winner take all?

G

gopherite

Guest
i think players on sit and go games would like to see a "Winner Take All" format...a chance to get a good return on a sit and go tourney...what do you think?...perhaps we may play a more aggressive game?
 
HoldemChamp

HoldemChamp

Rock Star
Doyle Brunson mentioned that was how it use to be with the wsop. And the he prefers the game that way.

My personal opinion is that is sucks. If we as a community going to keep expanding and maybe make poker as common a sport (I use the word Sport loosely here), there needs to my a prize structure that will pay of more than first. Golf works that way. And you know how many golfers are out there.

Same goes for sit and goes. Taking 50% of the prize pool in a sit and go with 10 people is nothing to sneeze at unless you are playing really low stakes like below the $5 level. If I can make $25 for about an hour of my time consistently. I would do it every day.
 
T

TukUrChip

Rising Star
I personally like a winner take all tournament. I have had some success in this format. Last year when UltimateBet was running their satellites for Aruba, they paid cash for each additional prize package a player won after winning his/her initial trip. The prize package was worth $10,000 so if you win a second package UB just gave you $10K...so it was basically a winner take all tournament after your first win.

I played the hell out of these tournaments last summer and ended winning four straight up and made deals once I got down to heads up play on two others. If you have the style it takes to win a MTT then I think these tourneys are worth it. There weren't too many people in the tourneys (usually between 120-250) so winning first is quite feasible if you know what you are doing...and the huge return for a small investment makes the game well worth it. Many of the buyins were $100 or $25 w/ rebuys. But you have to be confident in your abilities and you can't be afraid to lose. I won most of those tourneys out of raw aggression in the final stages of the tournament.

Unfortunately, UB has done away with the multiple win format this year...You get nothing for a second win.
 
MicheleW

MicheleW

Rock Star
Hey Holdem - You can win a 10 person sit and go in 30 minutes?? Those other 9 people must be pretty bad players. I know I play more than 30 minutes.

As Mike Caro says .. the winner of any tournament is really the loser in the money. If he gets all the chips in the end, why not all the money. He only gets a portion of the total prize money. Those in second and below - make out the best ... they get lots of money for losing.

LOL
 
H

HollyGo

Guest
My preference is for tourneys that pay several places. I'm going with anything that will increase the odds of my leaving with some green...lol!
 
bubbasbestbabe

bubbasbestbabe

Suckout Queen
That's a tough one to decide. On one hand like Michelle says, if you're the winner you only get part of the pot. What a gyp. If you play like me, you wind up with a share, which is good cause at least I get something.

If you did a winner take all tourney, I think the level of play would go up cause you won't be rewarded for playing lousy.
 
HoldemChamp

HoldemChamp

Rock Star
I didn't mean to infer that I played 30 minute 10 person sit and goes. Forgot about the 50 cent or one dollar fee. So, and actualy take would be $24 from a $5 sit and go. Of course you would have to win every time. LOL

Bubba,

You would think that a winner take all would work that way. And amoung pros it probably does.

But, I don't think it is that same with bunch ofamatuers. I think this is even more motivation to play crazier. Because those people are thinking that they need a really big chip stack so they will go in on almost any hand to try to catch a big pot. If no oh well there is always the next tournament. I just don't understand the all in mentality.

I frankly can't afford to play that way because I rarely am on the lucky side of things.
 
MicheleW

MicheleW

Rock Star
Hi - I just played for 1 (one) seat in the WSOP - winner takes all. It was the Paradise WSOP final tourney this Sunday. The play was horrible. People were not tight at all. I think it went that way because they knew there was only one prize.

To get to that tourney you had to win the top 50 seats in the previous tourney of 4000 people. Winning that was much easier and the play so much tighter.

I think when people know they have some chance at some money - they play tighter and better. If there's only one prize they play more recklessly.
 
B

bloodspud

Enthusiast
how did u place in it? i tried to qualify a few times, but never got there
 
MicheleW

MicheleW

Rock Star
Hi Bloodspud - I too played sometimes twice a day o make it in. I made it to 81 and 83rd places but never to the top 50.

Then one day I made it in - I must have made the right moves. I did have a nice chip stack of over 90,000 chips near the end. I din't play crazy, didn't play too tight either. Played only good hands and was lucky enough to get runs of good cards.

At the end, all the tables started playing very slow and one by one people were eliminated. Then when 50 were left - the tables all closed and we got a spot to play the next WSOP tourney. I didn't win that one or I'd be flying to Vegas now! LOL

I played hour by hour instead of focusing on the whole trouney. It works for me. It was a goal I wanted to achieve and did it. It felt good. There's always next year!
 
HoldemChamp

HoldemChamp

Rock Star
Michele,

I have to agree with you on the lose part. When you are only have a chance to get one place in the money. You have to play more loosely and really need to take chance to get a big enough stack of chips.

I have seen the tournies that pay more places play tight because people are out there that are focusing on the money less than getting first place.

Of course things fluctuate from tourney to tourney and table to table.

But, for the most part certain tournies play certain ways. And other play different than that.
 
robwhufc

robwhufc

Cardschat Elite
I've only got into the money twice in my short poker career, and I won both tourneys, so I suppose I should be in favour of winner take all! I think though, as long as the pool isn't split too thinly, there should be some reward for some of the losers.
 
N

notfit66

Guest
Winner takes all is a good idea every once in awhile, but i think it would be better to lower the amount of places paid in a tourney. This would be greater in the freerolls keeping the places paid to the final table or final 2 tables...depending on the money value of the freeroll, this would also stop sitters who think they can make it to 67th place and get their 75 cents. I can see a winner takes all tourney once a month or even a top 2 tourney that pays out 75/25...something like that.
 
W

wudegod

Enthusiast
winner take all in a single table=good (depending on the entrance fee) 2 tables=no as good. multitable=horrible Most poker players are new and wouldnt want to enter a winner take all tourny. some will of course, but all you have to do is loose 3 or 4, and you'll find out,,it's a tough way to make a living(winner take all)
 
Winner Poker
Top