Re-Entry and Late Reg - Your Views please?

[david3103]

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.

One re-entry Ralph

http://www.dusktilldawncasinonottingham.com/result-info.php?id=5250&name=Pokerfets%20Live%20PLO&eid=66029

[Mohican]

Late reg I don't have a problem with, boost prize pools etc etc.
Re-entry despite all the arguments and the maths, is very off putting to a lot of lolrecs like myself in larger buy-in tournaments. Even more so if I've Satted in to the tourney, having invested a lot of time qualifying and turning up with only the one shot. All that matters to me is the poker that day, not the long run, as I may only qualify/be able to play once a yr in a big tourney. Whilst being told I got it in gd and still busting by a players decision being based upon their ability to re-enter or having re-entered having made such a decision before, doesn't make the journey home (2 hours + for me)any easier. I suppose the answer is to have,in multiple day 1 tourneys, a true freezeout day 1 that doesn't permit same day re-entries. If the structure takes the fun out of playing poker, I'm not gonna play.

[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.

One re-entry Ralph

http://www.dusktilldawncasinonottingham.com/result-info.php?id=5250&name=Pokerfets%20Live%20PLO&eid=66029

Thanks David, I went looking for the small print this time.

Possibly a little obdurate on my part but I expect a freezeout to be just that.

[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.

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?

No,  they are seperate,  when Ken goes in again he is technically trying to win £100 of his original money back....but that money is gone and lost now, so it's not his anymore, it's just money he had a chance to win.

All this though is barely even relevant to people who play 15 comps a yr to try and enjoy the game, regardless of the equity they don't really want to feel like Ken can just throw £2000 at a comp and spoil there chance of winning that comp, which in terms of one comp he defo does.

[Woodsey]

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?

No,  they are seperate,  when Ken goes in again he is technically trying to win £100 of his original money back....but that money is gone and lost now, so it's not his anymore, it's just money he had a chance to win.

All this though is barely even relevant to people who play 15 comps a yr to try and enjoy the game, regardless of the equity they don't really want to feel like Ken can just throw £2000 at a comp and spoil there chance of winning that comp, which in terms of one comp he defo does.

Where's the real Ken? He'd be giving Barbie one rather than wasting his weekend playing poker FFS!!

[Cf]

Late reg should be up to the first break (a few levels) only. That covers the intended purpose of covering for people running late for whatever reason. People should not be waltzing in at level 5. Ties in with starting stacks being too high these days. The first levels should be important enough to disadvantage anyone buying in even a couple of levels late.

Re-entries should not be in big comps. In a cheap nightly tournament I don't really object as long as the re-entry period is quite short let's say first break/a few levels again. And not every comp should have it. Freezeouts have their place too.

Screw the maths to me it comes down to it feeling unfair. If I enter a big comp the last thing I want is to knock out a good player just for them to buyin again. What's the point of even bothering if they're gonna do that. How do you beat someone who re-enters over and over knowing you can't/won't do the same thing yourself. And it isn't just one person it's a group of people. Fuck that.

And if the £300/10k/45 no shenanigans did show up again I'd happily play

[RED-DOG]

Late reg should be up to the first break (a few levels) only. That covers the intended purpose of covering for people running late for whatever reason. People should not be waltzing in at level 5. Ties in with starting stacks being too high these days. The first levels should be important enough to disadvantage anyone buying in even a couple of levels late.

Re-entries should not be in big comps. In a cheap nightly tournament I don't really object as long as the re-entry period is quite short let's say first break/a few levels again. And not every comp should have it. Freezeouts have their place too.

Screw the maths to me it comes down to it feeling unfair. If I enter a big comp the last thing I want is to knock out a good player just for them to buyin again. What's the point of even bothering if they're gonna do that. How do you beat someone who re-enters over and over knowing you can't/won't do the same thing yourself. And it isn't just one person it's a group of people. Fuck that.

And if the £300/10k/45 no shenanigans did show up again I'd happily play

Won't smaller starting stacks and seriously big blinds at the start turn a good structure into a crap shoot?

[jakally]

I agree with LilDave, in that re-entry doesn't really hurt a recreational player's expectation, for any specific live MTT.
I also agree, that the perception of some recreational players, is that it is a very negative thing for them, and that this is bad for poker.

However, there are a lot of recreational players playing these re-entry events quite happily. These, typically, appear to be the ones still in love with poker. These players would probably still play at Dusk Till Dawn without re-entry, but would put some of there poker money elsewhere, if the tournaments were smaller. I played the PokerFest Mini at the weekend, and was sat with players from Leeds, Bristol, Cornwall and Worcestershire. These players had travelled up for a £70 MTT (although at least one was staying for the Main Event). They had done this because they could win a decent chunk, and they could re-enter if they busted.

There are lots of serious players & full time players, who are pumping lots more money through Dusk Till Dawn, because the tournaments are both bigger, and re-entry.

I am guessing a little here, but at least some of the people who are uncomfortable with re-entry, are no longer completely in love with poker. If re-entry ceased, they would probably play a little more, but, in at least some cases, would still only be occasional players.

It's a numbers game. For the good of live poker venues, it's important to get money churning through MTT's, and feet through the door. It is quite probable that any upside in returning players by removing re-entry, would be quite small in comparison to the loss of revenue as a result. This is not good.

[RED-DOG]

I agree with LilDave, in that re-entry doesn't really hurt a recreational player's expectation, for any specific live MTT.
I also agree, that the perception of some recreational players, is that it is a very negative thing for them, and that this is bad for poker.

However, there are a lot of recreational players playing these re-entry events quite happily. These, typically, appear to be the ones still in love with poker. These players would probably still play at Dusk Till Dawn without re-entry, but would put some of there poker money elsewhere, if the tournaments were smaller. I played the PokerFest Mini at the weekend, and was sat with players from Leeds, Bristol, Cornwall and Worcestershire. These players had travelled up for a £70 MTT (although at least one was staying for the Main Event). They had done this because they could win a decent chunk, and they could re-enter if they busted.

There are lots of serious players & full time players, who are pumping lots more money through Dusk Till Dawn, because the tournaments are both bigger, and re-entry.

I am guessing a little here, but at least some of the people who are uncomfortable with re-entry, are no longer completely in love with poker. If re-entry ceased, they would probably play a little more, but, in at least some cases, would still only be occasional players.

It's a numbers game. For the good of live poker venues, it's important to get money churning through MTT's, and feet through the door. It is quite probable that any upside in returning players by removing re-entry, would be quite small in comparison to the loss of revenue as a result. This is not good.

I have a lot of sympathy for this post. At the end of the day, profitability for the venue has to be a serious consideration.

[Cf]

Won't smaller starting stacks and seriously big blinds at the start turn a good structure into a crap shoot?

No. It's rebuys and re-entries that turn tournaments (especially evening tournaments) into a crap shoot.

The old deepstack had 10k with blinds starting at 25/50. A 200 big blind start. That's more than enough. The 40/45 minute clock keeps the tournament ticking over nicely with players getting eliminated as it goes on and the average stack kept reasonable.

When you allow re-entries you end up in a situation where at a point where a decent % of the field should be eliminated you're instead left with a much higher number of players. A tournament that can last as long as it needs to can structure itself to deal with this but in reality tournaments have to finish by a certain point. So what generally happens is the blinds quickly catch up (faster clocks to deal with the higher number of chips in play) and the mid-late stage of the game ends up being crap shooty.

I went to DTD and played the £25 re-entry. I had a few beers and had fun but I can't say the structure of the competition was in any way a highlight. Bring back the old £75 5k/30min

[RED-DOG]

Won't smaller starting stacks and seriously big blinds at the start turn a good structure into a crap shoot?

The old deepstack had 10k with blinds starting at 25/50.

What do the blinds start at now?

[StuartHopkin]

The old Friday night £75 freezeout was the best tourney ever
5k starting stack and a 45 min clock, late reg first 2 levels before the break if I remember correctly

[RED-DOG]

The old Friday night £75 freezeout was the best tourney ever
5k starting stack and a 45 min clock, late reg first 2 levels before the break if I remember correctly

This.

[baldock92]

Won't smaller starting stacks and seriously big blinds at the start turn a good structure into a crap shoot?

The old deepstack had 10k with blinds starting at 25/50.

What do the blinds start at now?

I think they start at 100/200/25 starting stack 50k. Could be wrong though.

[bobAlike]

This is todays High Roller.

Click to see full-size image.

If late reg is available until start of day 2 is it worth having a day 1? Surely this is late reg overkill?