New tournament format, what do you think?

Well all just because I haven't been able to go play in any events doesn't mean I haven't been thinking about them and how we may be able to improve them, (even more so in the current economic crunch most of us are in).

I got the idea from the WSOP and all the satellite events they host for a chance to win a seat in the main event.

My concept is similar, but actually mine is like hosting sit and go satellite tournaments within the main tournament. I call it an "Airline Format", because of the different levels players may buy-in or enter.

The following would be based on a "GUARANTEED" $20,000 put up by the casino, but if the actual qualifying prize money would be around $50,000 with any additional going towards funding the Championship prize pool.

Round 1 - "Coach Class" (144 players 24 tables of 6): would consist of local players who have won they seat through weekly events along with open play at $250 entry fee.

Re-buy's for both the locals and $250 entry players would be $125 each.

Round 2 - "Business Class" - (108 players 18 tables of 6): would offer limited number of players (about 10) a chance to enter straight into the 2nd round at $400 entry. Little more, but by passes round 1 and the re-buys, plus a later start.

Round 3 - "First Class" - Quarterfinals - (54 players 9 tables of 6): would offer limited number of players (about 17) a chance to enter straight into the 3rd round for a $1,000 entry. Lot more, but puts you one round from the semifinals and some cash.

This also helps build the prize pool up (A LOT) by a small number of players willing to risk the higher entry fees.

Round 4 - Semifinals - (18 players - 3 tables of 6)

Round 5 - Finals - (1 table of 6)

I've heard pro's and con's on this concept, now I want to hear from the members here.

Is it fair for 17 players to jump in front of 144 other players? Why not the first round players start out for free or only $250 entry while those 17 are risking $1,000.

The seats will be open to everyone on a first come, first serve basis, so how it this format not be fair? And like all other events you have the choice to play or not.

Who will buy the "First Class" seats? Some top line players might, but I'm thinking more the high rollers who can afford the additional cost.

Why host an event with this format?
1) It will allow all levels of players chances to play in about a $50,000 plus qualifier with a chance to play in a bigger championship event at the end of the year for an entry they can afford.

Another concept for these events will be that every player may win two seats for the Championship! YEP, two shots (at least until the quarterfinals where there will only be one session (there should a player advance that far with both spots, one would have to be forfeited).

The new concept would allow players to keep returning to the qualifiers to help build the over all Championship tournament prize pool.

This would also offer more incentive to out of town players to travel to these events, knowing they would have multiple chances.

And best of all these events would be a positive "EV" at every entry level, in the qualifiers and Championship event. Don't forget to add in the "free seats" for the Championship event as part of the all value in the qualifiers.

*NOTE: the entry fee's for Business and First Class will be $400 and $1,000 if purchased prior to the start of the tournament, once play begins, those entries will increase in price with each session played. So anyone wanting to play for $250 and then buy-in later should they not advance will not get the same prices, good try, but I already thought of that...lol.

Just a few things I've been working on, let me know what ya'll think? Tell me what you like and don't like about it and if you would play in it.

 

Looks pretty good

Tex,
This is an appealing concept you offer. Might be a challenge getting a casino to put up 20k but you never know until you ask.
For the most part, I like your ideas and appreciate your "outside the box" thinking.
Some fine tuning might be needed and I noticed you've already stifled the first wily plan of attack I had in mind.

Billy C

 

Increase value for the casinos

There are several casinos offering $15,000 to $20,000 guarantee events, but if I can sell them on this new format we could have a chance (very good chance) at increasing the prize to $50K, assuming they also use the TBJPA rules.

I know several players that would be willing to travel for these events as long as the value and rules were worth the time and expense.

The value for the casinos is built in, if they are already offering a guarantee prize why not try this new format with a chance to build their events to 2 to 3 times the prize pool at no risk to them and for additional value would bring in more out of town play. Any casino (especially now days) should love having a hook to draw players to their casino.

I understand a few tweaks here and there may be needed, but that is why I ask for feedback. As far as players starting off in the $250 entry and taking a shot, then wishing to buy in at a higher entry level, I have no problem with that, nor should any other players since any and all entries will only increase the over all prize pool for everyone. Only remember the higher entry levels will be raised once play has begun. Should any seats at the higher level be left vacant, wild cards for that round will be issued to fill the seats.

I can see First Class seat selling slow at first, but before long I think they would be sold out in advance for further qualifiers.

One other item I didn't mention in my original post is if and when this format takes off, the semifinalist, 7th - 18th will be receiving either $250 cash or $500 in promo chips (5 X $100 promo chips). This will just make the First Class $1,000 entry a little more inviting only having to advance once to get some money back.

 

Not sure I've understood the numbers

I may have got this completely wrong, as it took me a few read-throughs to get to the point where I more-or-less think I understand.

It looks like you plan round one to advance four players from each table of six, and then each subsequent round to advance two players. Is that right?

 

number advancing

The way I read it is there will be only two advancing in the first round, and then another two from the rebuy round. Maybe I am reading it wrong too.

 

Breakdown of rounds

London Colin, here is the breakdown per round. Two players will advance fromm each table in every round including re-buys. Then you add in the different level entries and wild cards for each rounds total number of players.

Round 1 - "Coach Class" (144 players 24 tables of 6): would consist of local players who have won they seat through weekly events along with open play at $250 entry fee. Top 2 advance to round 2, total 48 players advancing.

Re-buy's for both the locals and $250 entry players would be $125 each. Limited to 25 tables with top 2 advancing to round 2, total 48 players.

Grand total 98 players winning advancement to round 2, plus 8 Business Class seats for sell at $400 each and 2 Wild cards. Bring the total to 108 players in round 2.

Round 2 - "Business Class" - (108 players 18 tables of 6): would offer limited number of players (about 10) a chance to enter straight into the 2nd round at $400 entry. Little more, but by passes round 1 and the re-buys, plus a later start.

Top 2 advance from each table, 36 total, plus 17 First Class entries at $1,000 and 1 Wild card for a total of 54 players in round 3.

Round 3 - "First Class" - Quarterfinals - (54 players 9 tables of 6): would offer limited number of players (about 17) a chance to enter straight into the 3rd round for a $1,000 entry. Lot more, but puts you one round from the semifinals and some cash.

This also helps build the prize pool up (A LOT) by a small number of players willing to risk the higher entry fees.

Round 4 - Semifinals - (18 players - 3 tables of 6)

Round 5 - Finals - (1 table of 6)

 

A couple of comments:

1) A little math correction. 2 advancing from a max of 25 table is 50 players - not 48. Then the rest of the numbers work.

2) I assume there will be 2 re-buy sessions and a player can re-buy a second time although that was not specifically stated. That's the only way 50 players can advance from the re-buy round to the 2nd round.

 

Interesting comcept, Rick

Viejas ran a tournament where your 'rebuy' put you directly intro the second round, and rebuys were only available to those you bought into first round - so buy into first round - win and advance or pay another buyin and advance to second anyway. A little different than your format - but - it seemed to work for the casino, though some players were quite unhappy with the buy to advance factor.

One potential here - maybe a problem - would the casinos use the later round buyins for their favored comped high rollers - so that an invited, comped, high roller would go directly into round three? and if so - would the casino put the money into the pot for the comped player?

I could easily see a casino saying we are guaranteeing the prize pool - so we get to put our comped players into the buyin slots for that -

Frankly, I would prefer your straight tbjpa rules/format tourneys, with the casino paying the way for their comped players into the tournament. I would accept a reasonable rake - up to 10% from the buy-ins - as long as all the rest went into the prize pool - and a proportionate amount went in for the comped players the casino brought in. That would get the prize pool up, and get players in the tournament.

 

Forgot about the rebuys

Thanks for the clarification. I thought four-advance sounded a little unlikely!

Presumably, then, the intention is to allow multiple rebuys, but with an overall limit of 24 rebuy tables, meaning an average of less than two rebuys per eligible player.

i.e
144 @ 24 tables of 6 => 48 qualify + 96 eligible to rebuy
If they all rebuy, then
96 @ 16 tables of 6 => 32 qualify + 64 eligible to re-rebuy

But only 8 more rebuy tables available, so only 48 of the 64 could get a second rebuy.

Sorry if I've derailed the thread into a discussion of the minute details, when you were looking for more general comments. Now I've got a better understanding, I'll try to come up with a few of those too.

 

I want to offer several re-buys (good for those who need another chance and for building the prize pool). Thats the way the Stardust and New Frontier use to offer to their players.
Actually if any round 1 sessions (2nd - ?) have empty seats players don't have to wait for the set re-buy sessions, (why play a table with an empty seat and players wanting to play?).

 

Satellenomics

As I see it, satellite formats typically offer poorer EV than buying directly into the next level, and for this lesser value to be attractive to players, the difference in cost between the two levels has to be very substantial indeed. In essence, my motivation for playing such a satellite has to be that the price of a direct buy-in to the next level is more than I am happy to pay.

On a poker site that I occsionally frequent they have satellites for which the buy-in to the next level ranges from about six to ten times the cost of entering the satellite. E.g., for $30+3 you can play to win a seat that would otherwise cost $300+20.

With that in mind, I don't think that the step from round 1 to round 2 is large enough. $250 seems much too close to $400. In essence, with two seats up for grabs at a round-1 table, the EV is $800/6 = $133, for a $250 buy-in. An 88% rake! I can't believe that most people wouldn't rather pay the $400 in those circumstances, and limiting the availability of those seats to 10 might cause resentment.

Going from round 2 to 3, we have $2000/6=$333 EV for a $400 buy-in. The rake is now a more reasonable 20%, and the difference between paying $400 and $1000 is starting to seem more considerable than $250 and $400.

If the numbers could be made to work, I think one less round and a much more pronounced difference in the buy-ins would be a lot more attractive. E.g. A single satellite round, costing something like $100 or $200 (for those not pre-qualified via local events), playing for an entry into the next round which costs $1000 to buy into directly.

 

Look at these numbers

Round 1: 144 players (max) entry: win free seat or $250
So less say $250 X 144 = $36,000 and we are looking at a $50,000 plus prize pool and don't forget the value of qualifying for the Championship event as well.

Round 2: 108 players (max) entry $400 for Business Class.
$400 X 108 = $43,200 + seat in Championship.

Round 3: 54 players (max) entry $1,000 for First Class.
$1,000 X 54 = $54,000 + seat in the Championship.

Round 3 will be just about break even after all said in done, but you'll only need to advance one table to the semifinals and $500 in promo chips (5 X $100 chips).

It will be up to each player and if they want to put up the $1,000 risk vs. only $250 and play the extra two rounds and maybe re-buys as well.

If I was in better shape, I'd enter the $1,000 First Class every time and take my chances I'd make it to the finals at least a couple of time out of 8 chances. But then it is up to each person how much they can afford is an issue as well.

 

More maths than I intended in this post (hope it's right)

Rick,

I don't really understand what you mean by those figures. I must admit I've managed to confuse myself quite a bit, trying to get my ideas straight, but I think I might be able to express myself a bit more clearly now.

In my previous post I again neglected to consider what impact rebuys have, but I don't think that changes the fundamentals much.

My main point was this - It would seem like madness to bet $250 on a 1/3 chance of winning a prize that could instead be bought outright at a cost of only $400. On average you would be spending $750 for every $400-valued prize that you 'win'.

[I'm ignoring the issue of 'edge' (or lack of it), and assuming every player has a 1/3 chance of advancing from a table.]

Rebuys do make things slightly better, though. A player who averages one rebuy per event will have an average entry fee of $187.5, and will be paying $562.50 for every round-2 place he achieves. And a player who averages two rebuys per event will average $167, paying $500 for every round 2 reached.

Even with the rebuys, though, why would anyone be motivated to do this? Possibly because there are only 10 $400 seats available and they couldn't get hold of one before they were sold out, but surely not because they feel they can afford $250 but not $400?


Trying to figure out the overall value at each stage is a bit tricky, because the relationship between the total numbers and the prize pool depends on so many variables: the number of original entries, rebuys, how many $400 and $1000 seats get bought. By my calculation, a completely full tournament - 144 players @$250, maximum number of rebuys, 10 $400 seats, and 17 $1000 seats - would generate a whopping $75,750.

Even though this might be an unrealistic number, it probably doesn't make sense for me to use a smaller figure than that in my calculations, while at the same time assuming a full complement of 54 players in round three. (Presumably if less money is taken, that means fewer people and a greater chance of progressing through wildcards, or of there being fewer competitors in any given round). I'll also ignore the minor complication of the single wildcard in round 3.

On that basis -

The EV per player in round 3 is $75,750/54 = approx. $1400. (before deducting their entry fees)

A player buying into round 3 for $1000 therefore has an EV of +$400.

A player buying into round 2 for $400 has a 1/3 chance of making round 3. The EV is therefore (1/3 * 1400) - 400 = +$67

I'm a bit unsure of my method for round 1, but I'll take a stab at it and hope someone can correct any errors. I think it can be done by assuming a maximum of two rebuys and calculating the conditional EVs for each of four possibilities -

1) Advance on first attempt.
2) Advance on 2nd attempt.
3) Advance on third attempt (i.e. 2nd rebuy)
4) Fail to advance in three attempts.

1) 1/3 * (1/3*1400 - 250) = +$72.22
2) (2/3 * 1/3) * (1/3*1400 - (250+125)) = +$20.37
3) ((2/3)^2 * 1/3) * (1/3*1400 - (250+125+125)) = -$4.94
4) (2/3)^3 * -(250+125+125) = -$148.15
------------
-$60.50
-----------

By contrast, a player who refuses to rebuy at all would have an EV of
(1/3 * 1/3 * 1400) - 250 = -$94.44


So (if I've got my maths right, which is by no means certain, and apologies if I haven't) it looks like round 1 represents a fairly bad deal, not only in comparison to round 2, which was my original point, but in absolute terms too.


If you define a 'fair price' as one which offers the same value as the round-3 price, then that must be $333 for round 2, and I guess somewhere around $160 for round 1 (assuming half-price rebuys, and on the basis that a fair price with no rebuys would be $111).

It seems to me that if the price is above this 'fair' level, then that only makes sense if the absolute monetary value is very much lower than direct entry at a higher level would be, so that players are attracted to enter a competition that they would otherwise feel priced out of.

 

Another advantage

I was looking over the format last night and realized another advantage for Business and First Class entries.

Normally Round I and re-buys are held on day one and the remaining tournament held on day 2. By entering one of these levels you would save a day on travel, room, food, etc...

This is if the tournament is hosted over multiple days.

 

buyins

I think London has a good point. SUggestion, make the buyin to the next higher round a little more than 3 times the buyin to the lower round: as in:
1st round: $200, rebuy $100; second round buyin: $650; Third round buyin: $2,000. That would do it.

 

I like the price structure in its original proposed form. It seems like it would be appealing to the players at the level they can afford to play. If higher prices are charged for rounds 2 & 3, I think that would discourage buy-ins for those rounds. I have calculated EVs with different results than London Colin (some are minor). The main difference is the EV for the original 144 players.

Calculating EV is normally very simple - take the total prize pool and divide it by the number of starting players to arrive at the EV. However, TXtourplayer’s proposal throws in a monkey wrench (nothing disrespectful intended to monkeysystem’s relatives) into the calculation. Players can be added as the tournament progresses so the “simple” EV calculation method will not work. The EV for a given player will depend on which point he/she enters the tournament. As I see it, the easiest way to calculate EV for any given point in the tournament is to work backward from the last round that allowed players to enter directly by paying a higher fee – this is round 3. I’ll assume the highest theoretical prize pool of $75,750.

Round 3 EV:
Round 3 will have 54 players but 17 players entered directly into round 3 by paying $1,000.
$75,750 / 54 players = $1,402.78 EV of each seat in the 3rd round.
So the total EV for the players that did not buy-in directly into Round 3 is $51,902.86 ($1,402.78 * 37)

Round 2 EV:
Round 2 will have 108 players but 10 players entered directly into Round 2 by paying $400.
$51,902.86 / 108 players = $480.58 EV of each seat in the 2nd round.
So the total EV for the players that did not buy-in directly into Round 2 is $47,096.84 ($480.58 * 98)

Round 1 EV:
Round 1 will have 144 players.
$47,096.84 / 144 players = $327.06 EV of each seat in the 1st round.

Conclusion:
So, EV is positive for each player that initially bought-in regardless of the point of buying in. This is because the re-buys added $18,750 (150 re-buys @ $125) to the prize pool without changing the number of initial competitors. The players that re-buy are working with a negative EV (cost of initial buy-in + cost of re-buy). So to summarize the prize pool of $75,750:

144 players * EV of $327.06 = .$47,096.64 (cost of seat was $250)
10 players * EV of $480.58 = ...$ 4,805.80 (cost of seat was $400)
17 players * EV of $1,402.78 = $23,847.26 (cost of seat was $1,000)
Total EV = ……………………….……..$75,749.70 (thoretical prize pool)

Which buy-in point represents the better value?
Round 1 buy-in for $250 with an EV of $327.06 is + $77.06 or 31% (77.06 / 250)
Round 2 buy-in for $400 with an EV of $480.58 is + $80.58 or 20% (80.58 / 400)
Round 3 buy-in for $1,000 with an EV of $1,402.78 is + $402.78 or 40% (402.78 / 1000)
So buying into Round 3 for $1,000 offers the best value by far with a positive 40%. Not only do you get a substantially better value but you only need to win 3 rounds to walk away with first place.

 

The cost of playing round 1 is not just $250. You have to factor the rebuys into the cost of entry, as well as into the prize pool.

With the maximum tables played, the first round takes in
(144 * $250) + (25 *6 * $125) = $54,750

That means that the average cost per player is $54,750 / 144 = $380.21

That would make the EV 327.06 - 380.21 = -$53.15.

I think the reason that is slightly different to the -$60.50 figure I came up with is that I allowed for a discrete number of rebuys, whereas this method effectively uses the average number of rebuys per person (1.04).

 

One point that no one has brought up is the fact that should the 17 "First Class" sells out that adds another $17,000 to the already $20,000 guarantee (almost doubling the prize pool) which is one of the main reasons I believe this format has a good chance at success.

The prize money will be built by 3 levels of entries plus the guarantee from the casino. Limiting the number of later entries should help in selling those seats faster and increasing the over all prize pool, in return becoming more attractive draw for more players to attend. Which will increase the prize money for both the qualifiers and the Championship event.

Seems like this format can address most of the reasons players don't come to tournaments.

1) Make it affordable to all.
2) Offer re-buys.
3) Good rules, (more strategic with less of a luck factor).
4) Guarantee prize pool.
5) Fair for novice to season players.
6) Chance to qualify for a major Championship.
7) No players fees or rake!
8) Open book for players to see what and where the money is going.
9) Satellites "Sit & Goes" offered for all entry levels two days before tournament begins, (base on avaliblity).
10) Little "Old School" Cash prizes for Round and Session winners for the first three rounds and all sessions in those rounds.
11) New concept, allowing two seats in the Championship event per player (until quarterfinals). This also eliminates players from not playing in multiple events (which hopefully will keep these events filled).
12) Another new concept, in the Championship event, the top 54 players will cash out. Final table 1st - 6th, Semifinals 7th - 18th, Quarterfinals 19th - 54th. I want more players cashing so they will be able to afford to come back in play in more tournaments.
13) Multiple events, as always the TBJPA will host multiple events to make travel expenses worth wide. Probably $50 and $100 entry standard events. Both with at least one 1/2 price re-buy option for all players in each event.
14) Airfare or Room "Sit & Go" events, why not?

Is there anything else I forgot?

 

I have 2 problems here:

1:
Your calculations assume that all entry fees by the original 144 players will be distributed to only those 144 players. You are not accounting for the fact that the add-on players share in all entry fees.

2:
I think we have a difference in defining EV. EV, in TBJ, is merely the value of the seat, not the cost of the seat. Cost is a factor in determining if the tournament is a good value or not. If this were a normal tournament (no $400 or $1,000 buy-ins), EV would be simply be "Total Prize Pool / Number of Players" and no consideration is given to where that Prize Pool came from. Makes no difference if the Prize Pool is casino contributions, some player entry/re-buy fees, or donated by an eccentric High Roller. Those players are playing for $XXX. If re-buys are added to the Prize Pool then the EV cannot be exactly determined until all re-buys are known so the Prize Pool becomes an educated guess.

Just as a side note:
Rules such as how many advance per table, accumulation format rules, or wild cards have no effect on the EV in normal tournaments.

 

Normally when a casino "guarantees" a prize pool they mean a minimum will be paid out. As the entry fees increase, the amount contributed by the casino decreases. In this case, once the entry fees reach $20,000 the casino no longer is obliged to contribute.

But your statement says the casino will contribute $20,000 on top of the entry fees. This is not a "guarantee" but rather a "contribution".

So what is it? Guarantee or Contribution?