As somebody who plays exclusively at the micros and for whom the mini main is a big tourney, I'm not quite sure where I stand on this. Yes what I really want is say at least £30 for cashing a comp that runs very deep and very late and the jumps are very low at the bottom end. Why sit there and grind for an extra hour just to make another £2 or so.
In fact, on the rare occasion I get past the bubble it's a case of shoving and calling really light because there's no incentive to play even remotely optimally until the last 10 or so.
So I'm probably in the less places, better payouts camp.
My argument is that by allowing re-entries you increase the pay outs, without paying less places. Re-entries are obviously optional. Last night in the main there were 45 re-entries from 153 runners. So it made the prize pool £5,940, from £4,590. What would the prize money have been like without the re-entries? I am obviously not doing a very good job of selling it.
I fully understand that but I am not rolled to fire several bullets at it so don't need big rolled regs repeatedly reloading.
As somebody who plays exclusively at the micros and for whom the mini main is a big tourney, I'm not quite sure where I stand on this. Yes what I really want is say at least £30 for cashing a comp that runs very deep and very late and the jumps are very low at the bottom end. Why sit there and grind for an extra hour just to make another £2 or so.
In fact, on the rare occasion I get past the bubble it's a case of shoving and calling really light because there's no incentive to play even remotely optimally until the last 10 or so.
So I'm probably in the less places, better payouts camp.
My argument is that by allowing re-entries you increase the pay outs, without paying less places. Re-entries are obviously optional. Last night in the main there were 45 re-entries from 153 runners. So it made the prize pool £5,940, from £4,590. What would the prize money have been like without the re-entries? I am obviously not doing a very good job of selling it.
I fully understand that but I am not rolled to fire several bullets at it so don't need big rolled regs repeatedly reloading.
Isnt the whole point that you wouldnt have to reload. Although you could still benefit from those that did. Allowing re-entries completely changed the mains. Yet the vast majority of players dont re-enter.
@Essexphil put forward a reasonable suggestion earlier. His idea was to only pay the top 20, and boost the lower positions using the £90 saving. Some might think that this is a good plan, unless of course you finished 23rd, two weeks running. I think this would only be a sticking plaster. On Sunday there was a £120 overlay. So Sky lost just about all their rake. If the guarantee was dropped as a result, you could end up with 20 places paid, and exactly the same prize money for the 20, as there was last week for the 25. But Sky would have got their rake in full.
Whereas if you allowed re-entries, and got 13, you could still pay out the @Essexphil prize money, but to 25, rather than 20. I think you would exceed 13 re-entries, and probably see a lot more improvement all round. Nobody would be obligated to re-enter, it would be a choice. So you wouldnt have to.
I am giving up now. I dont know why I got involved, because I dont play any minis anyway.
Turkeys voting for Christmas? I never thought I would see poker players voting to pay less places.
If the places paid were reduced from 25, to 20, and the prize money increased from 8th to 20th. You save £90 from not paying 21st to 25th. That means an increase of almost £7 per per place from 8th to 20th.
Therefore if you finished anytime in the future between 21st and 25th, you would need to cash 3 extra times to show a profit. Finishing between 21st and 25th means you lost £18. Cashing 3 extra times would mean you got an extra £21 (£7 per cash).
Re-entries is the way forward. If you dont want to re-enter, let others do it, and boost the prize pool.
........and also that some of the money should be trimmed off 1st and 2nd
I think that the minimum prize in a Freezeout should always be at least double the Entry Fee
Turkeys voting for Christmas. I am not sure why you would want to do both? I think that if you allowed re-entries, then your concerns would be satisfied. If you took the experience of the mains as an example, and there is no reason to expect that the minis would be any different. Practically every week night there are 30+ re-entries. This increases the prize pool by 20%. The same result on the Sunday Mini would increase the prize pool by £300. This would allow for a min cash of at least double the buy in.
Another aspect of allowing re-entries, is that if the Sunday Mini was the highlight of your week, which has been suggested, then I am sure that many players would appreciate a second bite, if they had suffered an early accident, and busted out.
I cant get past the blatantly obvious, that paying less places means that every player cashes on less occasions. Why would any player want to make it 20% more difficult to cash? As I said in an earlier post, a small increase to the lower places, would mean that you would have to cash on three further occasions to compensate for a 21st to 25th finish, for which you got nothing.
If you compare last weeks mini to the major. The major paid out in just about the same proportion. 20 got paid from 115 runners. A min cash was slightly short of double the buy in. Nobody is moaning about that.
The average poker player doesnt win that many tourneys, and is glad of a nice lump when they do. I therefore think that reducing the prize money for the first two places would be counter productive. Dont throw the baby out.
If you are concerned about a min cash being double the buy in, and I can see why you would say that, then allowing re-entries would address that. Why would you wish to tamper with anything else.
Players who can afford to comfortably rebuy several times would make this akin to a £2 re entry crapshoot at the local casino.
A player who plays this as the highlight of his week actually has his task of cashing made more difficult by players who can afford to treat each hand almost like a flip.
Yes the prize pool is enhanced but your chances of seeing it diminish as you effectively have 1 shot against the multiple opportunities that several players, for whom an £11 re entry is like a 55p tdym, would have.
Players who can afford to comfortably rebuy several times would make this akin to a £2 re entry crapshoot at the local casino.
A player who plays this as the highlight of his week actually has his task of cashing made more difficult by players who can afford to treat each hand almost like a flip.
Yes the prize pool is enhanced but your chances of seeing it diminish as you effectively have 1 shot against the multiple opportunities that several players, for whom an £11 re entry is like a 55p tdym, would have.
I dont think so. Firstly I am not advocating multiple rebuys. I think the mains are a valid example. Before re-entries were introduced, guarantees were regularly dropped. Since they have been allowed, guarantees are comfortably exceeded. Last Sunday the major would have been £500 short of the guarantee were it not for the re-entries. On a week night, rebuys usually put a grand in the prize pool. Only one rebuy is allowed.
I think that you are missing the point. If it came down to a choice of paying less places, or allowing re-entries, then it is a no brainer for me. For those players that find a re-entry unaffordable, or just dont wish to re-enter, then just let other players do it. For the life of me, I couldnt see why any player would prefer to see 20% less players paid. Ask the players who finished 21st to 25th last Sunday, if they would like to give their £18 back.
Players who can afford to comfortably rebuy several times would make this akin to a £2 re entry crapshoot at the local casino.
A player who plays this as the highlight of his week actually has his task of cashing made more difficult by players who can afford to treat each hand almost like a flip.
Yes the prize pool is enhanced but your chances of seeing it diminish as you effectively have 1 shot against the multiple opportunities that several players, for whom an £11 re entry is like a 55p tdym, would have.
Exactly this.
Rebuys at this level would benefit me. But not the core group for whom this MTT is a highlight.
IMO Sky gets this exactly right. Most smaller level MTTs are no re-entry, except the ones that are expressly rebuy/add-on. Most Mains are Single re-entry. And the Majors at UKOPS tend to be unlimited re-entry for an extended period.
Players who can afford to comfortably rebuy several times would make this akin to a £2 re entry crapshoot at the local casino.
A player who plays this as the highlight of his week actually has his task of cashing made more difficult by players who can afford to treat each hand almost like a flip.
Yes the prize pool is enhanced but your chances of seeing it diminish as you effectively have 1 shot against the multiple opportunities that several players, for whom an £11 re entry is like a 55p tdym, would have.
Exactly this.
Rebuys at this level would benefit me. But not the core group for whom this MTT is a highlight.
IMO Sky gets this exactly right. Most smaller level MTTs are no re-entry, except the ones that are expressly rebuy/add-on. Most Mains are Single re-entry. And the Majors at UKOPS tend to be unlimited re-entry for an extended period.
The biggest mini of the week by a long way is the £5 rebuy on Fridays.
I think you can assume things about players, or groups of players that are not true. When I started dabbling with online poker, I was a higher rate taxpayer, and earning plenty of money. So not all recs are skint, or have very small bankrolls. Also, not every player thinks about all the reasons why they cant win a tourney, before the start. The mains are still popular since the introduction of the re-entries, and the increased prize pools are surely seen as an advantage. It is easy to come up with theories that arent necessarily true. I dont think that anyone goes into a re-entry tourney, with the intention of re-entering. On a daily basis in the main, on average around 20% of the players re-enter. So 80% dont. I am not sure of the make up of the players that play the mini. Although the FT bonus ensures that some of the very good players play it. I would assume that some of the good players that play lots of tables also play it. Then there are some of the players that have smaller bank rolls, not all of whom are skint, they just have smaller bank rolls. Then there are the recs, who also arent all skint. Then there are the players that just play to while away a couple of hours, have a bit of fun, to whom cashing is a bonus. I think the fact that the Friday rebuy is proof of this argument. The prize pool is more than double the next nearest mini, despite the increased cost of playing it.
I play the £20 rebuy every Friday. Every Friday I see players that dont rebuy. That is despite the fact that it is a rebuy tourney. They start with 2,000 chips, and once they have done them they are out. I think that they are definitely at a disadvantage. Yet they obviously dont because you see them week after week. Or they are happy to play, knowing that they are at a disadvantage. They play week after week, knowing they arent going to rebuy.
That the thing about rebuys/re-entries, if you dont want to or cant afford to, you dont have to.
Players who can afford to comfortably rebuy several times would make this akin to a £2 re entry crapshoot at the local casino.
A player who plays this as the highlight of his week actually has his task of cashing made more difficult by players who can afford to treat each hand almost like a flip.
Yes the prize pool is enhanced but your chances of seeing it diminish as you effectively have 1 shot against the multiple opportunities that several players, for whom an £11 re entry is like a 55p tdym, would have.
Exactly this.
Rebuys at this level would benefit me. But not the core group for whom this MTT is a highlight.
IMO Sky gets this exactly right. Most smaller level MTTs are no re-entry, except the ones that are expressly rebuy/add-on. Most Mains are Single re-entry. And the Majors at UKOPS tend to be unlimited re-entry for an extended period.
The biggest mini of the week by a long way is the £5 rebuy on Fridays.
Players who can afford to comfortably rebuy several times would make this akin to a £2 re entry crapshoot at the local casino.
A player who plays this as the highlight of his week actually has his task of cashing made more difficult by players who can afford to treat each hand almost like a flip.
Yes the prize pool is enhanced but your chances of seeing it diminish as you effectively have 1 shot against the multiple opportunities that several players, for whom an £11 re entry is like a 55p tdym, would have.
Exactly this.
Rebuys at this level would benefit me. But not the core group for whom this MTT is a highlight.
IMO Sky gets this exactly right. Most smaller level MTTs are no re-entry, except the ones that are expressly rebuy/add-on. Most Mains are Single re-entry. And the Majors at UKOPS tend to be unlimited re-entry for an extended period.
The biggest mini of the week by a long way is the £5 rebuy on Fridays.
Is this because the Prize Fund is bigger ?
The guarantee is £4k. £5.50 entry £4,000 Mini Avenger Rebuy B/Hunter (£4,205)
Players who can afford to comfortably rebuy several times would make this akin to a £2 re entry crapshoot at the local casino.
A player who plays this as the highlight of his week actually has his task of cashing made more difficult by players who can afford to treat each hand almost like a flip.
Yes the prize pool is enhanced but your chances of seeing it diminish as you effectively have 1 shot against the multiple opportunities that several players, for whom an £11 re entry is like a 55p tdym, would have.
Exactly this.
Rebuys at this level would benefit me. But not the core group for whom this MTT is a highlight.
IMO Sky gets this exactly right. Most smaller level MTTs are no re-entry, except the ones that are expressly rebuy/add-on. Most Mains are Single re-entry. And the Majors at UKOPS tend to be unlimited re-entry for an extended period.
The biggest mini of the week by a long way is the £5 rebuy on Fridays.
Is this because the Prize Fund is bigger ?
I think Saturday is the next biggest at £2k guaranteed. The below was last Saturday. £5.50 entry £2,000 Mini Sharpshooter (£2,000)
Players who can afford to comfortably rebuy several times would make this akin to a £2 re entry crapshoot at the local casino.
A player who plays this as the highlight of his week actually has his task of cashing made more difficult by players who can afford to treat each hand almost like a flip.
Yes the prize pool is enhanced but your chances of seeing it diminish as you effectively have 1 shot against the multiple opportunities that several players, for whom an £11 re entry is like a 55p tdym, would have.
Exactly this.
Rebuys at this level would benefit me. But not the core group for whom this MTT is a highlight.
IMO Sky gets this exactly right. Most smaller level MTTs are no re-entry, except the ones that are expressly rebuy/add-on. Most Mains are Single re-entry. And the Majors at UKOPS tend to be unlimited re-entry for an extended period.
The biggest mini of the week by a long way is the £5 rebuy on Fridays.
Is this because the Prize Fund is bigger ?
My point is that the players are prepared to spend more on a Friday. As a result you get a prize pool that is double the Saturday prize poll, and 2 and a half times Sundays.
It is probably not the best time due to the cost of living crisis. I think I started playing on Sky in 2007. I dont think the buy ins have increased at all on the mains, or the minis, in all that time. So if the tourneys were a workforce, they would undoubtedly be on strike.
Last nights main. 189 runners. 39 re-entries. So just about 20% re-entered. 80% didnt. The £1170 that the re-entries put into the prize pool made a massive difference. In fact the difference between £330 worth of overlay, and smashing the guarantee. These re-entries cost £30. They may be more popular at £5 or £10.
Last nights main. 189 runners. 39 re-entries. So just about 20% re-entered. 80% didnt. The £1170 that the re-entries put into the prize pool made a massive difference. In fact the difference between £330 worth of overlay, and smashing the guarantee. These re-entries cost £30. They may be more popular at £5 or £10.
Last nights main. 189 runners. 39 re-entries. So just about 20% re-entered. 80% didnt. The £1170 that the re-entries put into the prize pool made a massive difference. In fact the difference between £330 worth of overlay, and smashing the guarantee. These re-entries cost £30. They may be more popular at £5 or £10.
Last nights main. 189 runners. 39 re-entries. So just about 20% re-entered. 80% didnt. The £1170 that the re-entries put into the prize pool made a massive difference. In fact the difference between £330 worth of overlay, and smashing the guarantee. These re-entries cost £30. They may be more popular at £5 or £10.
Comments
Although you could still benefit from those that did.
Allowing re-entries completely changed the mains.
Yet the vast majority of players dont re-enter.
@Essexphil put forward a reasonable suggestion earlier.
His idea was to only pay the top 20, and boost the lower positions using the £90 saving.
Some might think that this is a good plan, unless of course you finished 23rd, two weeks running.
I think this would only be a sticking plaster.
On Sunday there was a £120 overlay.
So Sky lost just about all their rake.
If the guarantee was dropped as a result, you could end up with 20 places paid, and exactly the same prize money for the 20, as there was last week for the 25.
But Sky would have got their rake in full.
Whereas if you allowed re-entries, and got 13, you could still pay out the @Essexphil prize money, but to 25, rather than 20.
I think you would exceed 13 re-entries, and probably see a lot more improvement all round.
Nobody would be obligated to re-enter, it would be a choice.
So you wouldnt have to.
I am giving up now.
I dont know why I got involved, because I dont play any minis anyway.
I never thought I would see poker players voting to pay less places.
If the places paid were reduced from 25, to 20, and the prize money increased from 8th to 20th.
You save £90 from not paying 21st to 25th.
That means an increase of almost £7 per per place from 8th to 20th.
Therefore if you finished anytime in the future between 21st and 25th, you would need to cash 3 extra times to show a profit.
Finishing between 21st and 25th means you lost £18.
Cashing 3 extra times would mean you got an extra £21 (£7 per cash).
Re-entries is the way forward.
If you dont want to re-enter, let others do it, and boost the prize pool.
I agree that re-entries for the Mini's (especially the Mini Major ) makes sense to increase the Prize pool
........but I also think that the Prizes should be reduced to around 1 paid per 7 entries, so
15 prizes 105 entries or less,
17 prizes 106 -119 entries
20 prizes 120 - 140 entries
22 prizes 141 - 154 entries
25 prizes 155 - 175 entries
etc., etc.,
........and also that some of the money should be trimmed off 1st and 2nd
I think that the minimum prize in a Freezeout should always be at least double the Entry Fee
I am not sure why you would want to do both?
I think that if you allowed re-entries, then your concerns would be satisfied.
If you took the experience of the mains as an example, and there is no reason to expect that the minis would be any different.
Practically every week night there are 30+ re-entries.
This increases the prize pool by 20%.
The same result on the Sunday Mini would increase the prize pool by £300.
This would allow for a min cash of at least double the buy in.
Another aspect of allowing re-entries, is that if the Sunday Mini was the highlight of your week, which has been suggested, then I am sure that many players would appreciate a second bite, if they had suffered an early accident, and busted out.
I cant get past the blatantly obvious, that paying less places means that every player cashes on less occasions.
Why would any player want to make it 20% more difficult to cash?
As I said in an earlier post, a small increase to the lower places, would mean that you would have to cash on three further occasions to compensate for a 21st to 25th finish, for which you got nothing.
If you compare last weeks mini to the major.
The major paid out in just about the same proportion.
20 got paid from 115 runners.
A min cash was slightly short of double the buy in.
Nobody is moaning about that.
The average poker player doesnt win that many tourneys, and is glad of a nice lump when they do.
I therefore think that reducing the prize money for the first two places would be counter productive.
Dont throw the baby out.
If you are concerned about a min cash being double the buy in, and I can see why you would say that, then allowing re-entries would address that.
Why would you wish to tamper with anything else.
Players who can afford to comfortably rebuy several times would make this akin to a £2 re entry crapshoot at the local casino.
A player who plays this as the highlight of his week actually has his task of cashing made more difficult by players who can afford to treat each hand almost like a flip.
Yes the prize pool is enhanced but your chances of seeing it diminish as you effectively have 1 shot against the multiple opportunities that several players, for whom an £11 re entry is like a 55p tdym, would have.
Firstly I am not advocating multiple rebuys.
I think the mains are a valid example.
Before re-entries were introduced, guarantees were regularly dropped.
Since they have been allowed, guarantees are comfortably exceeded.
Last Sunday the major would have been £500 short of the guarantee were it not for the re-entries.
On a week night, rebuys usually put a grand in the prize pool.
Only one rebuy is allowed.
I think that you are missing the point.
If it came down to a choice of paying less places, or allowing re-entries, then it is a no brainer for me.
For those players that find a re-entry unaffordable, or just dont wish to re-enter, then just let other players do it.
For the life of me, I couldnt see why any player would prefer to see 20% less players paid.
Ask the players who finished 21st to 25th last Sunday, if they would like to give their £18 back.
Rebuys at this level would benefit me. But not the core group for whom this MTT is a highlight.
IMO Sky gets this exactly right. Most smaller level MTTs are no re-entry, except the ones that are expressly rebuy/add-on. Most Mains are Single re-entry. And the Majors at UKOPS tend to be unlimited re-entry for an extended period.
When I started dabbling with online poker, I was a higher rate taxpayer, and earning plenty of money.
So not all recs are skint, or have very small bankrolls.
Also, not every player thinks about all the reasons why they cant win a tourney, before the start.
The mains are still popular since the introduction of the re-entries, and the increased prize pools are surely seen as an advantage.
It is easy to come up with theories that arent necessarily true.
I dont think that anyone goes into a re-entry tourney, with the intention of re-entering.
On a daily basis in the main, on average around 20% of the players re-enter.
So 80% dont.
I am not sure of the make up of the players that play the mini.
Although the FT bonus ensures that some of the very good players play it.
I would assume that some of the good players that play lots of tables also play it.
Then there are some of the players that have smaller bank rolls, not all of whom are skint, they just have smaller bank rolls.
Then there are the recs, who also arent all skint.
Then there are the players that just play to while away a couple of hours, have a bit of fun, to whom cashing is a bonus.
I think the fact that the Friday rebuy is proof of this argument.
The prize pool is more than double the next nearest mini, despite the increased cost of playing it.
I play the £20 rebuy every Friday.
Every Friday I see players that dont rebuy.
That is despite the fact that it is a rebuy tourney.
They start with 2,000 chips, and once they have done them they are out.
I think that they are definitely at a disadvantage.
Yet they obviously dont because you see them week after week.
Or they are happy to play, knowing that they are at a disadvantage.
They play week after week, knowing they arent going to rebuy.
That the thing about rebuys/re-entries, if you dont want to or cant afford to, you dont have to.
£5.50 entry £4,000 Mini Avenger Rebuy B/Hunter (£4,205)
392 entries 281 rebuys 168 addons
The below was last Saturday.
£5.50 entry £2,000 Mini Sharpshooter (£2,000)
388 entries, £60 overlay
As a result you get a prize pool that is double the Saturday prize poll, and 2 and a half times Sundays.
I think I started playing on Sky in 2007.
I dont think the buy ins have increased at all on the mains, or the minis, in all that time.
So if the tourneys were a workforce, they would undoubtedly be on strike.
189 runners.
39 re-entries.
So just about 20% re-entered.
80% didnt.
The £1170 that the re-entries put into the prize pool made a massive difference.
In fact the difference between £330 worth of overlay, and smashing the guarantee.
These re-entries cost £30.
They may be more popular at £5 or £10.
@HAYSIE
Any idea who won it last night?