How to fix the "second money bubble problem" in multi-flight events which cash on Day 1

[Dan Druff]

There are at least three WSOP events with multi-flights which reach the money on Day 1:

- The Giant ($365 buyin)
- Crazy Eights ($888 buyin)
- Colossus ($565 buyin)

These events actually allow you to cash multiple times, if you cash and then bust before Day 1 is finished, and then re-enter another flight and cash again. But that's not what we're discussing here.

The problem with this scheme is that not every Day 1 cashes the same, due to differing numbers of people busting in the allotted time of the various Day 1 flights.

I played the $888 this year, and personally encountered this for the first time.

There were four flights to this event:

Flight A had 58 out of 1506 make Day 2, for a maximum of $2751.

Flight B (my flight) had 85 out of 1664 make Day 2, for a maximum of $2023.

Flight C had 93 out of 2072 make Day 2, for a maximum of $2204.

Flight D had 137 out of 2878 make Day 2, for a maximum of $2234.

All flights combined on Day 2.

In order to prevent Flight A players who made Day 2 getting LESS than those who busted on Day 1, the WSOP has a rule that the Day 2 cashes must all be greater than the highest Day 1 cash.

Indeed, the minimum cash on Day 2 was $3164. Had two more people busted on Flight A, the maximum Day 1 cash would have been $3196, probably pushing up the Day 2 minimum payout to over $3500!

But let's take my situation as an example of how absurd this whole thing was.

On the final hand of Day 1, I had a tiny 28k stack (about 4 BB). Had I busted on that final Day 1 hand, I would have been awarded $2023. But if I held on one more hand and instead busted on Hand #1 of Day 2, I would have been paid $3164 -- a whopping 56.4% pay jump!!!

(In reality, I busted on the third hand of Day 2, still giving me that same 56.4% pay jump.)

Recall that, upon bursting the money bubble, large MTTs are supposed to move up the cash ladder very slowly. In fact, at no point in the tournament is there EVER a 56.4% pay jump, with the exception of the final table.

So why were relatively early cashers like me awarded a 56.4% pay jump for simply surviving the final hand of Day 1?

The way the WSOP currently does it (playing out a set number of hours for all flights), these pay jumps are somewhat unavoidable, as all four flights are unlikely to cash the same, and they can't pay Day 2 busters less than Day 1 busters. That part makes sense.

But what doesn't make sense is the following:

1) Why compound the problem by bumping the payout even further? It would have been completely fair to start the payout at the same as the highest Day 1 payout ($2751), but they tagged on an extra $413 to that. Why?

2) Players were not adequately informed of this "second money bubble". Indeed, I had no idea about it, and I tend to stay pretty well versed on these sorts of things. I guarantee that only a very small percentage of people in the field knew about it -- likely those who already went through it at The Giant or Colossus (or this event last year). Therefore, we had a large second money bubble which most players did not know existed! While I do not typically play to avoid bubbles, I have to admit this would have influenced my play, if I knew that holding on a few more hands would give me another 56.4% in pay (especially if I didn't have to pay any blinds during those hands).

This is unfair to the players who are not aware of this second bubble, and I imagine that those in my flight cashing $2023 were irked when they looked afterwards and saw they could have gotten another $1141 if they just folded a few more marginal hands at the end of Day 1.

But what's the solution?

I proposed to @WSOP on Twitter that they simply end each flight once the money bubble bursts, and then bring everyone back on Day 2 starting at a min-cash.

However, I got the following answer:

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/882057952114262016

I'm not sure who wrote this response (I believe several people use the @WSOP account), but I disagree with it. They can say "This way has worked", but that doesn't really mean anything. It's both non-standard (a crazy pay jump at a point when there shouldn't be one) and unfair (most players don't know the pay jump exists).

However, Michael Juno (who I believe listens to PFA Radio), improved upon my idea:

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/882106544426536960

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/882107647511728128

I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Juno.

I believe that's the best solution -- halt play when the money bubble bursts on each day (my idea), PLUS revert the blinds back to that of the "fastest to the money" Day 1 (Michael Juno's idea). So if the flight hitting the money the earliest did so on Level 16 with 23:14 left, then start everyone on Day 2 at Level 16 with 23:14 left.

Yes, some people will repeat levels or even revert to an earlier level, but it's still better than the current situation where an arbitrary second bubble exists relatively early in the cashing process.

What do you guys think?

[snake_in_the_ass]

There is a huge unfair advantage in this format and it doesn't surprise me that the folks at the WSOP fail to see it. For this tournament to be fair, the average chip stack has to be the same for each flight that advances to day 2. You can't have the average for Day 1A being 200,000 going into Day 2 while the average for Day1B being 150,000 going into day 2!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There needs to be 2 percentages set for the A,B,C,D flights. Top 15% of each flight cash and then top 5% overall advance.

Lets run the numbers for Flight A and B.
Starting stack = 8000
Flight A = 58 advance to day 2 out of 1506 entries. So avg stack = 207,725
Flight B = 85 advance to day 2 out of 1664 entries. So avg stack = 156,600

This is an unfair advantage for those who played in Flight A because the average stack is much higher than Flight B. The way to resolve this would be to let 5% of the people advance to day 2.
Lets run those numbers using 5%.

Starting stack = 8000
Flight A = 75 advance to day 2 out of 1506 entries. So avg stack = 160,640
Flight B = 83 advance to day 2 out of 1664 entries. So avg stack = 160,385

[snake_in_the_ass]

The correct solution is to have 2 fixed percentages.

1) 15% of all entries cash
2) top 5% of all entries advance to day 2

And for those who cash but don't advance, they don't get any pay jumps. They all get a fixed amount for all flights!

Case solved. I think.

[Dan Druff]

The correct solution is to have 2 fixed percentages.

1) 15% of all entries cash
2) top 5% of all entries advance to day 2

And for those who cash but don't advance, they don't get any pay jumps. They all get a fixed amount for all flights!

Case solved. I think.

I don't think this would work.

There are still inconsistent payouts, because the larger fields get flatter payouts. The payout at the 5% mark is different for a flight with 3,000 entries than one with 1,200 entries.

[snake_in_the_ass]

The correct solution is to have 2 fixed percentages.

1) 15% of all entries cash
2) top 5% of all entries advance to day 2

And for those who cash but don't advance, they don't get any pay jumps. They all get a fixed amount for all flights!

Case solved. I think.

I don't think this would work.

There are still inconsistent payouts, because the larger fields get flatter payouts. The payout at the 5% mark is different for a flight with 3,000 entries than one with 1,200 entries.

What's your opinion on avg chip stack advancing to day 2? It should be the same for each flight. Right?

[Dan Druff]

I don't think this would work.

There are still inconsistent payouts, because the larger fields get flatter payouts. The payout at the 5% mark is different for a flight with 3,000 entries than one with 1,200 entries.

What's your opinion on avg chip stack advancing to day 2? It should be the same for each flight. Right?

Ideally, yes, but there's no way to make everything perfect.

You can't have the same average stack AND avoid the stupid pay jumps AND avoid certain days from going really long (which would happen if your solution was employed).

I don't think average stack is all that important. It even varies from table-to-table, as the event goes along. So having a moderately different average stack between the flights isn't really a big issue.

They just need to do away with this strange mega-jump in pay between Day 1 and 2.

[mdj1980]

If you take exactly the top 15% to Day 2, the avg. stack size will stay the same for all day one finishers. For example, if on Day 1a there are 100 entrants with 10k starting chips, and 15 advance then the avg stack size is 66.67k. And if on Day 1b there are 200 entrants, if 30 advance then the avg stack size stays at 66.67k.

The problem with playing out the full day one and letting similar #'s but different %'s of players move on to day two is that unless the number of people in each day one is the same, there will be an unfair payout jump for people in the smallest flight: Let's say 200 people play 1a and 20 advance. They are the top 10% of the field and whoever went out in 21st probably got a top 11% payout.

Now if in day 1b there are 300 players and 20 advance, they are the top 6.67% of the field from their day, and if 500 play day 1c and 20 advance, they are the top 4% from their day. Now on Day 2 we combine these 60 people, who now become the top 6% of a 1000 player field. So someone who survived day 1a goes from getting a top 10% payout to a top 6% payout without doing anything.

If instead we advanced the top 15% from each day 1, then 30+45+75=150 players would make day 2, we would still have 15% of the full 1000 player field and there would be no artificial pay bumps.