Bitcointalk Poker Series format discussion - Let's keep them all in one place.

[arallmuus]

but we can have some nice round number like 1.5 mbtc?! In the end all that money goes to bankroll and people will have motivation to play for some higher rewards.

For regulars like us, this might not seems to be a big amount but we are trying to attract other people to join us as well so increasing the buy in further will only shut people down somehow.


6 tournaments + 1 Grand Finale is good for me. 7 weeks and Efialtis might have considered something to add to the following weeks for the winners I guess lol, I'll go with his decision

and I will also take care of a special event for the real winners, haha

[1714736979]

1714736979

[1714736979]

1714736979

[1714736979]

1714736979

[1714736979]

1714736979

[1714736979]

1714736979

[1714736979]

1714736979

[Trofo]

but we can have some nice round number like 1.5 mbtc?! In the end all that money goes to bankroll and people will have motivation to play for some higher rewards.

For regulars like us, this might not seems to be a big amount but we are trying to attract other people to join us as well so increasing the buy in further will only shut people down somehow.

Exactly, personally I couldn't care less if buy in is 1.4 or 1.5 mBTC, but we have to look at it from new players perspective. We are now close to 15$ per tournament. That is already a considerable sum of money in some parts of the world, especially if you have to pay it for 6 tournaments. 6 tournaments at this point cost 85$ which is quite big for new players.

I still feel our number one priority has to be attraction of new players even though reality is probably that only regulars will play. We can always make side bets or something to spice it up even more. For example I would gladly made a bit with another person at my table, or even several. I guess we don't have late reg now so there will not be many seating changes. When the game starts we can make a bet of let's say 1-2 mBTC and the person who last longest takes it. We did something like that for the first tournament of the first series. 

[iv4n]

For regulars like us, this might not seems to be a big amount but we are trying to attract other people to join us as well so increasing the buy in further will only shut people down somehow.

Exactly, personally I couldn't care less if buy in is 1.4 or 1.5 mBTC, but we have to look at it from new players perspective. We are now close to 15$ per tournament. That is already a considerable sum of money in some parts of the world, especially if you have to pay it for 6 tournaments. 6 tournaments at this point cost 85$ which is quite big for new players.

Sorry, but I can't understand this. Both of you are saying that 100 chips makes some big difference here?
Who wishes to play will play with 1.2 or 1.5, because it's not a big difference. And if we wish to attract more people with lower buy-in than let's talk about 0.5 mbtc? Many people can afford that, and we can have 200 chips for entry, 150 chips for grand finale and lottery? Or you can arrange it anyhow, that will lead to lower prize pool! We can play for dollars or pennies, it's a big difference and there're people who don't wish to play for pennies.
And it's something we discussed, with more money you can offer more, and that can attract new players. In the end everything comes down to what you get for your money, for me 1.5 mbtc is reasonable amount because we will have a chance to win some tournament, for the sit in grand finale, lottery… and all that prizes depends on entry fee.

[famososMuertos]

but we can have some nice round number like 1.5 mbtc?! In the end all that money goes to bankroll and people will have motivation to play for some higher rewards.

For regulars like us, this might not seems to be a big amount but we are trying to attract other people to join us as well so increasing the buy in further will only shut people down somehow.

Exactly, personally I couldn't care less if buy in is 1.4 or 1.5 mBTC, but we have to look at it from new players perspective. We are now close to 15$ per tournament. That is already a considerable sum of money in some parts of the world, especially if you have to pay it for 6 tournaments. 6 tournaments at this point cost 85$ which is quite big for new players.

I still feel our number one priority has to be attraction of new players even though reality is probably that only regulars will play. We can always make side bets or something to spice it up even more. For example I would gladly made a bit with another person at my table, or even several. I guess we don't have late reg now so there will not be many seating changes. When the game starts we can make a bet of let's say 1-2 mBTC and the person who last longest takes it. We did something like that for the first tournament of the first series. 

It's not really about how much a tournament costs, the focus that should be given is what type of players it is suitable for. If we look at the SWC ecosystem there is traffic that tends more to low stakes or micro buyin.

I play a $ 15 tournament not only because I want to but because my bankroll allows it, it is not about being able to put money in "x mmt", I could play the cost of $ 85 but I would be breaking my bankroll control rule. I support any initiative and I can even support it without the need to play tournaments.

First of all you always have to maintain objectivity, someone said that he would not play for pennies, ok. But then where is the community, player who does not have much if they must put their bankroll at risk.

When I speak of bankroll is the money you have to play or that you have planned to spend, here it is not about measuring your ability to make deposits, not having $ 85 or "$ x" does not mean that you are poor, etc. , it is only an amount "$x" destined to play.

There should even be some kind of satellite to those tournaments, to really include all levels of bankroll.

Regards.

[Trofo]

There should even be some kind of satellite to those tournaments, to really include all levels of bankroll.

Never even crossed my mind since there isn't so much of us here. Now we will have a tournament every Sunday and we could set up a satellite with minimal buy in on Saturday if that is not to much work for SwC. Maybe something with buy in of 200 chips, minimal 7 players and winner gets ticket for the tournament on Sunday. If there is more players winner gets some BTC as well or several players get the ticket.

I love the idea but have a feeling that it would create a lot of hassle for efi and SwC for minimal gains. 

[figmentofmyass]

There should even be some kind of satellite to those tournaments, to really include all levels of bankroll.

Regards.

you can directly buy into our tournaments with any 1k ticket---although that won't cover the separate league buy-ins sent to @efialtis.

unfortunately, there aren't too many scheduled satellites that pay 1k tickets (mostly 2k-5k tickets) but i do see 2 in the lobby---one starting in ~1 hour and one that runs in 2 days. there are also 3 types of sit-and-go satellites (buy-in 250 chips) that pay out 1k tickets.

i have a feeling that running direct satellites won't be too fruitful.

[Steamtyme]

In regards to number of qualifiers personally I would like it to be 7/8. I will likely miss half of the tournaments barring a slow Sunday at work. I don't think the 2 months time frame to the Championship will kill the "action". It would mostly allow people such as myself to still feel there is a chance to qualify even if you miss a few.

Nice catch on being able to use regular 1k satellites for our tourneys I wouldn't have thought of it. Specialty ones for us wouldn't work until we are much bigger. SWC shouldn't also have to essentially freeroll satellite tickets for us as well.

Anyone on the fence or looking for a freeroll should keep vigilant on the 3rd series thread once posted. There have been some generous members who have paid the entry for a new participant in the past. You might get lucky.

[arallmuus]

For regulars like us, this might not seems to be a big amount but we are trying to attract other people to join us as well so increasing the buy in further will only shut people down somehow.

Exactly, personally I couldn't care less if buy in is 1.4 or 1.5 mBTC, but we have to look at it from new players perspective. We are now close to 15$ per tournament. That is already a considerable sum of money in some parts of the world, especially if you have to pay it for 6 tournaments. 6 tournaments at this point cost 85$ which is quite big for new players.

Sorry, but I can't understand this. Both of you are saying that 100 chips makes some big difference here?
Who wishes to play will play with 1.2 or 1.5, because it's not a big difference. And if we wish to attract more people with lower buy-in than let's talk about 0.5 mbtc? Many people can afford that, and we can have 200 chips for entry, 150 chips for grand finale and lottery? Or you can arrange it anyhow, that will lead to lower prize pool! We can play for dollars or pennies, it's a big difference and there're people who don't wish to play for pennies.
And it's something we discussed, with more money you can offer more, and that can attract new players. In the end everything comes down to what you get for your money, for me 1.5 mbtc is reasonable amount because we will have a chance to win some tournament, for the sit in grand finale, lottery… and all that prizes depends on entry fee.

It is a big different, The main point of this tournament was to gather more player from bitcointalk to form some community. That means a wide range variety of people is expected to join and alot of them might not be as good as you in poker games

Some might play then lose and never come back after their first game and some might feel hesitate to even try because of the high buy in therefore the lottery system was used to encourage people to play

[iv4n]

It is a big different, The main point of this tournament was to gather more player from bitcointalk to form some community. That means a wide range variety of people is expected to join and alot of them might not be as good as you in poker games

Some might play then lose and never come back after their first game and some might feel hesitate to even try because of the high buy in therefore the lottery system was used to encourage people to play

So for 300 chips difference you would rather sacrifice a player like me who started playing before series, and in first tournaments we played there was 5-6 of us, for some "new player" that can come play one game and leave the series?
The main point of this tournament was fun for friends from btctalk, not to gather more players. More players would mean more fun, but as I remember in the beginning it was lets play poker and have fun, anyone who wishes to join is welcome to do that, we play nice poker with good poker players and above that with good people!
Lottery system is a nice motivation for me as well, and for every player! With higher buy in we will have higher prizes. Now you wish to attract more players with lower buy in, where we will have lower prizes, and I say lets make higher buy in, prizes will be higher, that will be a motivation for people to join! Now you tell me Arallmuss do you wish 50 new players in tournament with lower prizes, or you wish to see 10 new players and higher prizes? To make it more simple, do you think we need to put quality over quantity or quantity over quality?

[Trofo]

I am always for quality before quantity but we are loosing players as the tournaments go on and not gaining new ones to replace the ones who left. If we drop below 18 players (2 full tables) the game will start to get less interesting, at least for me. SwC will also probably stop sponsoring us if we drop below certain level. That is the reason why I am willing to make some concessions in order to keep the game running. I feel like one tournament per week was a step in the right direction so we will see how it goes in this series.

It is easy to raise buy ins and rewards for each tournament in unofficial way. Few of as just agree here on the forum for let's say 1000-2000 chips per person to spice it up and the one who stays on the table longest gets the money. I think all the regulars can be trusted with such amounts so there is no need to collect anything upfront. When the tournament ends we just send the chips to the winner.

[arallmuus]

It is a big different, The main point of this tournament was to gather more player from bitcointalk to form some community. That means a wide range variety of people is expected to join and alot of them might not be as good as you in poker games

Some might play then lose and never come back after their first game and some might feel hesitate to even try because of the high buy in therefore the lottery system was used to encourage people to play

So for 300 chips difference you would rather sacrifice a player like me who started playing before series, and in first tournaments we played there was 5-6 of us, for some "new player" that can come play one game and leave the series?
The main point of this tournament was fun for friends from btctalk, not to gather more players. More players would mean more fun, but as I remember in the beginning it was lets play poker and have fun, anyone who wishes to join is welcome to do that, we play nice poker with good poker players and above that with good people!
Lottery system is a nice motivation for me as well, and for every player! With higher buy in we will have higher prizes. Now you wish to attract more players with lower buy in, where we will have lower prizes, and I say lets make higher buy in, prizes will be higher, that will be a motivation for people to join!

Would be nice if you stop gunning down on me   . You know its not my call to decide things over here. If you want to have 1500 chips buy in you have to form consensus here by asking the others to agree with your opinion. I cant force my opinion neither can you, thats the whole nice stuff of forming consensus

Now you tell me Arallmuss do you wish 50 new players in tournament with lower prizes, or you wish to see 10 new players and higher prizes? To make it more simple, do you think we need to put quality over quantity or quantity over quality?

50 players with 300 chips buy in = 15000 chips prizepool
10 players with 1500 chips buy in = 15000 chips prizepool

Lower number of player doesnt always means higher prizepool . and thats 5 times higher buy in than the first one

[figmentofmyass]

It is easy to raise buy ins and rewards for each tournament in unofficial way. Few of as just agree here on the forum for let's say 1000-2000 chips per person to spice it up and the one who stays on the table longest gets the money. I think all the regulars can be trusted with such amounts so there is no need to collect anything upfront. When the tournament ends we just send the chips to the winner.

i agree that we're probably near the upper bound for buy-ins. there's no exact science to it, but my impression is that if we get much closer to 0.002 BTC per game it will discourage participation.

1400 chips/game is enough action for me, but i'm open to a last longer bet or other ways to make it interesting if it's not enough for others.

any other opinions on 6 qualifiers vs 8? like @Steamtyme i prefer 7 or 8 qualifiers. i know @efi prefers 6. can we meet in the middle with 7?

[Trofo]

any other opinions on 6 qualifiers vs 8? like @Steamtyme i prefer 7 or 8 qualifiers. i know @efi prefers 6. can we meet in the middle with 7?

Don't know why but 7 sounds strange to me I sort of expect an even number I guess

I already wrote somewhere that it doesn't really matter to me if it is anything between 4-10 tournaments. Less than four isn't a series and more than 10 would really stretch it too long. I suggested to @efi that he tries to feel out the SwC and see if they will give us better bonus if we play more tournaments in the series. If they will not, than it makes sense to play smaller number of tournaments, just enough to keep our sponsors happy.

[figmentofmyass]

any other opinions on 6 qualifiers vs 8? like @Steamtyme i prefer 7 or 8 qualifiers. i know @efi prefers 6. can we meet in the middle with 7?

Don't know why but 7 sounds strange to me I sort of expect an even number I guess

i prefer 8 myself---i'm just trying to find some compromise here.

when we add in the championship game, 7 qualifiers would mean 8 weeks total for the series, which seemed reasonable.

I already wrote somewhere that it doesn't really matter to me if it is anything between 4-10 tournaments. Less than four isn't a series and more than 10 would really stretch it too long.

6 is the minimum for me. it's really tough to recover from 2-3 bad (or missed) games in that kinda series. 8 qualifiers is really the sweet spot IMO.

I suggested to @efi that he tries to feel out the SwC and see if they will give us better bonus if we play more tournaments in the series. If they will not, than it makes sense to play smaller number of tournaments, just enough to keep our sponsors happy.

the less we bother SwC the better---that's my sense. the longer the series is, the more likely i think they are to keep sponsoring us, but maybe @efi has some more insight into this.

[arallmuus]

any other opinions on 6 qualifiers vs 8? like @Steamtyme i prefer 7 or 8 qualifiers. i know @efi prefers 6. can we meet in the middle with 7?

Don't know why but 7 sounds strange to me I sort of expect an even number I guess

i prefer 8 myself---i'm just trying to find some compromise here.

when we add in the championship game, 7 qualifiers would mean 8 weeks total for the series, which seemed reasonable.

6 or 7 seems fair to me, perhaps Efialtis had some talk with SWC representative and deem that this is the best for both party . Idk Im just guessing this but We can always drag it longer if needed in the middle of the series I guess ? As long as it doesnt need the assistance of SWC unlike changing the buy in or the starting stack then I guess we could

All it needs is just some agreement from the majority of the player but some people might think that this might put them to disadvantages if we change it midway of the series

[Betwrong]

Guys, if #3 Bitcointalk Poker Series is going to happen, maybe we should create a separate thread for it. To be honest, it was hard even for me, after rereading the latest posts, to figure out whether we are playing this Sunday or not, let alone for the potential new participants.

I personally agree with 6 or 7 qualifiers, and basically with anything @efi is going to come up with. I mean, all of us have already expressed our opinions, now, let @efi to say the final word.

[Trofo]

Guys, if #3 Bitcointalk Poker Series is going to happen, maybe we should create a separate thread for it. To be honest, it was hard even for me, after rereading the latest posts, to figure out whether we are playing this Sunday or not, let alone for the potential new participants.

I personally agree with 6 or 7 qualifiers, and basically with anything @efi is going to come up with. I mean, all of us have already expressed our opinions, now, let @efi to say the final word.

There will be an new thread for the new series as soon as @efi agrees everything with SwC. This thread is not related to particular series it is more like the ideas to help our series evolve.

... Idk Im just guessing this but We can always drag it longer if needed in the middle of the series I guess ? ...

All it needs is just some agreement from the majority of the player but some people might think that this might put them to disadvantages if we change it midway of the series

There should never be a change of rules or competition format or anything in the middle of the series. There will always be someone who will feel cheated and probably with good cause. Every time money is involved everything should be clear from the beginning, otherwise we are just inviting trouble.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

@BitcoinGirlClub

Sorry guys, I could not follow up since I was not online for last two weeks. It's a yes for me and will we have a tourney in this Sunday or it's going to start from the next Sunday?

<snip>

I figured it's not happening in this Sunday.

[figmentofmyass]

I mean, all of us have already expressed our opinions, now, let @efi to say the final word.

not really. unfortunately most just said they are cool with what everyone else decides and gave a range.

i have a hard preference for 8 qualifiers and think 6 is too short---barely enough to overcome variance. i'm still willing to play regardless, but if @efialtis is the only one who prefers 6 qualifiers vs 7 or 8 and this is negotiable, i definitely want more.

i just don't understand the logic of cutting the series 25% short---i don't see any benefits and no one (including @efialtis) has really articulated why we should do this. anyone?

this is just a casual sunday poker game. why do we need to compress everything and aim for the same kind of time frame as the last series? a 5-week series (#2) made sense when everyone was stuck in quarantine and playing 2 games a week but now, not so much.

[arallmuus]

Guys, if #3 Bitcointalk Poker Series is going to happen, maybe we should create a separate thread for it. To be honest, it was hard even for me, after rereading the latest posts, to figure out whether we are playing this Sunday or not, let alone for the potential new participants.

I personally agree with 6 or 7 qualifiers, and basically with anything @efi is going to come up with. I mean, all of us have already expressed our opinions, now, let @efi to say the final word.

There will be an new thread for the new series as soon as @efi agrees everything with SwC. This thread is not related to particular series it is more like the ideas to help our series evolve.

... Idk Im just guessing this but We can always drag it longer if needed in the middle of the series I guess ? ...

All it needs is just some agreement from the majority of the player but some people might think that this might put them to disadvantages if we change it midway of the series

There should never be a change of rules or competition format or anything in the middle of the series. There will always be someone who will feel cheated and probably with good cause. Every time money is involved everything should be clear from the beginning, otherwise we are just inviting trouble.

I guess then we all agree on 6 qualifier + 1 Grand Finale then. That also means, one or two bad weeks will make our chance to get into Grand Finale slip away. On the same time, It is going to be much more interesting because alot of us will be playing it safer unlike usual

Got some positive and some negative side to it but I think we can all adapt with the new one 

i just don't understand the logic of cutting the series 25% short---i don't see any benefits and no one (including @efialtis) has really articulated why we should do this. anyone?

this is just a casual sunday poker game. why do we need to compress everything and aim for the same kind of time frame as the last series? a 5-week series (#2) made sense when everyone was stuck in quarantine and playing 2 games a week but now, not so much.

Just my 2 cent opinion on this, dragging the tournament into 8 qualifier which is 2 months might resulted in lower hype for the game. Some player might be losing their enthusiast compared with the early state of the tournament especially when they have no chance to get into Grand Finale already

In the 2nd series, the last two regular games has less than 15 players. Especially with everyone going to back to their normal lives now, the last two games on the 3rd series might be getting lesser player. That means almost everyone is guaranteed to get points. Kinda bad and lame on the same time if there are only 12 players with top ten being rewarded with points isnt it?

Efi probably has another thing on his mind regarding this, we just need to wait I guess