Foxwoods new structure means less profit

[K10Suited Glen]

The recent explosion of players showing up on Tues. to play the
Foxwoods NL Tourney has forced Mike and co. to drastically change the
structure and payout schedule and because of these changes I have
decided that it has now become unprofitable to play. Here's why...

1. First I think the reason it has become so popular is due to the
overall growth in poker, the large payouts we were seeing and,
possibly, the impact from the Travel Channel's new WPT broadcasts.

2. Because of this growth, the management fears that it would
eventually resulted in a $5,000 First prize and thereby require
Federal witholding of taxes, which they fear would scare the players
off. So they first limited the enties to 180, which was fine. But
they knew they could get more, so they changed the structure and now
let it go to a max 200 players.

3. In doing this, they had to reduce the 1st prize from 34 or 31%
based on the number of entrants to 26 or 23.5% now. From 179 to 200
entrants, which we've seen 200 for 3 consecutive weeks, the 1st prize
is 23.5%, down from 31%. This means a reduced payout for finishing
1st, even though you have to beat out more players than ever before.
This means a good player will not cash as often and reduces profit
vs. expense to a point where overall profitability becomes a question.

4. 2nd place now pays 21%, so you have only a difference of $500 to
$600 between the two places. This means that, yes, you will get more
for finishing in the top 2 spots than before assuming you hit each
spot equally, but there now seems to be no real reward for winning,
just for getting to 1st OR 2nd. I have a problem with that. With so
many players enterring, you will find more rookies and poor players
making the final table. Let's assume in the past I got heads up 10
time vs. a rookie and we were even in chips. In the past, I could be
expected to win 80% of the time as my skills are far superior to the
average player. If the payout difference was $1,000 (it used to be
more like $1,200 to $1,500) I would make $8,000 more than the average
player. Now, that drops to $5,000 to $6,000 and it's more likely that
I would accept an even split, as the 2.5% is not worth playing for.
Assuming I split every time, I'm really only giving up 1.25% in the
long run and that makes it safer to chop. Factoring in the fatigue at
this stage, and the possibility that I could get a bad run of cards,
it would just make more sense to chop. If 1st was $4,800 and 2nd was
$4,200 (as was the case the past 3 weeks) I'm only giving up $300 max
by choppping. Now my 80% win factor over a rookie heads up giving me
a profit of $8,000 just got reduced over ten top 2 finishes by $5,000
minimum. This is a real problem as I will no longer cash my average
of 30% of the time, more like 20% or even less (more on that to come).

5. With the new structure came 20 minute rounds from the 4th level to
the final 9. These shorter levels mean less hands to play, less skill
involved and more desperation plays by all, meaning my making the
final table drops to 15% or less. This week I cashed 13th, got $297,
which IS 1/2% higher than before but they took away 2 paying
spots...19th and 20th and with the shorter rounds I see no additional
equity in the extra 1/2%.

6. I resent that a player who finishes 18th gets the same cash as I
do if finish 10th and beat out almost a whole extra table than he
did. 10th-18th get the same 1.5%. Yuk!

7. The shorter rounds last nite showed me some problems... first,
players diddling around cost us hands, dealers not realizing the
importance of fast play caused several slowups that resulted in fewer
hands. One dealer sat there idly after a player said "Raise to
$6,000" instead of forcing the action to the next player to act or
fold. We all just sat there while we watched the player count out
$6,000. These instances mean fewer hands which mean less chance to
use skill to build your stack during a particular level. Now, you
just have to play fast and not think as intently. In 2 cases last
night, I found the level doubling exactly when it was my big blind
which has a factor. At 20 minute levels, you can only expect 12-15
hands and if your table is 7-8 handed I can forsee situations where
you get caught on the level change on your BB more often. Yes, it's
the same for all but hurts that 1 player while the others
benefit...unfair. The old 25 minute rounds usually meant that the BB
was rarely caught in this situation more than once which was more
fair for all.

8. With these faster levels, we were playing blinds of $1500-$3000 at
the same time of night we used to be at $400-$800 with only a
marginal increase in chips. This meant that we were all put into
desperation situations more than before, removing the skill factor
and making luck more of a factor. The only skill factor still left to
us is during the 25 min rebuy levels (3) and at the final 9 (45 min
levels). That and the stealing opportunities. The rest was basically
just a "Luck-Fest". More people in more pots, deeper in the tourney,
means more bad beats and more luck being a factor. NL has always been
the premier game where skill had the best chance of getting the good
players deep into the tourney. Now, luck is making it more of a
crapshoot. Anyone who has played the limit stud or holdem events
knows what I mean. You have to be lucky, perhaps even more than
skilled. NL used to be the exception to this. It no longer is in this
event.

9. All this means I'm going to cash far fewer times. The only way to
offset this factor and stay profitable is to reduce my overall
expense of playing, meaning fewer rebuys, resulting in the need to
tighten my play. With all these 200 players playing fast and loose
during the rebuy period, my fewer rebuys and tighter play will still
result in more bad beats and fewer deep moves into the tourney. All
this means that I don't believe anyone can play this tournament for
an expected positive EV as before. For the past 5 years I have played
more than 30 events a year and made $3 for every $1 invested. I think
now, this would drop to even at best, unless I just ran good for a
while. And I don't like having to rely on luck. The removing of skill
from any gane, means less profit.

10. They removed the antes from all the levels from 4th on, meaning
less dead money in the pot to help build your chip stack with. This
means alot to those who are skilled at stealing against selected
players and position steals. Another skill factor removed, at least
partially.

The prize payout is setup like the WSOP main event...top loaded. This
is fine in a fixed buyin, large numer of entrants event, but doesn't
work in a rebuy event. The faster levels would be ok if there were
more chips in play, such as T300 per rebuy, but they didn't do that
either. I offerred a solution that would allow Foxoods to let this
tourney grow as large as possible, rewards the winner with a larger
percentage for 1st and still leave all the levels at the longer 25
minute periods... Have 2 sperate events on Tuesday. Tourney A & B.
Both go back to the old struture and payout schedule. By doing this
you could have 300 people show up and have 2 NL tourneys running 10
minutes apart. Each with 150 players, nice prize pools, and more
people coming to the casino which is why they hold tourneys in the
first place. The casino would need possibly 10 more tables and
schedule 14 more dealers, and possible a second batch of different
color chips to keep the 2 events seperate, but skill would be put
back into the event. And they could let it grow as large as possible,
shutting out no one, and make more money. I doubt they will accept my
idea but I see it as the only other solution.

This is long winded, I know and apologize for it. But I felt it
important to tell you why I won't be playing NL events, except the
NEPC and WPF events and live cash games, assummimg they don't screw
with those. I also felt they are a few people here who play this
event and may want to re-think that position. Also, if those players
agree with my idea to a solution, they could express their opinions
to Mike at Foxwoods and maybe make this tourney playable again. My
guess is no changes will be made, and in the long run, fewer people
will play this event. At least fewer skilled players.

Thanks for bearing with me...Glen

[Greg (FossilMan)]

Glen, you make some good points, some points I think are wrong, and quite a few points where you're right but are hyperbolizing the impact.

1. Agreed

2. Agreed

3. How does reducing the percentage that gets paid to first place reduce your chances of cashing?

4. I don't see the relevance. If getting from heads-up to winning no longer pays such a premium as before, that merely puts more emphasis on other points, such as getting from 3-handed to heads-up, or getting from 4-handed to 3-handed. Unless your only above average skill was heads-up play, then I don't see this as a big deal.

5. 20 minutes instead of 25 clearly does mean more luck. However, I doubt it's enough to reduce you from cashing 20% of the time down to 15%.

6. Agreed, but again not that big of a deal, IMO.

7. Hyperbole. Diddling costs you the same no matter what the structure is. Similarly, if you're counting the bad luck of blind increases on YOUR blind, you're counting things twice. Shortening the rounds by 20% increases the luck factor for reasons you've given, but you can't talk about shorter rounds, and then again talk about the specific events occurring because of shorter rounds as if they were additive to the problem.

8. Again, I think you're counting the same things twice. Blinds are higher because rounds are shorter. You've already hit that point, and are now just reiterating it with different words.

9. Disagree completely with your result. Of course luck is higher, and therefore your edge is reduced. However, that absolutely does not mean that you have to worry about rebuying less. You should be playing each hand during the rebuy levels to maximize your EV in terms of chips, irrespective of risk (IMO). If that means risking your stack, and then taking the double rebuy when you lose, so be it. If you tighten up to the point that you're playing too tight for the situation, then it is the TIGHT PLAY that is reducing your expectation, not the structure.

10. Agreed. If you know how to adjust for antes better than most of your opponents, then removing them reduces your edge.

Double Tourney suggestion: I don't like it. How do they determine which event each player is in? It could become a contest to figure out how to get into the event that has the weaker field. Plus, it will confuse things when they're announcing level changes, breaks, etc., and harder for the staff to monitor table breakdowns and such and to keep both separate. You'd also have to have separate chip runners selling rebuys to make sure the prize pools were maintained separate, and different sets of chips to make sure players don't accidentally move into the wrong tourney when they change tables. Way too many headaches.

Here's my solution. Foxwoods doesn't have to worry about taxes during the NEPC or WPF because they ADD money to the prize pool of each event. Why not do the same for Tuesday night? Increase the price from $25+10 to $25+15, and then add $1000 to the prize pool from the house. Then, let the winner still get 31% or whatever, and not care that it's more than $5000.

As for your non-participation in the future, the only thing you're hurting is your own bankroll. With the number of bad players in this event, you will have a significant edge no matter what they do to the structure (that's at all reasonable). Why opt out just because your edge is going to drop from 200% down to 100%?

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[K10Suited Glen]

I agree, I coverred many items more than once in my post. But I am greatly frustrated that they've changed this tourney in so many ways. I don't necessarily disagree with any single change, but changing all of them at once, makes this change from a skill based event to more of a luck based event UNTIL you get to the final 9. I just think that it's going to be much, much harder to get there now.

If that is true, then you can't keep spending $155 or more each week and remain profitable in the long run. If you cash fewer times, which we all will with this structure, then you have to reduce you expense to stay profitable. The extra players...180-200 does not increase the prize pool enough to make your cashes high enough overall to offset high expenses of playing it. IMO, the players who have shown a long term profit in this event over the years will find it harder to keep that up if not impossible.

As far as my solution of running an A and B tourney, the computer would simply alternate ebtween the two events as people sign up. I doubt anyone is sharp enough to know exactly which line to be in or place in line to actually "select" the tourney they want, and how would they know who the weaker feild was unless they interviewed each player after they buy-in to see which event they were assigned?

Your solution would work as well. I would vote for anything that would get this back to a skill event. Until then, I'm staying away.

I'll miss playing it with you in it. But look forward to playing with you in the live PL and NL on those evenings. CYA then.

[PAUL-IN]

they outta have NLHE tourneys on the weekends....

[Toro]

Did you expect us to read all that?

[Greg (FossilMan)]

I don't see it.

Of course it's harder to make the final 18 when there are 200 players rather than 120. And of course you will cash less often as a result of that. However, since you will now get more for finishing 15th than you used to, and more for 8th, and more for 5th, etc., it really doesn't matter.

You are correct that some of the changes add more luck to the event, and thus the win rate of the skillful players will go down. THIS is the real issue, not the payout structure. If they had kept the old structure of blind increases, antes, and 25 minutes levels, but changed the payout structure to the current scheme, I don't think it would have had that much of an impact on my expectation, nor on yours.

But, when the blinds go up quicker, and when the antes are removed (and the resulting strategy changes that some of us made better than others), then your edge can go down.

I still think that this event is HIGHLY profitable for the better players, and I think you're only helping me and other players with +EV by sitting out. So thanks.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[K10Suited Glen]

No, I did not EXPECT you to read all that, unless you found it interesting. Your choice. But you didn't have to be a pompous, smart*ss with your reply. If you didn't want to read it, fine, move on. But in the future keep your comments to yourself. It's just plain rude!

[Your Mom]

In the past, I could be
expected to win 80% of the time as my skills are far superior to the
average player

I don't think this is possible.

[Toro]

Sorry you took my comment the wrong way. I did find the topic to be very interesting but the post was just to damn long. My comment was direct and to the point and if you would allow yourself to be objective and not so thin skinned I think you would see that. With regard to your response to me, name calling is most definitely rude.

[K10Suited Glen]

I hope you understood what I was speaking about when I said the 80%. That's against an inferior player, playing in his 1st or 2nd attempt. I think that 8 out of 10 times, against an inferior player, starting with the same chip size, I would easily maintain this average. In the past 4 years, when I have made the final table, I have won over 45% of the time, and that is against 8 or 9 players, many who are experienced. This is not some short term deviation, we're talking over 150 tourneys, cashing in 30%, and winning 45% of the time I make the final table. Making the final table is a huge advantage to the experienced player as the levels go to 45 minutes. Give me a healthy chip stack in the past and I'd get to the top 3 without even playing a hand as the others will methodically knock eachother out.

My post was about how the shorter levels put more emphasis on luck and NOT skill. Under these situations, I will not see the final table as often, but with the luck factor putting more new, unexperieced player in that final table, I would expect to win even MORE often than that 45% now that the levels are still at 45 minutes there and often 1 of those newbies may be in that final 3 or 4. No-Limit is the best example where skill wins out over luck of all the types of poker, with the possible exception of PL.

I would expect that Fossilman could also beat out a newbie over 80% of the time heads up. Ask him, I have and he agreed. It's not only possible, it's extremely likely.

Keep Playing hard!

[sodaone]

I agree I live in RI I play in the sat. tourny and the monday tourny but I cant on tues cause of work .WHY NOT have a NL tourny on the weekend.Its bad enough there are no NL games there unless the big tourny is in town.Not for nothing but how are you suppose to improve if there is never a live NL game,online I think not.

Walt