Not sure where to post this - why do all the League tournaments seem to be for relatively low buy-ins?
These tournaments generally take longer and require tighter/more careful play. My reward for investing more effort is a 1st prize that makes no impact on my bankroll whatsoever. I get that’s “not the point” of league but damn. Can’t we get the OCCASIONAL 1M tourney?
And if the answer is “so everyone can afford to play”… I got recruited for Donks, for example, with the somewhat grand declaration that “these are the best players on the site.”
I made a similar post about the prizes for annual leaderboards, and was similarly rebuffed by most who replied. I just think that Replay could offer a little more for high-rollers. There are 2 Widow’s Bite tournaments every weekend, where 1st place is typically over 50M chips. That’s very exciting for someone like me with a bankroll above 300M.
Outside of those tournaments, it’s become more difficult for me to be motivated to play my best in tournaments. That’s of course something that I control — I’m not saying it should be anyone else’s responsibility. But selfishly, I wish there were more levels at the top so that I didn’t have to psych myself up to care about the individual result now that I’ve got a bigger bank.
Playing for a significant sum is exciting. It’s what gets me out of bed in the morning, so to speak, at the poker tables. When I had 50M chips every buy-in above 250k was exciting, because winning could potentially increase my bankroll by 20%. Now I only get 4 chances per week to experience the same excitement and lucrative opportunity.
For me, the best players on the site often have a lot of chips. There are certainly a number of great players who don’t have as many chips, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Granted, the number of players with less than 50M in the bank is probably like 99% of the site, so I certainly understand why most buy-in structures should cater to them.
But in particular, if there’s a private league for the best players, I would think there would be at least SOME tournaments aimed at a higher BR population. But it’s the opposite: league is small potatoes compared to the range of daily MTTs offered to all Replay players.
To me, that isn’t ideal. It’s great there are league tournaments that everyone can afford! But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to want at least a couple that offer more “financial” incentiev.
Yes, people have different goals and some are just playing “for fun” i.e. not actually making a concerted effort to maximize wins.
But if “most players are very conservative” then it should be no problem for an assembly of “the best players on the site” to include a fair proportion of players with large bankrolls.
Amount won vs. Amount lost is, at the end of the day, the ultimate metric of who is the best. Of course variance impacts this and sometimes the best players lose for an extended period of time, but they usually eventually make it back and then some.
If you’re consistently going broke, in my personal opinion, you’re not the best player.
That aside, I don’t think you’ve provided any justification for these claims: “20k is quite reasonable. No need for a 1 million buy-in.” Why do you think that? I’ve stated my position: at least the occasional larger buy-in would motivate me to have something “to play for” other than “the experience” and “bragging rights.” I personally value having a chip-based reward; accumulating the most chips is one of my top goals on this site.
So, I guess I’m saying I think that should also be OK and something that is given consideration
Not everyone has played here long enough nor get to play enough games on a daily basis to build mega bankrolls (or have interest in profitable ring games). Playing up to 5 league games per week at 250k - 1 mil would be too restrictive, even in the donks.100K is very reasonable in my opinion.
Just speaking for myself, I don’t play in leagues for the chips, I play for the chance to play with a good group of players who have a good time and play good poker and learn how to play better. The buy in level does tend to be a filter BaDonk set the buy in level high (relative to other leagues) as another way to ensure they only got the serious players and HAD a multi tier system (ie you had to win a time slot in the minors to advance to the majors). AT 100K a tournament, 4 days a week minors or majors you had a filter that ensured only players that wanted to win their way to the top tier and then show who was best stuck with it and thus made the best games (BaDonks stated goal which was true).
However, I think there are alot of really good players that don’t have huge bank rolls who are more comfortable playing regularly for 20K. That is the Nordic Warriors nitch, we let the level of play be the filter and keep the buy in low enough players can give our league a shot and make their own decision (and hopefully stick with it).
Personally, I have never played in a game with higher than a 100K buy in (but I have a 250K ticket now so watch out lol), but i can play in league with the top ranked players and find out if I am good enough. Playing with Black Widow in the Donks for 100K vice the 5 Million tournament named after her (Widow’s Bite) was much more palatable for me when she kicked my tail lol.
But I would encourage you to see if there is interest in putting together a High Roller league, sounds like there are some folks that would support it.
I do think a lot/most of the best players on this site are almost exclusively playing tournaments, and it’s a shame their skill is not reflected in their bank balance because the ring game stakes run a lot higher than the tournament buy-ins.
There are ring tables where the big blind is 1M chips, and it’s not uncommon to win and lose more than 500M chips in a single hand.
I think the issue is actually that inflation is somewhat out of control, especially in the ring games, but I’m not sure how you solve that.
I did get to play against goatsoup at times in the rare occasions I played tournaments or they ventured into the ring games, and I wish the best tournament and ring game players were incentivized to cross paths more often.
I do get and agree that Replay should be for fun first and foremost though.
