All or nothing. Would you play?

[Ruslan L]

I wouldn't play that kind of poker. Such tournaments would be more like a lottery than poker

 

[Ruslan L]

Hello poker family!
I have a rather interesting topic to discuss.
We all know how poker prizes are distributed today. Most often, this is 20% of the total number of players, and the first place is taken by the player who won all the chips in the tournament.
If you take any tournament, let it be the Sunday Million - and slightly change the generally accepted rules.
Now only 1 player will take the entire pot, which is about $1,000,000. Everyone else gets nothing. Do you think you would play by these rules?

These are just my thoughts, nothing more) But I think that I hardly took part in such a tournament.

.... or for example, if a player stands on one leg throughout the entire tournament, the money fund is doubled. This is also quite interesting

 

[Academico]

I definitely wouldn't play it if they changed that rule, some time ago I mistakenly played a tournament with bounty but the final prize was only taken by the first two players and it didn't really motivate me.

 

[VGShaa]

I'm not sure that the organizers will want to hold such a tournament, as there will be very few people willing, and this will be a minus for them in advance. Unless they will increase the tournament's buy-in many times or reduce the guaranteed prize pool.

 

[wlopera]

Definitely not. A lot of effort and time to be able to win in that type of tournament

 

[nasty bent gorilla]

If even second place got nothing, there would be many fewer runners for these games. I, for one, Would not enjoy such long stretches of nothing in return. I despair even at the thought of it, It would mirror society too closely.

 

[legend309]

Probably wouldn't play those stakes. Maybe a $0.10 gaMe though

 

[dongato2]

Of course yes, it's like playing spin go flash

 

[Beatmymeet1994]

With only one place paid it would not be good value wise, as well no specialist in th world would be able to handle mental health of the person who finished second after their AA got cracked by JJ final hand f.e. but few years ago Stars had tournament type called "final table paid" which Ive played sometimes, it had a field of 200-300 people with 9th place about 20x buyin going up, those were closer to being profitable.

 

[Cholosnp]

Fun , i would like to play on it but not everytime maybe once in 100 games

 

[Dobbler1]

I feel like this idea is more interesting than lots of people are giving it credit for. I don't think I'd play a huge field/high buy-in tourney using that format, unless I approached it as purely for entertainment, but I'd think about smaller field tourneys with lower buy-ins like that. 18-45 players with levels increasing fast-ish (6 or 7 minute levels). You could bang off a bunch of them in an afternoon to decrease variance.

 

[samuri]

No split it for the top 10

 

[fullclock]

I did not understand the question. But in life as in poker I always go for everything.

 

[CriesuaID]

No, the variance with the current premium structure is already high enough. I believe I would only play with this payout structure in tournaments with few players (5-15).

 

[mushthebush]

I would rather use a lighter on my banknotes. For this exact same reason I do not play the lottery either.

 

[allfarewells]

If I am being realistic with myself my game is far from good enough to do an all or nothing game I would have to seriously sharpen my skills and I would have to get incredibly lucky to win something like that… so right now I would say hell no but a few months of practice I’d have a go I guess 🤔😂

Much love to you
❤️🙏

 

[Dobbler1]

If I am being realistic with myself my game is far from good enough to do an all or nothing game I would have to seriously sharpen my skills and I would have to get incredibly lucky to win something like that… so right now I would say hell no but a few months of practice I’d have a go I guess 🤔😂

Much love to you
❤️🙏

Chris Moneymaker wasn't that good of a player, and he won the wsop. Don't
underestimate how far luck can take you in the short term.

 

[allfarewells]

Chris Moneymaker wasn't that good of a player, and he won the WSOP. Don't
underestimate how far luck can take you in the short term.

Oh i completely agree my friend but the World Series isn’t nor has it ever been all or nothing …. All or nothing is literally first place pays all and no other prizes you would have to have so serious balls 🏀 ⚽️ To play like this 🤦‍♂️😂😂

Much love to you my friend

❤️🙏

 

[Dmitriy_rus7]

I support most people. I would not play this tournament. a huge chance to spend a lot of time to reach the + -top 20 and fly out

 

[juan manuel lattour]

Hello poker family!
I have quite an interesting topic to discuss.
We all know how poker prizes are distributed today. In most cases, this is 20% of the total number of players, and the first place is occupied by the player who won all the chips in the tournament.
If you choose a tournament, make it the Sunday Million, and change the generally accepted rules slightly.
Now only 1 player will win the entire jackpot, which is approximately $1,000,000. Everyone else got nothing. Do you think you would play by these rules?

These are just my thoughts, nothing more) But I think I barely participated in such a tournament.

I don't think so,

 

[juan manuel lattour]

I wouldn't play, since there is only one chance to win...

 

[Dobbler1]

Oh i completely agree my friend but the World Series isn’t nor has it ever been all or nothing …. All or nothing is literally first place pays all and no other prizes you would have to have so serious balls 🏀 ⚽️ To play like this 🤦‍♂️😂😂

Much love to you my friend

❤️🙏

Right, but if it had been all or nothing, Moneymaker still would have won (presumably more). Being a good player doesn't matter anymore in that format than another. Playing style might. Conservative, defensive players probably will do better when many places are paid, more often squeaking past the bubble. An all or nothing format would definitely favor aggressive play. There's still good aggressive play and bad aggressive play, but a player that is aggressive and lucky would have the same or better equity in an all or nothing tournament than in a normal format.

 

[manzanillo53]

Hello poker family!
I have a rather interesting topic to discuss.
We all know how poker prizes are distributed today. Most often, this is 20% of the total number of players, and the first place is taken by the player who won all the chips in the tournament.
If you take any tournament, let it be the Sunday Million - and slightly change the generally accepted rules.
Now only 1 player will take the entire pot, which is about $1,000,000. Everyone else gets nothing. Do you think you would play by these rules?

These are just my thoughts, nothing more) But I think that I hardly took part in such a tournament.

I would never play all or nothing, you only need luck for that type of game and that is something I do not have.

 

[RoviP]

The game becomes more difficult at the end, if you manage the beginning and middle of the game well, it's fair that regardless of the card variations you are in the money, out of the money the damage is certain. So I think it's correct, fair and interesting in long tournaments that there are several payout ranges.

 

[Recreationalplayer]

Hello poker family!
I have a rather interesting topic to discuss.
We all know how poker prizes are distributed today. Most often, this is 20% of the total number of players, and the first place is taken by the player who won all the chips in the tournament.
If you take any tournament, let it be the Sunday Million - and slightly change the generally accepted rules.
Now only 1 player will take the entire pot, which is about $1,000,000. Everyone else gets nothing. Do you think you would play by these rules?

These are just my thoughts, nothing more) But I think that I hardly took part in such a tournament.

That will just increase the tournaments variance as prize is distributed only to the winner.

Also logically it means more aggression and less ICM implications. I don't think I will go for it.