Re-Entry: Good or Bad for the Game?

By Matt Glantz & William Entenman

The recent trend of unlimited re-entry in the world of tournament poker has brought about a widespread debate among industry insiders as to whether or not this modernized tournament structure is good or bad for poker. There are two major aspects of unlimited re-entry tournaments that cannot be disputed by anyone on either side of the issue:

1. Increased prize pools
2. Increased likelihood of a pro showing up in the winner’s circle

Increased Prize Pools

This is clearly a good thing for all involved. A larger prize pool is better for the players as well as the venue hosting the event. A juiced prize pool brings more excitement and awareness to its surrounding area and has the ability to attract more casual players to the event.

Increased Likelihood of A Pro Showing Up In the Winner’s Circle

It is clear that professional tournament players are more likely than the casual players to re-enter after losing their respective stacks. This will in turn lead to a higher percentage of pros at the final table and thus a higher percentage of tournaments won by the top most well funded pros.

Those two facts are undeniable with regards to unlimited re-entry and cannot be debated.  
The question remains: Is unlimited re-entry good or bad for poker? The first effect of re-entry: Increased prize pools are great for poker. It is such an obvious point that there is no need to go into any discussion about this aspect.

Where it gets tricky is with regards to the second effect of re-entry. There is a clear downside when any amateur feels he or she is at an additional disadvantage versus a well-seasoned pro due to re-entry. Even though the amateur has the same opportunity to re-enter as the pro, he or she will have a compounding equity deficit as they both continually re-enter. The counter argument to that point is the theory that while the amateur does not vary his or her play very much on the fact that he or she may re-enter, the average professional poker player plays marginally to significantly worse knowing the option to re-enter exists. Many pros are willing to give up additional equity if they feel it increases their chances of winning an event.

Tournament strategy dictates that pros should adjust their play ever so slightly in a re-entry format, but from experience I have seen it time and time again where the “pros” are just throwing away real equity in a tournament knowing it only marginally increases their chance of winning the tournament. This actually bodes well for the tournament equity of an amateur. While it is true that the final table will be made up of tougher opponents on average, it must also be considered that the increased prize pool is partially gained by those same pros “dusting off” in the early stages and thus boosting the prize pool. The tougher final table field should be offset by the increased payouts caused by re-entry.

Because we all agree that the pros are more likely to spend more on re-entry, we can also agree that a higher percentage of pros will be at the final table. This leads to the assumption that a higher percentage of the prize pool is straight from the pockets of the pros. While it is clear the amateur has a decreased chance of outright winning the tournament due to re-entry, it is not necessarily correct to assume the amateur has less equity in a re-entry tournament and it can be argued the exact opposite is likely the case.

By the Numbers:  An Example of Re-entry Results

Recently, we ran three unlimited re-entry tournaments at Parx Poker Room in Philadelphia. I have the following data from three events (from $300, $500, and $1,500 buy-in events) and would like to share it as one example of how the numbers might really pan out for re-entry tournaments.

These results show that over three separate tournaments the final tables included 21 players in for only their original entry (no re-entry),  seven players in for two bullets, one player in for three bullets and one player in for 12 bullets.

The results of these events showed that single buy-in players did dramatically better than multiple buy-in players and the value they achieved could not have been accomplished without re-entry.

I am guessing the effect of more top pros winning tournaments in unlimited re-entry events is less than we all tend to believe and the positives outweigh the negatives of re-entry.

Will it Create More Pros?

From a poker industry perspective, let’s just say theoretically we could devise a way to structure tournaments so that the best players would win much more often than in the current environment, but at the same time the rest of the players would not lose any equity in the process.  Wouldn’t that be a net positive for poker?  It would create more stars as the top players would be consistently winning more tournaments.
 
Any sport/game needs “stars” to thrive with regards to public consumption.  Right now as I see it we have only two legitimate stars in poker; Daniel Negreanu and Phil Hellmuth.  

Both of they guys have been instrumental towards growing the game of poker over the past many years, but is two stars enough?  

Sure there are tons of very famous poker players inside the poker world, even too many to name. The problem is none of these other players are widely known to the viewing public. It is very hard for poker to grow without more stars in the game. Almost all popular viewing sports/games have multiple stars and their respective sport/game takes advantage of those assets. Having 10 or even 20 stars of poker that our industry could promote would put poker on a much brighter path towards the future.  

I bring up this theory because unlimited re-entry puts us on that path. I am in no way suggesting that re-entry was designed for this purpose. It is by pure coincidence, but it is for this one single reason that re-entry might just happen to be good for poker.  

This one unintended benefit should override all the other positives and negatives associated with re-entry.

How About the Recreational Players?

For the most part, the recreational player sees these kind of events as entertainment. Most understand that they have little chance to win and are taking the worst of it. Poker in general, and tournament poker specifically, offer great value for the gambling entertainment dollar when compared to other casino games. How long would a $120 tournament buy in last at a slot or a craps table? You figure it out. This is exactly the kind of thinking that needs to be realized and disseminated to grow our game.

Several of our employees at Parx Casino went to the Borgata last month to play a million dollar guarantee poker tournament with re-entry. Many of them had very minimal poker playing or tournament experience but were attracted strictly by the huge prize pool. One employee proudly crippled Dwyte Pilgrim in a hand and almost busted him.  This guy got a chance to play with a big name player and now has a story to tell his friends.  His story made it to his Facebook and now is shared in our local area.  

In the end, even though he did not cash in the event, he is more than satisfied with his experience and will likely play again. This new model of reasonably-priced buy-ins with re-entry brings together amateurs and pros in a way that’s never been done before at a reasonable price. No longer does an amateur have to shell out big money in order to have a chance to sit down with a professional that he or she has seen on television. Poker is unique in this aspect. The fact that an amateur can so easily sit down in a tournament and possibly play with a well known pro is one of our game’s biggest strengths. ♠

Matt Glantz, Ambassador to Parx Poker Room (just outside Philadelphia, PA), is serving an integral role in the development of the fastest growing poker room on the East Coast. Matt has shown a consistent passion for growing the game of poker and has demonstrated high-stakes versatility, becoming the World Series’ most consistent performer in big money mixed-game tournaments. Since 2008, he has made four WSOP final tables in mixed game events with buy-ins of $10,000 to $50,000 and is considered one of the top mixed-game cash game players. For more strategy and updates from the tournament trail, check out www.mattglantzpoker.com