Multi Entry Tournaments

[duncthehat]

agree too.  again no axe to grind but just doesnt appeal.  guess I am another dinosaur

[tikay]

Umm, excellent.

[Gemini Kings]

Ideally I would prefer all MTT's to be freeze outs. However I think re entry tournaments are necessary for the long term health of live poker.

I agree that it can be frustrating to see a tough opponent re emerge on your table having been knocked out earlier and also that players with bigger bank rolls have an advantage but I believe it is unavoidable if we want the live game to continue to thrive.

The re entry format helps casinos and organisers meet the guarantee. Without them the guarantee would have to be reduced resulting in less entries overall as the guarantee does have an effect on players deciding to travel and play tournaments.

There are often choices to be made when deciding which tournament to play on any particular weekend and I have lost count on how many times I have heard players state that they are going to play the one with the biggest guarantee.

Personally I'd rather play one with a smaller field resulting in a better chance of making the final table etc. but I seem to be in the minority.

I do think a limit on the number of re entries would be a reasonable compromise.

[david3103]

1. rowing back from multi day one re-entry tournaments would be the end of the nosebleed guarantees in the uk market

do you think this would be good, bad or neither for the uk players? for the operators business models?

2 i think it is generally accepted that a reutrn to freezeouts is unlikely, the market has moved on. what tournament buy in structure would you suggest to satisfy players and the operator?

3 is there any evidence that multi day one multi entry tournaments are won by non-recs compared to recs, in general? isn't the whole notion that it favours deeper bankrolls theoretical rather than something seen in practice? 

1. Personally, the nosebleed guarantees don't have a huge influence on my decision making. I understand that they may do for others. I understand also that they generate publicity for the operators.

2. One re-entry seems reasonable, or, one add-on/rebuy but limited to the early levels, along with late-registration.

3. I don't have sufficient information to answer your question. I wish someone would analyse it and let us know. Be interesting to see the % itm of those who had multiple entries.

[pokerplayingfarmer]

One thing I can't understand is why re entries don't count when working out places paid.  Doesn't really bother me I'm just curious.  ie.  A comp paying 10% of the field gets 150 unique entries, and 50 re entries, most places pay out 15 places here, not 20.  Imo there has been 200 starting stacks in play so 20 should be paid.  Most of the money paid out at the lower end of the scale recirculates around anyway so surely this would create more people 'winning' and playing more often, increasing prize pools and trade for the operators.

[rylanclarke]

One thing I can't understand is why re entries don't count when working out places paid.  Doesn't really bother me I'm just curious.  ie.  A comp paying 10% of the field gets 150 unique entries, and 50 re entries, most places pay out 15 places here, not 20.  Imo there has been 200 starting stacks in play so 20 should be paid.  Most of the money paid out at the lower end of the scale recirculates around anyway so surely this would create more people 'winning' and playing more often, increasing prize pools and trade for the operators.

This ... Average stack was nearly 15 x starting stack at the Grand Prix's bubble

[ActionDanS]

Think that's a very solid argument to adjust the  ITM % according to entries. Totally agree