrolled, backed in some way or mostly heading for busto land.

[The Camel]

Camel, I think you are missing the point of the thread, the buyins are too high for most players.  You could be good enough to get in money 20% of the time and it would not be statistically remarkable to go 20 tourneys without getting a payout.  This means that regular players of these events are either hugely bankrolled, backed in some way or mostly heading for busto land.

I agree with almost everything you say.. I do think the buyins are too high. 5000 euro for the regular events and 10k for the Monte Carlo finale was just right IMO.

But I was just disagreeing with Andrew's assertion that EPT's were -ev for everyone.

£250 is fine. Sounds like we've got a bet.

My team of 10:

Praz Bansi
Johnny Lodden
Julian Thew
William Thorson
Ram Vaswani
Stuart Fox
Roland De Wolfe
Jan Sjavik
Julian Gardner
Luca Pagano

Just to confirm we add the sum total of all the buyins these players actually play (not including the juice because I included that in the expenses calculation) and then add the total amount of money cashed by these players in next years EPT's. If the latter figure is 40% more or higher than the first figure I win. If it isn't you win.

Deal?

[Tractor]

[AndrewT]

Camel, I think you are missing the point of the thread, the buyins are too high for most players.  You could be good enough to get in money 20% of the time and it would not be statistically remarkable to go 20 tourneys without getting a payout.  This means that regular players of these events are either hugely bankrolled, backed in some way or mostly heading for busto land.

I agree with almost everything you say.. I do think the buyins are too high. 5000 euro for the regular events and 10k for the Monte Carlo finale was just right IMO.

But I was just disagreeing with Andrew's assertion that EPT's were -ev for everyone.

£250 is fine. Sounds like we've got a bet.

My team of 10:

Praz Bansi
Johnny Lodden
Julian Thew
William Thorson
Ram Vaswani
Stuart Fox
Roland De Wolfe
Jan Sjavik
Julian Gardner
Luca Pagano

Just to confirm we add the sum total of all the buyins these players actually play (not including the juice because I included that in the expenses calculation) and then add the total amount of money cashed by these players in next year's EPT's. If the latter figure is 40% more or higher than the first figure I win. If it isn't you win.

Deal?

Deal.

Though it does mean I'll be reading EPT updates hoping for popular players to get knocked out.

If all of them play all events the buyins will be around €580,000.

*hopes for a good EPT season for Mateyboys*