Hordling
Rock Star
Silver Level
I've read the rules several times now... Seems to me your chip stack gets merged to the lowest chip stack; then if your in the money, you would receive that payout for that position.
Talk about the best of both worlds? or is this just odd. LOL
Talk about the best of both worlds? or is this just odd. LOL
dufferdevon
Legend
Silver Level
What about the 10-15 friends that enter for the max spots and get onto skype. I hate this idea, a freeze out tournament is a one shot deal, you don't get to have your cake and eat it too.
And the fact that all the double guarantee tournies at the end of the month are going to be this format makes it even worse.
And the fact that all the double guarantee tournies at the end of the month are going to be this format makes it even worse.
M
Marginal
Junior Member
Silver Level
Then dont play it. Not that complicated a fix. People would collude regardless and ftp is just tryng to mix it up and offer more unique games. And while i understand your concern, 10 people buying in for 12 spots each is not going to be profitable enough to share profits ldo.
! other thing, "you don't get to have your cake and eat it too" How does this fit into the context of your statement. Im falling back on my english and dont get how this makes sense.
M
Marginal
Junior Member
Silver Level
From what I understand. 10 people left on 2 tables. You have stacks at both. 1 stack for 1K and the other for 1,5K. Someone goes out in 10th. 9 people left. What they do is they will give you 9th prize money and combine your 2 stacks, now you have 2,5K with 8 people left after the merge. Im not sure if this is write but that is my understanding of it.
8Michael3
Rock Star
Silver Level
I played the $2 deep stack just now! It was good fun! I also think its a good investment for good MTT players! Imagine: a normal $2 MTT that pays $250-$300 (not worth the time) is now paying up to 1K (worth the time) for first place and the same old fish are just adding 4 times the dead money!
Great idea tilt! I love it. Didnt cash tonight but Im sure after a week of playing it will turn out to be a good investment! For anyone who has been watching and learning from the really really REALLY good DTB MTT video selection this seems like a great way to get and keep a BR growing. The amount of fish in these games has just quadrupled! lol.
Great idea tilt! I love it. Didnt cash tonight but Im sure after a week of playing it will turn out to be a good investment! For anyone who has been watching and learning from the really really REALLY good DTB MTT video selection this seems like a great way to get and keep a BR growing. The amount of fish in these games has just quadrupled! lol.
8Michael3
Rock Star
Silver Level
GL sir! TID
JohnBoyWWFC
Grindddddd
Silver Level
3 questions:
1. I'm assuming they take rake for every entry, is this correct?
2. In terms of BRM, if you bought into a $2.20 tournament 4 times, would people suggest BRM for an $8.80 game?
3. On rebuys, you can't use a tournament ticket 2/3 times (eg, 3 tickets, 1 entry, 1 rebuy, 1 add on) but if, say, I have 3 BLT tickets, can I buy 3 entries with this?
1. I'm assuming they take rake for every entry, is this correct?
2. In terms of BRM, if you bought into a $2.20 tournament 4 times, would people suggest BRM for an $8.80 game?
3. On rebuys, you can't use a tournament ticket 2/3 times (eg, 3 tickets, 1 entry, 1 rebuy, 1 add on) but if, say, I have 3 BLT tickets, can I buy 3 entries with this?
Pascal-lf
Legend
Silver Level
Was talking to someone who grinds MTTs on FTP full time and he hates the idea, as all the good players will have like 4 entries to the big guarantees and FTOPS while the fish will have one.
I'd rather see re-entry tournaments than multi entry.
I'd rather see re-entry tournaments than multi entry.
Hordling
Rock Star
Silver Level
One would think so, but you do bring up an interesting thought.
NineLions
Advanced beginner
Silver Level
This makes sense, though I doubt it applies much to $10 and under buyins.
Sigh. I'd sworn off FTP for lack of rakeback, but I'm gonna have to try some. The offspring of Rush and Matrix, methinks.
spunka
Visionary
Bronze Level
Think it will generate more rake for FT, make the action faster ( especially when you multibuy in in a rush tournament), make more players win a abit (will be happy and play again), looks like it the rebuy with a twist, so we have to gear the investment we make in these tournaments against the possible payout.
I am not very happy with rebuys tournaments, and I think i will take the same stand on these, so I am glad they are under patent pending so they won't spread easyly to all pokersite like the late registering did, which made it imposssible to see if the tournament would be good or bad, it actually made most guaranteed tournaments bad.
I am not very happy with rebuys tournaments, and I think i will take the same stand on these, so I am glad they are under patent pending so they won't spread easyly to all pokersite like the late registering did, which made it imposssible to see if the tournament would be good or bad, it actually made most guaranteed tournaments bad.
TheKAAHK
Bubble Punter
Loyaler
:dito:
doops
Visionary
Silver Level
I read about it and quickly entered the first one.
My sense was that this format would reward people who are good at lasting at least into the money. And that the format would encourage many players to try to last as long as possible with as many entries as possible. Since one could, potentially cash numerous times, there would be an interest in getting as many entries to the cash line as possible.
Others immediately thought this would bring out the shove monsters in droves.
So I played the first one to find out. It was a $1 game, with a max enrollment of 5000 entries.
Here was the deal: Nearly every player bought in for multiple entries. Since the first game was $1/entry, most had 4 entries. So there were a few more than 1250 players (since not everyone bought 4 entries), with 5000 seats. A bonus prize of $100 to anyone who merged. This could also have had an effect. There were 3 red pros in the game, all with 4 entries.
Most people played relatively carefully. There was a lot of limping into pots. And relatively few shovefests -- most of which turned out to be AA v KK v AK type matchups. In other words, for the most part, people were shoving with shovable hands. At least, at the tables I was playing.
At first break, half the entries were gone. Scanning the player lists, i found that many people had busted on all four entries. Many still had all four entries going. Some had busted on one or two, doing OK on the remaining ones. (All mine were still going, 2 on life support.) So, presumably, the donks had donked themselves out up to four times, leaving their buyins. The bustout rate was similar to a freeroll, so, plainly, some people were not playing all that carefully. But many clearly were. Only a couple of players had those mammoth stacks indicative of shoving too much (or holding huge cards and calling a shove). All pros were still in, none with all entries. Pro KOs were being paid.
Second break: Half the remaining field was gone. Not one player had all entries going. (I had one left.) One pro remained. Play during this period remained relatively cautious. Short stacks were feeling a pinch, so some of the shoves were not premium hand shoves -- but still reasonable.
I fully busted out halfway into the next hour, which was OK, since I shouldn't have started playing. Had to get to work. But my interest was in the feel of this format. How it played, what would happen. Particularly at the start, where wild play would be more expected. The third hour, the blinds were getting big and more players were feeling the pressure to make plays -- all normal. It was played as one would expect at this point. There was still caution, but stack pressure was building.
I went back later to check the results. Only one player could even possibly have merged. Several players had multiple cashes.
About the merge -- you'd really need to keep all 4 entries going very deep to even be in this position. With 2 entries remaining, you'd only get merged if both made final table -- for which you'd need the usual amount of lucky breaks --twice. So that's going to be exceedingly difficult to accomplish in fields this size. What is quite possible is cashing multiple times.
The tourney played more like a CC cash tourney than an open low buy-in game. On the whole, play was smart, with the occasional tilty or wild move.
Now, I can only report what on saw on my tables, in the first ever MET. What I saw was encouraging, if you like playing with people who are thinking.
My sense was that this format would reward people who are good at lasting at least into the money. And that the format would encourage many players to try to last as long as possible with as many entries as possible. Since one could, potentially cash numerous times, there would be an interest in getting as many entries to the cash line as possible.
Others immediately thought this would bring out the shove monsters in droves.
So I played the first one to find out. It was a $1 game, with a max enrollment of 5000 entries.
Here was the deal: Nearly every player bought in for multiple entries. Since the first game was $1/entry, most had 4 entries. So there were a few more than 1250 players (since not everyone bought 4 entries), with 5000 seats. A bonus prize of $100 to anyone who merged. This could also have had an effect. There were 3 red pros in the game, all with 4 entries.
Most people played relatively carefully. There was a lot of limping into pots. And relatively few shovefests -- most of which turned out to be AA v KK v AK type matchups. In other words, for the most part, people were shoving with shovable hands. At least, at the tables I was playing.
At first break, half the entries were gone. Scanning the player lists, i found that many people had busted on all four entries. Many still had all four entries going. Some had busted on one or two, doing OK on the remaining ones. (All mine were still going, 2 on life support.) So, presumably, the donks had donked themselves out up to four times, leaving their buyins. The bustout rate was similar to a freeroll, so, plainly, some people were not playing all that carefully. But many clearly were. Only a couple of players had those mammoth stacks indicative of shoving too much (or holding huge cards and calling a shove). All pros were still in, none with all entries. Pro KOs were being paid.
Second break: Half the remaining field was gone. Not one player had all entries going. (I had one left.) One pro remained. Play during this period remained relatively cautious. Short stacks were feeling a pinch, so some of the shoves were not premium hand shoves -- but still reasonable.
I fully busted out halfway into the next hour, which was OK, since I shouldn't have started playing. Had to get to work. But my interest was in the feel of this format. How it played, what would happen. Particularly at the start, where wild play would be more expected. The third hour, the blinds were getting big and more players were feeling the pressure to make plays -- all normal. It was played as one would expect at this point. There was still caution, but stack pressure was building.
I went back later to check the results. Only one player could even possibly have merged. Several players had multiple cashes.
About the merge -- you'd really need to keep all 4 entries going very deep to even be in this position. With 2 entries remaining, you'd only get merged if both made final table -- for which you'd need the usual amount of lucky breaks --twice. So that's going to be exceedingly difficult to accomplish in fields this size. What is quite possible is cashing multiple times.
The tourney played more like a CC cash tourney than an open low buy-in game. On the whole, play was smart, with the occasional tilty or wild move.
Now, I can only report what on saw on my tables, in the first ever MET. What I saw was encouraging, if you like playing with people who are thinking.
J
JMcCabe
Rock Star
Silver Level
Seems to me this is a way to legitimize one of the worst kept secrets of online MTTs: multiaccounting, team play, and ghosting via teamviewer or Go2myPC.
Take a look at the Sorel Mizzi scandal on 2+2, and although it's been claimed he didn't actually go forward with his plan to team play the FTOPS with his stable of backed pros, there's nothing to stop others from doing it.
Now imagine a team of 4 or more players, all with 4 entries, playing in a $200+ buy-in event, all looking to get deep, so their closer can come in a take over anonymously via Teamviewer once one of the 16 entries gets deep in the tourney.
Sounds like it's just encouraging collusion, imo.
Take a look at the Sorel Mizzi scandal on 2+2, and although it's been claimed he didn't actually go forward with his plan to team play the FTOPS with his stable of backed pros, there's nothing to stop others from doing it.
Now imagine a team of 4 or more players, all with 4 entries, playing in a $200+ buy-in event, all looking to get deep, so their closer can come in a take over anonymously via Teamviewer once one of the 16 entries gets deep in the tourney.
Sounds like it's just encouraging collusion, imo.
H
HomeBrewer
Visionary
Silver Level
I played in the $2 deep stack yesterday, and it was nice haveing multimple entries to try and dodge the idiots. I almost successfully made it to the money one one (over 2000 entries). I had three entries and all the money was in with the best hand except the last one, set over set. Overall I liked it even though I didn't make any money. I am now determinded to get a merge in one, lol. Maybe the PLO for $3 tonight is my best shot
PurgatoryD
Visionary
Silver Level
I stay away from rebuy tourneys because they seem to encourage crazy play that is not really any fun (to me, at least). It seems that this just encourages more crazy play because if a person gets knocked out for being an idiot, he can just go to one of his other entries.
Also, if I buy into four separate tourneys, then I can collect first prize money four times (OK, not likely, but possible in theory). But if I buy four entries into a single tourney, then I can collect first prize money only one time. That's gotta hurt EV, right? Especially considering that your worst of the four entries can do no better than 30th place or so depending on how the tables are balanced.
Interesting idea, but I don't like it and I won't play it!
-Dave
Also, if I buy into four separate tourneys, then I can collect first prize money four times (OK, not likely, but possible in theory). But if I buy four entries into a single tourney, then I can collect first prize money only one time. That's gotta hurt EV, right? Especially considering that your worst of the four entries can do no better than 30th place or so depending on how the tables are balanced.
Interesting idea, but I don't like it and I won't play it!
-Dave
dmorris68
Legend
Loyaler
I've come to the conclusion that either you or I have no idea how this works.
8Michael3
Rock Star
Silver Level
I disagree. If I had a BR to buyin 4-6 times into the sunday brawl or the 750K I would take it. We wait all week to play for big money and some dumbazz will suckout on you. But now you can play 16 sundays a month when you have 4 entries.
I still love the idea. Although you make a valid point: in the bigger buying MTTs you will have 4 times the amount of sharks than fish.
One thing is for certain though. A fishy bad player will never win these big events when the sharks are allowed so many entries. I think its good business for the regs.
Pascal-lf
Legend
Silver Level
True variance is decreased, but you've got less of an edge in an already competitive field in lots of big events. Take the FTOPS $1k event for example - regs are going to be buying in as many times as they can, which changes it from a $1k event to like a $6k event, which may well price out a lot of people thinking of taking shots.