Buyin Amount for Online Series Events?

[sharky_uk]

The current buyin amount for Online Series events is $20 + $2.

In another thread the idea of reducing the buyin to $5 was mentioned. If I win a tournament with over 150 entrants that takes almost 5 hours to complete I want a decent financial reward not just £100. If the buyin was reduced to $5 I would not play these events.

Personally I would like to see the buyin increased to about $50. Perhaps $5 and $10 satellites could be set up leading to the main event for players who do not want to buy in directly.

I would be interested to hear your views on the correct buyin amount for these games.

[Divitts.]

I would agree that $5 is too low but i think that if it was raised to $50 it would result in fewer entries ,ultimately ending in less prize money.I would consider a raise in the entry fee if it meant more money places being paid.

[kinboshi]

In another thread I suggested the idea of keeping the $20 tournaments on a weekly basis, but every 4th week (for argument"s sake) have a $50 buy-in tourney that obviously has a bigger prize pool, but also is worth more points on the leaderboard.

It might also be an idea to have two tiers of events, to suit different bankrolls - or even maybe three?  $5 events would be brilliant for beginners or those who don"t want to spend any more on their poker.

[nosey-p]

$20 buy in is just about right, not to expensive for the beginner but still worth playing for the more experienced player (on avrega $1000)

we don"t need to make it complicated with different buy ins

[RioRodent]

$20 buy in is just about right, not to expensive for the beginner but still worth playing for the more experienced player (on avrega $1000)

we don"t need to make it complicated with different buy ins

I also think that $20 (+$2) is the right level for the target audience - Amateurs.

[sharky_uk]

In another thread I suggested the idea of keeping the $20 tournaments on a weekly basis, but every 4th week (for argument"s sake) have a $50 buy-in tourney that obviously has a bigger prize pool, but also is worth more points on the leaderboard.

That"s not a bad idea.

[Jon MW]

$20 buy in is just about right, not to expensive for the beginner but still worth playing for the more experienced player (on avrega $1000)

we don"t need to make it complicated with different buy ins

I also think that $20 (+$2) is the right level for the target audience - Amateurs.

Its already been seconded - so "thirded"

[Bodddders]

$20 buy in is just about right, not to expensive for the beginner but still worth playing for the more experienced player (on avrega $1000)

we don"t need to make it complicated with different buy ins

I also think that $20 (+$2) is the right level for the target audience - Amateurs.

I agree the current buy-in amount is just right.

[GAIGAN]

I have to agree with you guys...$5 is much too low. I like the idea of a $20 + $2 & once a month maybe raising it to $50. GOOD THOUGHTS GUYS!  

[waltypies]

$20 is fine for most players.

Obviously the players with bigger rollz would like to stake more (like myself) however catering for the masses is a must.  Therefore $20 seems bang on the mark.

I do like the idea of a $50 monthly game.  Hey maybe even a $100 one!!

[swordfish]

I think the idea of a higher buy-in game monthly is a bad idea.  Bear in mind that everyone is playing for leaderboard points, not just hard cash.  So to have a game that excludes those who cannot afford a bigger buy-in means that the playing field is no longer level, as they would not be able to play for the points in that game.  I"m sure this is not what APAT would want.  $20 is a good number, most players can afford it, and the prizes are tasty enough when you get to the business end. 

The idea of having different levels for different bankrolls is a nice concept, but it"s just overcomplicating things.  The current setup seems to be working just fine IMO.

[Jon MW]

I"m not wholly against the idea of scoring points off of a monthly $50 (or even $100, but definitely no more) tournament.

But if this was considered a problem then APAT could always run these monthly tournaments for APAT members only - but as non-championship, non-scoring events.

[GAIGAN]

The main reason I joined APAT was because the buy-ins are so reasonable. You have to consider something like this...I am not old, but a few years ago, I had a serious accident which prevents me from working. I basically live off of SOCIAL SECURITY which isn"t much. I play poker online to supplement my income. By raising the buy-ins to $100 would mean I couldn"t play. And I"m not the only one in this situation. I"ve organized tournies on other sites & alot of people had trouble playing with just a $5 or $10 buy-in. Please don"t take the attitude that, "Well, they shouldn"t be playing then." To some, it"s the only life they have.

GAIGAN

[kinboshi]

No reason why a monthly $50 event couldn"t be completely separate from the main APAT series. 

It could be the FA Cup to the Premiership league.

[Jon MW]

No reason why a monthly $50 event couldn"t be completely separate from the main APAT series. 

It could be the FA Cup to the Premiership league.

A knock out cup?

Sounds like a Heads Up Shootout tournament?