Might be a poker series on the horizon, need input

[yahoo62278]

I am not saying there is or isn't going to be a series soon(it's a possibility), but if it does happen I would like to get a general consensus of what would suit everybody on a few things. Below you will find a few questions, I am only interested in responses from players generally interested in playing in the series.


1. What would be a suitable buyin range for you? Last few series have been between $15-25. I would like to make the series cheap enough where we will have a larger field, but not so cheap it won't interest the site or players. Has to be some balance.

2. What start time would suit most of you? In the past it has been between 4-6pm UTC. Works for some, not so much for others. If you answer this question use UTC time please.

3. What are your thoughts on the point system? In the past it has been 10 points for 1st down to 1 point for 10th. Considering some tweeks where people won't feel like it's hopeless if they get behind by 20 points and stop playing.

4. Thinking of offering some bonuses for playing all the tourneys or having a small final for those that play every game in the series. What sounds interesting?

5. How many tourneys in a week would you be able to play? In the past 1 tourney every Sunday has been the protocol, would anyone be interested in more per week?

6. Starting stack size?

7. Structure? Turbo or regular?

More questions may be added, but these are what I want to start with. All answers from users who will participate will be appreciated. Sig spam will be deleted.

[iv4n]

1.  If you wish "to make the series cheap enough where we will have a larger field, but not so cheap it won't interest the site or players." the $15-$25 range is perfect I guess. I lean toward $25, even a $5-$10 higher than that would be fine.

2. 6-8 PM UTC is perfect for me... But I will definitely try to fit in at another time, as always.

3. Well, the only thing I can think of is to make it a bit different... first 2 (or 3) get 10 points, 3/4 (or 3/4/5) place gets 9 points... you get the picture. So if someone gets to the final table will get at least 6 points (or 8 ). It will be more competitive, and the difference between players is likely to be smaller.

4. Sounds interesting. Those who play all games get additional points... playing all games +40 points (like 4 tournaments won), one game less +35 points... a high enough reward to be worth the effort, and to have a significant impact on the final standings. But even an additional game for people who played all the games sounds good.

5. It would be nice to have 2 games a week. As always, I would try my best to play all of them.

[yahoo62278]

Tossing some ideas around with Hhampuz regarding points and number of people who make final game. Considering maybe 2 tables make the final game with 3-5 payspots?

Also, mentioned making the point system based on the number of participants each tourney or making 1st pay double so those behind can make up some points getting 1st. For example

10th pays 1pt
9th pays 2pts
8th pays 3pts
7th pays 4pts
6th pays 5pts
5th pays 6pts
4th pays 7pts
3rd pays 8pts
2nd pays 9pts
1st pays 20pts

Opinions? Icopress arallmuus Iv4n Jayce and anyone else considering playing if it happens.

[memehunter]

Consider me in whatever whenever you decide.
Why make things complicated with a point structure? If every tournament has the same buy-in, then you can rank them in terms of winning money. It will also reflect the true nature of competition since prize money will be bigger in a large field, while in a point system there is no variable to address this.

[arallmuus]

1. What would be a suitable buyin range for you? Last few series have been between $15-25. I would like to make the series cheap enough where we will have a larger field, but not so cheap it won't interest the site or players. Has to be some balance.

$15 or $20 would be great. Aside from the regulars that would most likely play, the average joe probably wouldnt join if the buy-in is too high so yeah this is kinda like a sweet spot for the buy-in

2. What start time would suit most of you? In the past it has been between 4-6pm UTC. Works for some, not so much for others. If you answer this question use UTC time please.

5pm works for me

3. What are your thoughts on the point system? In the past it has been 10 points for 1st down to 1 point for 10th. Considering some tweeks where people won't feel like it's hopeless if they get behind by 20 points and stop playing.

What if we increase the points by 100% in the middle of the series

For example if we use the previous point system with 8 games then what if all the points for 10th to 1st doubles for the 5th-8th games. That would encourage people to keep playing to chase the points needed for the grand final

This seems to be better than just doubling the point for the 1st position or probably a little tweek like double points for top 8 on 5th-8th game? Thats a full final table that will be getting the double point

4. Thinking of offering some bonuses for playing all the tourneys or having a small final for those that play every game in the series. What sounds interesting?

1 free buy-in to whoever play atleast 5 or 6 games? not sure if sponsors would agree on something like this....

5. How many tourneys in a week would you be able to play? In the past 1 tourney every Sunday has been the protocol, would anyone be interested in more per week?

Once a week would be nice, either sunday or saturday seems like the best

6. Starting stack size?

10k starting stack

7. Structure? Turbo or regular?

50/100 with no ante for the first 5 level would be great. 8 minutes blind for all the level or make it 10 minutes for the first 5 level then 8 minutes perhaps?

[icopress]

Consider me. Any conditions are acceptable to me.

[seoincorporation]

1. What would be a suitable buyin range for you? Last few series have been between $15-25. I would like to make the series cheap enough where we will have a larger field, but not so cheap it won't interest the site or players. Has to be some balance.

If you want it cheap enough then $10 buy in would be attractive for all, but personally i would like to play for a descent money, that way users do their best in in the tournament, i would say $25 or $50 the buyin.

2. What start time would suit most of you? In the past it has been between 4-6pm UTC. Works for some, not so much for others. If you answer this question use UTC time please.

3pm UTC is a good time.

3. What are your thoughts on the point system? In the past it has been 10 points for 1st down to 1 point for 10th. Considering some tweeks where people won't feel like it's hopeless if they get behind by 20 points and stop playing.

i liked the point system the past time, even if i lose 2 tourneys i reach the final table by one good game. So, i would leave that point system.

4. Thinking of offering some bonuses for playing all the tourneys or having a small final for those that play every game in the series. What sounds interesting?

I like the small final option.

5. How many tourneys in a week would you be able to play? In the past 1 tourney every Sunday has been the protocol, would anyone be interested in more per week?

One on Sunday, the other days I'm busy as hell with the job.

6. Starting stack size?

1k chips would do the magic with 50/100 blinds.

7. Structure? Turbo or regular?

Personally i love the KO games, where you get a small profit each time you take out other user from the table.

More questions may be added, but these are what I want to start with. All answers from users who will participate will be appreciated. Sig spam will be deleted.

I would like to say thanks to Yahoo for this, the past year the tournament was awesome, i really enjoyed it, and i would like to play again this year.

[Betwrong]

~
1. What would be a suitable buyin range for you? Last few series have been between $15-25. I would like to make the series cheap enough where we will have a larger field, but not so cheap it won't interest the site or players. Has to be some balance.

This buy-in looks good to me.

2. What start time would suit most of you? In the past it has been between 4-6pm UTC. Works for some, not so much for others. If you answer this question use UTC time please.

I prefer anything from 15 to 20 UTC.

7. Structure? Turbo or regular?

Turbo.

[yahoo62278]

Consider me in whatever whenever you decide.
Why make things complicated with a point structure? If every tournament has the same buy-in, then you can rank them in terms of winning money. It will also reflect the true nature of competition since prize money will be bigger in a large field, while in a point system there is no variable to address this.

Never really considered qualifying based on money a player has made. If the same number of people were to play weekly it might make sense, but we may see 25 in 1 week and 11 the next. Consistency in the number of entrants has been a big issue in the past events. Kinda why I am looking at everyone's suggestions and heavily considering them. Looking to make it more attractive to the whole vs to 2 or 3 only.

Lots of different starting times being mentioned, so we need to find the "sweet" spot.

Just want to mention that no tourney is guaranteed to happen currently. There is talk of it only and hoping it comes to fruition next month.

[shield132]

1. What would be a suitable buyin range for you? Last few series have been between $15-25. I would like to make the series cheap enough where we will have a larger field, but not so cheap it won't interest the site or players. Has to be some balance.

$10-15 looks good for me, probably $5-10 might be a sweet spot, idk.

2. What start time would suit most of you? In the past it has been between 4-6pm UTC. Works for some, not so much for others. If you answer this question use UTC time please.

UTC 23:00 will be the best time for me.

4. Thinking of offering some bonuses for playing all the tourneys or having a small final for those that play every game in the series. What sounds interesting?

If there will be a final where winners of previous tournaments will be able to win, that will be amazing. And the prize for the final should be more extravagant to my mind.

5. How many tourneys in a week would you be able to play? In the past 1 tourney every Sunday has been the protocol, would anyone be interested in more per week?

I can play many tourneys in a week. During weekends, it will be my pleasure to play 2 tournaments a day but overall, I think I'll be able to play 5 tourneys in a week.

7. Structure? Turbo or regular?

Definitely a Turbo. Where I live, Turbos tournaments are very popular, so personally I'm used to that. The disadvantage is that you more likely depend on luck than your bluffing skills but at least the game isn't boring and everyone is forced to rash and play fast instead of sleeping.

[AHOYBRAUSE]

I am not saying there is or isn't going to be a series soon(it's a possibility), but if it does happen I would like to get a general consensus of what would suit everybody on a few things. Below you will find a few questions, I am only interested in responses from players generally interested in playing in the series.


1. What would be a suitable buyin range for you? Last few series have been between $15-25. I would like to make the series cheap enough where we will have a larger field, but not so cheap it won't interest the site or players. Has to be some balance.

2. What start time would suit most of you? In the past it has been between 4-6pm UTC. Works for some, not so much for others. If you answer this question use UTC time please.

3. What are your thoughts on the point system? In the past it has been 10 points for 1st down to 1 point for 10th. Considering some tweeks where people won't feel like it's hopeless if they get behind by 20 points and stop playing.

4. Thinking of offering some bonuses for playing all the tourneys or having a small final for those that play every game in the series. What sounds interesting?

5. How many tourneys in a week would you be able to play? In the past 1 tourney every Sunday has been the protocol, would anyone be interested in more per week?

6. Starting stack size?

7. Structure? Turbo or regular?

More questions may be added, but these are what I want to start with. All answers from users who will participate will be appreciated. Sig spam will be deleted.

1. buyin looks fine
2. well that is a problem for me (probably only me) since I live in Japan and I guess most people here live in the UTC time zone or even further.
3. I think 1st place should have much more value than just 1 point more than 2nd place. I would like something like:

1st: 20points
2nd: 15 points
3rd: 12 points
4th: 10 points
and so on

4. maybe not a bonus for playing all tourneys but for the person that played the most
5. 1 per week is enough I think
6. 100-150bb
7. Regular, 8-10min

[panjul07]

I did not participate the past poker series but I might be interested to join if there will be new one in the near future.
My main problem with poker tournament is about the starting time, all the other things are OK for me.
4-6PM UTC starting time is not really a good time for me to join poker tournament because it is 11PM-1AM in my place.
I may consider to join if the start time is earlier, maybe between 1-3PM so I can still have good time to sleep

[yahoo62278]

I am not saying there is or isn't going to be a series soon(it's a possibility), but if it does happen I would like to get a general consensus of what would suit everybody on a few things. Below you will find a few questions, I am only interested in responses from players generally interested in playing in the series.


1. What would be a suitable buyin range for you? Last few series have been between $15-25. I would like to make the series cheap enough where we will have a larger field, but not so cheap it won't interest the site or players. Has to be some balance.

2. What start time would suit most of you? In the past it has been between 4-6pm UTC. Works for some, not so much for others. If you answer this question use UTC time please.

3. What are your thoughts on the point system? In the past it has been 10 points for 1st down to 1 point for 10th. Considering some tweeks where people won't feel like it's hopeless if they get behind by 20 points and stop playing.

4. Thinking of offering some bonuses for playing all the tourneys or having a small final for those that play every game in the series. What sounds interesting?

5. How many tourneys in a week would you be able to play? In the past 1 tourney every Sunday has been the protocol, would anyone be interested in more per week?

6. Starting stack size?

7. Structure? Turbo or regular?

More questions may be added, but these are what I want to start with. All answers from users who will participate will be appreciated. Sig spam will be deleted.

1. buyin looks fine
2. well that is a problem for me (probably only me) since I live in Japan and I guess most people here live in the UTC time zone or even further.
3. I think 1st place should have much more value than just 1 point more than 2nd place. I would like something like:

1st: 20points
2nd: 15 points
3rd: 12 points
4th: 10 points
and so on

4. maybe not a bonus for playing all tourneys but for the person that played the most
5. 1 per week is enough I think
6. 100-150bb
7. Regular, 8-10min

I like your suggestion of the points system, gives players a chance to make up some ground by placing well a few games if they are down in the series. Let's a player feel like they still have a chance basically.

[memehunter]

Never really considered qualifying based on money a player has made. If the same number of people were to play weekly it might make sense, but we may see 25 in 1 week and 11 the next. Consistency in the number of entrants has been a big issue in the past events.

My suggestion precisely solves this problem (assuming there is no guaranteed prize money). Let's say 10 players participated in the first tournament and only 2 in the second. Using a fixed point system would result in a draw, which is by no means fair because the winner of the first tournament had to navigate a much harder competition, while the second tournament might have been just a one-hand luck show.
In this case, considering the money won by each player will give you a more realistic picture of the nature of the competition.

[AHOYBRAUSE]

Never really considered qualifying based on money a player has made. If the same number of people were to play weekly it might make sense, but we may see 25 in 1 week and 11 the next. Consistency in the number of entrants has been a big issue in the past events.

My suggestion precisely solves this problem (assuming there is no guaranteed prize money). Let's say 10 players participated in the first tournament and only 2 in the second. Using a fixed point system would result in a draw, which is by no means fair because the winner of the first tournament had to navigate a much harder competition, while the second tournament might have been just a one-hand luck show.
In this case, considering the money won by each player will give you a more realistic picture of the nature of the competition.

Easy solution for that, just make the min entrants number the same number as min points possible to earn. If there are points for 10th Place make it so there must be a minimum of 10 people playing or the event doesn’t take place. Or less, min 5 players to run and top 5 get points.

[memehunter]

Easy solution for that, just make the min entrants number the same number as min points possible to earn. If there are points for 10th Place make it so there must be a minimum of 10 people playing or the event doesn’t take place. Or less, min 5 players to run and top 5 get points.

What if in one tournament 11 players play and in the second one 100 players play? Do you think first-place winners in both tournaments should get equal points?
My suggestion focuses on ascribing a fixed value to each participant, which is already there—we call it 'buy-in' in poker  . Why create unnecessary variables and complications? Just calculate the total money won and decide rankings.

[AHOYBRAUSE]

Easy solution for that, just make the min entrants number the same number as min points possible to earn. If there are points for 10th Place make it so there must be a minimum of 10 people playing or the event doesn’t take place. Or less, min 5 players to run and top 5 get points.

What if in one tournament 11 players play and in the second one 100 players play? Do you think first-place winners in both tournaments should get equal points?
My suggestion focuses on ascribing a fixed value to each participant, which is already there—we call it 'buy-in' in poker  . Why create unnecessary variables and complications? Just calculate the total money won and decide rankings.

Because in your way to calculate it, it "rewards" people for not participating a lot. There should be an incentive to play. You miss too many tournaments you should also face to consequences (not enough points) .
On the other side, people that play but only win small amounts in small tournaments have no rewards for being a active participant.

Hope you know what I mean.
And let's be real, there won't be a tournament with 100 players. The last series (2021, couldn't find one after) organized here had 14 participants.

[seoincorporation]

I would like to know where does the tournament will have place, I mean what casino will host it? The past one was on betnomi, but that casino didn't have a happy end. And after the bad relation with the forum I don't think the owner wan to host another tournament in the new platform.

Maybe stake would like to host a tournament like this, but they are so big for a small event like this, so, what options we have?

[memehunter]

Because in your way to calculate it, it "rewards" people for not participating a lot. There should be an incentive to play. You miss too many tournaments you should also face to consequences (not enough points) .
On the other side, people that play but only win small amounts in small tournaments have no rewards for being a active participant.

Hope you know what I mean.
And let's be real, there won't be a tournament with 100 players. The last series (2021, couldn't find one after) organized here had 14 participants.

The incentive is the same: the prize money won and leaderboard winnings. Maybe this way (proposed by OP) more players will be interested, but I was arguing for the fairness of the leaderboard rather than ways to achieve more participants. I know very well that without any sponsorship, it is very hard to attract players.

[yahoo62278]

Because in your way to calculate it, it "rewards" people for not participating a lot. There should be an incentive to play. You miss too many tournaments you should also face to consequences (not enough points) .
On the other side, people that play but only win small amounts in small tournaments have no rewards for being a active participant.

Hope you know what I mean.
And let's be real, there won't be a tournament with 100 players. The last series (2021, couldn't find one after) organized here had 14 participants.

The incentive is the same: the prize money won and leaderboard winnings. Maybe this way (proposed by OP) more players will be interested, but I was arguing for the fairness of the leaderboard rather than ways to achieve more participants. I know very well that without any sponsorship, it is very hard to attract players.

There is a big incentive or at least there has been for all the past series. There is anywhere from a 1k-5k prize pool for the finale and all the money you can win in each single tourney. Always been plenty of incentive IMO.

Easy solution for that, just make the min entrants number the same number as min points possible to earn. If there are points for 10th Place make it so there must be a minimum of 10 people playing or the event doesn’t take place. Or less, min 5 players to run and top 5 get points.

What if in one tournament 11 players play and in the second one 100 players play? Do you think first-place winners in both tournaments should get equal points?
My suggestion focuses on ascribing a fixed value to each participant, which is already there—we call it 'buy-in' in poker  . Why create unnecessary variables and complications? Just calculate the total money won and decide rankings.

Honestly, it's supposed to be a series and all players should be committed to playing every single game. Shouldn't be all this 100 1 week then 25 the next. You're playing a series and you take away from it by missing games. Also shouldn't allow ppl to join if they didn't play week 1, but we have been super lenient and not put rules in place for people saying they must play all games or cannot play if they didn't play in week 1.

I would love to see 20-40 commit to playing every game in the series regardless of if they get way behind in points. I doubt that happens as far as everyone commit, but it would be nice. There is a core group of 10 or so that have played every single game. There is prize money to be won in every single game regardless of your points standing. Considering paying out more spots as well and more than 1 table for the final game. Lots of things to think about if we get this going.

I would like to know where does the tournament will have place, I mean what casino will host it? The past one was on betnomi, but that casino didn't have a happy end. And after the bad relation with the forum I don't think the owner wan to host another tournament in the new platform.

Maybe stake would like to host a tournament like this, but they are so big for a small event like this, so, what options we have?

I wouldn't let betnomi or whatever the new platform is called host another series if they offered us 500k pool. They have burned their bridge with me as far as I am concerned. It is going to be on a platform that's been around awhile, but I'm not gonna say unless they agree to host the series. It's not hard to figure out with a little research though.