I actually prefer freezouts and personally would like to see more of them and yes generally the prize fund will be spread out further and wider. In some cases a Bounty Hunter winner can actually win MORE than they would have in a freezout, but generally if players are in the cash regularly they would be worse off than if they were playing the same field in freezouts. HOWEVER... Bounty Hunters are more popular than freezouts Depositing/losing players will see their funds last longer in Bounty Hunters and so will play those over freezouts. Just look at UKOPs, the BHs generally smash guarantee, the freezouts can struggle. I would imagine it would be better EV for winning regs to play fields with a larger number of weaker recs in than a strong field of freezout players? The relative strength of a field must have a greater impact on profitablity than payout structure? I expect Aussie could crunch some stats on profit % of winning regs in the 2 formats? Posted by Phantom66
interesting stuff.
there are some stats that we all know, e.g. bounty hunters spread the prizepool to more players. this is good. it gives a positive reinforcement to more players. more players will be motivated to play more games. BHs do not make money last longer necessarliy, more that BHs make people motivated to play more mtts.
i would like to add that the prizepool is distributed differently, insofar that even coming last, or leaving the earliest, the player might win some money back. not likely but possible. but in a freezeout this randomness is not there.
bounty hunters favour those who gamble more than the norm. freezouts favour the players more than the norm.
the issue of guarantees and overlay is not a BH/freezout issue. it is a tournament management thing done very well by james. existence of overlay has been managed far better in recent weeks. remember though, overlay is good as well as bad. it is bad to have lots of overlay, bad to have zero overlay. it is good to aim for an optimal number of mtts overlaying each day.
i have been looking at a way of assessing strength of the field in each MTT. i am soon to develop something along these lines. i would like to know which mtts are tough, which are not.
finally, i have stats over a long period of time, to show the percentage of players who make a profit. this number is not high, probably a lot lower than you might think. if you are happy to take this as true, BHs are a fantastic offering for sky poker and a fantastic offering for us all, whether good or bad, a gambler or a player.
In Response to Re: Are Bounty Hunters an illusion? : interesting stuff. there are some stats that we all know, e.g. bounty hunters spread the prizepool to more players. this is good. it gives a positive reinforcement to more players. more players will be motivated to play more games. BHs do not make money last longer necessarliy, more that BHs make people motivated to play more mtts. i would like to add that the prizepool is distributed differently, insofar that even coming last, or leaving the earliest, the player might win some money back. not likely but possible. but in a freezeout this randomness is not there. bounty hunters favour those who gamble more than the norm. freezouts favour the players more than the norm. the issue of guarantees and overlay is not a BH/freezout issue. it is a tournament management thing done very well by james. existence of overlay has been managed far better in recent weeks. remember though, overlay is good as well as bad. it is bad to have only one extreme. it is good to aim for an optimal number of mtts overlaying each day. i have been looking at a way of assssing strangth of the field in each MTT. i am soon to develop something along these lines. i would like to know which mtts are tough, which are not. finally, i have stats over a long period of time, to show the percentage of players who make a profit. this number is not high, probably a lot lower than you might think. if you are happy to take this as true, BHs are a fantastic offering for sky poker and a fantastic offering for us all, whether good or bad, a gambler or a player. . Posted by aussie09
Intresting. I wouldnt dream of disputing the stats because you have them. I just thought that bigger prize money would have had more of an effect.
How do you think a £30 tourney with a £10 head prize( the way we currently run with 25% to your head, and 75% to your account) , and £20 in the prizepool, would work.
Or even the same tourney with a flat £5 or £10 head prize going straight into your account, so head prizes wouldnt increase.
In Response to Re: Are Bounty Hunters an illusion? : Intresting. I wouldnt dream of disputing the stats because you have them. I just thought that bigger prize money would have had more of an effect. How do you think a £30 tourney with a £10 head prize( the way we currently run with 25% to your head, and 75% to your account) , and £20 in the prizepool, would work. Or even the same tourney with a flat £5 or £10 head prize going straight into your account, so head prizes wouldnt increase. Posted by HAYSIE
this goes to the heart of the matter, hays.
i guess that i know what type of game you're most comfortable with (format, speed, blinds, buy-in etc.) this is your manor, your home ground. i know that you have developed a way of playing which is carefully calibrated and successful in this environment. therefore, it is only natural for you to want to have everyone playing your type of game. i recall your post about stack size being linked to buy-in. it is all to do with you being comfortable in a calibrated game.
to me, bounty hunters address a different need. as different in cricket as 2020 is to a county match. poker will be a different game soon. it has already morphed from freezeout to bh. morphed from 9 to 6 handed. deep stack to turbo, cash to spin-up, sng are looking for an upgrade. cricket would have disappeared as the UK population aged were it not for the shortened game. cricket has already gone abroad and away from the UK. poker will be a faster, shorter, gamblier and punchier game.
but back to your point. tweaking the proportion of prize-money from 50% to 33% for bounties is a bad tweak. i know you want things to return to how they used to be. after all, it's your comfort zone. it is certainly the place where you are good.
if i could succeed in anything, it would be to bring you into today's world. you are a good player and when you recalibrate things you will clean up in the 2020 version of poker.
ps. meant in a good way and with full respect to your ability.
In Response to Re: Are Bounty Hunters an illusion? : this goes to the heart of the matter, hays. i guess that i know what type of game you're most comfortable with (format, speed, blinds, buy-in etc.) this is your manor, your home ground. i know that you have developed a way of playing which is carefully calibrated and successful in this environment. therefore, it is only natural for you to want to have everyone playing your type of game. i recall your post about stack size being linked to buy-in. it is all to do with you being comfortable in a calibrated game. to me, bounty hunters address a different need. as different in cricket as 2020 is to a county match. poker will be a different game soon. it has already morphed from freezeout to bh. morphed from 9 to 6 handed. deep stack to turbo, cash to spin-up, sng are looking for an upgrade. cricket would have disappeared as the UK population aged were it not for the shortened game. cricket has already gone abroad and away from the UK. poker will be a faster, shorter, gamblier and punchier game. but back to your point. tweaking the proportion of prize-money from 50% to 33% for bounties is a bad tweak. i know you want things to return to how they used to be. after all, it's your comfort zone. it is certainly the place where you are good. if i could succeed in anything, it would be to bring you into today's world. you are a good player and when you recalibrate things you will clean up in the 2020 version of poker. ps. meant in a good way and with full respect to your ability. Posted by aussie09
In Response to Re: Are Bounty Hunters an illusion? : Go on then. Posted by HAYSIE
well, do you know that i know your figures inside out? there is one thing i would suggest to make the transition. firstly, your figures are superb. i acknowledge that i am not able to give you any advise on playing poker. i can, however, interpret your figures in relation to other players. there is one suggestion....
get a bigger, heavier bat. when you get to the final over hit out. batter them.
i would like to add that the prizepool is distributed differently, insofar that even coming last, or leaving the earliest, the player might win some money back. not likely but possible. but in a freezeout this randomness is not there. bounty hunters favour those who gamble more than the norm. Posted by aussie09
Pedant alert - the last placed player cannot get any money back; to do that you need to have eliminated someone so you can't possibly be the last finisher. Second last, yes theoretically.
In Response to Re: Are Bounty Hunters an illusion? : well, do you know that i know your figures inside out? there is one thing i would suggest to make the transition. firstly, your figures are superb. i acknowledge that i am not able to give you any advise on playing poker. i can, however, interpret your figures in relation to other players. there is one suggestion.... get a bigger, heavier bat. when you get to the final over hit out. batter them. Posted by aussie09
In Response to Re: Are Bounty Hunters an illusion? : no, don't watch it much nowadays. used to. i just hope i don't come up against you later. there was a second tweak... stop losing so often in the first quarter. you're far better than that. i think back to ali versus foreman.... Posted by aussie09
The strategy of the 2 formats, bounty hunters and freezeouts are very different. You cant really compare the 2, its like asking why someone would prefer a dym over a "normal" sit and go. Different pay outs, and different skillsets required to be successful. Id imagine the bounty fields are considerably softer than non bounty fields due to players either not adjusting, or adjusting poorly. And soft fields attract more players, naturally. In Response to Are Bounty Hunters an illusion? : I know what you're getting at, but i did enjoy this quote �� Posted by DOHHHHHHH
I can see how stupid the quote looks taken out of context. I was attempting to illustrate the huge difference in the prizepool between the two types, when it comes to a fairly big tournament.
In Response to Re: Are Bounty Hunters an illusion? : Pedant alert - the last placed player cannot get any money back; to do that you need to have eliminated someone so you can't possibly be the last finisher. Second last, yes theoretically. Posted by FCHD
Comments
interesting stuff.
there are some stats that we all know, e.g. bounty hunters spread the prizepool to more players. this is good. it gives a positive reinforcement to more players. more players will be motivated to play more games. BHs do not make money last longer necessarliy, more that BHs make people motivated to play more mtts.
i would like to add that the prizepool is distributed differently, insofar that even coming last, or leaving the earliest, the player might win some money back. not likely but possible. but in a freezeout this randomness is not there.
bounty hunters favour those who gamble more than the norm. freezouts favour the players more than the norm.
the issue of guarantees and overlay is not a BH/freezout issue. it is a tournament management thing done very well by james. existence of overlay has been managed far better in recent weeks. remember though, overlay is good as well as bad. it is bad to have lots of overlay, bad to have zero overlay. it is good to aim for an optimal number of mtts overlaying each day.
i have been looking at a way of assessing strength of the field in each MTT. i am soon to develop something along these lines. i would like to know which mtts are tough, which are not.
finally, i have stats over a long period of time, to show the percentage of players who make a profit. this number is not high, probably a lot lower than you might think. if you are happy to take this as true, BHs are a fantastic offering for sky poker and a fantastic offering for us all, whether good or bad, a gambler or a player.
.
this goes to the heart of the matter, hays.
i guess that i know what type of game you're most comfortable with (format, speed, blinds, buy-in etc.) this is your manor, your home ground. i know that you have developed a way of playing which is carefully calibrated and successful in this environment. therefore, it is only natural for you to want to have everyone playing your type of game. i recall your post about stack size being linked to buy-in. it is all to do with you being comfortable in a calibrated game.
to me, bounty hunters address a different need. as different in cricket as 2020 is to a county match. poker will be a different game soon. it has already morphed from freezeout to bh. morphed from 9 to 6 handed. deep stack to turbo, cash to spin-up, sng are looking for an upgrade. cricket would have disappeared as the UK population aged were it not for the shortened game. cricket has already gone abroad and away from the UK. poker will be a faster, shorter, gamblier and punchier game.
but back to your point. tweaking the proportion of prize-money from 50% to 33% for bounties is a bad tweak. i know you want things to return to how they used to be. after all, it's your comfort zone. it is certainly the place where you are good.
if i could succeed in anything, it would be to bring you into today's world. you are a good player and when you recalibrate things you will clean up in the 2020 version of poker.
ps. meant in a good way and with full respect to your ability.
Go on then.
get a bigger, heavier bat. when you get to the final over hit out. batter them.
Pedant alert - the last placed player cannot get any money back; to do that you need to have eliminated someone so you can't possibly be the last finisher. Second last, yes theoretically.
no, don't watch it much nowadays. used to.
i just hope i don't come up against you later.
there was a second tweak... stop losing so often in the first quarter. you're far better than that. i think back to ali versus foreman....
excellent,
i am pleased to see the result.