Proposal: Alternative tournament structure

spectre

The recent IO farce tournament structure got me thinking about possible alternatives.

The aim is to eliminate the omnipresent crapshoot element whilst still minimising the duration of the tournament. The simple answer is a dynamic clock.

The idea being that in addition to the current system, there is also a condition whereby the average stack will not fall below x BBs. Perhaps 20-25BBs?

With this stipulation, you can advertise relatively short blind levels. The levels will ineveitably increase in length towards the business end of the tournament, which would ensure that actual POKER is played throughout.

Simple. What think ye?

jacQues

spectre wrote: »

The simple answer is a dynamic clock.

That has been tried before. Funny enough, the result was that such tournaments turn out to be a bigger crapshoot than when using a fixed clock structure.

jacQues

RoundTower

To all the weak tight fish who go on and on and on and on about how every tournament is a crapshoot, unfair, a disgrace for such a high buyin tournament, means people have to shove with bad cards, TD should have rolled back levels (wtf? this one is really lol): You wouldn't win the tournament anyway.

I don't think adjusting the clock based on the number of players left is a fundamentally bad idea, but it does have its own problems and it doesnt guarantee the stacks stay deeper.

YULETIRED

RoundTower wrote: »

To all the weak tight fish who go on and on and on and on about how every tournament is a crapshoot, unfair, a disgrace for such a high buyin tournament, means people have to shove with bad cards, TD should have rolled back levels (wtf? this one is really lol): You wouldn't win the tournament anyway.

I don't think adjusting the clock based on the number of players left is a fundamentally bad idea, but it does have its own problems and it doesnt guarantee the stacks stay deeper.

wtf does wtf mean?

what is a tight fish?

what are these problems you speak of?

I will win it next year if they make it a crapshoot from the start.

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

jimmii

Most places prefer to have tournaments over and done with or so it seems at least in Ireland. Is there any tournament here with a decent structure?

delanec8

Someone may correct me, but as far as i know, we are pretty blessed in comparison to other countries, when it comes to tourney structures, especially at lower stakes

ditpoker

delanec8 wrote: »

Someone may correct me, but as far as i know, we are pretty blessed in comparison to other countries, when it comes to tourney structures, especially at lower stakes

.

jimmii

delanec8 wrote: »

Someone may correct me, but as far as i know, we are pretty blessed in comparison to other countries, when it comes to tourney structures, especially at lower stakes

Really? 100bb starting stack and 30 minute blinds should be the very minimum. Why would anyone want to play a live tournament with 15 minute blinds starting with 75bb?

A lot of places pretty much double the blinds every level which makes it all go even quicker.

DeVore

We are quite fortunate alright, both with the tournie structures and the rake on the cash games. There was a general move towards competition in the market based on better play conditions for the players like tournie structures and hot food (believe it or not, thats a recent addition too!). At least some of the thanks for that should go to people like SuitedAces and various people on this site educating players about better structures and what to look for. Others like Oscar, Mike, Neil K, Connie, Stephen and others have been driving structures to be as good as they can afford to, for their players. It didnt happen by accident.


DeV.

ps: Just ignore RT, he's the enfant terrible of Irish poker.... 2 kool 4 skool. :rolleyes:

RoundTower

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Yeah, **** you. I'm probably plus EV in that tournament and I'm surprised at how the tournament panned out in terms of the structure. And I'd be getting it in with fold equity and certainly wouldn't have been blinded away.

then why complain? I also think I'd be +EV in that tournament (I didn't look into it in much detail but it sounds like it's way better than an EPT) and I'm not complaining. In fact I'd rarely criticize a tournament because of the structure but one of the reasons I didn't play the GJP deepstack event was because of the structure.

P.S. you can ignore DeV, he's well meaning but thinks he knows way more than he does about poker.

ArmaniJeanss

RoundTower wrote: »

In fact I'd rarely criticize a tournament because of the structure but one of the reasons I didn't play the GJP deepstack event was because of the structure.

Out of interest would you expand on this a little - my gut instinct would have been that as a good PLO player that you are comfortable playing later streets and that therefore a deepstacked HoldEm tournament would suit you?

HUSH HUSH

In the small print of all tournaments it says "The Tournament Director Reserves The Right To Change The Structure At Any Time" so when you get to stage when the Avg Stack / BB ratio is under the comfort zone. Request a break and ask the TD to change it accordingly. If he says his hands are tied ask him why and quote the rules back to him:cool:

RoundTower

OK I'm going to answer this in detail so I can link to it again.

lets say they had 30,000 chips and the blinds started at 25-50 and cost €1000 to buy into. I forget the exact details but along those lines. The only one I played was the PLO tournament, it was something like 20,000 25-50 $300, that tournament was OK and well run and I liked the club but it didn't inspire me to come back to play the main event.

Then for the first level you are basically playing a cash game with a €1.50 big blind, and so on, with deeper stacks than normal. If I was actually playing such a cash game I would almost certainly try to get everyone to straddle and in effect halve the stacks. In fact I'd be happy to have a restraddle so we can skip ahead to the third level.

Also I think live small stakes holdem cash games are among the boringest things in the whole world. If there is a couple of drunks or maniacs at the table they can become interesting, likewise if I have had a few myself (I try not to ever gamble when drunk but broke this rule recently). In the first couple of levels of an afternoon tournament these conditions are unlikely to exist. I'd rather play a cash game with the drunks for two hours the night before and then come in at level 3 of the tourney.

Thirdly, for all that certain people go on and on about how deep stacks allow you to outplay people and so on, in my experience poker players make just as many mistakes with 25BB stacks, and almost as many with 10BB stacks. I see even quite good players making fundamental mistakes about pushing or calling with short stacks.

Fourthly, virtually all tournaments end up with players having short stacks. Especially high buyin tournaments where the bubble is a lot of money to most people, especially satellite qualifiers. Let's say the average stack is 40BB and there are 20 people to go to reach the bubble. Most people don't want to get knocked out at this stage, most players will try to wait it out if they are "short" on 20BB. 2 levels later little has changed, there are still 15 people to go to the bubble and now the average is 20BB and the previously mentioned shorties have 10BB. By the time the bubble bursts the average will be about the same no matter what the structure was. Of course having an extended bubble period is advantageous for some players, the point is only that having deeper stacks to start doesn't change stack depth after the bubble.

Finally, suppose the tournament had "lots of play" and then the stacks are quite low and "the final table is just a crapshoot". A common complaint. This doesn't mean anyone who gets to the final table has an equal chance of winning. No, if I have five times your stack then I have five times as good a shot at winning if there is a true crapshoot. It's like we labelled all the chips with the player's name and threw them into a bag, then pulled the winner out at random, etc. (Incidentally this is a first approximation of how ICM works). It's not as if the skilful part of the tournament has suddenly been cancelled out by a lucky bit at the end.

RoundTower

HUSH HUSH wrote: »

In the small print of all tournaments it says "The Tournament Director Reserves The Right To Change The Structure At Any Time" so when you get to stage when the Avg Stack / BB ratio is under the comfort zone. Request a break and ask the TD to change it accordingly. If he says his hands are tied ask him why and quote the rules back to him:cool:

do you make this sh:t up just because you get a kick out of all the nerds on the internet swarming to tell you you are wrong, or do you genuinely mean well? Because I can't remember the last time you got anything right.

DeVore

RoundTower wrote: »

do you make this sh:t up just because you get a kick out of all the nerds on the internet swarming to tell you you are wrong, or do you genuinely mean well? Because I can't remember the last time you got anything right.

Are you telling him he is wrong?

DeV.

Shortstack

"Farce" is a tad strong. Sure they could have added a couple of levels but it would not have made much difference. The structure was advertised well in advance which should have given people the opportunity to work out their gameplan and try to get in a position that when the average stack was small compared to the blinds they have a decent stack.

Roundtower is right that a tight player is gonna struggle to win one of these even with a better structure.

Changing the structure midway through is a terrible idea unless you have pre-set formula for it - I have done it in the past, ie replaying a level but I have changed my opinion on it. Someone is always put at a disadvantage when you make a change which is not good.

Overall it seemed a well run tournament and we should be applauding the fact that we have one of the most prestigious events in Europe in our backdoor.

If you speak to any non-Irish player you will find they think the structure was good. We are just too blessed with slow structured tournament compared to anywhere else.

RoundTower

DeVore wrote: »

Are you telling him he is wrong?

DeV.

yeah

I've played in many tournaments where the structure is more or less set in stone once the tourney kicks off. As it should be.

Requiem4adream

I got to Level 15 in Irish Open, That means i had 14 and a bit hours to get myself into a winning position. Instead of complaining about the structure i think it's better to look closer to home - i basically had all the time in the world to try reach the point in time that people are complaining about. That means for the previous 14 hours the emphasis was tilted heavily in the favour of skill over luck. This is fair and value for my money.

Supposing i went a little further, to the "crapshoot situation", this simply tests a different skillset, to use your stack as effectively as possible in the high blinds situation. This is all about timing, awareness, instinct etc. Imo this tournament produced a fair winner (whoever that was going to be) - it gave plenty of hours of play with relatively deep stacks, and the final period tested another skillset, so the winner had to show ability and aptitude in a lot of departments of mtt-poker.

Furthermore..... i dont see why the clock should be slowed or levels repeated. I imagine this suits the shorter stacks more than the bigger ones (although the converse argument is plausible also)...and the bigger stacks deserve to maintain their advantage as they have obtained those stacks on merit.

FWIW the GJP Deep Stacks imo, whilst a fantastic tournament, was very boring early on. It was pretty hard to put your stack at risk at any stage in the 1st 10-15 levels, chip accumulation was difficult. It was a war of attrition, a test of stamina and concentration more than a test of poker skill.

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

HUSH HUSH

RoundTower wrote: »

yeah

I've played in many tournaments where the structure is more or less set in stone once the tourney kicks off. As it should be.

Well next ( if it isn't the 1st )time you play in a "real" tournament with a published blind structure and rules have a quick read of them and if you can find one that doesn't have this in the small print get back to me. Til then keep playing your €10 + buybacks pub games and keep your misplaced superiority to yourself.:D

( By the way the organizers use this rule to hurry tournaments up Not slow them down )

ditpoker

RoundTower wrote:

Fourthly, virtually all tournaments end up with players having short stacks. Especially high buyin tournaments where the bubble is a lot of money to most people, especially satellite qualifiers. Let's say the average stack is 40BB and there are 20 people to go to reach the bubble. Most people don't want to get knocked out at this stage, most players will try to wait it out if they are "short" on 20BB. 2 levels later little has changed, there are still 15 people to go to the bubble and now the average is 20BB and the previously mentioned shorties have 10BB. By the time the bubble bursts the average will be about the same no matter what the structure was. Of course having an extended bubble period is advantageous for some players, the point is only that having deeper stacks to start doesn't change stack depth after the bubble.

this is basically what i was trying to explain to lloyd yesterday but failing to put as well as this. Having dealt the first 22 levels of the 27 level tourney i am very familiar with how the play went for the whole tournament. This was a very playable tournament, there was still poker being played well into the money, albeit a different skill set was being used. and from the limited updates i read of the final table there seemed to be raising/reraising aplenty! so again, wp ppp! gg

bohsman

HUSH HUSH wrote: »

Well next ( if it isn't the 1st )time you play in a "real" tournament with a published blind structure and rules have a quick read of them and if you can find one that doesn't have this in the small print get back to me. Til then keep playing your €10 + buybacks pub games and keep your misplaced superiority to yourself.:D

( By the way the organizers use this rule to hurry tournaments up Not slow them down )

http://www.worldseriesofpoker.com/pdfs/wsop.tournament-rules.07.pdf

There you go.

ditpoker

ALSO... for all the "this structure was bad" merchants... i invite you to propose an actual alternative format. the rules for this are as follows:

• simply saying "add x or y level" will not suffice.
• stating starting stacks and time levels only, doesnt count.
• you have 4 days to get from 1000 players to 1 player
• you have to allow players sufficient time to sleep, periodic breaks, and lunch/dinner breaks.
• you must maintain whatever BB per hour average that you want (although as roundtower points out, even if you have 100bb average or whatever, at bubble time it will just last longer until the average drops to 10bb and people start to shove!)
• it must be an appropriate structure for a 3k-5k buy in.

good luck!

HUSH HUSH

bohsman wrote: »

http://www.worldseriesofpoker.com/pdfs/wsop.tournament-rules.07.pdf

There you go.

The problem with small print is that by its very nature it's hard to see. From the document you quoted

69. Harrah’s reserves the right to cancel or alter any event at its sole discretion in the best interest of the casino or its players.

Altering an event would cover changing blind structures

This phrase is also no 30 in the following

http://www.europeanpokertour.com/rules2.html

And appears in this one

http://www.irishpokeropen.com/tournament/rules.php

So keep looking:cool:

5starpool

The structure was much improved from last year I must say, and considering the length of time allocated to this event then it couldn't really have been much different. The only way to change this would be to have an extra full days play allocated to it, and I think a lot of players might not be too happy about this, although obviously there would be some who would be. I did think it got crapshoot like at 2k/4k, but as said above, most big buyin events with a large number of runners do. It's just a pity my stack started to go south at that point anyhow.

ditpoker

5starpool wrote: »

The structure was much improved from last year I must say, and considering the length of time allocated to this event then it couldn't really have been much different. The only way to change this would be to have an extra full days play allocated to it, and I think a lot of players might not be too happy about this, although obviously there would be some who would be. I did think it got crapshoot like at 2k/4k, but as said above, most big buyin events with a large number of runners do. It's just a pity my stack started to go south at that point anyhow.

dom, what do you make of playing 8hr days? i think with breaks + 1 hr dinner it worked out at 10hrs each day.

would you have been up for a midday start, playing through til say 2am. I'd have thought 99% of players would be happy to play 10 levels a day, that way a few extra levels could be introduced!?

5starpool

If it was 2pm - 2am it would have been fine. Midday is too early though. You could lob in an extra level or 2 a day I guess. Midday - 2am would be too long I reckon for a few days in a row, especially for those not staying in the hotel.

Mellor

HUSH HUSH wrote: »

The problem with small print is that by its very nature it's hard to see. From the document you quoted

69. Harrah’s reserves the right to cancel or alter any event at its sole discretion in the best interest of the casino or its players.

Altering an event would cover changing blind structures

This phrase is also no 30 in the following

http://www.europeanpokertour.com/rules2.html

And appears in this one

http://www.irishpokeropen.com/tournament/rules.php

So keep looking:cool:

The arguement is that it is not possible to change it, we know it is possible.
But to do so because a single player (in your original example) wants to and because he quoted the rules at the TD is stupid. Its actually ridiculous, esp from the chip leaders POV, and eliminated players also.

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

Requiem4adream

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

**** them, never a concern. When we get knocked out our opinion on how the tournament ends is meaningless.

That's total bs. So you're telling me someone shoves 12bbs with 2 mins left of the level, gets knocked out and then finds out next hand the TD changed the structure and is repeating the level or slowing the clock. You're saying their opinion is meaningless? As soon as you make changes to structures mid-tournament you are immediately being unfair to previously eliminated players and some existing players, they played their game based on the existing structure.

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

ditpoker

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

So what, they're out!! They have no say over the structure once they are out just as they have no say if the rest of the field decides on an even chop once they get knocked out. You assume they played their hands in the most plus EV fashion. It didn't work out and they go home.

If the tournament has reached a stage where the average stack is 10 BBs or less it seems reasonable to me that a level can be repeated or whatever - and the fact that people have been eliminated in the last half - hour to hour is irrelevant.

lloyd. this is wrong. you are a trolling mctroll.

phantom_lord

lol donkaments

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

ditpoker

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

No its not wrong

Underline and bolding STRONG statements for the win.

if i pay 4200+300, am i entitled to an opinion on how the tournament is run?
if i pay any reg at all am i entitled to complain if things are bad?
if i pay any reg at all can i complain about the quality of a dealer?
if i pay any reg at all can i give out about the quality of the structure?
if i pay any reg at all could i complain if 5 mins before the game starts they decided it was 8k stacks?

Mellor

phantom_lord wrote: »

lol donkaments

indeed

Requiem4adream

How would you feel if you're walking away from the table with 20 left in Irish Open 800k winner, you've just busted and you hear Liam Flood immediately say "do you know what lads, i've had a brainwave. let's slow the clock to 90 mins and i'll tell you what, you can repeat that level sure while you're at it!!". You'd come on here saying it stinks and is unfair on you (and most people here would agree it stinks), if you'd had that information available you *might* have made a different decision on your exit hand.

Bottom line changing structures mid-tournament will annoy both existing players and eliminated players and probably cause more hassle than it's worth to implement.

phantom_lord

Requiem4adream wrote: »

Bottom line changing structures mid-tournament will annoy both existing players and eliminated players and probably cause more hassle than it's worth to implement.

I've never heard of anyone complain after levels were repeated, or the structure extended.

ditpoker

phantom_lord wrote: »

I've never heard of anyone complain after levels were repeated, or the structure extended.

if levels are to be repeated or structure extended it has to be advertised well in advance. i.e halfway through day two tell everyone "at the end of todays play we will be replaying the last level as the first level tomorrow."

or before tourney begins "when we reach the last 27 we will be extending the clock to 90 mins."

that is fine. but to make "immediate" changes would be a disaster.

Requiem4adream

phantom_lord wrote: »

I've never heard of anyone complain after levels were repeated, or the structure extended.

Really? so you think a chip leader would have no problem with a repeat level or longer clock, thereby lifting some of the pressure from the short stacks? Suppose the stacks were: Chip Leader 2m, chip Last 250k, blinds 15/30k ante 3k, due to go up to 20/40k 4k. Why would he want another hour at 15/30, gives the shorties more time to find a hand. Equally if you're a shortie you might want them to go up as it makes your decision easier and more in the pot to steal.

look imo a set-in-stone structure is fine,everyone knows it prior to the event and can choose to play/not play based on it. FWIW i didnt hear anyone moaning about the structure before the event. I played it myself and there was tons of play for the 1st 15 levels.

Marq

none of you had to play it.
you know the structure in advance. you still decide to pay 4.5k into it, then you complain about it because it turns into a crapshooty push fest like all tourneys by nature have to towards the end.

move up levels.

phantom_lord

Requiem4adream wrote: »

Suppose the stacks were: Chip Leader 2m, chip Last 250k, blinds 15/30k ante 3k, due to go up to 20/40k 4k.

why would a level be repeated here? from what i remember it's usually in touraments where the cl has something like 15bbs.

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

phantom_lord

Requiem4adream wrote: »

How would you feel if you're walking away from the table with 20 left in Irish Open 800k winner, you've just busted and you hear Liam Flood immediately say "do you know what lads, i've had a brainwave. let's slow the clock to 90 mins and i'll tell you what, you can repeat that level sure while you're at it!!". You'd come on here saying it stinks and is unfair on you (and most people here would agree it stinks), if you'd had that information available you *might* have made a different decision on your exit hand.

how would u feel if you got to the last 6 and then they did a chop after you got knocked out?

HUSH HUSH

Mellor wrote: »

The arguement is that it is not possible to change it, we know it is possible.
But to do so because a single player (in your original example) wants to and because he quoted the rules at the TD is stupid. Its actually ridiculous, esp from the chip leaders POV, and eliminated players also.

If you actually READ my post you would see it asked for the clock to be stopped and a discussion with the TD........ Not the actions of one person asking for things to be changed, and in alot of these cases a bit of player power and solidarity can force the TD to change his mind as in effect its their money they are playing for not his.

Requiem4adream

phantom_lord wrote: »

how would u feel if you got to the last 6 and then they did a chop after you got knocked out?

As long as they played on the same structure as before i dont give a fk what they do with the prize pool when im gone. A 5 way chop is profiting from my demise whereas if they repeat a level they are potentially profitting from a change in structure, giving them an unfair advantage over me and the other 700 odd players who paid the same amount in. If they slow the game immediately after im gone i'd be less than happy as i *may* have made a different decision armed with this information.

I really think it's simple - take a look at the structure of a tournament, play it or dont play it, and if you play it then play it to the best of your ability. It's the same for everyone who enters. If you go changing the structure as you go along then clearly everyone is not getting the same value for their money.