Tourney Two Buy-Ins? (1 Viewer)

[DeeVee8]

I'm knocking this around in my head, looking for input. I'm looking for a solution for a potential problem. A home game that's ready to move up in stakes, but would lose a good number of players who aren't ready to increase. Any host knows that finding new players is a royal pain.

Say you have a tournament with two buy-ins? In this example, your choice is buying in for 20 or 60. Same starting stack. This creates two pots, one for low stakes buy-ins, and one for high.

12 player tournament, 4 classic buys and 8 premiere buys. Tournament plays out, here's the results. Thoughts? Does this allow the low stakes to continue to play, while satisfying the need for action from other players?

 

[FestiveKnight]

Huh. This is VERY interesting. Curious to see what the veteran TD folk here will have to say.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

Mmmmm it can still work but makes for some very weird ICM spots. Could technically be 2 different bubbles, right? Would have to figure out how many people are left from each column and tracking that may be annoying.


It works, but would confuse my apes and if you're buying in shorter and end up winning it would be frustrating to watch 2nd place get more money. Might just end up being anticlimactic.

Interested to see your experience with this though. In theory it works just fine.

 

[FestiveKnight]

Mmmmm it can still work but makes for some very weird ICM spots. Could technically be 2 different bubbles, right? Would have to figure out how many people are left from each column and tracking that may be annoying.


It works, but would confuse my apes and if you're buying in shorter and end up winning it would be frustrating to watch 2nd place get more money. Might just end up being anticlimactic.

Interested to see your experience with this though. In theory it works just fine.

Yep, was just starting to type out a long hypothetical about bubbles. Could be some very weird spots

 

[TheOffalo]

I haven’t thought through thoroughly (say that 3 times fast) but my first reaction was to wonder why the Premier player who placed 2nd overall gets to double-dip into the Classic prize pool, since the Classic players obviously don’t have a shot at the Premier prize pool.

In the above structure if the top 3 players are all Premier, would no Classic players get paid?

 

[Taghkanic]

Seems like a bit of a headache for both the host and the players.

Would a more modest increase (say, to $30) be a compromise solution?

You could notify players that you intend to increase the buyin annually by +$10. That could keep most of the low-end guys around, while mollifying those who want to move up (and giving them the expectation that the game will keep growing).

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

I haven’t thought through thoroughly (say that 3 times fast) but my first reaction was to wonder why the Premier player who placed 2nd overall gets to double-dip into the Classic prize pool, since the Classic players obviously don’t have a shot at the Premier prize pool.

In the above structure if the top 3 players are all Premier, would no Classic players get paid?

Yes, no classic players would get paid. The "classic" pool includes money from the bigger buyin. Premier pool is just the extra from those higher buyins.

 

[TheOffalo]

You could also let the players who want to play for more money have their own side bests, like most KOs or lasts longest or whatever amongst them only. Then you wouldn’t need to get involved with that.

 

[TheOffalo]

Yes, no classic players would get paid. The "classic" pool includes money from the bigger buyin. Premier pool is just the extra from those higher buyins.

Okay that makes more sense.

 

[Frogzilla]

You could also let the players who want to play for more money have their own side bests, like most KOs or lasts longest or whatever amongst them only. Then you wouldn’t need to get involved with that.

Yes, this, just do a last longer on the side

 

[DeeVee8]

It would need a plaque or card in front of premiere players to distinguish.

Yes, two different bubbles.

Classic players would only win what's available in the small entry pot. In the example, the winner would get a pretty good return on investment. Win 120, invest 20 (assuming no rebuys).

 

[DeeVee8]

You could also let the players who want to play for more money have their own side bests, like most KOs or lasts longest or whatever amongst them only. Then you wouldn’t need to get involved with that.

They could, sure. I'm just playing this out in my head.

 

[tabletalker7]

Better idea. It splits the difference between the two groups. Run a "reload" tournament. At the start everyone buys in twice. If you get knocked out your rebuy is already paid for. By a predetermined round, anyone who hasn't used their rebuy gets that rebuy worth of chips added to their stack. It lets the cheaper people feel like they get something useful while raising the stake.

 

[BGinGA]

I've ran many dual prize pool tournaments, and it works perfectly fine. It's essentially a multi-tier payout last-longer bet for those that pay extra: bigger risk = potential bigger reward. Most last-longer side bets are winner-take-all, so this approach offers a tiered payout structure for those willing to play for more than the standard entry cost.

Example:
~ Group A players pay $20 into Group A prize pool. All players are in Group A.
~ Group B players pay $40: $20 into Group A prize pool and an additional $20 into the Group B prize pool. Group B players are issued a button / lammer / chip to identify their Group B participation.
~ Top three finishers in each Group get paid (60-30-10%, 55-30-15%, 50-30-20%, whatever)
~ Group B players are eligible for Group A prizes, but the Group A-only players can only win Group A prizes (since they didn't contribute to the Group B pool)
~ If Group B players finish 1-2-3 then no Group A-only players get paid, but it's possible that up to six different players get paid.

It also works for more than two tiers -- we often add a $60 Group C option ($20 to A, $20 to B, $20 to C), usually paying 55-30-15% for A, 65-35% for B, and WTA for C.

Initially (years ago), this solved the problem of a few players wanting to play for larger stakes -- and the Group B field was usually smaller than the Group A-only field. But as the number of Group B entrants started becoming larger, we eventually just moved to a standard larger entry fee. We typically only use the dual-pool structure today for special events where non-regulars (spouses, kids, guests) are playing.

 

[Frogzilla]

I've ran many dual prize pool tournaments, and it works perfectly fine. It's essentially a multi-tier payout last-longer bet for those that pay extra: bigger risk = potential bigger reward. Most last-longer side bets are winner-take-all, so this approach offers a tiered payout structure for those willing to play for more than the standard entry cost.

Example:
~ Group A players pay $20 into Group A prize pool. All players are in Group A.
~ Group B players pay $40: $20 into Group A prize pool and an additional $20 into the Group B prize pool. Group B players are issued a button / lammer / chip to identify their Group B participation.
~ Top three finishers in each Group get paid (60-30-10%, 55-30-15%, 50-30-20%, whatever)
~ Group B players are eligible for Group A prizes, but the Group A-only players can only win Group A prizes (since they didn't contribute to the Group B pool)
~ If Group B players finish 1-2-3 then no Group A-only players get paid, but it's possible that up to six different players get paid.

It also works for more than two tiers -- we often add a $60 Group C option ($20 to A, $20 to B, $20 to C), usually paying 55-30-15% for A, 65-35% for B, and WTA for C.

Initially (years ago), this solved the problem of a few players wanting to play for larger stakes -- and the Group B field was usually smaller than the Group A-only field. But as the number of Group B entrants started becoming larger, we eventually just moved to a standard larger entry fee. We typically only use the dual-pool structure today for special events where non-regulars (spouses, kids, guests) are playing.

Important difference between this and the structure described in the OP is everyone is playing the same first tournament.

Edit: nevermind - I misunderstood the OP. For the $60 buy-in $20 went into main pot and $40 went into extra. This should play fine.

 

[Taghkanic]

~ If Group B players finish 1-2-3 then no Group A-only players get paid, but it's possible that up to six different players get paid.

I can see this working a large MTT, but the OP indicated that there might be as few as 4 people opting for the lower tier.

If there are three payouts in each group, then the lower tier might only need to fade a single other player to get in the money.

Maybe I’m missing something here. But I would think it would make more sense in 1-2 table games to just pay your standard number of places regardless of tier, then adjust their payouts to reflect which pool they entered—rather than having two separate sets of payouts.

In fact I think that’s what the OP’s payout table suggests.

 

[BGinGA]

I can see this working a large MTT, but the OP indicated that there might be as few as 4 people opting for the lower tier.

If there are three payouts in each group, then the lower tier might only need to fade a single other player to get in the money.

Maybe I’m missing something here. But I would think it would make more sense in 1-2 table games to just pay your standard number of places regardless of tier, then adjust their payouts to reflect which pool they entered—rather than having two separate sets of payouts.

In fact I think that’s what the OP’s payout table suggests.

Yeah, you're missing it. If only four people pick lower tier, they are not eligible for second tier prizes. But all of the tier 2 players are also in the lowest tier, so those four tier 1 players have to 'fade' everybody.

 

[rjbf65]

I've ran many dual prize pool tournaments, and it works perfectly fine. It's essentially a multi-tier payout last-longer bet for those that pay extra: bigger risk = potential bigger reward. Most last-longer side bets are winner-take-all, so this approach offers a tiered payout structure for those willing to play for more than the standard entry cost.

Example:
~ Group A players pay $20 into Group A prize pool. All players are in Group A.
~ Group B players pay $40: $20 into Group A prize pool and an additional $20 into the Group B prize pool. Group B players are issued a button / lammer / chip to identify their Group B participation.
~ Top three finishers in each Group get paid (60-30-10%, 55-30-15%, 50-30-20%, whatever)
~ Group B players are eligible for Group A prizes, but the Group A-only players can only win Group A prizes (since they didn't contribute to the Group B pool)
~ If Group B players finish 1-2-3 then no Group A-only players get paid, but it's possible that up to six different players get paid.

It also works for more than two tiers -- we often add a $60 Group C option ($20 to A, $20 to B, $20 to C), usually paying 55-30-15% for A, 65-35% for B, and WTA for C.

Initially (years ago), this solved the problem of a few players wanting to play for larger stakes -- and the Group B field was usually smaller than the Group A-only field. But as the number of Group B entrants started becoming larger, we eventually just moved to a standard larger entry fee. We typically only use the dual-pool structure today for special events where non-regulars (spouses, kids, guests) are playing.

This is super interesting and something I've never seen or thought of before. Looks like a great way to break in new players into a game that don't want to risk as much. Keeps all players within their own comfort zone. I like it.

 

[Taghkanic]

Yeah, you're missing it. If only four people pick lower tier, they are not eligible for second tier prizes. But all of the tier 2 players are also in the lowest tier, so those four tier 1 players have to 'fade' everybody.

I thought you were suggesting that there would be payouts in both tiers regardless of the top finishers. Sounds like you’re proposing the same thing as the OP.

 

[BGinGA]

I thought you were suggesting that there would be payouts in both tiers regardless of the top finishers. Sounds like you’re proposing the same thing as the OP.

The top 3 finishers in each group gets paid. But some players are in both groups, so the total number of payouts can range from 3 to 6.

 

[grantc54]

I had considered this in the past, and have used a last longer with multiple payouts to essentially create two tiers.

i am concerned that this opens up the risk of chip dumping when all the players chips are worth different amounts (group A player buys 10k chips for $20, group B player buys 10k chips for $60, group A player dumps chips to group B player).

 

[Sparkynutz]

@Trihonda does something like this for his tournaments. Not sure how long hes been doing it that way but seems to work.

 

[BGinGA]

i am concerned that this opens up the risk of chip dumping when all the players chips are worth different amounts (group A player buys 10k chips for $20, group B player buys 10k chips for $60, group A player dumps chips to group B player).

That's a valid concern, and probably why the format is not used in larger or public venues.

But I think that in a small one- or two-table home tournament, it's pretty unlikely to be abused (or easily identified if attempted).

 

[TheRealStephen12]

I'm way late, but raise the buy-in to $30 as @Taghkanic said and allow one optional rebuy? People who want to play for $60 can use the rebuy if necessary and those who want to buy-in lower can still get in for $30.

 

[ValueTown]

Sounds nauseating, I'd avoid.

run 2 tournaments IMO.

table 1 is $20
Table 2 is $60

 

[BGinGA]

Sounds nauseating, I'd avoid.

run 2 tournaments IMO.

table 1 is $20
Table 2 is $60

That doesn't work nearly as well with just 9 players.

 

[ValueTown]

That doesn't work nearly as well with just 9 players.

Agreed. But juggling the payouts seems worse. Haha. Have 2 separate tournaments and increase attendance.

Good luck.

 

[JustinInMN]

I've ran many dual prize pool tournaments, and it works perfectly fine. It's essentially a multi-tier payout last-longer bet for those that pay extra: bigger risk = potential bigger reward. Most last-longer side bets are winner-take-all, so this approach offers a tiered payout structure for those willing to play for more than the standard entry cost.

Example:
~ Group A players pay $20 into Group A prize pool. All players are in Group A.
~ Group B players pay $40: $20 into Group A prize pool and an additional $20 into the Group B prize pool. Group B players are issued a button / lammer / chip to identify their Group B participation.
~ Top three finishers in each Group get paid (60-30-10%, 55-30-15%, 50-30-20%, whatever)
~ Group B players are eligible for Group A prizes, but the Group A-only players can only win Group A prizes (since they didn't contribute to the Group B pool)
~ If Group B players finish 1-2-3 then no Group A-only players get paid, but it's possible that up to six different players get paid.

I guess I shouldn't be at all surprised at the fact @BGinGA already has practical experience with a concept I would not have even considered before .

But basically, all that you have done is apply proportional-finish payouts to a last longer bet. I would not have thought of that, but in these terms, seems absolutely workable.

The idea that there are effectively two bubbles is fascinating, though. That definitely could mess with strategy. But any idea is workable so long as it's understood by all players and enough want to participate to make it worthwhile.