Poker Forum > Live Poker

Re-Entry or No Re-Entry, that is the question

<< < (2/14) > >>

ChipHungry:
No re-entry!!! People need to accept they can get unlucky in a tournament and go out early and for other players it is a reminder to keep them from playing every hand just because they know that if they bust they can re-enter. Keep it a freezeout please!!!

Paulie_D:

--- Quote from: Waz1892 on July 11, 2012, 20:14:55 PM ---
Please please no. £75 is not cheap but the best offer in the market place.

RE just excludes even more so the average amatuer players bankroll.


--- End quote ---


I don"t see this.

If you were only going to fire one bullet anyway then it doesn"t matter than another person can exercise an OPTION to re-enter (not re-buy).....and they are limited to a SINGLE re-entry.

Plus they"ll come in AFTER any existing alternates so it"s quite possible they won"t get in at all.

Rhino56:
I"m in favour of having a re-entry especially when the tournament is nowhere near capacity (as happened in Cork)

Santino67:
I"m not a lover of re-entries/rebuys, but don"t believe a single re-entry limited to the first 2 or 3 levels would be anything but advantageous for the reasons highlighted by Richard in the initial post. I"m one of those who generally has to book hotels/flights/leave to get to APAT events as there"s generally only 1 tourney a season in Scotland. So far I"ve never suffered that kind of very early exit (nobody mention the Cardiff PLO  :P) in the NLHE, but believe it would be pretty sickening after the effort & expense of getting to the event in the first place.

It would of course be optional, so if it"s not within your bankroll or it"s not your thing for another reason then you have the choice to re-enter or not. I doubt very much it"s going to change the gameplay for the vast majority of APAT players and I don"t see there being a huge increase in the numbers of exits in those first 2/3 levels.

Jon MW:
This argument for having a single re-entry is exactly the same argument as for having rebuys.

If you accept you can have 1 re-entry if you bust out in the first level - why not 2 in the first level? or 3? The length of time you"re in the tournament has been exactly the same so wouldn"t the argument about having spent the money to get there be exactly the same?

I don"t really think there"s much in the argument that it might have put people off entering an APAT event either - I think it might make people less willing to commit all their chips earlier on; but I don"t think it"s particularly going to stop anyone entering in the first place. Everybody knows where they are with a freezeout and everybody is on a level playing field - I don"t see any compelling reason to change it.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page