Thursday, February 5, 2009

Missing the opportunity?

Maybe my mind is too business oriented. Even though I am involved in a few pro bono work through my company and doing the whole "giving back to the community" thing, I think I always made it clear that that's really not my thing. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against it. But when I help these organizations and help give back to the community, I don't get that sense of satisfaction that a lot of people talk about. Maybe I'm the devil. Whatever is the case, I don't really get much out of helping the needy.

So, it was interesting to me when I heard that the BBT4 will consist of a few $10 buy-in tourneys (Mookie and Skillz or something?) and maybe another CHEAPER tournament... to me, this is shocking... Don't get me wrong. I am not saying anything bad about the BBT series because I think it's great that Al puts this together, giving bloggers an opportunity to play in the WSOP and other larger buy-in events. But if I were to put my business hat on, only including smaller buy-in tourneys seems like we're missing something here. Again, it might just be that Al is organizing for the bloggers so the idea behind it is that it would encourage more bloggers to play in a $10 tourney than say a $26 (really!? Twenty six fuckin dollars!?) or heaven forbid, a $50+ tourney. Wouldn't fulltilt be better off if these were slightly higher buy-ins, generating more rake AND more importantly, forcing people to redeposit money?

With the BBT, the stakes are much higher. The rewards are awesome and so it's shocking that the buy-in doesn't reflect that. It's also amazing how in an average blogger's poker fund, $26 seems so much more than $10 or whatever considering I'm pretty sure most of you waste $26 on nothing... well, if not, then maybe I'm extremely careless with my money. Let's see, so far today, what did I spend money on. Breakfast because I was too lazy to eat cereal at home (actually, I was in a hurry cuz I was late for bball) was $3.50ish. Lunch was $7.55 (our company cafeteria is NOT cheap). That's already a mookie buy-in! And I haven't gotten through the whole day! I just feel like this would be a great opportunity to get people to deposit more money into the poker client, hence injecting more money into poker. And the more money there is out there in the poker world, the better for us right?

Again, it's not so much I'm complaining about the buyins or anything. I guess I just don't understand and that's all there is to it. I'd still play the BBT if they are $1 because it's not about the actual prize pool in the tournament but rather, what's possible to win as add-ons. But beyond that, the reason I don't really play blogger tourneys anymore is because heaven forbid I get lucky enough to make it deep or win, it's not worth it for me to stay up till 1am or 2am winning $100 and change or whatever the top prize is these days for the Mookie. I gotta get up at 6am to go play ball in the mornings (I don't HAVE TO but I want to/I'd rather) so without the added prizes, there's really no incentive for me. I love you all and it is fun when I actually do end up playing in it but so is basketball...

So the bottom line is this. Why is the buy-in so low when the stakes are so high? Would there really be that much of a drop off in players if the buy-ins were increased?

11 comments:

Mookie said...

I can't speak for Al, but this is my take on things.

What would the higher buy-ins accomplish? As we've seen with past higher buyin tourneys (MATH, Big Game, etc.) the play is just as bad...err I mean good as in The Mookie and other low buyin blogger tourneys.

A big chunk of the bloggers/readers/lurkers who regularly play the blogger tourneys are low/micro limit players. Since the BBT series is made up of about 50 tourneys, higher buy-ins could keep a number of these players from participating.

Alan aka RecessRampage said...

Mookie, my questioning the buyin actually has nothing to do with the quality of play. That's not the allegation I'm making.

I guess I'm wondering from Fulltilt's perspective... in other words, if they are giving out these prizes, why wouldn't they ask Al to bump up the buy-ins? I understand that a lot of the players are micro limit players but my understanding is that it's not because they can't afford it but rather, that's just the stake they want to play with their given poker bankroll... which is way less than even the fraction of their dispensable portion of the income. So, if I'm fulltilt, I want more people to put more money in... in other words, I want more of people's discretionary income to come to poker (not I as in me but I as in Fulltilt).

And I guess that's where I'm baffled that the buyins stay so low.

Astin said...

I consider the days I don't spend at least $10 on lunch a bargain.

Anyway, I agree with you. I miss the MATH and The Big Game, and the smaller fields in those improved the chances of winning a seat for those willing to pay.

That said, if the goal is to maximize players, then the $10 games are the way to go. Although I don't know if I could be bothered to play an even cheaper game remotely seriously.

Mookie said...

"So, if I'm fulltilt, I want more people to put more money in... in other words, I want more of people's discretionary income to come to poker (not I as in me but I as in Fulltilt)."

Even with increased buyins (and rake) they are still losing money on the deal. My guess is they feel they get their money's worth with the banners we display, links and posts.

My guess is the lower buyins attracts more people which creates more buzz for the series and Full Tilt.

Shrike said...

I fail to see why FullTilt can't have it both ways. Having some higher buy-ins as part of the BBT series (like they did in the past) isn't exclusionary, but rather it gives additional opportunities to the players and additional rake for FTP. After all, the raw number of tournaments has been pretty stable at 40-50 events.

-PL

lj said...

i'm very happy that the bbt series occurs at all, so i'll pay whatever the buy ins are. i get your argument from full tilt's perspective monetarily, but i think mookie's last point counters that effectively.

personally, i would prefer that a $26 or higher weekly tournament (love chad's 1r1a idea) was included in the bbt, or for just the bbt, the big game was twice a month instead of once.

while the lower buy ins are -ev from a time perspective for you, they are probably +ev in a stakes perspective.

BamBam said...

Damn that was going to be a long comment!

I'll post it Monday instead.

But thanks for making me think!

smokkee said...

i just checked Al's blog and the Full Tilt blog and found no new info about BBT4. where are you finding this tournament schedule you mention.

btw- steelers are lucksacs

Riggstad said...

You are not thinking about this like a business person...

I know as bloggers we think this is about us. Hence the name.

And it did start out that way. But Full Tilt looks at it this way. The bloggers who play will pimp the series. As much as we would like to think of it as a blogger tournament, it is more than that. It's open to everyone.

Anyone can play. Including our readers. Believe it or not, most blogs have a following of non-blogging folks who then hear about the series and decide to play. Maybe they decide to become bloggers, but that's not full tilts concern. Their concern is getting new players.

Ok, how many are going to play that don't already have a Full Tilt account? How many are going to play that have a dormant account?

Those numbers are the deciding factor of how much Full Tilt decides to give away.

It's not about us and what we want to play. It's about the fact that every swinging dick out there in blogger land is pimping the series.

There is more going on behind the scenes as well. Just wait til it starts.

Fuel is gay

CEMfromMD said...

I am wondering where the buy-in information (and games involved) have been discussed also. I am sure most of the reasoning for the games picked are primarily Al and Mookie and Full Tilt, but as of now I have not even been approached by anyone about if the Skillz Game would be included, or if they wanted a change in the buy-in for it.

I would be honored if they did choose to include the Skillz Game, and would be more then accomodating to include any changes Al or Full Tilt would feel necessary.

BamBam said...

Alan,

It ended up being in response to the many posts that your thought provoking perspective brought about.

Good reads no matter the vision nore side they portray, will do that to bloggers. So good work!

My vision is simply this, Al and his gang do it for us. Whatever it is they do, let's leave them too it and appreciate it as it comes.

FYI just in case, Riggs has his thoughts up on it too.

Oh, and on the bowling thing. From what I hear you should hook up with Zooks on that deal! Word is, she can make you miserable and rich with just a few pointers.

:)