A Plea to The Suits for Next Year's Viva Las Vegas

Eyeman

Please, please, please make sure than when any cash is distributed from the bubble, it all goes to the bubble player. The 50%, 30%, 20% idea was non-sensical. An 11 runner field - 1 winner, then 3 cash amounts less than the buy-in - madness!

At least the bubble cash bonus used to be a decent consolation, now it's pointless.

Just wanted to post this in plenty of time, so that someone doesn't make the same mistake again for next year. Adding a poll.

GREGHOGG

In an 18 or 19 runner field the split would work perfect.

But in an 11 runner field it is redic.

Solution?... no idea

Eyeman

I can see that in a field of 18 or 19 it sort of works, but it works even better for the bubble by letting them get the lot. It's the only sat I have ever seen where the payout is done this way. I know it was done to prevent someone winning £9,000, but why? First place a £10,000 prize, if second is £9,000 - then whoopie do!

The_Don90

I was playing a sat last night. Ok on a far bigger scale as it had 96 runners.

Top 6 got seats to the tounrmanet. But the top 15 all got paid. I think it went something like

1st - 6th : seats
7th - 14 : tournament entry fee
15th : Some money back.


i think this is a great idea that shopuld not only be introduced for VLV but GUKPT and SPT sats aswell.

dantb10

i like the split.

DOHHHHHHH

In Response to Re: A Plea to The Suits for Next Year's Viva Las Vegas:

In an 18 or 19 runner field the split would work perfect. But in an 11 runner field it is redic. Solution?... no idea
Posted by GREGHOGG

The week before the final, the finalists are emailed 2 alternative payout structures, and asked to vote on which one they prefer. 

The one which recieves the most votes is then used. 

Common sense ftw? Or is that not allowed.................

Theres no reason why you can't have 2 different payout structures according to the number of runners. ie 11 runners, 1 prize, 19 runners, 4 prizes, whatever!

Why not have a sky rep in table chat, with the ability to pause the tournament and discuss the payouts with the players prior to the game starting?

Then they could look at bringing in deal-making opportunities and stuff in most of the big tournaments.

It's a year away, hopefully the site will have moved on ALOT.

Spontinuity also ftw. 

DOHHHHHHH

In Response to Re: A Plea to The Suits for Next Year's Viva Las Vegas:

I was playing a sat last night. Ok on a far bigger scale as it had 96 runners. Top 6 got seats to the tounrmanet. But the top 15 all got paid. I think it went something like 1st - 6th : seats 7th - 14 : tournament entry fee 15th : Some money back. i think this is a great idea that shopuld not only be introduced for VLV but GUKPT and SPT sats aswell.
Posted by The_Don90

What position did you finish?

YOUNG_GUN

In Response to Re: A Plea to The Suits for Next Year's Viva Las Vegas:

I was playing a sat last night. Ok on a far bigger scale as it had 96 runners. Top 6 got seats to the tounrmanet. But the top 15 all got paid. I think it went something like 1st - 6th : seats 7th - 14 : tournament entry fee 15th : Some money back. i think this is a great idea that shopuld not only be introduced for VLV but GUKPT and SPT sats aswell.
Posted by The_Don90

Brag wp , how u get on?

loonytoons

In Response to A Plea to The Suits for Next Year's Viva Las Vegas:

Please, please, please make sure than when any cash is distributed from the bubble, it all goes to the bubble player. The 50%, 30%, 20% idea was non-sensical. An 11 runner field - 1 winner, then 3 cash amounts less than the buy-in - madness! At least the bubble cash bonus used to be a decent consolation, now it's pointless. Just wanted to post this in plenty of time, so that someone doesn't make the same mistake again for next year. Adding a poll.
Posted by Eyeman

i think this is a horrible idea, i like the new payout structure. As for the cash amounts being less than the buy in, not many pay direct, in fact most only pay the £24 1 in 5 Q/F tourney fee, and some pay the £120 S/F fee, but very very few pay the direct £1100 fee, so the three alternative prizes are mostly a welcome 'unlucky but well played' bonus. Also in many sky tournies, the lower placed prize money is less than the buy in, such as if you have a 110 runner tourney, places 11-20 would be less than the outlay

Eyeman

In Response to Re: A Plea to The Suits for Next Year's Viva Las Vegas:

In Response to A Plea to The Suits for Next Year's Viva Las Vegas : i think this is a horrible idea, i like the new payout structure. As for the cash amounts being less than the buy in, not many pay direct, in fact most only pay the £24 1 in 5 Q/F tourney fee, and some pay the £120 S/F fee, but very very few pay the direct £1100 fee, so the three alternative prizes are mostly a welcome 'unlucky but well played' bonus. Also in many sky tournies, the lower placed prize money is less than the buy in, such as if you have a 110 runner tourney, places 11-20 would be less than the outlay
Posted by loonytoons

In no Sky tournies are the cash prizes less than the buy-in. (Bounty hunters might come close, but that's the split due to head prizes)

The fact that people sat, or double sat in is irrelevant. To win a cash prize that is 1/10th of the buy in is ludicrous.

Eyeman

A Possible (although in my opinion weak) compromise would be.

Cash amount £1,000 - £3,000 - all goes to the bubble

Cash amount £4,000 - £6,000 - 75% to bubble, 25% to bubble bubble

Cash amount £7,000 - £9,000 - 70 % to bubble 20 % to bubble bubble 10% to bubble bubble bubble (which will mean the bubble bubble bubble will win a prize below buy in, but seems far fairer on the other 2 players)

To bubble a £10,000 prize event and get the prospect of only 50% of any cash surplus just makes no sense to me whatsoever. It makes more sense to only allow multiples of 10 into the event - and that's plain stupid too!

MAXALLY

I actually agree with the split cash prizes! Like mentioned already, the majority of people would of satellited into the final. Getting so close but so far from winning an actual seat would be compensated by receiving some cash back, no matter what the amount IMHO.

I also think this was changed for the better by Sky to allow the game to flow more without the obvious stall in the game when  approaching the one value only cash bubble. Hence promoting more play.

Not all players are pro's like you Graham ) Sometimes you need to think of us lower BR players.

Eyeman

I have never played in a VLV final, and if I do, it will be via 2 satallites, most likely. However, a bubble is a bubble. £100 (10% of £1,000) wouldn't even buy a semi satellite. I can see what you say about the play - the problem comes from the number of entrants. The year they gave a seat to 1 in 180, with 600 players was a much better tourney, but they have taken this route. It seems the decision was made in light of the potential cash prize, rather than because it's what is sensible. My compromise table might come closer, maybe another poll.
Paerhaps a £50 fee tourney - 1 place in 200 would work better. Easier to sat in, but obv trickier to qualify (which means that the Sky names would be less likely to make it) - they can still run the 1K even once a month or so, to get their names there. And the cash bubble split in such a tournament might be fairer (given it's a £50 buy in).
Currently the poll split is 8 /8 , so it's clearly not a cut and dried issue. Alternate months, different rules, perhaps?

debdobs_67

In Response to Re: A Plea to The Suits for Next Year's Viva Las Vegas:

I have never played in a VLV final, and if I do, it will be via 2 satallites, most likely. However, a bubble is a bubble. £100 (10% of £1,000) wouldn't even buy a semi satellite. I can see what you say about the play - the problem comes from the number of entrants. The year they gave a seat to 1 in 180, with 600 players was a much better tourney, but they have taken this route. It seems the decision was made in light of the potential cash prize, rather than because it's what is sensible. My compromise table might come closer, maybe another poll. Paerhaps a £50 fee tourney - 1 place in 200 would work better. Easier to sat in, but obv trickier to qualify (which means that the Sky names would be less likely to make it) - they can still run the 1K even once a month or so, to get their names there. And the cash bubble split in such a tournament might be fairer (given it's a £50 buy in). Currently the poll split is 8 /8 , so it's clearly not a cut and dried issue. Alternate months, different rules, perhaps?
Posted by Eyeman

Much better idea this is i reckon

loonytoons

In Response to Re: A Plea to The Suits for Next Year's Viva Las Vegas:

In Response to Re: A Plea to The Suits for Next Year's Viva Las Vegas : In no Sky tournies are the cash prizes less than the buy-in. (Bounty hunters might come close, but that's the split due to head prizes) The fact that people sat, or double sat in is irrelevant. To win a cash prize that is 1/10th of the buy in is ludicrous.
Posted by Eyeman

This statement is just plain wrong! I will take the £1.10 Deepstack as an example. When there was 105 players the 11-20 placed players got £1.05 'winnings' each which is in fact a loss on their initial outlay, this applies to any tournament that has 'just over the hundred' mark, position 11 to 20 will always get less returns when including the rake, also the VLV payout was 50%/30%/20% of the remainder not 1/10th of the buy in so if there was say £8000 left over 4th would get £1600, more than the buy in, in fact if there was £5000 left, 4th would get a grand, in fact it would be impossible to get 1/10th of the buy in.

dylan12

In Response to Re: A Plea to The Suits for Next Year's Viva Las Vegas:

I actually agree with the split cash prizes! Like mentioned already, the majority of people would of satellited into the final. Getting so close but so far from winning an actual seat would be compensated by receiving some cash back, no matter what the amount IMHO. I also think this was changed for the better by Sky to allow the game to flow more without the obvious stall in the game when  approaching the one value only cash bubble. Hence promoting more play. Not all players are pro's like you Graham ) Sometimes you need to think of us lower BR players.
Posted by MAXALLY

Sigh, I got to admit that this is an excellent post Alan

I had hoped this day would never come but a big +1 from me m8  

Eyeman

In Response to Re: A Plea to The Suits for Next Year's Viva Las Vegas:

In Response to Re: A Plea to The Suits for Next Year's Viva Las Vegas : This statement is just plain wrong! I will take the £1.10 Deepstack as an example. When there was 105 players the 11-20 placed players got £1.05 'winnings' each which is in fact a loss on their initial outlay, this applies to any tournament that has 'just over the hundred' mark, position 11 to 20 will always get less returns when including the rake, also the VLV payout was 50%/30%/20% of the remainder not 1/10th of the buy in so if there was say £8000 left over 4th would get £1600, more than the buy in, in fact if there was £5000 left, 4th would get a grand, in fact it would be impossible to get 1/10th of the buy in.
Posted by loonytoons

Apologies - it's 20% for 3rd cash (not 10%), so with a 1K over, the 3rd frm bubble gets £200. I stil lthink it's mad, and the voting suggests split down the middle. Interesting debate.
I didn't realise that when you have just over the 100 entries in a tournament it was possible to cash for less than entry fee. That needs to be sorted!

DAVEYZZ

In Response to Re: A Plea to The Suits for Next Year's Viva Las Vegas:

In an 18 or 19 runner field the split would work perfect. But in an 11 runner field it is redic. Solution?... no idea
Posted by GREGHOGG

not sure hoggers.....i would rather have 8/9k for runner up......

soften the blow a bit

The_Don90

In Response to Re: A Plea to The Suits for Next Year's Viva Las Vegas:

In Response to Re: A Plea to The Suits for Next Year's Viva Las Vegas : Brag wp , how u get on?
Posted by YOUNG_GUN

hardly a brag i finnished 16th

kevcoke69

I think the suits will be looking into the VLV for next year as the interest dropped off towards the end and in the last final there was a 4 grand overlay which sky would of had to pay out of thier own pocket so before we start having votes as what to do with bubble cash i think we should be putting ideas forward as to how we could improve VLV for next year and get the attendance up for it and thats if they are having VLV next year