Texas Nights - How Can We Improve?

Samba

Work away guys be brutal & be honest but at the same time, please be civil!


My ears are open, anything said here will be passed on directly to the owner.

No other TN staff is permitted to post any reply on this thread.

I am working in conjunction with TN as of one week ago and I would like to improve the reputation of this company as the man behind the entire operation believes that he can only improve by hearing contstructive Criticism.

bohsman

1) Do a forum search and youll see whats been done wrong previously.

2) Look at Green Joker Poker, Vegas Nights and Pokerevents to see various acceptable structures and % payouts.

ianmc38

For a start, payout more than what is put in your own pockets.

Samba

ianmc38 wrote:

For a start, payout more than what is put in your own pockets.

Fair point, but Ian, constructive criticism please, house take is 25% in all tournaments.

There was an incident where one particular tournament organiser took in over 50% of the prize pool, the following week upon recieving news of this, the owner himself ran another tournament in the same venue and paid out 100% and absorbed all costs himself, he was not pleased to hear what went down and he made an effort to redeem the company.

Culchie

I posted this in the tourney section as well, but anyways seeing as you started a new thread.





I think Samba, that I'd be slow to support an organisor with such a poor history.

They basically ignored all the feedback that was directed towards them, and even worse lied about their rake etc... they were screwing people.

Trust is a big thing in the poker tournament business. The organisors often hold tickets as 'prizes in trust' for bigger events.

I know you may not want brought this up on this thread, but giving any other feedback without that being said would be pointless.

I'd rather give my rake to organisors such as Green Joker and Vegas Nights who've gone about their business in the proper manner and built up a following the hard but decent way over the last year, than give it to people who let's face it are still the same organisors, but decided, (or should I say, most probably told by their customers who voted with their feet and left them no choice but) to change.

I know Dev said a operator who has changed their game/outlook on things etc... is better than one that carries on ripping off people ....and he is right.
However I'll support operators that never ripped people off before I'll support the leopard who has changed his spots.

The rest of the tournament can all be sorted (tables, location, buy-in, dealers etc...) reputation and integrity are not as easy to acquire.

Sorry, but that's my reading on it.

Samba

Yeah, I will be deleting that thread shortly

From Bohsman

Originally Posted by SambaThe owner of TN, had no idea of any of the online activity and bad press in relation to his company here on Boards.This was done by staff who had no permission to represent/defend/explain or do anything online.



So the owner thought it was ok to steal because he didnt realise people were discussing it on an internet forum?


To which i reply


There was an incident where one particular tournament organiser took in over 50% of the prize pool, the following week upon recieving news of this, the owner himself ran another tournament in the same venue and paid out 100% and absorbed all costs himself, he was not pleased to hear what went down and he made an effort to redeem the company.

The owner did not condone or authorise this and was quite angry when he learnt what had happened. That particular tournament organiser is no longer working here.

Culchie

Samba wrote:

Yeah, I will be deleting that thread shortly

From Bohsman

Originally Posted by SambaThe owner of TN, had no idea of any of the online activity and bad press in relation to his company here on Boards.This was done by staff who had no permission to represent/defend/explain or do anything online.



So the owner thought it was ok to steal because he didnt realise people were discussing it on an internet forum?


To which i reply


There was an incident where one particular tournament organiser took in over 50% of the prize pool, the following week upon recieving news of this, the owner himself ran another tournament in the same venue and paid out 100% and absorbed all costs himself, he was not pleased to hear what went down and he made an effort to redeem the company.

The owner did not condone or authorise this and was quite angry when he learnt what had happened. That particular tournament organiser is no longer working here.

If I remember rightly, one worker who actually admitted they were 'taking a very generous slice of the cake' was sacked after posting that on boards.

So if Mr Texas Nights is the boss, I take it he did the firing?
People only normally get fired for doing something wrong, not for telling the truth.

bohsman

Not sure what you want to hear, 25% is too much considering GJP can do 12.5% There are plenty of threads on here about acceptable structures, as far as weekly pub tournaments go I would suggest limiting it to one or two rebuys and make the charge very clear - ie 50+10 and 50+10

Monthly tournament - 215+35 with dealers as charged by GJP is acceptable however Im dont think Id play if it was 200+50, also Im not going to pay 100+ for a self deal tournament (one of my many problems with the merrion)

JustMac

Samba wrote:

Fair point, but Ian, constructive criticism please, house take is 25% in all tournaments.

A good while back there was a thread on here which was looking for peoples input on running a good tourney or something like that. As far as I remember I think 10-12.5% take was generally accepted to be norm. If these are pub tournies then I imagine that means no dealers so expenses should not be that high. IMO 25% is just too much.

Edit - bohsman just beat me to it.

Samba

If I remember rightly, one worker who actually admitted they were 'taking a very generous slice of the cake' was sacked after posting that on boards.

So if Mr Texas Nights is the boss, I take it he did the firing?
People only normally get fired for doing something wrong, not for telling the truth.

O.k, he has never even heard of boards.ie Culchie, he is computer illiterate, spends about 30 minutes a day sending emails and that's as far is it goes.

He was sacked for damaging the reputation of his company and taking in such a large % of the prize pool without any authority to do so, he realised how much damage this caused his company and so he ran that tournament the following week and paid out 100% and absorbed all costs.

This particular person who came on and posted, posted after he had been sacked.

A good while back there was a thread on here which was looking for peoples input on running a good tourney or something like that. As far as I remember I think 10-12.5% take was generally accepted to be norm. If these are pub tournies then I imagine that means no dealers so expenses should not be that high. IMO 25% is just too much.

Edit - bohsman just beat me to it.

I'll use your quote to make up for it

Thanks, this is exactly what I want to hear, so a maximum take of 12.5% is what you would consider acceptable, brilliant, keep it coming....what other grievances do you have?

What other changes would you like to see.

I'll be forwarding a full copy of this thread to the owner once we are done.

Culchie

Here's the thread anyway.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=301963

I think 'Pen0s' was asked some direct questions, but no answers were forthcoming.

Listen Samba, I've said my piece, I'm not for turning with these guys, so I'll leave this thread now as I'll only be repeating myself.

5starpool

Samba wrote:

Thanks, this is exactly what I want to hear, so a maximum take of 12.5% is what you would consider acceptable, brilliant, keep it coming....what other grievances do you have?

I think that is the maximum you should be taking if you don't supply dealers especially. With dealers I am sure people would be prepared to pay 15-17 depending on the structure etc.

I do not, and don't ever envisage myself playing in a pub tournie (with the exception of a fun team event for instance). However, I think pub tournies that are respected by people who know the game (at various levels) are ones where people don't come out saying 'that was a crapshoot'. Having big starting stack with huge blind increments are counterfeiting each other.

I realise though that pub tournaments are limited to time by their nature (closing time etc) but by 'borrowing' structures, entry fees etc from other tournaments you would be taking a first good step.

My tuppence'orth.

Samba

O.k Culchie I had a quick read, you are right, answers were not forthcoming.

I however am prepared to answer all these questions, no matter how sensitive they might be, I will accept all criticism and try to amend as best as possible.

I think that is the maximum you should be taking if you don't supply dealers especially. With dealers I am sure people would be prepared to pay 15-17 depending on the structure etc.

I do not, and don't ever envisage myself playing in a pub tournie (with the exception of a fun team event for instance). However, I think pub tournies that are respected by people who know the game (at various levels) are ones where people don't come out saying 'that was a crapshoot'. Having big starting stack with huge blind increments are counterfeiting each other.

I realise though that pub tournaments are limited to time by their nature (closing time etc) but by 'borrowing' structures, entry fees etc from other tournaments you would be taking a first good step.

My tuppence'orth.

Dealers I will look into, the payout % will be the first topic on the agenda.

While yes pub tourneys are limited to closing time, one thing we can do is start them earlier, or run them on weekend/Bankholiday/Holiday afternoons.

Which could allow for alot of room to play.

Thanks for your input 5Star

fixer

Operating Costs are not a function of the buy-in amount, so I tend to object to any % takes, unless you are guaranteeing a minimum payout (risk & reward).

a-k-47

cant exactly see why they would bother with dealers at a pub tourny, maybe for the bellagio competition in april you should have dealers. also it would be of interest to the players, what the structure is for this tourn, is this a $100 freezeout with a $50 topup??? sorry for going off topic...

regarding the 25% rake seems abit to steep to me, but u will get away with it, as most of the pub players do not take this into consideration.

Samba

Sorry fixer, i'm slightly confused with your post. You say you would not accept any operating costs?

Are you saying you would not play in any tournament in the card clubs in Town as they have a registration fee?

The take is in short a registration fee, i will be looking to have the buyin structure changed, so that a registration fee is in place, rather than a % cut, they both work out the same except it's clear as day to players how much the house is taking. I will be pushing for the 12.5%.

GTD prize funds is tricky business and could have any tournament organiser on the brink of bankrupcy in a matter of months

Before we commence doing this we would have to see a track record of numbers and then we could Guarantee a Prize fund if we had previous data to substantiate a GTD prize fund, if we do implement this, I have no doubt it will only apply to the more popular venues.

A cheap way around this would be to GTD 1k and add extra funds to the prize pool, bit of a cop out however, don't you think?

A better idea might be estimated prize funds.

Again, another topic on the notepad.

handsfree

you should definately make it more transparent with a 100% prizepool and a registration fee to cover costs. that way people can see exactly what the take is. i also agree with the number of buy-backs being limited as this would encourage a fairer structure instead of one designed to maximise buy backs.

charlesanto

TexasNights are currently advertising freeze outs on their website but still running rebuy tournaments !

The "freeze out" they intend introducing is not a freeze out.
Their proposal is €40 buy in optional top-up €20 or double top-up €30.

Each player will end up coughing up €70 so why not just run a €70+€10 FREEZE OUT

Samba these guys aint listening !

fixer

Samba wrote:

Sorry fixer, i'm slightly confused with your post. You say you would not accept any operating costs?

Operating costs are not really a function of the number of players entered or amount of entry fees. Therefore, a % take isn't an accurate way to cover costs.

I'd prefer to see Entry Costs are €XX (100?), and the first €XX (2000?) of the total pot is take to cover costs.

Some examples:

% method:
50 entries at €100 + 25% = €5,000 prize money, €1,250 fees.
200 entries at €100 + 25% = €20,000 prize money, €5,000 fees.

Fixed Fee method:
50 entries at €125 = €4,250 prize money, €2,000 fees.
200 entries at €125 = €23,000 prize money, €2,000 fees.


You know going in what your costs will be, regardless of how many players enter or not. Fixing your fee to cover costs (even including payment to managers or the company) is the most fair way. In the % method, you have a breakeven point, after which you are making endless profit.

Card rooms can fix their costs at 10%, and are probably losing a bit overall, but they make it up in the rake at the cash games.

charlesanto

fixer wrote:

Card rooms can fix their costs at 10%, and are probably losing a bit overall, but they make it up in the rake at the cash games.

How much is the rake at the cash tables ?

fixer

charlesanto wrote:

How much is the rake at the cash tables ?

It varies depending on the club, but that has nothing to do with Texas Nights tourneys.

Culchie

fixer wrote:

Operating costs are not really a function of the number of players entered or amount of entry fees. Therefore, a % take isn't an accurate way to cover costs.

I'd prefer to see Entry Costs are €XX (100?), and the first €XX (2000?) of the total pot is take to cover costs.

Some examples:

% method:
50 entries at €100 + 25% = €5,000 prize money, €1,250 fees.
200 entries at €100 + 25% = €20,000 prize money, €5,000 fees.

Fixed Fee method:
50 entries at €125 = €4,250 prize money, €2,000 fees.
200 entries at €125 = €23,000 prize money, €2,000 fees.


You know going in what your costs will be, regardless of how many players enter or not. Fixing your fee to cover costs (even including payment to managers or the company) is the most fair way. In the % method, you have a breakeven point, after which you are making endless profit.

Card rooms can fix their costs at 10%, and are probably losing a bit overall, but they make it up in the rake at the cash games.

No one should have a problem with promoters making 'endless profit', if it's based on a % of entry fees, more profit=more prize pool.

Your example doesn't tkae into account there's 4 times as much work for operators, 4 times as much chips, labour etc...

Fair is fair, why would anyone try and organise a decent tournament if they didn't get a fair slice of the cake?

fixer

Culchie wrote:

No one should have a problem with promoters making 'endless profit', if it's based on a % of entry fees, more profit=more prize pool.

Your example doesn't tkae into account there's 4 times as much work for operators, 4 times as much chips, labour etc...

Fair is fair, why would anyone try and organise a decent tournament if they didn't get a fair slice of the cake?

That is precisely why I stated *if* they guaranteed a pot, I wouldn't mind as much. Risk vs reward. They take almost no risk in a pub tourney, so I am absolutely opposed to potentially endless profits. If they guaranteed a payout, then they are taking a monetary risk (if they get fewer entries) vs gaining a monetary rewarded (if they get more entries).

The more work argument doesn't wash. Do you get paid more at your job if you "work harder"? They need to have materials sufficient to cover the maximum possible players, so those costs are still fixed. if they don't get used, they may save money (dealers can go home, food order can be reduced), but it won't ever cost them more.

A fair slice is *exactly* what started the debate, as too many of us felt they were taking an extra UNFAIR slice. I am offering a suggestion that would satisfy me, in which they can make a fixed profit per tourney *and* it be transparent to the players.

Culchie

fixer wrote:

That is precisely why I stated *if* they guaranteed a pot, I wouldn't mind as much. Risk vs reward. They take almost no risk in a pub tourney, so I am absolutely opposed to potentially endless profits. If they guaranteed a payout, then they are taking a monetary risk (if they get fewer entries) vs gaining a monetary rewarded (if they get more entries).

The more work argument doesn't wash. Do you get paid more at your job if you "work harder"? They need to have materials sufficient to cover the maximum possible players, so those costs are still fixed. if they don't get used, they may save money (dealers can go home, food order can be reduced), but it won't ever cost them more.

A fair slice is *exactly* what started the debate, as too many of us felt they were taking an extra UNFAIR slice. I am offering a suggestion that would satisfy me, in which they can make a fixed profit per tourney *and* it be transparent to the players.

So.... from a players point of view, and from a tournament operators point of view, from your examples ... what do you think would happen?

50 entries at €100 + 25% = €5,000 prize money, €1,250 fees.
200 entries at €100 + 25% = €20,000 prize money, €5,000 fees.

Fixed Fee method:
50 entries at €125 = €4,250 prize money, €2,000 fees.
200 entries at €125 = €23,000 prize money, €2,000 fees.

What tournament operator in their right mind would run a tournament for 200 people, when they can run one for 50 and get the same money .....would you?

fixer

Are you here to offer suggestions to Texas Nights, or are you here to try and argue with me?

(and to answer your question, which players would continue to go to a tourney that only got 50 runners when that much money went to the operating costs? it's called supply and demand, players follow the best value)

Daithio

bohsman wrote:

Im not going to pay 100+ for a self deal tournament (one of my many problems with the merrion)

The merrion's tournaments all have dealers, except for the freeroll.

Culchie

fixer wrote:

Are you here to offer suggestions to Texas Nights, or are you here to try and argue with me?

I have no wish to offer any suggestions to Texas Nights specifically as I don't trust them.

I'm just finding the suggestions that you are putting forward as being completely impractical and saying that the net result would be small prize pools to players, small tournaments, and of no benefit to anyone.
Your business model simply would not work.


This is a discussion forum, we're allowed to disagree.

Nalced_irl

fixer wrote:

Are you here to offer suggestions to Texas Nights, or are you here to try and argue with me?

(and to answer your question, which players would continue to go to a tourney that only got 50 runners when that much money went to the operating costs? it's called supply and demand, players follow the best value)

I agree with the fact that players will obviously go where the best value is. I have only ever played in one TN tourney and thought it was well run, as far as pub tourneys go, the blinds ect were ok, but the prizepool did seem to lack alot. Counting up the amount of rebuy calls i heard, estimating the top ups and the initial buy ins, it seemed that approx 35-40% of the prizepool was missing. Plus, while i would put it down to rumours and not fact, i did hear whispers of chips being slyly passed out at the break, but as i said, unless i saw it myself i would not put any weight in that, which i didnt. If i had the choice between a TN or VN tourney for example, there would be no competition, i would go to a VN one and i think that mostly comes down to the prizepool as with VN, they charge a bit for registration, but at least you know exactly how much every time.

Samba

Thread is being deleted for the time being.

Keep you posted

Culchie

Samba wrote:

Thread is being deleted for the time being.

Keep you posted

Why, it's an interesting thread?

Samba

An explanation will be forthcoming very soon.

super_furry

My two suggestions would be new staff and implementation of the rules set down in advertisements. I've played in two Texas Nights tournaments in the last four months, one in the 108 Rathgar where a group of friends dragged me into and one in my local, Morton's where I'd was already there when the game was being set up.

On both times the staff seemed immature, uncertain of what they were doing and unable to provide proper rulings when called to. Both tournaments were run by the same three people who seemed like they were basically kids who just don't know how to run a poker tournament.

Players were let rebuy as often as they wanted, despite being told at the start of the night that rebuys were limited, when I asked about this, I was told "we're not that strict."

Now that's just very basic stuff, and isn't even going into the prize structure, rake and the rest, but if you can't get the basics right, what hope do you have?

Culchie

Actually Samba, I do have one suggestion.

If TexasNights are in reforming mode, they won't win me over, but that's not the point......For your own good, Sambas good name, I think you might be better off changing your name from Texas Nights.

It's got a poor name amongst poker players at present, so maybe you should consider re-naming your new organisation, and get off to a fresh start.

bohsman

Daithio wrote:

The merrion's tournaments all have dealers, except for the freeroll.

In the past they didnt.

ianmc38

bohsman wrote:

In the past they didnt.

I played the €25 rebuy on a Friday a few months back and had to deal for 2 hours cos they needed our dealer for a cash table. This was after the rebuy/topup period. I was absolutely livid and nearly asked for a refund.

mewso

It's great to see someone requesting feedback but I have to insist that if the subject matter is Poker Tournaments / Events then amazingly I would prefer it to be in the Poker Tournaments / Events forum.

charlesanto

Samba wrote:

An explanation will be forthcoming very soon.

:rolleyes:

Samba

charlesanto wrote:

:rolleyes:

was the :rolleyes: really neccessary :eek:

I gave my explanation in another thread and forgot to reply here, apologies Anto.

I will no longer be working direclty with TN, i will help them launch their new site and have an advisory role as to how they can improve etc for a limited time.

As the decision was made to no longer work, I did not want this thread to remain open, as I started it. i had not yet informed TN and so I did not want him to read it here before it was said to him personally, that's only fair - we discussed it on Sunday.



The thread has served it's purpose and the owner has read this thread himself, whether he is going to come on and reply direclty is entirely up to him.

I hope this was a satisfactory explanation. I would like to thank everyone for the feedback and it was well recieved and put to good use.

I think we can now close this thread.