UKIPT Season 3 Feedback

[smashedagain]

and why are we talking about 500 to 1k. this season the buy ins were 700, people complained about it when they were told it was happening, saying 500 was perfect. yet turn out was better than ever?

Just for simplicity, couldn't be arsed to work out the numbers.

They could double the amount of sats, but they wouldn't get double the qualifiers.

People have a set amount they are willing to spend of sats, it isn't a never ending pool.

Stars pull $15m out of that pool twice a year for the PCA and WSOP main. As far as the UKIPT is concerned, yes it is.

Then why aren't all the UKIPTs sold out?

Certainly the 2 I played (Nottingham and Newcastle) were at venue capacity. I would be very surprised if stars were bringing as many qualifiers as they feasibly could do. Are you seriously suggesting that stars can qualify 1500+ players for a $10k in the caribbean but couldn't bring 300 players to a £1k in England? IMO the UKIPT is a long way off from being as big as it could be, and at the minute it will be taking players from other medium buyin comps. Rather than being concerned about keeping the UKIPTs cheap enough for a certain level of recreational player, they could make the whole pie bigger. You have to look at the whole pie.

Quite clearly qualifying 1500 people from around the globe to the 2nd biggest $10k of the year that has a history and also happens to be in the Caribbean in January is obviously going to be a lot easier than qualifying 300 people to a £1k in some rain drenched corner of this nation.

@Aaron: Check the bolded part of my post quoted above for the same point made by lildave (made better by him admittedly) which you missed. And seriously no improvement in numbers or pot "for sure"? I don't know how you can both be so unambitious. What if stars put up banners in the client, ran some 20seat gtd sats on a Sunday, ran some of their 1r 3x turbo sats with seats guaranteed? They have probably 300k active players on any given Sunday, which is at least 50x as many as gcasino have on their skin, and probably 300x as many as DTD who fill up a 300 runner £500 buyin tourn every month through their satellite program. All numbers are off the top of my head but you get the jist, the possibilities are there.

My point still stands at why they want to change the buyin, when all is going fine and is only their third season.

I can appreciate that Stars could get more people into the tourney doing such sat programs like DTD, but you have to remember that UKIPT and pokerstars are running at a loss to run these events. There is perhaps lots of things they can do, but appreciate that they still havr to focus on other dynamic parts of their business is a must. Would you prefer 200+ runners at £700 buyin or just playing it as a £1k event? Furthermore, you have just said that DTD fill their tournaments eahc month, they don't. The last 500 got something like 180 runners. It's a prime example of why the buyin should not go up, comparing the old £336 to the new £560. The £560 making a overlay this month of around £10k.

Also perhaps a sat like you mentioned with a 1k buyin... You might make more runners, but the direct buyins will not improve. The £770 is just too much for some people, but I know numerous people who put themsevles out to play this (regs of the old £336) who are already at max buyin, but desperately wanted to play it. A 40% increase for sure would make a squeeze impossible.

Also, yet people mention increases in buyin, but why not put an increase on buyin of 40% to EPT's and WSOP's? Seems valid arguement to others, with a counter point.

What happens if it turns into a £1k buyin next season (it won't) and this topic arises this time next year, maybe we would increase to £1.5k? and the year after? Or maybe it would have a effect where they have to go back to £700, which would be a massive fail.

The 500 at DTD started on a Friday and not a Saturday.  That alone would account for the drop in numbers. 

the £300 deepstack in November 2010 got 450+ runners without re entries. The £500 deepstack next will be a success if it gets half that many runners. Makes you wonder what has happened to all those people from two years ago. Can't be the recession can it.

[skolsuper]

the £300 deepstack in November 2010 got 450+ runners without re entries. The £500 deepstack next will be a success if it gets half that many runners. Makes you wonder what has happened to all those people from two years ago. Can't be the recession can it.

The £500 deepstack in September got 800+ runners without reentries right? One data point is not particularly helpful for analysis...

[smashedagain]

the £300 deepstack in November 2010 got 450+ runners without re entries. The £500 deepstack next will be a success if it gets half that many runners. Makes you wonder what has happened to all those people from two years ago. Can't be the recession can it.

The £500 deepstack in September got 800+ runners without reentries right? One data point is not particularly helpful for analysis...

good point but that was  half mill gtd and not 100k tho.

[smashedagain]

Ok fair enough, some good points there. I do think that EPTs are probably close to optimally priced at the minute, they have been bigger, e.g. Barcelona EPT was €8k in '08 when I played it and is now €5k, so I think stars have probably given it a lot of thought and chosen what they think is the highest point on the demand curve. I think we're still some way off that point with the UKIPTs though.

Re: the DTD 500 the dip in numbers last month I think would have had a lot to do with them running a big 150 starting on the same day as more of a double A-side than a traditional side event. Also maybe some hangover from the big £500k gtd the month before. When they initially upped the buyin way back at the beginning of the year, the numbers actually went up and the prize pool through the roof.

Re: Your point about the tournaments running at a loss, by increasing the buyin they can increase the rake while their fixed costs stay the same. They also have the profit from their satellites which would go up with increased rake at every level. Finally, if they treat it as a marketing expense, I would imagine that marketing gets more effective in line with an increasing first prize.

Re: Direct buyins, maybe they would fall slightly but if that shortfall is made up by satellite qualifiers then I don't see a problem. Besides, a bigger buyin would cast the net wider geographically, so any drop in local players could well be mitigated by direct buyins from further afield. Most people seem to find it offensive that they could be priced out of buying into their local UKIPT direct, but as lildave said, it's not like they aren't spoiled for choice at that level already (for most of the UK), and by satelliting in they might even get in cheaper and have a shot at a bigger first prize in a more prestigious tournament. I just think there's room for a bigger tour in the UK as well as all the small local tours, and really if stars aren't going to run it then nobody will.

great post totally agree.

yeah good stuff as always. Which leg is likely to have most runners next year if there is not one at Dtd?

Is there a chance of there not being one at DTD?

thought it was common knowledge...... Thinking about it I may have messed up again, in a letting cat out of bag way now that I come to think about it

[AndrewT]

lol herbieaments

[The Camel]

The venues pay Stars to run the tournaments?

Really?

That would surprise me greatly.

[aaron1867]

The venues pay Stars to run the tournaments?

Really?

That would surprise me greatly.

Yeah, doesn't make sense.

[Skippy]

The venues pay Stars to run the tournaments?

Really?

That would surprise me greatly.

There's some missing posts here, aren't there (probably including this one shortly).

[tikay]

The venues pay Stars to run the tournaments?

Really?

That would surprise me greatly.

There's some missing posts here, aren't there (probably including this one shortly).

Nope, no Posts have been removed.

[George2Loose]

More fit female dealers

[skolsuper]

The venues pay Stars to run the tournaments?

Really?

That would surprise me greatly.

Yeah, doesn't make sense.

I don't really know, but I do know some venues pay to host a WPT. The Palm Beach tried to nick this back by taking an extra 3% out of the prize pool for WPT London which is where I first heard of it. They hadn't mentioned it before the start of the tournament so had to give it back. Most venues on the UKIPT take an extra 3% rake out of the prize pool "for staff" as well, so I put 2 and 2 together, and possibly made 5...

[Cf]

The numbers for the first DTD £500 probably went up as well due to novelty value and a decent guarantee. People will take a punt the first time around. Whether it's sustainable long term is another thing. DTD seem to just about be running it at the moment but I think they're very much at the ceiling of what they can run as a monthly competition.

Myself I can afford to play it now and then (that is maybe a few times a year). And i'll reserve those times for when it's "supersized". The standard monthly one doesn't interest me - especially when the guarantee is the same as the old £300.

I'd like to see the UKIPT stay at £700 (though I preferred it at £500) but that's purely for selfish reasons as i'll play the Nottingham leg if it's at that price. I can see it going up to £1,000 though and given the arguments on this thread don't think that would necessarily be a bad thing.


On a slightly different note though let's consider £500 vs £1,000. A couple of people have pointed out that people will play the £1,000 as it'll have a bigger prizepool.

I don't totally agree.

For the sake of simplicity let's say a £500 comp generates a £100,000 first prize and a £1,000 comp generates a £200,000 first prize.

To me those top prizes are essentially the same. I consider them both to be "a lot". I would be ecstatic at winning either of them.

However, there is a world of difference between £500 and £1,000 given the current state of my bank account.

Therefore I would play the £500 comp but not the £1,000 comp. As strange as it might sound the extra £500 does not justify the extra £100,000.

[toddswain]

On a slightly different note though let's consider £500 vs £1,000. A couple of people have pointed out that people will play the £1,000 as it'll have a bigger prizepool.

I don't totally agree.

For the sake of simplicity let's say a £500 comp generates a £100,000 first prize and a £1,000 comp generates a £200,000 first prize.

To me those top prizes are essentially the same. I consider them both to be "a lot". I would be ecstatic at winning either of them.

However, there is a world of difference between £500 and £1,000 given the current state of my bank account.

Therefore I would play the £500 comp but not the £1,000 comp. As strange as it might sound the extra £500 does not justify the extra £100,000.

+1 To this, basically the £500 we can flick in if we want, the £1k is a sat 'in/ sell 50%/ or fade for me

[action man]

yet to see anyone post on what would be better for the tour on a whole rather than personal interests, apart from keys and bram, im sure they are hoping that it becomes a £3k+ buyin in the future which attracts players from abroad

[The Camel]

yet to see anyone post on what would be better for the tour on a whole rather than personal interests, apart from keys and bram, im sure they are hoping that it becomes a £3k+ buyin in the future which attracts players from abroad

What's best for the tour is high a % of recreational players as possible imo.