£500 pot limit holdem at luton

[I KNOW IT]

Who else is in Kev? some updater you are

[robyong]

Just got back from Luton. I think the final table will go on for a long time, its very tight. I would say I made the right move at the wrong time, Bambos has RR me 4 times when I raised on the button, I made my mind up I would play back with AJ before I even raised, XXXX happens. I think Bambos has played great in this comp, although the deck has hit him in the face.

In terms of structures, payouts, as long as the casino makes them clear before we enter then we should have no issues with it. I would like to say though that a lot of players play the UK comp circuit by borrowing, selling % of themselves or "nipping" people, so I like more people getting paid out and a flatter structure to disincentive deals and keep the money in the community. There are so many players on the UK circuit who are flat broke and cant afford to live next week if they don't cash.

The problem is poker player expections : In my view anyone who sets out to make a living out of purley live tournament poker is totally nuts, of course you get some winners, but exceptions prove the general rule. There is so much luck involved and the "long term" is so long that most players bankrolls will never stay above water to see the +ev of there "skill advantage" anyway. Lets face it, you should never risk more than 1% of your bankroll in a comp according to the "gaming maths theory", so how many people had a £50,000 poker bankroll who played the £500 comp at Luton?

This is why we have all these views about flatter payouts etc, the bottom line is tournament poker is gambling - don't expect to make a profit. Steve Lui is one of the best tourney players around, and he did not win a live comp for 2 years. The solution for me is more sensible payouts (as Luton have done), poker players playing at their bankroll level and having realistic expections. WHY DO YOU THINK ONLINE TOURNEY PAYOUTS ARE SO FLAT - TO KEEP MORE PLAYERS IN THE GAME AND PAYING RAKE.

The winner today gets into the £100k freeroll at the Vic sponsered by Blue Square, which is a brilliant idea. Luton card room are really trying to make positive changes for the majority on players, rather for people who want high payouts for 1st place so they can pursade themselves that they are more likely to make a profit by getting that 1 big hit - its a pipedeam.

If I was a professional poker player I would treat live comps as fun and a chance to hit that 100-1 shot, and would use online cash games to pay for this "luxury". You get dealt so many hands per hour, your positive ev from your "superior skill" is much more short term and so many "new fish" are entering the market. It is totally feasible to play online, 4 tables, low limits for 5 hours per day and earn £50k tax free per year with your winnings + rakeback.  You could then have a gamble and do the UK live circuit for £20k, and use the other £30k for living costs. This is what I would do if i was a poker pro. This way the payout structure would not be so important as so many players livelyhoods would not depend on it.

[bobby1]

Just got back from Luton. I think the final table will go on for a long time, its very tight. I would say I made the right move at the wrong time, Bambos has RR me 4 times when I raised on the button, I made my mind up I would play back with AJ before I even raised, XXXX happens. I think Bambos has played great in this comp, although the deck has hit him in the face.

In terms of structures, payouts, as long as the casino makes them clear before we enter then we should have no issues with it. I would like to say though that a lot of players play the UK comp circuit by borrowing, selling % of themselves or "nipping" people, so I like more people getting paid out and a flatter structure to disincentive deals and keep the money in the community. There are so many players on the UK circuit who are flat broke and cant afford to live next week if they don't cash.

The problem is poker player expections : In my view anyone who sets out to make a living out of purley live tournament poker is totally nuts, of course you get some winners, but exceptions prove the general rule. There is so much luck involved and the "long term" is so long that most players bankrolls will never stay above water to see the +ev of there "skill advantage" anyway. Lets face it, you should never risk more than 1% of your bankroll in a comp according to the "gaming maths theory", so how many people had a £50,000 poker bankroll who played the £500 comp at Luton?

This is why we have all these views about flatter payouts etc, the bottom line is tournament poker is gambling - don't expect to make a profit. Steve Lui is one of the best tourney players around, and he did not win a live comp for 2 years. The solution for me is more sensible payouts (as Luton have done), poker players playing at their bankroll level and having realistic expections. WHY DO YOU THINK ONLINE TOURNEY PAYOUTS ARE SO FLAT - TO KEEP MORE PLAYERS IN THE GAME AND PAYING RAKE.

The winner today gets into the £100k freeroll at the Vic sponsered by Blue Square, which is a brilliant idea. Luton card room are really trying to make positive changes for the majority on players, rather for people who want high payouts for 1st place so they can pursade themselves that they are more likely to make a profit by getting that 1 big hit - its a pipedeam.

If I was a professional poker player I would treat live comps as fun and a chance to hit that 100-1 shot, and would use online cash games to pay for this "luxury". You get dealt so many hands per hour, your positive ev from your "superior skill" is much more short term and so many "new fish" are entering the market. It is totally feasible to play online, 4 tables, low limits for 5 hours per day and earn £50k tax free per year with your winnings + rakeback.  You could then have a gamble and do the UK live circuit for £20k, and use the other £30k for living costs. This is what I would do if i was a poker pro. This way the payout structure would not be so important as so many players livelyhoods would not depend on it.

In my opinion you are 100% spot on.

[Foxy]

Nice post Rob ill be having a night off tomoz in the Luton £750 touney, I look at it as a night out and win or lose ill have some booze and talk to real people without typing on my laptop.

[Foxy]

I dont think flatter payouts are good at all, I think 1st place should get the lot and if they wanted to buy 2nd and 3rd a drink then so be it.

[riverdave]

I'm in the one prize camp as well. The problem with this flatter structure is that it discriminates against the players that want to play for a big first prize, at least with a steeper prize structure there is always the option for those that want to deal to flatten it, this has now been taken away.

[ifm]

I know walsall pay out top 3 if there is less than £1000 in the prizepool, and 9 if above.
If there are more than 100 players then they pay top 18.
I was talking to a mate today who played a sat at luton for the main event, he said the clock went from 15mins to 10 mins and then to 5 mins!!! just to get it finished, what a joke!!
I also agree with riverdave regarding flatter structures (i have said this before) but if you want a flatter structure then do a deal, don't force your opinions on everyone else.

[snoopy1239]

I know walsall pay out top 3 if there is less than £1000 in the prizepool, and 9 if above.
If there are more than 100 players then they pay top 18.
I was talking to a mate today who played a sat at luton for the main event, he said the clock went from 15mins to 10 mins and then to 5 mins!!! just to get it finished, what a joke!!
I also agree with riverdave regarding flatter structures (i have said this before) but if you want a flatter structure then do a deal, don't force your opinions on everyone else.

Surely 40% forces opinions on those who want 35%.

Works both ways I would have thought.

[ifm]

If it is 40% for the winner with 5 left say, then you can deal to whatever percentage you like, if it is set at 35% you cannot deal to a higher percentage, so no it doesn't work both ways.

[snoopy1239]

If it is 40% for the winner with 5 left say, then you can deal to whatever percentage you like, if it is set at 35% you cannot deal to a higher percentage, so no it doesn't work both ways.

So basically, you're saying that it has to be 100%...

otherwise the 40% is forcing its opinions on those who want 45%.

or am I missing something?

[ifm]

No, i am saying that by flattening the structures you are effecting people, by leaving them as they are you aren't.

[Foxy]

The payouts were fine before, why Luton have to change the payout and made the clock so long its boring Its not right. Because a few players say we want longer clocks and payout half the field dont make sence. If you want to play a 2 or 3 day comp just save up for a big buy in comp but having two day comps for £100 buy ins and then to get your money back finishing 18th after two days hard work puts me off playing.

[Karabiner]

I dont think flatter payouts are good at all, I think 1st place should get the lot and if they wanted to buy 2nd and 3rd a drink then so be it.

If that were the case, almost everyone would go skint, and attendances would plummet.

[Foxy]

O and give us so meny chips its not worth playing the first 4 levels but not letting us arrive late because we gotto be there for the first hand.

[Foxy]

yeah i was only kidding about 1st gets all but i think they should get a least 40%