Generous of True, but not the right move

[TheGrifter]

I went out before the break in the Zoo/SS/Toons tourney last night yet I was still refunded my buy-in. While this was certainly generous wouldn't the right move have been to split up the prize pool and pay it to those who made the break based on chip counts?

I know that at other sites that have experienced massive software errors, whether it's disconnects or something else, that only the players who are directly affected are compensated. I think it's silly to reward just those who made it to the final 4 when it's obvious that it became a complete mess after the break (ie. the average stack became the size of the BB for some).

Anyway, not sure if anything can be done about returning money to all, but I think for future reference True should look at rewarding those players who were affected by the glitch given the time value of playing the tourney is lost.

Just my .02...

[Al_Capone_Junior]

the fact they already paid everyone back their $22 sort of dictates what the solution is going to have to be. Little can be done now other than a total replay.

al

[Mike Haven]

this idea that they have "paid back $22" and been thought of as generous kind of worries me a little bit in a roundabout way

for ease of calculation, let's say there was only one player in the tourney and he would have won $20



as it would have been:

he would have paid $22 and won $20

net loss = $2

he would have got an early bird bonus of $2

net loss/gain = $0

he would have been rebated $10 for earlier play

net win = $10



as it is now:

he paid $22

he was rebated his buy-in

net loss/gain = $0



now, looking at it backwards:

if True had run a good tourney:

they would have received $2 of the $22

net gain = $2

they would have paid early bird bonus

net gain/loss = $0

they would have paid play rebate

net loss = $10



as it is:

they ran an "imperfect" tourney:

received $2 of the $22

net gain = $2

paid back the $2

net gain/loss = $0



in conclusion, this "imperfect" tourney has saved them $10

not a bad deal for them?

[Greg (FossilMan)]

From what I've read, True is giving everyone back their $22,

AND

running another tourney, as we decide, where the prize money is paid by True.

So, we can all vote, debate, whatever; come to a consensus; and then the money will be free.

Now, everybody can have their opinions, and wish for things to be other than they are and will be, but I don't see how anybody can give True much if any grief for this decision. Whether we start from scratch, or reset the stacks and play as it was before the glitch, True is apparently giving us a $22/person freeroll.

If I'm understanding their position correctly, I applaud True and their management for making a VERY generous decision.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

P.S. - How come I still have a sign? Oh yeah, I type it by hand each time.

[TheGrifter]

I only meant that it was generous to those of us who pushed in with a pair of 6's and got busted before getting a sniff of the break. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif Most sites would have split the prize money based on stack sizes for those remaining after the break.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Interesting perspective, right on the money too. They saved money by screwing it up.

However, if they are giving us the prize money AFTER refunding our money, they are losing $2500 or whatever the amount was.

What's the early sentiment on how to proceed? Perhaps a thread for participants only to decide how to do it. You can't do a poll because non-participants WILL wind up voting. Perhaps post the list of participants, then have each of them cast their vote in a reply, and ignore any votes from anyone who didn't participate.

al

[t_perkin]

Sounds like a good idea.

Although we may be able to have a pretty good guess at the outcome if someone knows how many players made it to the break?

If everyone were to make the selfish move then it is down to how many were left at the break.

We can probably expect between 5% and 50% of those who busted b4 the break to vote "unselfishly"

And I can't see why anyone who had survived to the break would vote to keep everyone in. It seems to go against both the traditional resolution to these problems and self intrest.

So if more than 45% of the players were still in at the break then we don't really need a vote.

Tim

yes I know - %ages are a wild guess, but you get the idea..

[Mike Haven]

i read elsewhere that there were 35 of the 85 in after the break, although one of those had $0 for some odd reason - maybe something was wrong with the software? /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[jedi]

Mike,

I already got my early bird bonus + 100 raked hands bonus. I don't think True saved any money.

[Mike Haven]

I already got my early bird bonus + 100 raked hands bonus

oh? you received $2 + $10 + $22?

i haven't looked at my account - i understood from reading posts that they had "only" given back the $22

if they've given back $32, that's excellent news - and most generous of them, especially as Greg reminded me they may run a freeroll, too

[Al_Capone_Junior]

I had money at the break, around 1400 or so. Thus the traditional remedy would give me some cash out of the prize pool, perhaps $50 or so. But I took the unselfish path of wanting to run it all over anyway, because until it crashed, it was fun. I hope mike does not post what the standings were at the time of the crash. So a bunch of people get a second chance, let's do it over if you ask me.

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

that is a common bug with the software. often you'll see someone with zero dollars call your bet when you thought they were all in, and other such occurrances. Often your own stack won't update after you win a pot too.

al

[wudedude]

i was at the table where the guy had 0 left. the guy went all in on the hand before the break and lost. he was therefore in tell the next deal starts which was after the break, its not a bug its just how it runs. same thing at party if you bust out your not out tell the next deal.

[slogger]

I agree with Al - run it again!

(Of course, this is motivated entirely by self-interest as I got stuck at work last night and had my wife try to keep me afloat for an hour so I could get into the game - despite a valiant effort or her part, I was not able to leave work in time).

So, like I said, "REPLAY!"

[morgant]

i thought my hightailing out of work and borrowing someone elses computer 15 minutes late was dedication, you take the cake on this one,...kudos

[jedi]

A clarification, I don't know if I got my $22 back yet, but I do know that I did get my 10+2 a few days before the tournament. I calculated what I figured to have in my account at True and there was 12 extra, so that's where it must have come from.

[ QUOTE ]
I already got my early bird bonus + 100 raked hands bonus

oh? you received $2 + $10 + $22?

i haven't looked at my account - i understood from reading posts that they had "only" given back the $22

if they've given back $32, that's excellent news - and most generous of them, especially as Greg reminded me they may run a freeroll, too





[/ QUOTE ]

[Mike Haven]

Would all Team Members (only) please vote here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=515194&page=0&view=expand ed&sb=5&o=2&fpart=all&vc=1) as soon as possible?

Thanks.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

ok i voted for everyone play again.

but if top 34 wins, are we going to set the stacks where they were, or just play again for the prize pool?

al

[morgant]

i would think if those who made the break wins the stack sizes would and should be what they were, otherwise it is just cutting the players in half and starting a new tourn. over, that would negate the effort of recreating the tourn. at the foulup. long winded hope you get the point.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

You are right of course. I don't have faith that true can recreate the tourney at the point where it went awry. That's another reason I say play it over.

al

[DrPhysic]

What do you mean, you had 85 players and got 513 votes?

[Mike Haven]

Please see Pending Solution (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=515981&page=0&view=expand ed&sb=5&o=2&fpart=&vc=) post in the Zoo.