Lol rakeaments.... (lowish content).

DeVore

Suppose instead of increasing the blinds, the dealers raked chips out of a tournament. Last X players getting increasing prizes etc as normal.

I'm not suggesting this particularly seriously but it just occured to me and I've been thinking about it for the last 5 minutes. How would that affect the game I wonder...

DeV.

5starpool

I am sure if it was done in a well calculated manner it would probably have the same amount of impact. The only problem is that the rake may not be consistent across tables due to dealer differences, pot sizes etc, and this would affect different types of players more than others I guess as well, as some rock whos preflop raises got respected mostly would not get his pots raked at all (under cash game rake standards anyhow) whereas people who play flops would get a higher % raked.

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

Presumably it would tighten up the game as there would be a significantly reduced incentive to play.

E.g. if there are 2,000 starting stacks, and the blinds remain at 25-50, then a player could just not play and still remain in the game for nearly 30 rounds of the table. Given that there are max 4 rounds of table per hour, then you could just fold your way through 7 hours of a tournament.

DeVore

Yeah, there would have to be some form of enforced action or people would never play.... (thought of that about 5 secs after I posted, lol)

Dunno why I have been thinking about this sort of stuff but the idea of antes has also been on my mind. We use them really badly here in Ireland, as a means of speeding up the tournie rather then relieving pressure on the BB.

Basically I'm trying to consider or invent alternatives to the institutionalised idea of SB/BB. I'm not sure its out there tbh but its an interesting problem.

DeV.

Marq

tom you're mental.

jacQues

DeVore wrote:

Dunno why I have been thinking about this sort of stuff but the idea of antes has also been on my mind. We use them really badly here in Ireland, as a means of speeding up the tournie rather then relieving pressure on the BB.

Basically I'm trying to consider or invent alternatives to the institutionalised idea of SB/BB. I'm not sure its out there tbh but its an interesting problem.

Blinds are there to adjust the significance of chip values. A way to play without blinds but still have this significance is using running antes. But even then there is an opening bet and/or minimum bet. So that wouldn't work for your purpose. You need a more creative and exotic solution.

A possible method that would work would be to rake timed instead of per-pot. An example: All players start with 100 chips. The minimum bet is 1 chip. There are no blinds at all, but there is a dealer button. So the player on the left of the button is UTG both before and after the flop. Every 5..30 minutes (whatever works, needs some live testing) every player is raked 1 chip. This means that if a player only has 1 chip (s)he is out (should have seen it coming and move). The overall chip count will go down and this is effectively the same as upping the blinds.

Above should work, but I'm not sure if many players would like it. I (as a gamer) wouldn't mind either way as all players will have the same (dis)advantage. But for poker players (as in non-gamers) the blinds tradition may be a hard thing to let go off.

jacQues
(creative hamster)

Washout

jacQues wrote:

Blinds are there to adjust the significance of chip values. A way to play without blinds but still have this significance is using running antes. But even then there is an opening bet and/or minimum bet. So that wouldn't work for your purpose. You need a more creative and exotic solution.

A possible method that would work would be to rake timed instead of per-pot. An example: All players start with 100 chips. The minimum bet is 1 chip. There are no blinds at all, but there is a dealer button. So the player on the left of the button is UTG both before and after the flop. Every 5..30 minutes (whatever works, needs some live testing) every player is raked 1 chip. This means that if a player only has 1 chip (s)he is out (should have seen it coming and move). The overall chip count will go down and this is effectively the same as upping the blinds.

Above should work, but I'm not sure if many players would like it. I (as a gamer) wouldn't mind either way as all players will have the same (dis)advantage. But for poker players (as in non-gamers) the blinds tradition may be a hard thing to let go off.

jacQues
(creative hamster)

for me this wouldnt work because the game will still be alot tighter than it would be if there were blinds. There will be a larger % of hands that will be just folded around.

to make your kind of sytem work the amount raked per player should increase every 1/2 an hour.

ie everyone starting with 100 chips. asfter 30 minutes rake 1 chip. the next rake is 2 chips, the third rake 4 chips etc.

jacQues

Washout wrote:

for me this wouldnt work because the game will still be alot tighter than it would be if there were blinds. There will be a larger % of hands that will be just folded around.

I agree to the tighter game. Also the game would also move faster, since there is no "I'm blind soon" panic or primary reason to play with medium hands. So more hands per hour. Also, I just realised that a table can force to blind someone out, which is bad.

Increasing the rake definitely is an option, but again it would need some testing to tweak everything. In general, I think the current blind system is probably the best. But playing with other ideas is fun.

jacQues
(:o hamster)

bops

this reminds me of one of my more mental ideas!

eg: cash tourney €500 (+25) say Freezeout (but could work as a rebuy!!)

90 min levels only 5 levels!!
Starting stack €500
Blinds: 1/2 2/4 3/6 4/8 5/10

after 7 1/2 hours of play - game over!!!!

cash out what you've got - winner is the one with the most $$ (obv) and gets a lovely bit of waterford glass or something (from the reg fee)!

anybody like??

jacQues

bops wrote:

this reminds me of one of my more mental ideas!

eg: cash tourney €500 (+25) say Freezeout (but could work as a rebuy!!)

90 min levels only 5 levels!!
Starting stack €500
Blinds: 1/2 2/4 3/6 4/8 5/10

after 7 1/2 hours of play - game over!!!!

cash out what you've got - winner is the one with the most $$ (obv) and gets a lovely bit of waterford glass or something (from the reg fee)!

anybody like??

I like it. But you'd need to test this first somehow. Matchsticks?

jacQues
(:D hamster)

DeVore

Jacques, effectively thats the same as an ante ever hand , but no blinds. I like that idea.

I disagree that the purpose of the blinds is to devalue chip values, I think thats simply a consequence. The blinds create a pot worth playing for (something I forgot while thinking about the raking idea). They force the action along and force the tournament to a conclusion. Unfortunately they also force the gamble into the game leading to the "lol donkaments" comments.

My view is that if tournaments were structured correctly they would be MORE skilfull then deep stacked cash simply because all variations of your play would be tested from deep stacked to (possibly) short stacked, from full table to shorthanded. Additionally in a tournie you can apply tremendous pressure because of the inability to rebuy. The best play is always the mental/psychological stuff imho. In a cash game, people are constantly playing the same blinds, the same size table and if they are managing their bankrolls properly wont be under much pressure if they lose a buyin on a pressured call.

As it is though, cash is more skilful simply because tournies seem "broken" in their current structure. I'm not sure it can be fixed but I wasnt doing a lot this afternoon and fell to thinking about it

DeV.

Tar.Aldarion

My old home games had blinds of 5/10...that never went up. I sit there all tight, won every one. We eventually came across this 'raising the blinds' thing. So we raised them ever couple of hours.

strewelpeter

bops wrote:

after 7 1/2 hours of play - game over!!!!
cash out what you've got - winner is the one with the most $$ (obv) and gets a lovely bit of waterford glass or something (from the reg fee)!
anybody like??

Didn't they used to play that way in the States?
Or was it something like that the game ended when the bubble burst and you then got paid the value of your chips...I'm sure it died out for a good reason.

If we want to change the pace of the game how about something like pot or half pot limit preflop and No Limit after the flop.

I've been playing a few PL Tourneys lately and while they have their difficulties, where they really play better is in that third quarter of a tourney - the last few tables before FT, which is that part of a NL Tourney that invariably becomes shove or fold because of the weight of Antes.

jacQues

DeVore wrote:

Jacques, effectively thats the same as an ante ever hand , but no blinds. I like that idea.

I disagree that the purpose of the blinds is to devalue chip values, I think thats simply a consequence. The blinds create a pot worth playing for (something I forgot while thinking about the raking idea). They force the action along and force the tournament to a conclusion. Unfortunately they also force the gamble into the game leading to the "lol donkaments" comments.

My view is that if tournaments were structured correctly they would be MORE skilfull then deep stacked cash simply because all variations of your play would be tested from deep stacked to (possibly) short stacked, from full table to shorthanded. Additionally in a tournie you can apply tremendous pressure because of the inability to rebuy. The best play is always the mental/psychological stuff imho. In a cash game, people are constantly playing the same blinds, the same size table and if they are managing their bankrolls properly wont be under much pressure if they lose a buyin on a pressured call.

As it is though, cash is more skilful simply because tournies seem "broken" in their current structure. I'm not sure it can be fixed but I wasnt doing a lot this afternoon and fell to thinking about it

DeV.

I agree with all that. I'm a gamer first and a poker player only because poker is a game. As such, I kinda like it, just as I like our weekly dealer's choice cash game.

first hamster wrote:

Variation within limits is the key to everything.

To this effect we're gonna try it out. Why? Well, why not? I'll be in Dublin around July 1st for the Settlers of Catan WCQ. Someone organise a location and we can have some fun with it. How about a 25 euro rakeless freeze-out with 25 euro added prizepool? (I'll get a donator np.) Should be fun...

jacQues
(:cool: hamster)

DeVore

The WSOP used to be a "winner takes all" but then they decided to extend the payout structure...

DeV.

Imposter

I've never played a live NL tournament with antes but I do agree a PL game seems to run better.

I guess the problem that Dev and everyone is getting at is how do you stop the nits sitting on their stacks without making the game a crapshoot.

Big stacks and slow structures seem to be the answer but for tournaments that are under time pressures then I think big stacks with variable jumps might work. A few quick levels when everyone has loads of chips and then slow down the blind increases once you hit a 20BB average stack (or there abouts). You could then up the blinds/antes once enough players were eliminated (so basically once you hit the 20BB's average stack for the next level).

Not sure how this would work in practice but it might be an idea.
You need the info on players left and next blind jump available to everyone though.

Would something like that actually hinder the nits?