Matt Savage and unlimited re-entry tournaments - Is he to blame? (op-ed)

L

LotharMcDowner

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Total posts
229
Awards
1
Chips
1
Matt Savage came up with an idea that was so popular everyone adopted it. The consumer shows support for it too. So it's not his fault he didn't see the eventual impact it had on tournaments. Negreanu is not to blame either for not doing more to stop the proliferation. He's just doing what he can within the rules. Doesn't mean he has to agree with every one of them.
 
D

DS3

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Total posts
7,440
Awards
1
GB
Chips
189
I think one (initial) solution to the problems could be simple,so here is an idea.

Let the players decide themselves.

At registration when players pay their entry fee, simultaneously conduct a poll on a smartpad. Each player enters his/her name (for security/verification) then votes a preference -

Single entry...1 re-entry...2 re-entry...3 re-entry...unlimited re-entry.

This poling is made by the start of the tournament, with late registering players forgoing the right to participate (which effectively would go someways to dissuade people from late registration)

The majority preference of the players, their collective decision, decides the entries permitted and all the controversy evaporates.

Tours and casinos could opt in and out of such a system to test what was or wasn’t popular with the players, but the players themselves would drive the direction/solution regarding this debate.

As noted already, this is not splitting the atom.
 
L

LotharMcDowner

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Total posts
229
Awards
1
Chips
1
I think one (initial) solution to the problems could be simple,so here is an idea.

Let the players decide themselves.

At registration when players pay their entry fee, simultaneously conduct a poll on a smartpad. Each player enters his/her name (for security/verification) then votes a preference -

Single entry...1 re-entry...2 re-entry...3 re-entry...unlimited re-entry.

This poling is made by the start of the tournament, with late registering players forgoing the right to participate (which effectively would go someways to dissuade people from late registration)

The majority preference of the players, their collective decision, decides the entries permitted and all the controversy evaporates.

Tours and casinos could opt in and out of such a system to test what was or wasn’t popular with the players, but the players themselves would drive the direction/solution regarding this debate.

As noted already, this is not splitting the atom.

Couple problems with this. Main one would be that I want to know what the structure of the tournament is before playing, I don't want it to be left up to a vote. The other is that people who don't "win" the vote could just decide not to play.
 
Jilty

Jilty

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 15, 2018
Total posts
91
Chips
0
There's a multitude of reactions that happens when a tournament is freeze out 1 re 2 re 3 re or unlimited re, but I personally I think it's wrong for unlimited re, I think the either freeze out or no more than 2 re is what would keep the tournament playable. People having access to unlimited re-entry and depending on their personal resources, this gives way to some very abnormal play.
 
D

DS3

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Total posts
7,440
Awards
1
GB
Chips
189
Couple problems with this. Main one would be that I want to know what the structure of the tournament is before playing, I don't want it to be left up to a vote. The other is that people who don't "win" the vote could just decide not to play.

That's fine, and your prerogative. If you do not like the vote then you can opt out. I clearly state casinos and tours could opt in and out of a 'players vote', and so could players.

It's not as though some wild, completely unexpected result will happen. Within a very short period people will be able to ascertain what players (for example) in a 1K event prefer in terms of rebuys permitted or not (and if posts in general indicate something it would appear to be one or two rebuys max). Its hardly flying blind.

As for the comment about people who did not like the vote deciding not to play - I do not understand the point. To vote means they would have already opted into the system and were open to the 'player decision'. How/why would they then suddenly flip and, then what, forgo their entry fee and walk away?

There is never going to be one system that suits every player from the top high rollers down to the recs so at least an (easy to implement) opportunity could be provided for players to have a say in the tournaments rebuy/reentry structure.
 
Top