Equity Exchange Feedback

[GaF]

Appreciate thoughts on how we can make this EEC more attractive to people - I really do think this is more the kind of event we should do it for - beyond the £2.50 or $10 tourneys (do any PL'rs really need to share equity in those? I'm participating in them as "proof of concept" more than anything....but ultimately and longer term see them as nothing more than an introduction to the EECs for people).

I'm interested to get feedback from people on the concept of EEC, especially with relation to what you think isnt good about them, and how they can be improved - I'm open to hearing criticism of the structure (and especially suggestions for how it could be improved)

But this one is the one I'd like to see take off more than any of the first five

There's some indication of the added value in the recent posts here - http://www.punterslounge.com/forum/f...d-value-66781/ - last week there were 155 runners contributing a total of $7,750 + $750 - so there was $1,500 more paid out than contributed by the players. It is a freezeout.

[GaF]

Just to stress too - dont worry about getiing "saddled" with losing players (like me in the EEC's I will turn it round - honest - this time next year we'll all be millionaires) - the first month you play, then you will be in the bottom group - but after that, if you've turned a profit, you'll only be grouped with other players that have turned a profit

[The Quiet Man]

GaF,

I agree that the bigger buy-in's are the right way to go about these Equity Clubs, alas they're probably too high for most of the punters on here, more especially the married with kids ones.......the expenditure at this time of the year is enough to drive me to drink

I'd love to play in this but pulled nearly all my money out of my sites and Neteller to comfortably cover xmas costs.....I currently only have $300 dollars left in Neteller which will hopefully build up over the next 3 or 4 months.

I'm sure the above story is a familiar one with a few other folk on this Forum.

I wish you luck in this one and hopefully I'll be able to participate sometime in 2009.

TQM

[PGremlin]

Maybe we should have an sticky thread which explains the current workings of ECC and let people offer feedback for improvements?

[GaF]

Appreciate where you're coming from TQM and I'm sure we'll see you in this soon
I think that saying "alas they're probably too high for most of the punters on here" is exactly the reason I'd like to see this work - by reducing the variance (and hopefully being positive ev with the overlay) these games should be a lot more affordable for punters with the EEC than as individuals.....the bankroll required to participate in this with EEC would be a lot less than the bankroll required to participate in this as an individual - I dont know how much less, maybe one of our proper mathematicians could estimate this?

Gremlin - not sure a sticky is necessary or helpful, but agree that putting this in its own thread makes sense - maybe one of the mods could move the posts over to a new thread for us?

[Guppie]

Post your thoughts in here please guys

[GaF]

Cheers Guppie

[PGremlin]

I feel like some reward for the best player in an EEC could be a nice improvement.

================================================== =======

How about a special reward for the biggest earner in an EEC?
Like staking in an bigger tournament, like the PokerTrillion $10,000 Gtd?

I imagine something in the lines of...

$11 BtB runs 5 times in Januari.
Imagine there are 5 members in the EEC for BtB in Jan.

They each pay:
- $55 (5 times $11 tournament fee for BtB)
- $11 (their part of staking money for the PokerTrillion $10,000 Gtd)

The best player of the EEC gets to play the Trillion game as a reward and keeps something like 60% of all he earns in the Trillion game, and all the others in the team each get 10% stake.

================================================== =======

I know it sounds more complicated, but I hope it gives extra encouragement to people to be the nr1 in an EEC, and gives extra incentive for the best to try higher stakes in the future if they did well.
What you think of this idea?

[GaF]

I know it sounds more complicated

Yes - but it's not just that - the main purpose of this is to spread variance and make games more affordable - if we're taking out extra money, then it just increases the costs and makes the games less affordable

I think the general idea is a good one (and very similar to the post from Guppie earlier today) - but I think it can "stand alone" better by itself, than being linked to (and confusing) the EEC

[slick mick]

The only 'problem' I have with the current EEC setup is based on my understanding of bankroll management. In a MTT you should be playing with 50 buy ins therefore to make sense an EEC should do the same i.e. 5 players playing 10 games or 10 players playing 5 games.

This kind of arrangement would have me more interested in a higher buy in game like the Trillon as I have been considering transferring money to Trillion for the guaranteed freezeout.

I'm pretty sure the average PL player would make a long term profit in these games but the right EEC setup would help with the variance.

[GaF]

Originally Posted by slick mick

The only 'problem' I have with the current EEC setup is based on my understanding of bankroll management. In a MTT you should be playing with 50 buy ins therefore to make sense an EEC should do the same i.e. 5 players playing 10 games or 10 players playing 5 games.

Would 5 players playing 5 games per month for 2 months not be the same? or 5 players playing 2 games per month for 5 months? If you want to increase sample size, you just need to play multiple months I'm not sure that fits too much into bankroll management

Bankroll management is just about minimising the risk of going bust, if you are a profitable player, before you play enough games to smooth your variance.

It is true however that:
If you play as an individual, you will need a higher bankroll than if you equity exchange with one other person.
If you equity exchange with on other person, you will need a higher bankroll than if you equity exchange with 5 other people.
If you equity exchange with 5 other people, you will need a higher bankroll than if you equity exchange with 10 other people
etc......

However, so long as you have sufficient bankroll behind you and play enough games (through multiple months), it shouldn't matter too much how many players are playing how many games in each individual month.....

An aggressive bankroll management for MTTs for an individual (post 7 here - STEP UP S & Gs) is to have 40xBuyIns ($2200 at $50+$5), a cautious approach is to have 200xBuyIns ($11,000 at $50+$5).

I think (not 100% certain, just coming together in my head now, following your post) that if you have 5 players in an equity share, then so long as your personal bankroll is a fifth of the bankroll management requirements, then you have sufficient - regardless of the bankrolls of the other players. So to be part of a 5 person equity exchange, aggressively you should have a bankroll of $440 for the $50+$5 events and conservatively, you would need a bankroll of $2,200 - the bankroll of the other EEC members is of no significance to you - if they pull out after a month and are replaced by someone else - you dont care (from a bankroll management view) - all that matters is that you have the bankroll to supportyou over time.

So lets talk conservatively...
If you're comfortable to play a bankroll of $11,000, then you dont need this EEC and should play for yourself.
If you're comfortable playing a bankroll of $5,500, then you really only need one equity exchange partner
If you're comfortable playing a bankroll of $2,200, then you need 4 equity exchange partners.

If you want to play conservatively with your bankroll and you dont have $2,200 available, then you shouldn't join this EEC.

If you want to play aggressively with your bankroll and you dont have $440 available, then you shouldn't join this EEC.

[slick mick]

Originally Posted by GotaFancy?

Would 5 players playing 5 games per month for 2 months not be the same? or 5 players playing 2 games per month for 5 months? If you want to increase sample size, you just need to play multiple months I'm not sure that fits too much into bankroll management

But by your system a player could be relegated after the first month.

[GaF]

Originally Posted by slick mick

But by your system a player could be relegated after the first month.

Or promoted

Even if you are in the lower league, you still spread your variance (and reduce bankroll requirements) by playing with Equity Exchange.

Of course, you, and your group need to be profitable too for bankroll to come into it - hopefully with the overlay you will be, even in the lower group. If you outperform the group though, it really wont take you long to move up - sure there will be some flux in the early days of this (so ideally we would be switching groups after every game, to try and get people into the "right" group quicker) - however as it will be measured over "lifetime earnings", if you should be in the top group, once you've got your first cash, you'll probably stay there.

Remember too - in the early days, because there's no history, there wont be a significant difference in standard between groups - so promtion and relegation will be of less significance until after it settles down....

[Anita Kokinme]

Originally Posted by slick mick

But by your system a player could be relegated after the first month.

It's ok - GaF?'s already booked that spot

[Myrie16]

I think these clubs are a good idea -

At the lower stakes I am interested more from the point of view of being part of a PL "gang" (so to speak) - having others that share directly in my success and sharing the banter at the expense of those not doing so well.

But, from a financial point of view, are more appealing in the slightly higher stakes. Value in any of these tournies just seems more worthwhile for your hours
That said, the greater the buy-in, will fellow club members expect higher (or perceived higher) levels of expertise in the others ? Is simply having the money to pay the buy-in enough ?

All in all, I like the concept and will look to join one in the new year for sure.

Any variant players interested in a Non-HE EEC ?

[Guppie]

Post it up myrie see what response it gets

[happyhornet]

What stopped me from entering this time was the choice of site. I don't have a Wiliam Hill account.
The principle is absolutely fine, and I think will have continued (and increased) interest, particularly if a variety of different sites are used.

[voiceofjoe]

From my perspective ... (and situation wise I'm in pretty much same boat as TQM)

My 'normal' buy-in for a MTT would be $5 - maybe $10. I've joined the EEC

( ..not the uniquest of acronyms ... sounds like next will be getting loads of East European Gypsys wanting to join and let us pay them for the privelige )

... and am playing (equivalent of) $15 buy-in. This is fine, as my intention was that with the calibre of player on PL I would expect some return back (even if not massive) each week, which I would hope worst case to make my average weekly cost around $5-$10 - with the plus side of getting (possibly) a couple of nice returns and seeing how my game stands up in the 'larger buy -ins'.

For me my first venture has been successful, we are showing a profit overall and I feel well within my comfort zone playing in this 'higher' standard of competition.
The only downside has been the stability of the site we are playing on.

I would hope to take the profit from this venture and move up to the $20-$25 buy-ins for the following months - which I would expect (worse case ) to cost me $10 a game - a loss I could afford.
However the structure of the tourney is important - the deeper the stacks the more skill is rewarded IMO --- added value is also good to have.


For the larger buy-ins (i.e Poker Trillion - although all the games I've played on there have been become crapshoots after first break) I would be willing to risk the same equivalent (i.e $100 Month outlay with expection worst case to be $50 loss) - so i'd be willing to 'Buddy Up' with another person that was willing to risk $25 a week and class Two as One for the purpose of that EEC (alternate weeks playing ?)- (although the who pays who at the end could get compex )
As although we all like to think of ourselves as 'good as everyone else' I'm sure that playing the higher levels wouyld be -Ev (at least in the beginning) for most of us here

I would also be willing (if the other members were also) to share Hand Historys from the tourney's - maybe this would help us all to improve our games even more .

[GaF]

HH - I did reply to you earlier, but my internet connection died and I was too frustrated to type it again at the time
I accept that I made an error in focusing on one site (and WH was an even worse choice) I expect at least a couple of the WH EECs to die in January and hopefully we can bring in new games at a variety of more popular sites The difficulty though is finding suitable games (which was the draw for WH).
We do already have the 32Red BTB (less popular than WH surprisingly ) and now Poker Trillion as well - so the net is spreading.... Think we could do with a good, regular Boss game....

VoJ - I can see no issues with you teaming up with someone else if thats what you wish to do - however - it sounds to me from your post like you're pushing too far out of your comfort zone I think you'd be better off biding your time and playing it when you feel more comfortable with it - maybe win yourself the buy ins at your regular level first, then invest it in these games (if you want to)?

Agree with your view that we probably overestimate our edge, especially when stepping up levels - don't all poker players?

I love the idea of exchanging hand histories Could do it through the EECs (just players who want to), or maybe, do it outside of this - maybe once a week or something, select a game, and invite people to join a group where we all exchange hand histories on a specified game -I really think we should do it The potential difficulty is how to read them - I think with PT3 and PO you can only import a hand number once - so multiple players sharing HH after from the same hand wont work

[AJ]

What do people think about using this as a tool for SnG players to step up levels faster ?

Right now i'm playing $10 coolers doing ok, played 200 games at $5 first.

My next step should be $20s, but if I had 3 or 4 players willing to take the step to the next level at the same time as me and share risk / reward over a defined set of games I'd be happier taking the step up with a smaller number of buy ins.