POLL: Tribecca (BlueSq, VC Poker etc...) tournament payout structure.

[Nem]

Vote now.

[TightEnd]

A poll. What a delight.

As a respected blonde member though you have every right to post a poll and have it run for as long as you require with nobody sabotaging your efforts. Rest assured that I will not lock or change your poll. If I do wake up at 5am and do so you have every right to torch my collection of Natalie Imbruglia photographs.

Good luck

I would move the shortstack though

[Nem]

my collection of Natalie Imbruglia photographs.

 

[The Truth]

i think the winner should get 100% because the shortstacks were all moved

[M3boy]

Nemesis - I voted A, my reasons are this :

When I enter a tourney with 300+ runners, I want a decent return, which is what I get when making top 27, unlike stars where all I get for upto 28th (and sometimes above) is my money back.

Now what DOES need changing in my opinion is the structure, as most comps with 300+ turn into crapshoots at the end, so you use your skill to get to the late stages, but have to rely on luck in the end - for this I am thinking the $50k and the $100k - It is for THIS reason I rarely play these two events, NOT because of the payout structure.

I hope I have made sense 

[I, Zimbra]

I like the point that M3 is making here.

I've been putting the majority of my poker hours into Tribeca for the last two years - and have only recently tried branching out to other sites. I know many people who have been very vocal about the 'bad' payout structure of Tribeca, since the network started getting enough players for 200+ runners.

I was always undecided about it, for the very reasons that M3 has mentioned - everywhere else seems to do extra paid places which amount to very small returns for going deep, at the expense of the top prizes. Tribeca was different in that, if you should get to the last few places, you would win significantly more money - which actually gives it a unique selling point.

Those of us who are in the enlightened position of knowing what the online market provides, can therefore vote with our feet - either for more paid places (e.g. at Stars) or a bigger prize for winning the whole shooting match (at Tribeca).

The only reason I have changed my mind in the last few months, is because there are now so many more players in those big events - the 50k and the 100k - that it has crossed the line, in my opinion. I finished 70th out of 700-odd in one tournament, and 50th out of 900-odd in another - and basically thought to myself "bugger this for a game of soldiers". I didn't mind the 27 pay-out even for 400 or 500 runners, but the 100k will get close to 1000 runners every time, now... and for 27 paid places, that's pushing it.

===

However - I have heard several Tribeca hosts say that changes to the payout structure are definitely in the works - so these issues have obviously affected enough people for the network to do something about it.

Whether one wants them or not, we will likely be having more than 27 paid places on Tribeca before too long.

===

The other point in M3's post I also agree with is the blind structure point... which many players (including Flushie I believe), have raised before now.

From a starting stack of 2000 chips, the seemingly-immutable blind levels on Tribeca are:

20/40
30/60
50/100
100/200
150/300
200/400
300/600 
400/800
600/1200
800/1600
1200/2400
1600/3200
2000/4000
3000/6000
...

I have emboldened levels 7 and 9 because these are levels I often encounter a huge depreciation in the value of my stack.  If I have, say 5000 chips at 200/400, I might be an average stack - depending on the tournament - or even slightly above average. As soon as the blinds go up to 300/600, I will have less than 10x the big blind and have to start thinking about sticking it in for a double up.

Even worse, in my opinion, is the level up between 400/800 and 600/1200. You can have 12k and be in cruise control, and then all of a sudden - wham, everyone's a shortstack again.

It means that even 12 minute blind events on Tribeca get to be a bit crapshooty at final tables, especially if there's been a long bubble with a load of players making slow decisions or shortstacks getting lucky to double up each time.

[portfolio]

Nemesis - I voted A, my reasons are this :

When I enter a tourney with 300+ runners, I want a decent return, which is what I get when making top 27, unlike stars where all I get for upto 28th (and sometimes above) is my money back.

Now what DOES need changing in my opinion is the structure, as most comps with 300+ turn into crapshoots at the end, so you use your skill to get to the late stages, but have to rely on luck in the end - for this I am thinking the $50k and the $100k - It is for THIS reason I rarely play these two events, NOT because of the payout structure.

I hope I have made sense 

agreed.

[ericstoner]

agreed, the all turn into cratshots after 90 mins play.

[portfolio]

agreed, the all turn into cratshots after 90 mins play.

strongly disagree.
what name you been playing under?

[Ironside]

hum if there is 28 runners i hope they dont pay 27 places it would be a farce if they did

[I, Zimbra]

lol

 

Ironside is playing the role of "pedant police" officer for the day...? 

[JungleCat03]

Some sites take paying out places too far. If i ever enter a tournament, i never ever want to win my starting amount back and to me this seems pointless. However i think a 150+ tournament should differentiate in the places it pays out to a 1000+ tournament. This is realistic and fair.

Finishing in the top 10% of a tournament is an achievement and i beleive this should be reflected in the payout. This is a policy that the majority of tournament payouts across the world seem to roughly adhere to.

Tribeca haven't had some long running top 27 payout structure because of some deep-rooted principled stance that this is the most equitable policy but merely because their software developers are notoriously slow to update their software in response to player demands.

I totally commend the way blue square have taken the decision to address some of the issues, in particular the poor blind structures of many tournaments by introducing more longer blind structure events. Tribeca is a great network in many ways. Addressing simple areas like realistic tournament payouts ought to be a simple issue to address. PLEASE DO IT!

[matt674]

i have to admit i did stop playing tribeca because of their blind structure and payout structure - had originally downloaded it to try and qualify online for the grosvenor main events at uk festivals but in an attempt to "test the software" played some of the other MTT tournaments. After about 5 weeks i uninstalled it again and havent been back since.

[M3boy]

Good boy monkey!!

I OWN THE SATS ON TRIBECCA ANYWAY 

[matt674]

Good boy monkey!!

I OWN THE SATS ON TRIBECCA ANYWAY 

Well to be honest it was because of this that i decided to give them a go - after all if you could win them on a regular basis then they cant be too difficult to crack!! 

Only joking squire, as the saying goes a good poker player can adapt to his surroundings and change his game to become a frequant winner. To be honest i wouldnt want to try in case it affects my game elsewhere. If it aint broke dont fix it