Why haven't buyins grown?

[tendog]

This is an important point in the cash games vs tournaments debate.

Tournament players get a bad rap because their earn rate is lower than the cash players.

Part of the reason though is the low buy ins compared with the tourney circuit.

I dont think it would be unreasonable for the stars nightly to be 300 and the wednesday 500.

on the other hand with the difficulties of getting monies online these days its probably not a good idea now.

[kutuz_off]

[ QUOTE ]
good point adanthar

but id still like to see the high buy-in MTTs grow faster because its nowhere near the rate of cashgames have increased in size. 3 years ago the highest buy-in at party was NL200, now NL40k is pretty common on a few sites and the buyins in MTTs has barely grown.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a false dychotomy. Existence of NL40K games affects maybe 10 players. It's irrelevant.

How many players enter weekly $1K game on FTP? How many would there be if the game was more frequent?

[tailspin4540]

[ QUOTE ]
Although it doesn't affect me I'm curious why there aren't bigger buyins available online. Many live events are between $500-1000 (and the big events 5 fiqures), yet the 'bigger' regular online events are $100-200.

Pokerstars has been great in the past about giving the players what they want. Is there not a demand for higher buyins among the top players?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there is, honestly.

My thinking is sort of a version of "why the big cash players don't play a lot of tournaments" ROI argument. Consider: For $1000, an American player can buy into all five available Sunday majors (Stars, FT, UB, Absolute, Bodog). Is it really worth that much more to toss all of that money into the Full Tilt $1000 and face a smaller field with not nearly as many bad players?

Also, a lot of the guys here don't seem to play that many >$100 tourneys besides the Stuper, Full Tilt's $150 and the big Sunday tourneys. Even the high-volume players in this forum are high-volume at lower buyins.

Also for the reasons Adanthar stated. People aren't rolled for that much, and $1000 isn't a small amount of money.

(The WCOOP doesn't really count because it's only once a year. And rebuys are a different beast, though I'm looking at Stars right now and the last two $100r's only got 144 and 140 runners.)

[betgo]

First of all, live everyone is single-tabling and there are half the hands per hour. I played in a $1K live tournamnent yesterday. There were 430 entries and I finished 130th. I played 8 hours, including the dinner break. It wouldn't be cost effective for me to play lower buyin than that with the same structure.

Obviously, people are willing to put up the money for higher buyin live tournaments. There are not as many people willing to put up $1K or whatever for online tournaments. It is more supply and demand than issues about depleting fishes' accounts. Obviously, there are not enough fish interested in playing high buyin online.

[JSchnett]

what Im saying is the MTT buyins have stayed so low compared to the cashgame buyins that the big fish always play cash and there arnt enough fish in the mtts

[kutuz_off]

[ QUOTE ]
what Im saying is the MTT buyins have stayed so low compared to the cashgame buyins that the big fish always play cash and there arnt enough fish in the mtts

[/ QUOTE ]

This implies that there is more fish in higher-buyin games that in lower-buyin games. And that's just plain ignant.

[Oki-Oki]

[ QUOTE ]
what Im saying is the MTT buyins have stayed so low compared to the cashgame buyins that the big fish always play cash and there arnt enough fish in the mtts

[/ QUOTE ]

This is so untrue

[boondockst]

Why do MTT buyins have to keep pace with cash game growth? Who says there should be a parallel? They're both forms of online texas hold them but other than that....???