PokerStars homepage
  • If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Check this out

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Check this out

    Here's a novel approach to the Big One Three----instead of having A-B-C or D qualifications, just have 750 or what ever the amount is qualifiying spots.

    Everyone plays in the specified tournaments---lets say there are a total of 8 qualifying tournaments a month---for 8 months. The top 10 in each event qualify for the Big One 3. That gives a total of 800 qualified. Now there will be at least at a minimum of 50 players who for whatever reason will not show up. So we have the 750 players.

    The final table has a set payout-----1st through 10th.

    Once you have qualified for the event you cannot play in another event which means that if you qualify in the first one you don't worry about it until the BO3 is played. If you finally make it in the last one there you have it you get to play.

    Having a set payout and not worrying about what qualifyer you have would make the tourney much more even.

    At the WPO or WSOP no one cares what kind of qualifier you have, all you need is the 10K for the buy in and you get to play. Here at school there should be some sort of minimum like being a member for at least 60 days prior to the BO3. One or 2 of the tournies during the month could be limited to anual memberships only.

    I think that something along these line would level the playing felt a lot more and make for a lot less controversy.

    The payout could be along these lines;

    10K for first
    7K for second
    4K for third
    3K for 4th
    2K for 5th
    1K for 6th
    500 for 7th through 10th

    This would make for a total payout of 29K the payouts could be changed slightly to bring the total to 30K.

    With this sort of system everyone who qualifies has an equal chance at every prize.

    Any responses?????

    ponygee :roll:

  • #2
    Gail,
    Sounds MUCH too simple...not near enough details to cause controversey. What would we do with all the spare time?????

    8O

    'Goddess

    Comment


    • #3
      Is that an ironic :roll: at the bottom of your post, pony ??
      :wink: There would hardly be any point in such a qualifying system - you might just as well let everybody in. Though it would be a nice level playing field.

      In all good faith, I'll hammer away here like some ol' record stuck in a groove till someone says "Hey! You're like an ol' record stuck in a groove!" .....

      Reduce the potential payout in TheBigOne somewhat while increasing the monthly league sponsorship by a decent chunk.
      This will still make BigOne very attractive to newcomers but will make PSO more rewarding for long-term members.

      But whatever - BigOne is very (briefly in my case) exciting but shouldn't be the meat-and-drink purpose of annual membership. The chances of scoring in TBO are just too damn slim. Personally, I'm here for monthly league play and general recreation.

      cheers

      Comment


      • #4
        :lol: Rosita; I always signoff with the rolling eyes.

        Mark can decide what he wants for a total payout---30K or 50k and pay 1st through 15th or 20th.

        I just think that if I had 10k the people at WPO or WSOP would be happy to take my money and let me play. So why shouldn't we all have an equal chance at the payout without worrying about I only have a B qualifier so I have to finish at least 6th to get anything, or I have a D qualifier so I can finish as low as 15th, (not sure about this, its just an example). Now I worked long and hard to get my B and the person with the D worked harder but in the end we all came to the BO for the same reason.

        There is a of a lot of luck in poker tournies. The very next day I got a chance to play Tom Hawk (winner of the BO II) in a holdem sat.
        Guess what I knocked him out and went on to win the sat. Was it luck or skill? Tom said he played badly, I'll give him that, he went all in on a flush with Qx of diamonds, I called because I had the Kx of diamonds. Did he play bad, was I luckly, whatever the reason I beat the winner of the BOII.

        No brag just fact. Its the same as saying on any Sunday! So why not let everyone come to the BO3 with the same goal in mind.

        Complicated rules makes for controversy, everyone interprets them differently. If the rules are simple everybody wins.

        I was often told by my father keep it simple stupid. No he wasn't calling me stupid he just wanted me to understand that most of the time the simple way is the best way.

        ponygee :roll:

        Comment


        • #5
          Getting looks but no comments, no one interested in a no controversy BO3.

          ponygee :roll:

          Comment


          • #6
            i think it would be interesting, but there are a few problems with it. first,m mark said next week ghe will come out with the rules for the big one 3, so he already has his paramiters set. i would say it is a smart business move on PSO's part to offer a possible 100k payout and in most scenario's only have to pay between 18 and 40k. it brings in customers. the monay that is saved is able to be used to better the school and software. also, pso needs to make a profit, if they dont, it wont be around for a long time. on the other hand, rather than have people come in in the last month, join for last chance evvents, then play and if they lose, just leave, you could get people to stick around longer if the monthly leagues offered more money, or more places paid. i think your idea is awesome, i just dont see it being used. wouldnt it be great to have a big one, that is a 50k freeroll, pay 20 places, and figure the monthly leagues for roughly 20k or so a year? that would be less than the possible 100k being offered, but it would be a huge incentive to play solid the whole year round. it also makes people want to stick around, even if they dont do well in that one big tourny. i highly doubt any of this would ever be put into place. i also think that the regular bankroll needs more emphasis. i dont know how, but something needs to be done. i have plenty of money in my bankroll, and to be honest, if my ranking is shot for the month, due to a bad start, i really dont care if i do well in a tourny or not. i certainly do not bring my A game to the table, and that is not good for me. if bankroll had an added incentive somehow, then people would be more inclined to try to bring their A game to the table. i am just also throwing out ideas and rambling, so i will stop now. cya at the tables sometime soon......

            Comment


            • #7
              I agree with Jmuzzey on this one.

              The $100,000 is a big marketing draw.

              Much as I want to see good, solid, year-round play rewarded, the Up-To-$100,000-Tourney is THE draw for a lot of players.


              Randy

              Comment

              Working...
              X