MHNL Heads-Up Invitational I - Registration

[thabadguy]

When will these matches take place?

[captZEEbo1]

[ QUOTE ]

This is being done solely to ensure that the 32 spots are filled by more regular members, and doesn't contain say 10 people with 15 posts.

If there are any openings left, then it will be more extended and open.

[/ QUOTE ]
This part of it I have an idea: Let's say there's like 28 forum regulars and 8 people that aren't regulars but want to play. They can play a HU match for the spot into the tourny.

[AceHiStation]

I'd like to signup... but I'm out of town December 31st-January 8th... problem?

[chuddo]

the matches will take place after everyone is registered, and the brackets are set up.

there will be a thread for each round that will keep updates on how the round is going.

it is up to the two players matched up to set up a good time for them to play within a reasonable time frame.

prior to playing, a headsup should be given in that rounds thread, so that anyone can observe the match.

[thabadguy]

Define regular?
Post count>500???

[chuddo]

post count really isn't really a big deal.

95% of the people are going to be auto-approved and allowed to register.

If there is someone considered a bit iffy or new, then they will be asked to be held off on registering, and then permitted to if there is room for them.

When are these taking place? I would love to spectate these.

[Ulysses]

1. Rather than only reload at zero, how about a simple "cannot buy in for more than $150 total" ? It's not very hard to track how much you're in for in a given game (and if you play just this table, UB will have this handy stat available for you on your account page). In an ideal world, we'd be able to buy to cover, but given the constraints we are working with, I think we should at least be able to always have a full buyin (until we reach the rebuy limit) in play. Otherwise, I think it gives an unfair advantage to the guy who wins the first couple of medium pots.

2. I'd much rather have all "known" players here who play at high stakes keep the $1500 themselves and deal w/ transfers when they lose, rather than give one person $50k to hold on trust alone. chuddo, Zeebo, flawless, ML4L, etc - (I could go on), I'm more than happy to trust that they'll transfer $1500 at the end after I take them all down. I just think that's a way more comfortable setup than having everyone send $1500 to one player. (and newer members can be required to escrow w/ chuddo to play)

holla

[stoxtrader]

I would like to improve my shorthanded NL play and this seems a very good way. If there is space, please count me in. I understand completely if I'm not included, as I rarely contribute in this forum.

[durrrr]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Rather than only reload at zero, how about a simple "cannot buy in for more than $150 total" ? It's not very hard to track how much you're in for in a given game (and if you play just this table, UB will have this handy stat available for you on your account page). In an ideal world, we'd be able to buy to cover, but given the constraints we are working with, I think we should at least be able to always have a full buyin (until we reach the rebuy limit) in play. Otherwise, I think it gives an unfair advantage to the guy who wins the first couple of medium pots.

2. I'd much rather have all "known" players here who play at high stakes keep the $1500 themselves and deal w/ transfers when they lose, rather than give one person $50k to hold on trust alone. chuddo, Zeebo, flawless, ML4L, etc - (I could go on), I'm more than happy to trust that they'll transfer $1500 at the end after I take them all down. I just think that's a way more comfortable setup than having everyone send $1500 to one player. (and newer members can be required to escrow w/ chuddo to play)

holla

[/ QUOTE ]

both good points. I agree w/ the 2nd one somewhat- maybe a few people could hold 10k each (you, chuddo, zeebo, flawless). Its not that I (or anyone else entering) distrust chuddo or ne1 else... rather its just that this is all being done online- and an online reputation is worth a lot less than 48k to most people.