Re-Entry and Late Reg - Your Views please?

[SuuPRlim]

It's important to disginuish the difference here between whats "good for the one bullet player" and whats "much higher variance for the one bullet players"

If you have 400 unique entrants and 300 re-entries then there is no immediate advantage for players who have entered twice, just as there is no immediate disadvantage to those who have entered only once. The variance is increased as it's very obviously harder to cash a 700 player comp, than a 400 player comp. This is balanced out by the fact the prizepool is increased by 75% so you are now playing for more money, with no increase in your exposure.

The argument about one bullet players being at a big disadvantage because players who can afford multiple bullets can play very lose and call any draw etc in order to build a big stack in for certain incorrect - rather than 20 maniacs in a tournament with £15k for first, you now have 35 maniacs in a tournament with £25k for first, if this is the result of re-entires then your expectation in the tournament will almost certainly increase, ofc the variance will increase with it, but any time in gambling when your upside increases without any more exposure it 99% of the time brings with it higher variance.

Having the bankroll to re-enter multiple times is not instantly profitable, ven for good players... Ken is a pro tourny player, and he has a positive expectation in the tournament (lets say he has 20% ROI in a £500 event) so he is expecting to benefit £100 by entering - this mean that SOMEONE has to lose £100 in this tournament in order for him to win it. Once he is eliminated this is great news for the players with a negative expectation as the £100 they lose to Ken, they no longer lose...

However, now Ken, being adequately bankrolled rolls up to the cash desk and buys in again. Lets say his expectation remains the same (it almost certainly wont) so he buys in for £500 and has a expectation of £600...however he has invested £1,000 in this tournament so his EV overall is now -£400. So the strategy of just buying in and in again and again until you win, is not a profitable one.

(that's not to say ofc that buying in the second time was a mistake for Ken)

This doesn't mean though, that it's not damaging to the recreational player pool, as it is, because instead of playing a 400 runner tourney with 1 Ken, 1 Alex, 1 Stato etc, you are playing a 700 runner comp with 3x Ken's, 2x Alex's and 4x Stato's, so it's going to be much harder to win.

There is also the physiological impact, we've all sat in cash games greatly underrolled and seen guys pulling up 50% of our bankrolls like it's nothing and thinking "how the hell can we win here?! These guys are just going to keeppulling up and up until they get me" and it makes it feel a lot less fair, poker tournaments are supposed to be a completely level playing field - you each come for £x and get Y chips, and play until "someone has it all." Even though in equity terms the re-entries don't really damage the format for recreational players, its very obvious that it makes it FEEL like they do - and I'd certainly feel the same when Id just been busted 16 off the money by some guy I busted out in level 7 -  which is reason enough to get rid of them imo.

[EvilPie]

Even though in equity terms the re-entries don't really damage the format for recreational players, its very obvious that it makes it FEEL like they do - and I'd certainly feel the same when Id just been busted 16 off the money by some guy I busted out in level 7 -  which is reason enough to get rid of them imo.

Nailed it!

[Honeybadger]

If I move all in v Mr multiple bullets, I can't rep it, I have to have it. The flip side is, he can rep it and I can't call.

Honrybadger's point about looking at it as several players all called Alex Goulder doesn't work. We have to look a it as several players all called Alex Goulder that we can't rep a hand against.

Btw- I saw the typo, but it was too good to correct.

Probably not a great idea to ever try make anyone fold a pair ever in a tournament.

I'm mostly joking of course. Mostly.

I do see the more general point of course, and I did make that point myself in my last post - that the ability to re-enter allows a player more freedom to make the 'best play' without pressures such as tournament life considerations putting psychological pressure on him. So I do agree that multiple re-entries give a (small) advantage to players who are able and willing to re-enter. I just think there are even stronger arguments against multiple re-entry tournaments, in particular that they make the tournament tougher/less value for ALL players, by skewing the pro/rec ratio.

Also, very good post from Lil'Dave whilst I was writing my post, and this bit is especially important IMO:

Even though in equity terms the re-entries don't really damage the format for recreational players, its very obvious that it makes it FEEL like they do - and I'd certainly feel the same when Id just been busted 16 off the money by some guy I busted out in level 7 -  which is reason enough to get rid of them imo.

Perception is often more important than reality.

[tikay]

Yes - it's the perception which does the damage.

 

[Karabiner]

Yes - it's the perception which does the damage.

 

And the FACT that we're going to be up against three Kens, two Alex's and four Statos.

[Rexas]

Yes - it's the perception which does the damage.

 

And the FACT that we're going to be up against three Kens, two Alex's and four Statos.

Nah just one Ken, he's a lucky bastard.

[RED-DOG]

Yes - it's the perception which does the damage.

 

And the FACT that we're going to be up against three Kens, two Alex's and four Statos.

Is the four Stato's stat based on size or ability?

[rfgqqabc]

Having the bankroll to re-enter multiple times is not instantly profitable, ven for good players... Ken is a pro tourny player, and he has a positive expectation in the tournament (lets say he has 20% ROI in a £500 event) so he is expecting to benefit £100 by entering - this mean that SOMEONE has to lose £100 in this tournament in order for him to win it. Once he is eliminated this is great news for the players with a negative expectation as the £100 they lose to Ken, they no longer lose...

However, now Ken, being adequately bankrolled rolls up to the cash desk and buys in again. Lets say his expectation remains the same (it almost certainly wont) so he buys in for £500 and has a expectation of £600...however he has invested £1,000 in this tournament so his EV overall is now -£400. So the strategy of just buying in and in again and again until you win, is not a profitable one.

Once he has been eliminated and ran bad/not realised his expectation, it doesn't matter whether he chooses to reenter that day or enter another tournament next week or next month. They are separate investments. His ev on the day or in that specific tournament is just an arbitrary number that means very little. He has already lost the 600 in ev, it shouldn't matter that he can't win this back right now, it should matter that he makes a £100 by hitting the register button. The strategy of buying in again and again for a winning player is an excellent one. Big Ken makes £100 every time he enters, as long as he still plays as well.

ICM dictates that your last chip is worth more than your first. I mean, think about being able to buy in for 1 ante. It'd be great fun, you get a 9x spin on your first hand and you will almost always be in a headsup or maybe 3 way pot. What a life!

In theory, if you shortened the late reg period a bit, then you would get less pros reentering, as they are more likely to bust later on in the day, whereas the weaker players are more likely to bust in level 2.

[KarmaDope]

Having the bankroll to re-enter multiple times is not instantly profitable, ven for good players... Ken is a pro tourny player, and he has a positive expectation in the tournament (lets say he has 20% ROI in a £500 event) so he is expecting to benefit £100 by entering - this mean that SOMEONE has to lose £100 in this tournament in order for him to win it. Once he is eliminated this is great news for the players with a negative expectation as the £100 they lose to Ken, they no longer lose...

However, now Ken, being adequately bankrolled rolls up to the cash desk and buys in again. Lets say his expectation remains the same (it almost certainly wont) so he buys in for £500 and has a expectation of £600...however he has invested £1,000 in this tournament so his EV overall is now -£400. So the strategy of just buying in and in again and again until you win, is not a profitable one.

Once he has been eliminated and ran bad/not realised his expectation, it doesn't matter whether he chooses to reenter that day or enter another tournament next week or next month. They are separate investments. His ev on the day or in that specific tournament is just an arbitrary number that means very little. He has already lost the 600 in ev, it shouldn't matter that he can't win this back right now, it should matter that he makes a £100 by hitting the register button. The strategy of buying in again and again for a winning player is an excellent one. Big Ken makes £100 every time he enters, as long as he still plays as well.

ICM dictates that your last chip is worth more than your first. I mean, think about being able to buy in for 1 ante. It'd be great fun, you get a 9x spin on your first hand and you will almost always be in a headsup or maybe 3 way pot. What a life!

In theory, if you shortened the late reg period a bit, then you would get less pros reentering, as they are more likely to bust later on in the day, whereas the weaker players are more likely to bust in level 2.

So the pros should, in theory, be arguing for shorter late reg as they will get the recs re-entering in Level 2 and reduce costs by not having to re-enter themselves?

[arbboy]

Having the bankroll to re-enter multiple times is not instantly profitable, ven for good players... Ken is a pro tourny player, and he has a positive expectation in the tournament (lets say he has 20% ROI in a £500 event) so he is expecting to benefit £100 by entering - this mean that SOMEONE has to lose £100 in this tournament in order for him to win it. Once he is eliminated this is great news for the players with a negative expectation as the £100 they lose to Ken, they no longer lose...

However, now Ken, being adequately bankrolled rolls up to the cash desk and buys in again. Lets say his expectation remains the same (it almost certainly wont) so he buys in for £500 and has a expectation of £600...however he has invested £1,000 in this tournament so his EV overall is now -£400. So the strategy of just buying in and in again and again until you win, is not a profitable one.

Once he has been eliminated and ran bad/not realised his expectation, it doesn't matter whether he chooses to reenter that day or enter another tournament next week or next month. They are separate investments. His ev on the day or in that specific tournament is just an arbitrary number that means very little. He has already lost the 600 in ev, it shouldn't matter that he can't win this back right now, it should matter that he makes a £100 by hitting the register button. The strategy of buying in again and again for a winning player is an excellent one. Big Ken makes £100 every time he enters, as long as he still plays as well.

ICM dictates that your last chip is worth more than your first. I mean, think about being able to buy in for 1 ante. It'd be great fun, you get a 9x spin on your first hand and you will almost always be in a headsup or maybe 3 way pot. What a life!

In theory, if you shortened the late reg period a bit, then you would get less pros reentering, as they are more likely to bust later on in the day, whereas the weaker players are more likely to bust in level 2.

So the pros should, in theory, be arguing for shorter late reg as they will get the recs re-entering in Level 2 and reduce costs by not having to re-enter themselves?

Pros will always want to re enter unlimited times if they have a positive EV in any event which they will have otherwise, as a pro, they shouldn't be playing the said event.  As Adam said simply by clicking the register button makes a pro money long term.  It never 'costs' a pro money to re enter an event.  They are getting paid in ev long term every time they re enter.

[SuuPRlim]

Having the bankroll to re-enter multiple times is not instantly profitable, ven for good players... Ken is a pro tourny player, and he has a positive expectation in the tournament (lets say he has 20% ROI in a £500 event) so he is expecting to benefit £100 by entering - this mean that SOMEONE has to lose £100 in this tournament in order for him to win it. Once he is eliminated this is great news for the players with a negative expectation as the £100 they lose to Ken, they no longer lose...

However, now Ken, being adequately bankrolled rolls up to the cash desk and buys in again. Lets say his expectation remains the same (it almost certainly wont) so he buys in for £500 and has a expectation of £600...however he has invested £1,000 in this tournament so his EV overall is now -£400. So the strategy of just buying in and in again and again until you win, is not a profitable one.

Once he has been eliminated and ran bad/not realised his expectation, it doesn't matter whether he chooses to reenter that day or enter another tournament next week or next month. They are separate investments. His ev on the day or in that specific tournament is just an arbitrary number that means very little. He has already lost the 600 in ev, it shouldn't matter that he can't win this back right now, it should matter that he makes a £100 by hitting the register button. The strategy of buying in again and again for a winning player is an excellent one. Big Ken makes £100 every time he enters, as long as he still plays as well.

ICM dictates that your last chip is worth more than your first. I mean, think about being able to buy in for 1 ante. It'd be great fun, you get a 9x spin on your first hand and you will almost always be in a headsup or maybe 3 way pot. What a life!

In theory, if you shortened the late reg period a bit, then you would get less pros reentering, as they are more likely to bust later on in the day, whereas the weaker players are more likely to bust in level 2.

Yes, but that's ken's business. Ken has lost his £500 and now has a chance to make £100, good for Ken.

I'm saying having ken play twice doesn't diminish the equity of a player who enters once. It actually benefits them, as instead of having ken in once and having to find £100 to lose to him, he's actually lost £400 to us all.

However it's not that simple in practice - because just because he's lost it doesn't mean the rec pool wins it, there are now many more pros to pick up this additional equity.

[rfgqqabc]

Having the bankroll to re-enter multiple times is not instantly profitable, ven for good players... Ken is a pro tourny player, and he has a positive expectation in the tournament (lets say he has 20% ROI in a £500 event) so he is expecting to benefit £100 by entering - this mean that SOMEONE has to lose £100 in this tournament in order for him to win it. Once he is eliminated this is great news for the players with a negative expectation as the £100 they lose to Ken, they no longer lose...

However, now Ken, being adequately bankrolled rolls up to the cash desk and buys in again. Lets say his expectation remains the same (it almost certainly wont) so he buys in for £500 and has a expectation of £600...however he has invested £1,000 in this tournament so his EV overall is now -£400. So the strategy of just buying in and in again and again until you win, is not a profitable one.

Once he has been eliminated and ran bad/not realised his expectation, it doesn't matter whether he chooses to reenter that day or enter another tournament next week or next month. They are separate investments. His ev on the day or in that specific tournament is just an arbitrary number that means very little. He has already lost the 600 in ev, it shouldn't matter that he can't win this back right now, it should matter that he makes a £100 by hitting the register button. The strategy of buying in again and again for a winning player is an excellent one. Big Ken makes £100 every time he enters, as long as he still plays as well.

ICM dictates that your last chip is worth more than your first. I mean, think about being able to buy in for 1 ante. It'd be great fun, you get a 9x spin on your first hand and you will almost always be in a headsup or maybe 3 way pot. What a life!

In theory, if you shortened the late reg period a bit, then you would get less pros reentering, as they are more likely to bust later on in the day, whereas the weaker players are more likely to bust in level 2.

Yes, but that's ken's business. Ken has lost his £500 and now has a chance to make £100, good for Ken.

I'm saying having ken play twice doesn't diminish the equity of a player who enters once. It actually benefits them, as instead of having ken in once and having to find £100 to lose to him, he's actually lost £400 to us all.

However it's not that simple in practice - because just because he's lost it doesn't mean the rec pool wins it, there are now many more pros to pick up this additional equity.

Yeah I kinda knew you hadn't made the mistake I was pointing out, but I wasn't quite sure where I was getting confused. It possibly depends on who Ken loses too and other weird factors like that. I can imagine a scenario in 2002 where you might get an all pro table, and decide to gamble it up to bust out and "reenter" on a fishy table.

[EvilPie]

Having the bankroll to re-enter multiple times is not instantly profitable, ven for good players... Ken is a pro tourny player, and he has a positive expectation in the tournament (lets say he has 20% ROI in a £500 event) so he is expecting to benefit £100 by entering - this mean that SOMEONE has to lose £100 in this tournament in order for him to win it. Once he is eliminated this is great news for the players with a negative expectation as the £100 they lose to Ken, they no longer lose...

However, now Ken, being adequately bankrolled rolls up to the cash desk and buys in again. Lets say his expectation remains the same (it almost certainly wont) so he buys in for £500 and has a expectation of £600...however he has invested £1,000 in this tournament so his EV overall is now -£400. So the strategy of just buying in and in again and again until you win, is not a profitable one.

Once he has been eliminated and ran bad/not realised his expectation, it doesn't matter whether he chooses to reenter that day or enter another tournament next week or next month. They are separate investments. His ev on the day or in that specific tournament is just an arbitrary number that means very little. He has already lost the 600 in ev, it shouldn't matter that he can't win this back right now, it should matter that he makes a £100 by hitting the register button. The strategy of buying in again and again for a winning player is an excellent one. Big Ken makes £100 every time he enters, as long as he still plays as well.

ICM dictates that your last chip is worth more than your first. I mean, think about being able to buy in for 1 ante. It'd be great fun, you get a 9x spin on your first hand and you will almost always be in a headsup or maybe 3 way pot. What a life!

In theory, if you shortened the late reg period a bit, then you would get less pros reentering, as they are more likely to bust later on in the day, whereas the weaker players are more likely to bust in level 2.

Yes, but that's ken's business. Ken has lost his £500 and now has a chance to make £100, good for Ken.

I'm saying having ken play twice doesn't diminish the equity of a player who enters once. It actually benefits them, as instead of having ken in once and having to find £100 to lose to him, he's actually lost £400 to us all.

However it's not that simple in practice - because just because he's lost it doesn't mean the rec pool wins it, there are now many more pros to pick up this additional equity.

Including the new Ken who now gets a shot at his initial investment again.

As he's +EV to win a share of his original loss does this mean that he was in fact more than 120% on his first bullet?

[Rexas]

Tbh, it seems like the moral of the story is play cash instead of tournaments.

[Karabiner]

I think there needs to be a little more clarity on whether a "freezeout" actually allows re-entry too as in tomorrow's PLO Double-chance "freezeout".

I remember being one of many who were surprised at the last one of these when it turned out that one re-entry was allowed despite it being advertised as a freezeout.