The Summit.

HAYSIE

Would it be fair to say that although you say you want things to be fair for all, this isn't actually the case?

There's nothing really wrong with that. Most people will want situations that favour themselves.

Take the Summit. Add a re entry and players such as yourself who can afford to re enter will be given an advantage. You will have the opportunity to gamble more during the re entry period than the player who has satted in or is playing the mtt as their one big buy in game.

As I say, there's nothing wrong with wanting what is best for yourself but it is a little grating when  players ONLY see things from their own perspective and grumble when the odd thing goes against them slightly.

I am fully aware that you will disagree with this.

You're very certain in your views on how things should be done

HAYSIE

Wouldnt it make sense to add a re-entry facility to the above. Over the last two weeks there have been 78, and 79 runners. This is just about at the Winter level of entries. The re-entry would give the prizepool a boost and may attract more runners.

The Sunday Major has obviously improved substantially since the re-entries were introduced. Last week the prizepool was almost 17k, beating the current guarantee by almost 5k, which included something like 25, or 26 re-entries.

unknown_username

I think weve found ourselves a poor peoples champion..

HAYSIE

In Response to Re: The Summit.:

Would it be fair to say that although you say you want things to be fair for all, this isn't actually the case? There's nothing really wrong with that. Most people will want situations that favour themselves. Take the Summit. Add a re entry and players such as yourself who can afford to re enter will be given an advantage. You will have the opportunity to gamble more during the re entry period than the player who has satted in or is playing the mtt as their one big buy in game. As I say, there's nothing wrong with wanting what is best for yourself but it is a little grating when  players ONLY see things from their own perspective and grumble when the odd thing goes against them slightly. I am fully aware that you will disagree with this. You're very certain in your views on how things should be done
Posted by Jac35

I merely made this suggestion as a means to improve the prizepool. I had nothing to do with Sky implementing this policy in the Sunday Major. Having done it, I havent heard any complaints about the extra 2.5k in the prizepool last Sunday.

You overestimate my wealth and from a personal point of view, I would be reluctant to re-enter this sort of tournament unless I had satted in for a fiver.

Perhaps I have not expressed myself very well, but many of the points I have made on this forum have been in a quest for fairness rather than feathering my own nest.

HAYSIE

In Response to Re: The Summit.:

Would it be fair to say that although you say you want things to be fair for all, this isn't actually the case? There's nothing really wrong with that. Most people will want situations that favour themselves. Take the Summit. Add a re entry and players such as yourself who can afford to re enter will be given an advantage. You will have the opportunity to gamble more during the re entry period than the player who has satted in or is playing the mtt as their one big buy in game. As I say, there's nothing wrong with wanting what is best for yourself but it is a little grating when  players ONLY see things from their own perspective and grumble when the odd thing goes against them slightly. I am fully aware that you will disagree with this. You're very certain in your views on how things should be done
Posted by Jac35

Every UKOPS there is a £530 buy in High Roller. I havent ever, and would never buy into it. I have played it a number of times after satting in. This latest UKOPS was the first time a re-entry has been added. I would never purposely pay to re-enter this tournament even though I did accidentally. I expect this is the shape of things to come, and this tourney in future will have a re-entry.

I am not going to complain about this as it may be an integral way of Sky meeting the guaranteed prizepool, even though this may make it fairer for the very affluent players, and less fair for players like me.

I have not seen a single complaint about the re-entry being introduced to the Sunday Major.

The fantastic thing is that both the Summit, and the Sunday Major can be satted into for £5.20.

I did suggest recently that there could be a sat to get £62 towards the Friday rebuy to make it fairer for the players with smaller bakrolls, giving them entry, a rebuy and an add on. This fell on deaf ears.

HAYSIE

In Response to Re: The Summit.:

Would it be fair to say that although you say you want things to be fair for all, this isn't actually the case? There's nothing really wrong with that. Most people will want situations that favour themselves. Take the Summit. Add a re entry and players such as yourself who can afford to re enter will be given an advantage. You will have the opportunity to gamble more during the re entry period than the player who has satted in or is playing the mtt as their one big buy in game. As I say, there's nothing wrong with wanting what is best for yourself but it is a little grating when  players ONLY see things from their own perspective and grumble when the odd thing goes against them slightly. I am fully aware that you will disagree with this. You're very certain in your views on how things should be done
Posted by Jac35

I think it is incumbent on any poker site to run tournaments for all levels of bankrolls, and on the players not to stretch their bankrolls too much.

I dont think it would be correct for any poker site not to run a tourney because some of the players may not be able to afford the buy in.

If any tournament wasnt at all popular it wouldnt last very long.

I made the original suggestion purely to improve the prizepool, not to exclude any players.

If as a result you reduced the number of runners, that would defeat the purpose, and be very silly.

Bear in mind there are less than 80 runners every week, so it is not appealing to the vast majority.

Jac35

In Response to Re: The Summit.:

In Response to Re: The Summit. : I think it is incumbent on any poker site to run tournaments for all levels of bankrolls, and on the players not to stretch their bankrolls too much. I dont think it would be correct for any poker site not to run a tourney because some of the players may not be able to afford the buy in. If any tournament wasnt at all popular it wouldnt last very long. I made the original suggestion purely to improve the prizepool, not to exclude any players. If as a result you reduced the number of runners, that would defeat the purpose, and be very silly. Bear in mind there are less than 80 runners every week, so it is not appealing to the vast majority.
Posted by HAYSIE

Yeah that's fair

I take your point 

HAYSIE

In Response to Re: The Summit.:

In Response to Re: The Summit. : Yeah that's fair I take your point 
Posted by Jac35

Thankyou

Nuggy962

Set up a new section called Haysie's Hypothesis. Be a great addition. Be just under the "Bad beats" section

Jac35

https://youtu.be/r0CGhy6cNJE

HAYSIE

In Response to Re: The Summit.:

https://youtu.be/r0CGhy6cNJE
Posted by Jac35

Brilliant.

HAYSIE

In Response to Re: The Summit.:

Set up a new section called Haysie's Hypothesis. Be a great addition. Be just under the "Bad beats" section
Posted by Nuggy962

At least theres been no "exactly thatting" on this thread.

Essexphil

In Response to Re: The Summit.:

In Response to Re: The Summit. : At least theres been no "exactly thatting" on this thread.
Posted by HAYSIE

Exactly. That is so wrong....;)

HAYSIE

In Response to Re: The Summit.:

In Response to Re: The Summit. : Exactly. That is so wrong....;)
Posted by Essexphil

You are exactly correct.