WSOP Plan Comments

Despite the fact that I probably would not participate in Hagar's points tourney series...I do like the idea. It might be the best I've seen for a fast way of getting somebody the big prize, with the possible exception of the concept I note below.

I will say that I'd be strongly opposed to the buying & selling of points as he outlined it in the most recent version of his plan. That cheapens the process. When the final event comes together and the winner is decided, it ought to be based on a person's success or failure in the previous events. Those prior standings should be the only thing that influences how people line up at the end. Allowing somebody to "buy their way" into a better position cheapens the process and the entire tourney. I think it's a bad idea altogether. If I were somebody who was seriously interested in taking a run at this, I would be seriously turned off by the buying/selling of points.

I do disagree with Hagar that the points system will generate more player interest. I think it will generate more interest among serious players who want to take a serious run at the big prize. However, I think you'd put more bodies in the seats by finding a way to distribute cash prizes along the way. You'd get more casual players and therefore more additional income. I'm one of those people who would be more interested if there were a little (even if it's just a little...) money to be made along the way.

I'll even go so far as to say that if you gave cash prizes you'd get enough additional interest that the individual tourney prizes would not pull money from the total pool that'd be available for the big prize. In other words... Maybe pay out 25% of the total funds to cash prizes. That means you'd only need 25% more interest in the cash prize tourneys than in the points-only tourneys for the results to be the same. That seems very realistic to me.

In my humble opinion, I think a series of tourneys that combines the points concept on top of some "smaller-than-usual" tourney cash prizes is the way to go. And this is the place for opinions, right??? Well you know what they say about them, so take it for what it's worth...

I understand your concern about buying points and at first I felt the same way. But the more I thought about it, I realized that finishing well in the prelim tourneys is a much cheaper way to accumulate points. I highly doubt that somoen is going to come in and plunk down $1000 to equalize his points and if he does, then hey the prize pool just grew a whole bunch.

If you think of points as money, then it makes perfect sense to be able to buy them. Winning them would be much the prefered method, but if you're serious about a BYOC seat and you either can't play in a lot of the prelim seats, or don't do well in the prelims, there is still an option to equalize the starting stakes for the final event.

To me it represents the best of all possibilities - it allows those who just want to be a little interested to throw a few shots at it. It allows those who prefer a "one big shot at it" to take that shot.

My draw back to the points system is that I don't think it creates an equal playing field for all players. It could work, but it would have to be a flat system across the board for all players, all games, etc.

The model that was proposed was that different games could be held at different stakes, which would allot different number of points, based on the event buy in, etc. So in theory, I play one game at a $100 dollar buy in and take the game, plus all it’s points, versus a guy who played 3 games at $25 / points each. I shouldn’t have an instant advantage over him because I was willing to risk $100 where in he was only willing to risk $25. I believe everyone should be playing for the same amount from the start to finish.

The other draw back I have is that when there are variable games, and the final event of players is the top 15 people in points, and I’m in 16th, I will instantly want to have a $100 buy in game, with rebuys and addons, so I can get more points, which will get me to the final 15 in points, if that is where the line is drawn. It’s a dynamic ruler, which I don’t think is fair.

I shouldn’t be able to buy points from someone, as in the earlier example, if I’m 20 points out of the top 15, why then I’ll just go give someone $20 bucks who played an event back in the beginning and has no desire in playing in later events and secure my spot at the final table. That isn’t fair to the other players who worked for their points.

I also shouldn’t be able to start at the final table with any more or any less chips (points) than the next guy. Everyone starts on an equal playing field. If I want, I can later pony up for a rebuy or an addon at an extra cost, should the final event support such a structure, but it if doesn’t, I want to start with the same amount of chips as the guy sitting next to me, just as in any other tourney.

If points are purchasable, then so should the final table seat be. The chip model makes them purchasable, as the chip is worth “x� dollars and it takes the same amount to get on the table and play with the others. If someone has the cash, they should be able to buy chips just as anyone else did. The difference is that one person is willing to buy a seat for $500, where as the next guy who is not willing to risk $500 up front but will certainly risk $40 and work his ass off and play a strong game, is then rewarded with the winnings of a $500 seat at the final table.

I like the theory, I just don't think it provides an equal playing field for all players and entrants.

(Jesus christ! This is the third time I've tried to post this response.)

In my opinion, a points system is by far the most equitable system other than a one day event.

Some of us will invest more $ in the series than others. Why should I invest $400 in the series while you invest only $100 and get exactly the same advantage as me? It just doesn't seem right.

Points are a commodity. You get them for contributing to the pool and doing well in the pre-lim events. Obviously prelim prize points are much more valuable than contribution points, because they are much cheaper = reward for playing well in prelim events.

Buying and selling them makes perfect sense to me - it could solve the issues of 2 differnet camps.

1) Those who want to participate, but don't really care about the big prize can sell their points to get some "cash" from doing well in a tourney. One could sell 400 points for say $300 (a bargain compared to buying them on the day of the final event @ $1/point).
2) Those who prefer the "one big day" plan could just show up on the final day and buy as many points as they see fit to get their starting stack big enough to contend. Buying 400 points would be the same as someone who played in 10 - $40 events but didn't get "in the money" in any of them - $400 investment. It's not the way I'd do it, but the option is there.

Rewards of amassing lots of points = bigger stack at the final event. It gives those who have invested the most $ and those who have played the best in the prelim events a slight advantage. This type of handicapping seems like a no-brainer to me.

If someone wants to just play in one pre-lim event, they get some points and a seat at the final event - a chip and a chair - any one big hand could erase their disadvantage. But they do start at a slight disadvantage.

What is unequitable about that?

OK - I'm seeing 4 basic proposals:

-Quads' Plan
-Hagar's Plan
-Hagar's Plan + cashouts
-A big one day event.

Here is my thoughts on each of the formats and some of the problems I see. I'm obviously biased towards my idea, because it makes the most sense to me.

First - the Big One Day event. I honestly don't think we have enough people who could/would put up enough cash for a one day event. If I though it were possible, I'd choose this option in heartbeat - it's very simple. I just don't think it could happen. I would guess that if you asked most of our players that they would tell you that they would play in 10-$40 events over the next 6 months, but they'd likely not pay $400 to play in one event. Same dollars invested, but a completely different feel. A series acts kind of like an installment plan if you will.

The conceptual problems I have with Quads' plan:
1) I could invest a good chunk of money and never get to the final event because I wasn't able to chalk a win. That would suck.
2) It seems very complicated to me - I'm sure it's clear to him and probably some of you - maybe I'm just stupid.
3)What if I lose my "$500" chip? Am I just SOL? That would suck big time.
4)Why would I play in more then one event once I won a tourney? (yes, rebuys, I know, but a rebuy chip could conceivably be a completely worthless chip) I can see that we'd start losing a player base as the series went on which equals losing a base of funding.
5)I could spend $400 trying to get a seat in the final event and you could spend only$100 and have the exact same advantage as me in the final event. That sucks.

How I see that my system adjusts these issues:
1) If you participate in the points series you get a seat in the final event. If you participate more and get "in the money" in some of them you get more points and a chip advantage. But you do get a seat for minimal participation.
2) It's really quite a simple plan (despite 7 hours of typing on the subjeect!): You get points for participating and pionts for doing well in prelim events. You can buy points. You can sell points. The more points you have, the more chips you get to start the final event.
3) Nothing to lose. We'll keep the records and make them public.
4) The more you play, the more points you get, the more points the more chips. Incentive to keep playing? Big.
5) Investment inequities are leveled to some degree. If you want to invest the mimimum you can, but you start the final day somewhat handicapped.

The events can easily be different buy-in $ as well. Points are issued based on the pre-lim entry $. Two points a awarded for each $- 1 for participation and 1 goes into the prize pool. If you win a $100 event, you'll get 4 times as many points as someone who wins a $25 event (assuming same number of entrants).

The only issue I have with trying to award cash in conjunction with this type of event, is that it will take that many more events to reach our goal. If we were take just 25% off the WSOP fund, we'd need 20% more events. This equals 20% more investment by players. The cash prizes wouldn't be all that big. We'd likely take away a payout spot and the last paid place would be lucky to even get their investment back. I'm not against it, but the reality of it is less then it seems.

OK - that's my side of the debate on this issue (and I think, I'm about done lobbying). Everyone throw your hat in the ring and tell me why I'm wrong or right. Then we can choose a "base" plan and nail down the details or we can simply forget all about this and get back to playing cards.

I will say this much about my intentions of involvment:
1) If we go with too much re-buy action, I'll likely not put a lot of effort into trying. Go for it if you all like, it's just not my thing.
2) If we just allow anyone to walk into the scene, I'll contribute nothing (but support). I have zero interest in sending your cousin (insert your choice of unfamilliar tag along here) who I've never met to the WSOP on my dime. If there can't be some commitment to the group (I don't see 3 events being so much of an issue). We're not exclusive - almost anyone can get in the mix of our games. They just need to pay a little "dues" if they want to get in on the WSOP event IN MY OPINION.

I will fine tune my previous proposal (I like it because you have 3 chances to win the WSOP seat, albeit the last one would cost you dear: My one-day plan consists of 20 players (2 tables) and 3 tournaments (Satellite A, Satellite B, and Final Table). Satellite A will have a $75 buy-in so at 20 players we have $1500. Each table will play down to 2 players (there is no incentive to finish with more chips than your lone opponent), and the 4 finalists advance to the Final Table (with a theoretical $375 each in his/her ledger for qualifying). Then Satellite B will have the the same format. The finalists who qualified from Sat. A can elect to play or sit out Sat B (I would play because I don't want to wait 2 hours for the F.T. to start). In the event a finalist qualifies a second time from Sat B. s/he gets $375 cash immediately. Then the F.T. starts with a minimum of 4 players (chance of that is very slim, probably the odds of that being 20% x 20% x 20% x 20% = 0.0016 or 625 to 1) and a maximum of 8 players (much more likely). Let's say we will have 7 players at F.T. that give us $2450 to shoot for. At this time we will open up to any desperados who is willing to put up $375 for a seat in the F.T. (who knows, I might be crazy enough to do that if I weren't able to qualify in Sat. A or Sat. B since by paying this amount I will have the same chances as the other finalist, although I would probably have to survive on bread and water for the next month if I don't win anything at the F.T.), but we limit the number of players to 10. The winner of the final table will win either a $1500 or $2000 seat depending on the total entry fees and second, third, and may even the fourth place finisher will get some cash prizes (again, depending on the scenario). Anyhow, all finalist will start with the same amount of chips.

I estimate the total amount of time required will be Sat A. (2 hrs., since we only play to the last 2 finishers) + Sat B. (2 hrs.) + F.T. (2.5 hrs.) for a total of 6.5 hrs. so we should start earlier in the evening.

Someone can buy thier way to a bigger stack when the final table starts.

Click to expand...

What is the difference between someone who pays (Player A) $400 over the course of the series and someone who plunks down (Player B) $400 on the day of the event?

The difference is that the person who plays in the pre-lim events has the chance to win points. It's a pretty big finanacial diasadvantage to someone who just wants to buy points.

Player A could, with a couple of "in the money" finishes, amass 800 points for his $400. Player be would have to pay $800 for the right to have an equal stack. Player B pays dearly for the right to be on equal ground if he chose not to participate over the series.

And you know, in a way you're right - it's like having the option to do a bunch of rebuys right up front. The only stipulation is that no one can buy a bigger stack than the big stack - you can only buy your way to equity, you can't buy your way to top dog. Once the tourney starts it's freezeout - your chips are your children and the only way to get more is through adoption.

What am I missing here?

I

have stopped following this because it's too damned convoluted at this point.

I wish somebody would please compile all the feasible options, post them so that we can see the details and compare, then let us vote it out.

Click to expand...

That is more or less what we have in the "Starting over" thread.

In my post above, I singled out what I felt were the 4 basic plans and gave my arguments on the benefits/probalems with each of them.

I'd like to see the others do the same - a well thought out debate with reasons behind their thoughts.

Then we can vote.

Politics is so confusing. (That's what this is you know....)

I'm curious as to why the buying and selling of points is an issue? That's the way that someone like you, who's not real crazy about the WSOP seat, could make some cash if you did well in a tourney (much more than you could if we paid out during the prelims).

I did a little spreadsheet with a 75% WSOP Fund/25% Cash Fund split. Using our normal payout spread, you'd barely double up if you won and there were 20 players in the tourney.

If you won a $40 buy-in with 100% points payout you'd have 352 points (312 + 40 for participation). This would be much more valuable (in our little market) then the $78 you'd win with a cash payout.

352 points would cost someone $352 to buy on final's day. I would think you could easily sell these points for $200-$300 to someone who wants to improve their station in the finals.

In response to Hagar's comments, I'm not saying that one (chip structure versus point structure) is right or wrong. I do however have some comments and questions in regards to his post with the concerns on the chip structure. I don’t believe this will be solved, but I’ll state my comments.

1) I could invest a good chunk of money and never get to the final event because I wasn't able to chalk a win. That would suck.

Click to expand...

Sure, this is the game of poker. I have entered a tourney and played it many times and have never won it. Play a strong game.

2) It seems very complicated to me - I'm sure it's clear to him and probably some of you - maybe I'm just stupid.

Click to expand...

I'm really trying to understand what is complicated about it. One game builds a fund, which rolls over to the next, the next and the next .Up to a final event, where winner takes the collective fund. It’s a basic satellite structure. If there is something complicated about it, I’m happy to shed what ever light on it that may make it (more) clear for anyone else.

3)What if I lose my "$500" chip? Am I just SOL? That would suck big time.

Click to expand...

Of course that would suck, ad of course we would track online who played in which tourneys, where they placed, who won a chip, etc .etc. This would be available for everyone to see at anytime through the web site.

4)Why would I play in more then one event once I won a tourney? (yes, rebuys, I know, but a rebuy chip could conceivably be a completely worthless chip) I can see that we'd start losing a player base as the series went on which equals losing a base of funding.

Click to expand...

This is one of the rather exciting elements on the proposed structure. Take the scenario where the structure was to have a pool of 20 chips (20 chips @ $500.00 = $10,000). I would play as many as I could and win as many as I could. If I had 3 chips, I have my buy in paid for, and a rebuy or perhaps an add on. This also takes the final event from 20 players down to 17. Say for example, 10 people held two chips each, there would be a final event of 10 players. It also adds an element of someone selling a ship (if they had two) as this would add one more person to the final table. Or, 20 people all at one chip. You then base your strategy at the final table based on who is there. If I didn’t use my second chip, well then I guess I played a decent game.

5)I could spend $400 trying to get a seat in the final event and you could spend only $100 and have the exact same advantage as me in the final event. That sucks.

Click to expand...

If I’m reading your statement correctly, then I look at this as you are willing to risk $400 for a chance to play in the final event, where as I was only willing to risk $100. And sure, you could spend $400. I’ve spent that entering $50 tourneys that I’ve never won.

4) The more you play, the more points you get, the more points the more chips. Incentive to keep playing? Big.

Click to expand...

We are here to build a fund for someone to go to the show, or a larger tourney entry. I don’t think the focus of the satellite is to gather a bunch of players to play a bunch of games to get a bunch of points. This is a serious amount of cash. The incentive to keep playing is to keep winning. The more you play, the better you play, the more you win.

5) Investment inequities are leveled to some degree. If you want to invest the minimum you can, but you start the final day somewhat handicapped.

Click to expand...

I’m trying to understand how you see that different peoples investment are equal. I still go back to my other question which is what if the tourney is called to take the top 15 people in points and play it out from there. And I’m 16th in points. What makes it equal for me to then go buy up all of the outstanding points out there from the people that played once or twice. This then puts me in 15th place, and knocks out the player that earned his 15th place, point by point.

you start the final day somewhat handicapped.

Click to expand...

And how is this fair? The first hand at the final table should be a table of all players sitting with the same amount of chips in front of them. I’m curious to know of a tourney structure that lets players start at deferent levels. If you want to add on, you can add on, but that first hand, everyone’s chips stack needs to be the same.

1) If we go with too much re-buy action, I'll likely not put a lot of effort into trying. Go for it if you all like, it's just not my thing.

Click to expand...

I know, and I think more other know as well that you are not a fan of rebuy or add on tourneys. The bottom line is they build bigger prize pools for the players. The tourney we did at my place (which was add on only) was $1,008 with 18 people in the seats. I know of several others that night who would have rebought when they hit the felt had they been able to. At the end of the day, you don’t like it, and that’s OK! Others do, it build big pots, promotes great action on the table and people enjoy them.

2) If we just allow anyone to walk into the scene, I'll contribute nothing (but support). I have zero interest in sending your cousin (insert your choice of unfamilliar tag along here) who I've never met to the WSOP on my dime.

Click to expand...

I tend to think of this in the sense that YOU are going to the show on HIS dime….. after all, you did win the tourney.

I am a very strong believe in allowing others to get involved in our games. I’m sure all of us have a friend or two that would love to play in the games. They may not be regulars, but they are poker players, and that is what we are here to do. I have 10 or 15 other people that would get in on this. No, they are not regulars, but they would love a game and opportunity like this, and may get them more involved in some of hte weekly / regular games. Again, we are not an “exclusive group�. We are a bunch of guys and gals that love the game of poker. If we are going to limit who can play in this series, then I think we should also start charging membership fees and make this a closed / members only game, as that is effectively what we are doing by not inviting and welcoming others to our games. BYOC was formed on friends of friends and word of mouth. Let me know if that has changed for anyone. Apparently Tom (Ace) feels the same way as well, and surprisingly has played ONE game. Don’t get me wrong, but under this premise, he can NOT play in the satellite, as he has not been to 3 games, being that this is the qualification. This really goes against the grain with me. There are not “official� BYOC “events� that are tracked and logged. They are games held with people that are part of the group, and we all promote our group, as we want our group to continue to grow. If someone wants to play that is a friend of yours, mine or someone else who is a regular or referral, I consider it that you are welcoming them into the group to play, and I respect you, so therefore I respect and welcome your friend to the group. They are a guest at my table and I will treat them as such. I have 10 or so other people who are not “regulars� in our group, and if someone is saying that they are not welcome at this game, they we (as a collective group are saying that they are not welcome at any game. No one person who plays in the BYOC games has such right to make that statement or such a rule. Yes, we are selective about who we invite, but let's not cut the hand off that feeds us. This is FAR from what BYOC was built on. Lastly, it’s very frustrating to me (as though you didn’t get the point already) for me to see people making up these “rules� and “guidelines� about new people coming to our group and playing in our games.

What is the difference between someone who pays (Player A) $400 over the course of the series and someone who plunks down (Player B) $400 on the day of the event?

Click to expand...

Absolutely nothing. At the end of the day, you were willing to spend $400 bucks in smaller portions, where as I was willing to spend it on one shot. One guy will play 5 $25 dollar events, but wont spend $100 on an entry. It's a matter of how people choose to spend thier money.

I’m going to try my hardest to make this my last post on the WSOP satellite theory. We’ve been going round and round on it and seem to get nowhere in regards to a decision or any action towards something that this happening. There are 4 or 5 different people throwing different ideas and comments around with no end in sight. So I’d love to see some of the other regulars voice their idea on the structure and their interest in doing something like this.
As far as I’m concerned, the people are out there (at least those who have played in 3 games so far) so get the people in the seat and the cards in the air.

Fuck it. Do whatever you all want.

Just tell me what it is.

Edit -

The reason for my frustrated off the cuff remark above, is that I'm tired of saying the same things over and over again. I either can't explain things clearly, or my posts are not really being read - just scanned. There is not a single point in Quads' last post that hasn't been addressed in a previous post - most in several posts, in several ways.

I guess the primary difference in my concept vs. his (discounting the rebuy issue) is that in his, you need to win a satelite to be at the final event (or pony up another $500 (or whatever the final seat is worth)). It doesn't matter how many times you try or how much you spend trying, you have to win a prelim event to play in the final.

In mine you get credit for trying and although you may start at a slight disadvantage, at least you get the chance to try, regardless of how much you invested. The more you invest, the better your starting chances. The better you do in the prelim the better your starting chances.

I too am very tired of this shit. Let's do something or forget about it.

Boy, I guess I am going to have alot of people at my "one day" events now. Whooooopeeeee!

Give me a fucking break! Everyone chill the fuck out, respect what everyone else is trying to say, and agree to disagree.

I think all the points have been made, someone start the voting process between the two and let's see what people pick.

Otherwise, whoever decides to start first and put the first invite out there for their own idea can have first dibs and run with it.

The bickering will get us nowhere and will discourage others from posting.

Actions speak louder than words in almost every facet of life and this is no different.

Do the vote, or just put an invite out for your idea first and start the thing rollin'.

Also, I agree with all Quads points about this not being an exclusive group and no one person has the right to start special rules or anything. I do agree that I do not want some hustler coming to our game for a "quickie" and never has any intention of playing with us again.....but I don't think any of the people we would invite to the game would fit that bill since I think everyone here has the common sense to know the type of people we are looking for in the BYOC group.

Boooyakasha!

Also, I agree with all Quads points about this not being an exclusive group and no one person has the right to start special rules or anything. I do agree that I do not want some hustler coming to our game for a "quickie" and never has any intention of playing with us again.....but I don't think any of the people we would invite to the game would fit that bill since I think everyone here has the common sense to know the type of people we are looking for in the BYOC group.

Click to expand...

Here's my concern with this issue. Not all of our invites come through personal "he's with me" connections. Every week we get one or two new interested players through this forum and other on-line ads. WE welcome all interested parties into our games. We don't really know anything about them or their intentions. We open up and let them in.

It's not hard to imagine that "some hustler" could come across the site and get himself into the tourney/tourney series. I'm not really worried about your cousins/brothers/personal friends/co-corkers/etc. I'm worried about "some hustler". How do we say no to someone but not o another?

My intentions are not to exclude people but to include everyone who wants to get into our overall action - I don't thinkit's right that BYOC sponsers some "unknown" into such a big event. We're not making anything in this deal, there's no vig at all and that's what makes it different then me going into a commercial casino to compete against 300 other unknowns for a similar prize. We're doing all of the work and offering something to our "members".

If someone wants to run this type of tourney under their own name and invite BYOC players to attend, then that's a different scenario then calling it a BYOC event.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I'm very protective of the BYOC name and our players.

Does this make any sense?