Private forum tourney?
Just wondering how many people would play a private forum tourney of some sort, and what buyin would be the best to get the most people. I know (I think I know?) that there are already some sort of private PFC tourneys going on from time to time, but I think it'd be cool to do some sort of PFC only satellite to some tourney or something where participants get 1% of the winner or something. Seen it done on other forums, could make for a good sweat too!
Comments
Winner plays a $200 or $500 tourney of choice (prize pool depending of course)......or something to that effect.
5-20 is great
Maybe with enough notice it is possible though?
id pay more if i had to in order to play with all the top players on this site, and yes easier with a few weeks notice.
I don't think it needs to be a $500 buyin. $200ish should be fine to play a sunday major. Plus I think theres only 2 regulars on here now who regularly play sunday majors so i'm sure winning a sat to play ex) a sunday mil is fine for the majority. Pretty sure Vekked's proposal on this is just for the fun/social aspect, and he's fine with just the sat to the $200 level buyins.
the "losers" all transfer the agreeed buyin to the winner who in turn uses it to buyin to a larger event. Everyone who took part in that weeks satellite would own a % of the winner. I'd love to get into something like this on a weekly basis. The $55 nightly 70 grand on stars would be a good one to consider starting off with.
This is not a bad idea!:)
Setting up a free roll could definitely be good for bypassing site fees, but it could get kinda sticky using this system if we get a decent number of people out.
One benefit to using the sites system and paying the fees though, at least on FTP, is getting to choose all our own options and such. FTP has a really good system for private tourneys as you get to use all the different options, such as adjust blind levels, starting stacks, make it a KO, etc etc which would be cool imo.
I still think that a satty to like the sunday million/warmup or full tilt 750k/brawl would be better for attracting people overall since regardless of someone's buyin level they want to or do play the sunday majors. The nightly 70k has some problems in that it's less desirable to play a satty for for various reasons (not as prestigious in some cases, too low of a buyin in others). Also even playing basically full-time myself I rarely register until 9:30 PM stuff cuz it runs so late. Sunday $200 buy-in tournies are a lot more convenient, and I don't reeeeally think we should have too much trouble mustering up enough people for one with enough notice.
I think we should do a poll or something and see what the best buyin would be for the majority of people and go from there, then see which days/times are best for people.
seems like best case/worst case scenario, that would be a good problem to have and one we could deal with when/if it surfaces though?
Well yes a lot of people would be nice, I'm thinking mostly like... someone plays without actually having enough for the buy-in, or doesn't pay up after for w/e reason, or something. It would only have to happen once to mess things up for future tournaments, but it might not be an issue.
Exactly!
It works on a number of levels if we get it going properly. Lower stakes players get to take shots and maybe luckbox a big one, but also if they have a small piece of one of the people who play those stakes regularly, they have a better shot of seeing some return on their investment.
cnpl?
11 players pay $5 ea.
winner plays $55 tourney on stars/fulltilt
winner wins $1,650,000 (just arbitrary number)
Winner keeps $990,000 (60%)
other remaining 10 players share $660,000 for 66k each.
done and done!
I'd have to agree here, I think 1-2% per entrant is probably enough.
okay, but what does that mean assuming we get to a point where there are 20 entrants? that's why I was thinking in bigger pooled percentages. I for one think 70-30 would be ideal, yeah, you're giving away 30% but....it's giving you opportunities to play in tournaments you wouldn't normally be taking part in. I would think a league arrangement like this wouldn't be targeted to many who are normally buying in to $100 directly themselves already
flud, do you remember what the arragement for cnpl was? i should remember, i started it lol
Well that's not true for everyone... I play all of the majors nearly every sunday since I'm a professional tourney player and I'm still interested in doing something like this for the community.
I think ideally we find a happy medium for both the low and highstakes players. The problem with such a big cut (70/30) is that it will inherently be -EV for many of the winning players, let alone the losing ones on the site. Giving away 30% of your money in a tournament means that in order to breakeven your roi has to be ~42%. A lot of people playing won't have that, even the highstakes players. Some people might not care as much, but others who are regulars in the game might not be so happy about it.
Your idea of giving an overall % rather than a certain % per player might be better, especially if we get a lot of people in. There might be another way to do it, I've still got to think about it a bit first to see if it's logical though.
Admittedly not a tourney player..
Is there no way we could do it % per player upto a max # of players then default to a % for the lump sum to be divided among the group? The most the player participating in the tourney should have to give up should be 20 or 25%.
totally fine with 1-2%....but the others should win more than 66k
The idea of this is a 'community effort' to take down a big tournament. If it's only about the 'player' getting the huge payday, then enter the public sattys and forget the community idea. For myself, I like the idea of a 'team' feeling, where everyone feels like they can win as a group.