Tourney Prize Pool Shorted -- Any Recourse?

[BigBluffer]

[ QUOTE ]
Terrible structure. Why even bother to enter if you know the add on goes to the house?

NEGATIVE EV ALL THE WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

I had no intention of taking the add-on. If I busted out early, I'd be done. The idea was to play in a juice-free (for me) tournament. Taking the add-on would be counter to that idea.

What's the downside to just paying the initial buy-in if it really does all go into the prize pool?

[BigBluffer]

[ QUOTE ]
Definitely something doesn't add up. Prize pool, according to what you say, should be $20xY, no lose change. Sure there is no "non-monetary prize", ie something valued at $22.50? Or a $1.50 fee per entry?

I would ask and make sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

See my reply above to Angus.

There was definitely no non-monetary prize. No fee or reduction of any sort was mentioned, either in the printed schedule or by any employee.

You may be on to something though. If there were 55 entries (makes sense based on what I saw and with 6 tables to start), the total buy-ins would be $1100. Subtract the $962.50 paid out for a $137.50 shortfall. Divide that shortfall by 55 entries for $2.50 per entry. I wonder if that's not exactly what happened -- whether by mistake or by design they took out $2.50 per entry. Funny how the numbers work out so neatly for 55 entries. The calculations for any other reasonable number of entries result in awkward fractions. Hmmmmmm.

I'll be sure to confirm this when I go back there.

[BigBluffer]

[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, I'd be more upset with them keeping ALL of the add-on money than shorting the prize pool by ~$60 that you're not even sure happened.

GD monopolies.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm willing to concede that the prize pool was approximately correct if the TD claims that there were 48 or 49 entries. But that still doesn't explain why the total payout amount was not a multiple of $20.

And I agree with you -- GD monopolies.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Terrible structure. Why even bother to enter if you know the add on goes to the house?

NEGATIVE EV ALL THE WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

I had no intention of taking the add-on. If I busted out early, I'd be done. The idea was to play in a juice-free (for me) tournament. Taking the add-on would be counter to that idea.

What's the downside to just paying the initial buy-in if it really does all go into the prize pool?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because other people taking the addon dilutes the value of your chips, which reduces your probability of winning and acts as a juice.

To understand the concept, think of an extreme case in which the initial buyin costs $20 and you get 100 chips. Then the house offers an addon for $20, which doesn't go to the prize pool, that gives you 10,000 chips. If everyone else but you takes the addon, do you still think you're +EV because you haven't paid any juice?

[BigAlChicago]

You did pay juice. Assuming at least one other player in the tourney bought the add on, and having the add on chips adds to the EV of ultimately cashing, you are paying a portion of that additional value.

Assume there were 50 players in the tourney. If none bought the add on, other things being equal, the EV of every player in the tourney at its start would be $20 (2% of $1000.) Now if half of the field bought the add on, they would start with more chips and have a greater starting EV than the half who didn't buy. Let's assume that the EV for those with the extra chips is 2.2 % and the EV of the remainder of the field without the add on is 1.8%. Your EV, without buying the addon would be $18.

I don't know what the real numbers are, but you have paid some juice for this tourney because your EV at the start is less than your buy in amount because you don't have the extra chips.

[BigBluffer]

Awesome explanations by both slickpoppa and BigAlChicago.

I was vaguely aware that when other players took the add-on chips, my chances were somewhat reduced. But I couldn't formulate the concept in concrete terms.

Thanks for helping me crystalize my thinking.

[BigBluffer]

For those of you sitting at home, anxiously waiting on the edge of your seats for the explanation, here it is:

[rant]

$2.50 is, in fact, taken out of each $20 buy-in to fund the room's progressive royal flush jackpot (all hold-em games contribute, both cash and tourney). The TD explained that since all of the jackpot money is returned to the players when hit, it is considered part of the "prize pool." [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] Thus, according to him, the statement that "100% of the buy-in goes to the prize pool" is not deceptive.

I say BS with a capital BS. There are so many things wrong with this I don't even know where to begin. This is really a $17.50 + $2.50 tourney -- 14% of the buy-in being charged to fund the jackpot. The fact that the tourney is NL means it's far far less likely that I'll hit the RF jackpot since if I'm dealt 2 cards to the RF, there's a good chance I'm gonna win the pot pre-flop (in the high-stakes $2/$2 Limit cash games, nobody EVER wins a pot pre-flop). I'm not gonna change my tournament strategy and limp with AQs on the pipedream I might hit a royal. Talk about -EV!

Who ever heard of this sort of thing -- claiming that the reduction to fund a jackpot is really part of the prize pool?

Damn Indians.

[/rant]

[pfapfap]

[ QUOTE ]
"100% of the buy-in goes to the prize pool" is not deceptive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. That's beyond the pale.

[ QUOTE ]
Damn Indians.

[/ QUOTE ]

So is that.