The Chronicle has been following the re-buy, re-entry, freeze-out debate with mild amusement on Twitter. The editors, Flynn, and even Ollie had long ago decided that tournaments with either re-buy or re-entry are not real poker.
In other games, you can’t just re-enter or re-buy you way back. You don’t get do-overs. You certainly do not get to come back after losing, and have an advantage up to over 50% of your competitors who are still in the game. Imagine a golfer who had a horrid first 3 holes. Will s/he be able to re-enter and start afresh? Of course not, as that is just plain stupid. There is no way the Chronicle’s Annual Champion of Monopoly event will let someone who goes broke re-buy into the game with starting play-$, while several other players still in have less. Granted, we would have more rum if we had the extra entry fee (which is rum), but that is not the point. The point is, real poker, golf, and Monopoly are one-shot only per game. If you are good at the game, and play enough of the games, you will come out on top in the long run. Just ask Tiger Woods or Mario Andretti.
Lest you think we are completely naive with respect to the business end of the tournament world, we do acknowledge three points. First: that re-buys and re-entries generate more money for the prize pool. So, of course, if you actually win the darn thing (Phil Hellmuth) or even just cash it (Allen Kessler), your payday is bigger. Second: more re-buys and re-entries mean less chance of overlay for the casino, more profit, and (hopefully) better $ for the dealers. Third: players who travel, take time off , or incur significant expenses to enter a tournament can get discouraged if they are out early.
Does this mean that professional, bankrolled, staked, good poker players would be in favor of freeze-outs? It seems as if the pros have the advantage in the long run with a freeze-out tournament. Re-buys and re-entries favor the amateurs and hobbyists who have numerous opportunities to play like donkeys and get lucky several times in a single tournament. But wait…..
According to the ever-accurate Twitter feed, it leans the opposite way. Many pros prefer throwing multiple bullets into a tournament, and the recs prefer freeze-outs. Raise your hand if you don’t see a problem with this. Kinda like OJ, if you have enough money, you can buy your way into or outta anything. Just keep firing away until you cash. LOL at those who cash for less than they spent. ROFLMAO for those who win the trophy and half (or more) of their prize$ is what they spent on entries or re-buys. Having pieces of other players is a whole other rant, but does come into play here as well. Chasing titles, bracelets, points, or bragging rights this way does not make you a good tournament player. It just means you have the funds.
This begs the question; why DO recreational players prefer freeze-outs? Obviously, the Chronicle cannot speak for all of them, but we have the following three theories. First: they are fans of F&O, and agree with the Chronicle that re-buys and re-entry are not real poker. Second: They do not have the same disposable funds as pros to throw at an event and therefore want an even playing field. Third: They want to win, and they want to experience the event.
In poker as a whole ~ tournament, cash, or on-line ~ the recreational players go fishing with a pole and bait, hang out in the fresh air, enjoy the water, cook up their catch that day (if they caught anything), and have an ‘experience’. Professional players use a boat and a team to put a net across the river, leave for the day, come back, drag in their haul, divvy it up, and freeze what they the don’t need for a rainy day.
Specific to poker tournaments, he or she who catches the single biggest fish that day wins. Respect to the pro that fishes with a pole, we will be rooting for you over the on-a-lucky-heater amateur. Net fishermen ~ not so much.
As to the business side specific to the venue, that will take more thought. Get accountants and marketing on it to make freeze-outs more attractive to both groups. Have plenty of alternative games or tournaments if a player busts early. Have those alternatives be affordable. Give food comps or otherwise feed the entrants. Don’t be ashamed of making a fair profit, but also openly disclose how much dealers make and what the house is getting. Get the structures approved by Chainsaw before publishing, late entries get their stacks reduced proportionately, and while you are at it, for heaven’s sake, get more comfortable chairs.
If these huge changes were to actually manifest themselves, Flynn and Ollie may actually consider playing a tournament more than once every two years. Maybe. Don’t hold your breath though, pros. We may be recreational fisherman, but we know when we are beat.
Fin
Flynn
Ollie understands fishing. He likes fishing. Doesn’t like nets. Makes fishing harder for otters
I thought that I was the only one who pretty much gave up on tournaments. I stopped playing tournaments for many reasons, and you have listed a few. However, I have enjoyed playing a low buy-in tourney at Sam’s Town during a couple of recent trips, just missing the final table on one and chopping the other. But the tables were obviously full of locals and visitors like me, not professionals. And I must admit, I was really excited to have chopped, even if the amount I won wasn’t that great.
As you have postulated, rebuys/re-entries are not real poker. They have a totally different strategy for the well-healed pro: take an early chance and rebuy if you don’t win the hand. Repeat as necessary. I have always preferred a freeze-out with extremely limited late entry. What you have is what you’ve got. Play stoopid and you pay the price. No mulligans.
I hope to run into your gang of these days in Las Vegas or on a trip to Seattle. Bring your money to Muckleshoot so I can have a chance at it! He he