Poll: Your views required please on Re-entry tournaments

[luckyblind]

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.

[MANTIS01]

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.

[luckyblind]

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.

[kinboshi]

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

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

[madlondoner]

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.

[brookie]

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

[pokerfan]

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.

[Gemini Kings]

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.

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.

[Waz1892]

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.