Crown: Aussie Millions

Remove this Banner Ad

DN in an interview that it's his own money (as in not pokerstars buying him in) but he also said somewhere he sold 20%, not sure if that was on his final bullet or the whole tourney/series

But he said it when he decided to fire the 3rd bullet in the 250k

Either way 80% of yourself is a lot

I wouldn't think DN is paying for buyins of 10k an under though so all of that action would be his
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I was just thinking about the german pros and the shared bankroll theory (the guys like Quoss, Rattenmeir etc who play all the high rollers and share a large bankroll and split it) and whether its actually profitable or not

There are about 5-6 of them, and I wonder how many profitable players there are in these things considering the fast structure and other sickos they get such as Icke and Timex and if there is room for all of them at the top

If everyone in the field plays perfectly then theyre just flipping and all losing rake, but as the fish (guys like phau and even maybe DN etc) make push/fold/call mistakes that money gets moved to the pockets of the guys playing correctly, but is enough of it going to the germas to cover their rake loss or are the other sickos taking enough and maybe even some off them to make the whole thing a losing model

Maybe one of them may be a favourite in the field but when they combine and take on other players weaknesses I wonder
 
^ ^ good post - if they could play an infinite number of hands it would be a winning scenario.

obv the variance in these things is humungous, but that's the same for all tourneys TBF.

A guy like Haxton plays a huge volume of SNG and is used to the variance - he has his Nash charts nailed down in 4 D - he's one of the few that scares Daniel Colman to play, but I get the sense he thought he was playing a $5k hyper at the end of the Super Hi Roller there. A tad too aggressive versus an accomplished professional who has seen it all before.
 
Exchange rate at time of:
- 2013 Aussie Millions Main Event: 1 AUD = 1.055699 USD [1.6m AUD = US $1,689,118]
- 2014 Aussie Millions Main Event: 1 AUD = 0.874837 USD [1.6m AUD = US $1,399,739]

This year was the lowest exchange rate since 2009 (0.710369).
 
Last edited:
Yeah its televised I'm pretty sure so no point in having a second table running, just keep people on standby in case others bust and get a good 12-18 hours of television to choose from
 
red+black said:
Exchange rate at time of:
- 2013 Aussie Millions Main Event: 1 AUD = 1.055699 USD [1.6m AUD = US $1,689,118]
- 2014 Aussie Millions Main Event: 1 AUD = 0.874837 USD [1.6m AUD = US $1,399,739]
Click to expand...
At which point I internally cry "Why did I not load up on US dollars in January 2013????"
 
JuddsABlue said:
I was just thinking about the german pros and the shared bankroll theory (the guys like Quoss, Rattenmeir etc who play all the high rollers and share a large bankroll and split it) and whether its actually profitable or not

There are about 5-6 of them, and I wonder how many profitable players there are in these things considering the fast structure and other sickos they get such as Icke and Timex and if there is room for all of them at the top

If everyone in the field plays perfectly then theyre just flipping and all losing rake, but as the fish (guys like phau and even maybe DN etc) make push/fold/call mistakes that money gets moved to the pockets of the guys playing correctly, but is enough of it going to the germas to cover their rake loss or are the other sickos taking enough and maybe even some off them to make the whole thing a losing model

Maybe one of them may be a favourite in the field but when they combine and take on other players weaknesses I wonder
Click to expand...

The thing is the guys who dont have much equity in the field have almost zero, and it only take about two of those players in a field to make the rest of the field +EV (since the rake is so small as a %) high variance sure but EV is EV...
 
Rake, fee, vig, etc. I'll use the term Take Out % as that is what the WSOP uses. Crown's TO% is relatively good, especially for 100k, however I think they are being greedy at 250k. They made 46*$5k = $230k for that event. If Crown weren't so worried about maximising their Main Event Prize Pool, I wouldn't be surprised if they made it a 10k buy-in rather than 10.5k/10.6k.

2013 WSOP | | | | |
\ BUY-IN | $10,000 | $25,000 | $50,000 | $111,111 | $250,000
\ TAKE-OUT % | 6.00% | 5.00% | 4.00% | 3.00% | n/a
\ | | | | |
\ 2014 AUSSIE MILLIONS | | | | |
\ BUY-IN | $10,600 | $25,000 | $50,000 | $100,000 | $250,000
\ TAKE-OUT % | 5.66% | 4.00% | n/a | 1.50% | 2.00%
NB: The TO% for the Big One for One Drop (WSOP 2012) was 11.1111% (went to charity).
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I still laugh at the rake of the 250k

Not really sure how its justifiable, if I was a high stakes reg I'd be pretty angry, you're basically footing the bill of the smaller loss leading tourneys. I guess it 'has' to come from somewhere and probably better for the economy if it comes from the top, but c'mon $5k rake per player, thats so insulting.

I think the only reason Crown would go to a 10k flat is if they wanted to rake something like $800 or $750 per player and try to not be so in your face about it
 
Crown could drop the Main to 10k and take out 5.5%. Funny how the AM schedule nor structure sheets specify the admin fee. The schedule has a COST** column, and in the fineprint, **Includes admin fee. You have to seek out and go to the very end of the T&C document.

WSOP (easily found on every page of their Schedule document):
takeoutpct.png

There seems some logic to the WSOP numbers, a natural progression. Not so much with Crown. If they were to provide the same information in the same format, here are the numbers (for 2014):
crownfees.png
 
So the cash game got up, WCGRider said it was an awesome game but he dusted off 300k~, lost a 700k pot to Patrick he tweeted on a failed bluff

Near million dollar stacks in play
 
interesting read

its a battle i cant see the players winning, like Christian said the poker room cant justify itself as a loss leader or as an employer of pro poker players, and it needs to hold its own on what is some very profitable real estate in Melbourne

We'll see what happens in the future, ultimately Crown just need to focus on providing good structures and market themselves well to keep the player pool very recreational heavy for players wanting to earn a profit

I think the room could benefit greatly from a rewards system, perks include points for parking/table play. The regs will eat it up and spend a lot of time at the tables, while most of the walk in and casual players wont bother or wont collect
 
BUMP

it's that time of year again....

Who is going to enter the big one? Personally, I'm going to enter the $1,500 freeze out. Certainty far better structure then the normal Crown affair (1 hour levels, 100 BB of starting stack for the first 3 levels).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top