Tournaments tax the bad players (x-post)

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd argue the winners pay the rake/tourney fee/percentage no matter what.

If a loser pays $11 to play, it doesn't really matter what percentage or amount goes to the house. It's all the same to him whether the house takes 10%, $1, or $5.

He loses his $11 no matter what.

The person it matters to is the winner.

Eg, in an $10, 10-person winner-takes-all event, none of the money in the pot goes to any of the losers. If the house takes a $10 cut, on the other hand, that costs the winner $10.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is fuzzy thinking. In a tournamnet, each player pays the same vig (whether it's described as % of prize-pool or whatever. It does not matter. In that sense I must say that the original post by Tim was a bit confused, and Tim admitted this himself, as he wrote it while being tired... [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]. He was getting ready for the Olympics on that day.).

Saying that only the winners pay the the rake/fee/vig for a specific SNG is meaningless. Think about it.

What confuses you is the fact that the winners end with something to "take" the vig from, while the losers finish with "nothing". But this is the wrong way to look at it.

Edit: The ONLY way for this to be different, is if the site decides that certain SPECIFIC players, which are chosen somehow, before or after the game, pay less rake. For instance, if YOU win the SNG, you take 50% of the prize pool (say there's 0 vig to begin with). But if *Jack* wins it, he pays 10% to the house. Fun idea, I think.

[t_perkin]

Yes, thats right - I'm in the olympics...representing england in poker for the logically and mathematically retarded. I think I may well get gold.

No excuses - my post was just complete BS. I would delete it if I could.

But it does at least demonstrate one thing - by presenting the rake/fees in different ways you can really influence the way (stupid) players *think* they are paying.


There are however a few points in my original post that are quite valid. Unfortunately all the interesting bits of my post that are correct are not about tournaments. So I wont re-iterate them here.

Tim

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd argue the winners pay the rake/tourney fee/percentage no matter what.

If a loser pays $11 to play, it doesn't really matter what percentage or amount goes to the house. It's all the same to him whether the house takes 10%, $1, or $5.

He loses his $11 no matter what.

The person it matters to is the winner.

Eg, in an $10, 10-person winner-takes-all event, none of the money in the pot goes to any of the losers. If the house takes a $10 cut, on the other hand, that costs the winner $10.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is fuzzy thinking. In a tournamnet, each player pays the same vig (whether it's described as % of prize-pool or whatever. It does not matter. In that sense I must say that the original post by Tim was a bit confused, and Tim admitted this himself, as he wrote it while being tired... [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]. He was getting ready for the Olympics on that day.).

Saying that only the winners pay the the rake/fee/vig for a specific SNG is meaningless. Think about it.

What confuses you is the fact that the winners end with something to "take" the vig from, while the losers finish with "nothing". But this is the wrong way to look at it.

Edit: The ONLY way for this to be different, is if the site decides that certain SPECIFIC players, which are chosen somehow, before or after the game, pay less rake. For instance, if YOU win the SNG, you take 50% of the prize pool (say there's 0 vig to begin with). But if *Jack* wins it, he pays 10% to the house. Fun idea, I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say it's "fuzzy thinking," but you don't say what's fuzzy about it, or in what way I'm confused.

We agree, don't we, that the loser gets 0,and that the winner gets the pot, minus the house's take?

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
You say it's "fuzzy thinking," but you don't say what's fuzzy about it, or in what way I'm confused.

We agree, don't we, that the loser gets 0,and that the winner gets the pot, minus the house's take?


[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly what is fuzzy about this thinking. They both paid the same to begin with, the fact that the winner in the end "gets the pot, minus the house's take", has no baring on the question "who pays the vig?", since the house vig could have been taken before the tournament started, in *exactly* the same proportions as in the case of "rake as % of this or that prize", and the end result would have been the same. And then you can't say "the winner pays the vig", so what's the difference? No difference. There are other ways to look at it, in order to understnad why it's fuzzy thinking. For instance: with regard to EV. But I won't get into it.

Again, All players pay the same vig, unless in very specific circumstances, as in the example I have given in the previous post, or when (it's the same idea, but another example), people pay a flat "monthly vig" to the house, and can play as many SNGs as they want. In this case, players who play more SNGs during the month, pay less vig per SNG than players who play less. But again, it has nothing to do with "winners" or "losers", in the pure sense, i.e, if you don't consider some big-picture assumptions about the financial dynamics in a poker-site, which are not relevant to this specific discussion.