Re-entry tournaments

BlondeFish

Below are two excellent articles by poker icons about re-entry tournaments .

- TD Matt Savage
- Chris Moorman (over $10 million in online earnings).

mikelbyl;364685 wroteBTW Matt Savage is still pro next-day-reentry like we do, he's very clear about that. He's against same-day/same-flight re-entry. Which we don't do.

Here is what Moorman had to say about WPT Montreal:

WPT Montreal is a $3850 reentry event with three separate starting days. In theory you could be in for $11,400 when the minimum cash is only $5204. In fact if you played all three bullets in this tournament you would need to make the top 5 percentile of the tournament (45th place out of 862 entries.) This means that in a reentry tournament there are very few winners. However, in a freezeout tournament with no reentrys, normally around 15% of the field make the money and are all guaranteed to be ‘winners.’ Not big winners of course but especially for recreational players coming back with more money than you started with is seen as a big thing.
:
I believe that the loss in players was to less satellite winners, as they didn’t want to play one bullet where their opponents would be able to take advantage of up to three bullets.

mikelbyl

Chris Moorman seems like a nice guy, and for sure he's wizard of a poker player, but frankly he doesn't know what he's talking about.

People VASTLY overestimate the number of re-entries in an event. The number of players who entered 3 times? Even with the top-pro-heavy field at this WPT? 31 of 686 uniques - just 3%.

Also, there's no evidence from this that players behave as people assume - that people play crazy knowing they can re-enter. We know from anecdotal evidence that there are some differences (some players are open about playing a certain way because they can re-enter), but it's difficult to see that this is widespread.

pkrfce9

but how did those 31 do? are they +ev players?

actyper

mikelbyl;364787 wroteChris Moorman seems like a nice guy, and for sure he's wizard of a poker player, but frankly he doesn't know what he's talking about.

People VASTLY overestimate the number of re-entries in an event. The number of players who entered 3 times? Even with the top-pro-heavy field at this WPT? 31 of 686 uniques - just 3%.

Also, there's no evidence from this that players behave as people assume - that people play crazy knowing they can re-enter. We know from anecdotal evidence that there are some differences (some players are open about playing a certain way because they can re-enter), but it's difficult to see that this is widespread.

Doesn't matter what the actual number of re-entries is, it's the perception of what is happening that is deterring recreational players. All these tournaments trying to boost the prize pool are killing participation numbers from recs and they are the ones who backbone the tournament scene.

mikelbyl

Of those who re-entered 3 times, only 3 cashed. The rate that re-entries cash overall is only marginally greater than single entries - for sure within the margin of error considering the small sample size of a single event.

Plus, there is lots of evidence that the thing that brings people out is large prize pools - this is why guarantees work (not because people hope for an overlay). Re-entry is a red herring. Also I get more people who ask me if X or Y pro is playing - having these people in the field ( and as often as possible) is a big draw for the rec player.

The question I have is about the grinders who are actually playing a bankroll, not just spending money for fun and the experience. There is a (to me) misperception that re-entry tilts the playing field which if you're a person calculating EV is a problem.

djgolfcan

As a recreational player, I can say that I would not play a re-entry tournament unless I had the money to re-enter. It is 100% a perception problem for me. Thinking that pros with deep pockets can re-enter as much as they like and thus exploit the weaker, under rolled player.
Whether that is reality or not, that is my perception of how it would work and thus I would avoid a re-entry tournament.

pkrfce9

factor it into the rake çalcs

actyper

How many double entries were there?

So tell me why you figure the attendance for wpt Montreal was way down from last year even though there was increased exposure?

I think moorman is absolutely spot on with his analysis referencing both live and online

mikelbyl

The number was solid. After just a year the Montreal events have become "normal" and not a novelty, which is I think what accounted for the extra-huge turnout in the first one. I also think the pent-up demand after having been out of the major poker circuit (except for the BCPC, which was long considered a "major") for several years added a lot to the numbers. As well, there was a different kind of novelty effect for the first one - lots of people didn't have *any* expectations for it - so when they heard Day 1a was solid, they jumped on planes that night to make it for 1b. That kind of thing happens less for a normal event, a known quantity.

In terms of "normal" WPT events, only Borgata hosts bigger events so any suggestion that this was a come-down or something is not credible. This was an amazing event that will hold up as one of the top 3 WPT stops this year in terms of attendance. Maybe top 4, only because Borgata has 3 stops itself.

Next-day re-entry is the lifeblood of major poker events. Without it you won't HAVE major poker events outside of the WSOP.

A poker friend of mine lost 90% of his stack in level 2 holding quads. I don't think many people will travel hundreds of kilometres for events when that is a constant reality in poker. The WSOP is a different beast - because there are always other big-buy-in events starting.

I'm going on vacation to Prague tomorrow but when I get back I'm going to get permission from my employers to do some solid number crunching on the realities of re-entries. Because knowing some of those results (I've already looked into it here and there), serious players who choose not to play because of next-day re-entry are making what is clearly a Negative-EV choice, and their position can be supported by evidence.

This decision - going on evidence - is about as -EV of passing on an event because the host allows discussion of bubble saves. Yeah sure bubble saves can be a problem, but it's no reason to pass on an event entirely.

actyper

Once you go to Prague next week you will see why ept has grown huge compared with wpt events. Ept is listening to players while wpt is listening to party, which may be the dumbest organization, and the venues which look at predominately short term $ and not long term health.

I've always said wpt Montreal and playground is one of the best poker experiences in North America and everyone who goes there feels the same so saying a 20%+ drop in attendance is adjusting to the norm is purely an excuse. Fallsview poker classic is ran like shit yet attendance rises. I'm sure your projections were easily over 1000 players

You're also missing the point on the crowd you want to grow. You can do an analysis on serious players or pros and multientry profitability, but it's not them that you need to come out and try and win a big one, all comes down to the recreational players.

Popkorn

I'm not a pro, nor I don't think I completely qualify as amateur, I'm somewhere in between I guess.

But I agree with the two articles written. Re entry tournaments are bad for poker.

I didn't play in Montreal this year but I played last year. On the first day 1 I busted a talented pro. And then on day 2 I found myself playing with her again. To me that's pretty frustrating, because busting a pro once is tough already, doing it twice is definitely much harder considering they probably remember how you were playing.

But Montreal is great place to play if all you do is want to play (not win).

I think the tournaments are fine, my experience with the cash games were that they were pretty tough. Lots of pros, and the rake was high.