hi tim, to me, a player's very short term advantage is only for the minute after being knocked out. every other player has a short term advantage that someone pays a second full buy-in and boosts the prize pool. the consequence of this is what? if we look only at this one main event then there consequence is positive. however, if your consider all main events in the future then it changes. for one game, if we believe that the ability to re-enter will benefit the better players at the expense of weaker players then the frequency of reward to the newbie, weaker and/or recreational player will lessen. i believe that this lower win frequency will not provide the reward these groups of players desire and there will be insifficient reinforcement for many of them them to engage with sky poker long into the future. as those groups represent the overwhelming majority of players, even a small drop in numbers engaging with sky poker, will result in a massive downswing in volumes. the loss is to you, me, sky poker ... and all because one was unhappy to be knocked out of one main event. Posted by aussie09
Thanks for the reply Aussie. Its interesting as I didnt realise players thought this way ( but going on the votes it seems to be the case). I figured it was a way to make the game more about skill, reduce variance, and boost prize pools. Even when I was starting out in tourneys I preferred the one re-entry as If I made a mistake early on I could re-enter, as we know tourneys are not as forgiving as cash games.
In Response to Re: Making main events 1 re-entry? : Thanks for the reply Aussie. Its interesting as I didnt realise players thought this way ( but going on the votes it seems to be the case). I figured it was a way to make the game more about skill, reduce variance, and boost prize pools. Even when I was starting out in tourneys I preferred the one re-entry as If I made a mistake early on I could re-enter, as we know tourneys are not as forgiving as cash games. Posted by devil_tear
you are totally right if you are one of the best players, which i know you are. one of the very best too. so i can understand totally that you would see it as positive when reducing variance and making the game more about skill.
hopefully you can see that whilst improving the variance for the best players it would worsen the variance for the remainder, which is me and the vast majority. for the best players increasing the skill element would be a great change, whereas for us lot it is a detrimental thing.
in fact, if playing against you, i would prefer that we skew the main events to nullify your advantages.
i say this in admiration for your level of play. your interests are best served in the long term by encouraging volume play by my group. my interests are served too and then, sky poker's interests as a result.
recs are the players who need the attractions. Giving players a second chance looks and sounds good but the direct buy in itself is a big price to pay so most recs will ignore it. What makes it worse is recs will feel as though players like Mattbates are being given an advantage.
Then you've got the recs and low stakes regs who'll be attempting to gain entry via a sat. I play lots of sats but might decide stop if I found out players were alowed re entry because my BR isn't big enough to pay for re-entry making me feel at a disadvantage.
i've voted no. recs are the players who need the attractions. Giving players a second chance looks and sounds good but the direct buy in itself is a big price to pay so most recs will ignore it. What makes it worse is recs will feel as though players like Mattbates are being given an advantage. Then you've got the recs and low stakes regs who'll be attempting to gain entry via a sat. I play lots of sats but might decide stop if I found out players were alowed re entry because my BR isn't big enough to pay for re-entry making me feel at a disadvantage. Posted by craigcu12
In Response to Re: Making main events 1 re-entry? : If they introduce re-entry in DTDs on Monday then I'm hurling myself off the balcony. Posted by hhyftrftdr
Comments
you are totally right if you are one of the best players, which i know you are. one of the very best too. so i can understand totally that you would see it as positive when reducing variance and making the game more about skill.
hopefully you can see that whilst improving the variance for the best players it would worsen the variance for the remainder, which is me and the vast majority. for the best players increasing the skill element would be a great change, whereas for us lot it is a detrimental thing.
in fact, if playing against you, i would prefer that we skew the main events to nullify your advantages.
i say this in admiration for your level of play. your interests are best served in the long term by encouraging volume play by my group. my interests are served too and then, sky poker's interests as a result.
recs are the players who need the attractions. Giving players a second chance looks and sounds good but the direct buy in itself is a big price to pay so most recs will ignore it. What makes it worse is recs will feel as though players like Mattbates are being given an advantage.
Then you've got the recs and low stakes regs who'll be attempting to gain entry via a sat. I play lots of sats but might decide stop if I found out players were alowed re entry because my BR isn't big enough to pay for re-entry making me feel at a disadvantage.
Less fun if you'd been on the sauce all day and believe you have more money than you actually have.