Someone can buy thier way to a bigger stack when the final table starts. That's not equal to all players at the final table. Everyone should come to the final table on equal ground. Unless the final table is going to be rebuy / add on friendly. If that's the case, then sign me up, and please give me 10 add ons. I want to buy a bigger stack.What is unequitable about that?
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?Someone can buy thier way to a bigger stack when the final table starts.
That is more or less what we have in the "Starting over" thread.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.
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.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.
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. Itâ€™s a basic satellite structure. If there is something complicated about it, Iâ€™m happy to shed what ever light on it that may make it (more) clear for anyone else.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.
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.3)What if I lose my "$500" chip? Am I just SOL? That would suck big time.
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 didnâ€™t use my second chip, well then I guess I played a decent game.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.
If Iâ€™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. Iâ€™ve spent that entering $50 tourneys that Iâ€™ve never won.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.
We are here to build a fund for someone to go to the show, or a larger tourney entry. I donâ€™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.4) The more you play, the more points you get, the more points the more chips. Incentive to keep playing? Big.
Iâ€™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 Iâ€™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.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.
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. Iâ€™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, everyoneâ€™s chips stack needs to be the same.you start the final day somewhat handicapped.
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 donâ€™t like it, and thatâ€™s OK! Others do, it build big pots, promotes great action on the table and people enjoy them.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.
I tend to think of this in the sense that YOU are going to the show on HIS dimeâ€¦.. after all, you did win the tourney.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.
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.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?
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.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.