Re: I\'m ITM but my ROI is negative
 

[ QUOTE ]
For the record, this isn't inherently a negative. Is the structure exactly the same as it would be for some lower buy-in tourny with some larger amount of entrants? If so, just pretend it's that, and play accordingly.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what you mean by "inherently negative", and your suggestion as to what we should pretend is not clear, but generally speaking, the flatter the payout structure, the less EV a better player can have in a particular tournament. Of course it doesn't mean that if they pay 20% or 30% or 40% or whatever it won't still be +EV for the better player who adjust accordingly, but there's no doubt that it will hurt the EV of the top players.

Imagine the structure getting more and more flat: it is very easy to see how any edge will disappear at some point, no matter how well you play. Of course, the "ideal" theoretic tournament for the site to offer is a tournament in which 100% of players get paid, i.e, everyone gets his money back minus rake. Of course this is completely ridiculous, but only notice that here there is no possible edge whatsoever to anybody, no fish, no sharks, and the site still collects its rake, and the rest of the money will keep circulating inside the site. It's only an extreme example, of course, but in general, any flattening of the structure is a move in this theoretical direction.

Re: I\'m ITM but my ROI is negative
 

[ QUOTE ]
PartyPoker has been doing this for years...nothing new here.


[/ QUOTE ]

Since when?

Re: I\'m ITM but my ROI is negative
 

I know that the question of what percentage have make the money and how flat/steep to make the payouts will always be a matter of opinion and most of us will be self-serving in our desires. The very strongest players with the deepest bankrolls would probably like to roll back the clock and play "winner takes all", but you'd probably lose most of the field. I think most of the donks, average, and slightly above average players would quit in that environment. If all online tourneys were winner take all, I'd limit myself to single-table SNGs.

I spent a little bit of time and analyzed approx. 500 Stars tourneys (all $5 and under, various games) that I have played in over the last 2+years. If the current 20% scheme had been used the entire time, I personally would have lost about 10% ROI. Keep in mind that I have zero wins (embarassing, but true) in these events and 16 final tables out of 504, so I suck. Better players who go deep and make more final tables and win some tourneys are going to take a bigger blow to their ROI than me. No one else has mentioned it, but the new payout scheme really sticks it to the people who make the second to final table (something I've done a fair bit of). The players that will benefit are those who rarely go deep but frequently barely make or barely miss the money.

Also, I just have a big problem with a freezeout tournament that pays prizes that are less than the buy-in. If 10% is not enough in Stars' view to keep the bulk of their patrons happy, maybe go to 12.5% or 15% of the field. I sometimes play on the B2B Network (24hPoker and other skins). They usually pay 1/6 of the field, which is still a bit too much IMO, but at least they never pay less than the buy-in in a freezeout. I did manage to lose money when finishing ITM in a rebuy their once.

Re: I\'m ITM but my ROI is negative
 

[ QUOTE ]
PartyPoker has been doing this for years...nothing new here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have played well over 1000 Party MTT and never run into this.
Care to share details?

Regards,
Woodguy

Re: I\'m ITM but my ROI is negative
 

I can't recall seeing it on party but in a Happy Hour tourny I played on Empire had exactly 100 entrants and paid the top 20 spots.

Re: I\'m ITM but my ROI is negative
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the record, this isn't inherently a negative. Is the structure exactly the same as it would be for some lower buy-in tourny with some larger amount of entrants? If so, just pretend it's that, and play accordingly.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what you mean by "inherently negative", and your suggestion as to what we should pretend is not clear, but generally speaking, the flatter the payout structure, the less EV a better player can have in a particular tournament. Of course it doesn't mean that if they pay 20% or 30% or 40% or whatever it won't still be +EV for the better player who adjust accordingly, but there's no doubt that it will hurt the EV of the top players.

Imagine the structure getting more and more flat: it is very easy to see how any edge will disappear at some point, no matter how well you play. Of course, the "ideal" theoretic tournament for the site to offer is a tournament in which 100% of players get paid, i.e, everyone gets his money back minus rake. Of course this is completely ridiculous, but only notice that here there is no possible edge whatsoever to anybody, no fish, no sharks, and the site still collects its rake, and the rest of the money will keep circulating inside the site. It's only an extreme example, of course, but in general, any flattening of the structure is a move in this theoretical direction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, you're right, it is bad for good players. Very nice argument.

Re: I\'m ITM but my ROI is negative
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PartyPoker has been doing this for years...nothing new here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have played well over 1000 Party MTT and never run into this.
Care to share details?


[/ QUOTE ]

The bottom level of a Super payout usually loses $5-10.