[Guest]

I wish more people read this so that I could get more opinions...

Is there some mental block or threshold that people have to overcome when deciding whether to play in a $45 or $50 or $55 tourney?

Why does a $45 tourney sound so much more affordable than a $50, and a $50 so much better than $55?

Do you think either of those would have a significant impact on attendance?

 

[Quads]

Same reason they don't sell cars for $30,000.
They sell them for $29,999.

It's Psychology and Marketing.
Someone won't buy in for a hudred, but will rebuy 3 times at $40.
Go figure.

 

[Hagar]

I wish more people read this so that I could get more opinions...

Welcome to my world...

It's the same thing with EVERY other thing we've tried to do.

I've come to the conclusion that there are 5-10 people who want to participate in any decisions made and the rest just want to be told when and where to show up and how much $ to bring.

Draw it up and send it out. You'll go nuts waiting for responses from too many more people....

 

[Dodger]

Most everyone has said "set the rules, and if I like it, I'll show up"

That includes all the people that host, say stuff on the forum, and people that only look at the forum once a generation.

As for me, I'm a glutton. I enjoy playing cards, and if I can afford it, I'll show up. I can usually afford $100, $50, $40, etc. Now a game with a $100-$300 spread buy-in is a little out of my "affordability".

So if you want to charge $60, go for it. I'll probably be there. Is that what your looking for?

 

[Robert]

I don't have enough time to read all the topics these days (if I did have more time, I'd spend it playing instead of reading about playing).

Anyway, time, not lack of interest, is why I don't respond to a lot of these things.

On topic: I think some people consider a $100 buy-in a situation where they'd have to re-buy for $100 when they run out, so it wouldn't last as long. That's why $100 buy-in is not the same as $40 buy-in w/ 2 rebuys. (I think, doesn't matter to me personally).