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 donâ€™t believe this will be solved, but Iâ€™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.
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.
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.
3)What if I lose my "$500" chip? Am I just SOL? That would suck big time.
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.
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.
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.
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.
4) The more you play, the more points you get, the more points the more chips. Incentive to keep playing? Big.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
I am a very strong believe in allowing others to get involved in our games. Iâ€™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 â€œexclusive groupâ€?. 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. Donâ€™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 â€œofficialâ€? BYOC â€œeventsâ€? 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 â€œregularsâ€? 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, itâ€™s very frustrating to me (as though you didnâ€™t get the point already) for me to see people making up these â€œrulesâ€? and â€œguidelinesâ€? 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?
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.
Iâ€™m going to try my hardest to make this my last post on the WSOP satellite theory. Weâ€™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 Iâ€™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 Iâ€™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.