vbnautilus 48 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Tournament director Matt Savage has written this interesting piece on tournament structures. http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/issue56...Tournaments.phpHis basic argument is that given time constraints, while deep stack tournaments allow for more play at the beginning, they just shift the luck part to the middle/end, where the play really should be more important. Thoughts? Link to post Share on other sites
MaxStPolish 4 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 I'd rather have the "luck" come into play once ITM than at kickoff.I'd rather the best 9 players in a field get to the final table and then flip coins for the largest prizes than everyone flip a coin at tournament's start and half the field gets popped, and then the rest play a "skill" tourney.Obv. this resopnse is crazy generalized, but the fundamental question is too. Link to post Share on other sites
king_tanner 84 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 I think any tournament that has a lot of play left at the final table is a good structured tournament. Link to post Share on other sites
lolly.gag.her 0 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 I think any tournament that has a lot of play left at the final table is a good structured tournament.you would Link to post Share on other sites
I_fold08 1 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 of course more play at the end is better, but is there a point where the structure is too slow? last year's wsope FT lasted 22 hours I believe. while daniel said it was the best structure ever other pros argued with him saying that it was too slow of a structure. Link to post Share on other sites
HighwayStar 8 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Give me an average stack of 15 BBs any day Link to post Share on other sites
MaxStPolish 4 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 I think you guys are missing the crux of the question...... Link to post Share on other sites
Fade2241 0 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 I'd rather have the "luck" come into play once ITM than at kickoff.I'd rather the best 9 players in a field get to the final table and then flip coins for the largest prizes than everyone flip a coin at tournament's start and half the field gets popped, and then the rest play a "skill" tourney.Obv. this resopnse is crazy generalized, but the fundamental question is too.QFTFWIW I believe tournaments are already long enough, I don't want them any longer. Better structures early are the best way to go. Link to post Share on other sites
I_fold08 1 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 QFTFWIW I believe tournaments are already long enough, I don't want them any longer. Better structures early are the best way to go.you are an idiot Link to post Share on other sites
Syntonic 0 Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Yeah, with the internet, our attention spans are far too short. I say make all poker tournaments no more than 20 hands.Books no more than 140 characters.etc. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted August 3, 2009 Author Share Posted August 3, 2009 I'd rather have the "luck" come into play once ITM than at kickoff.I'd rather the best 9 players in a field get to the final table and then flip coins for the largest prizes than everyone flip a coin at tournament's start and half the field gets popped, and then the rest play a "skill" tourney.Obv. this resopnse is crazy generalized, but the fundamental question is too.But most of the variance in payout is at the final table, isn't that where skill should matter? Link to post Share on other sites
MaxStPolish 4 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 But most of the variance in payout is at the final table, isn't that where skill should matter?LOL. I contend skill should matter the whole tournament. But if pressed to a skill vs. luck format, I'd like to see skill start the tourney off and survive as long as it can until players are pressed to decisions. I feel that late in the tourney, if the blinds are catching up with players, it's because of the evolution of the tournament. It happened a bit more naturally. That beats the hell out of pressing people early and letting them kill each other off rapidly FORCING the player pool to make early risks to catch up the blinds. That's just a clear tourney structuring to hasten action.No? Link to post Share on other sites
I_fold08 1 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 LOL. I contend skill should matter the whole tournament. But if pressed to a skill vs. luck format, I'd like to see skill start the tourney off and survive as long as it can until players are pressed to decisions. I feel that late in the tourney, if the blinds are catching up with players, it's because of the evolution of the tournament. It happened a bit more naturally. That beats the hell out of pressing people early and letting them kill each other off rapidly FORCING the player pool to make early risks to catch up the blinds. That's just a clear tourney structuring to hasten action.No?chipleader after day 1 should win the money Link to post Share on other sites
TheCinciKid 0 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 I think Mr. Savage makes a very good point. I recently played in tournament with a $240 buy-in that started with 5k in chips. The structure looked great at the beginning first level was 25/50 for an hour, then levels went to a half hour. But, things deteriorated fairly quickly and with about 100 people left (of the 700 who started) and only maybe 6 hours into the tournament the blind were 3k/6k with a 300 ante and the chip average was something like 35k. That's just silly IMO. All of the money is at the final table, you shouldn't have be flipping coins for it when you get there. Link to post Share on other sites
whatgreatis 0 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Give me an average stack of 15 BBs any dayLOL Link to post Share on other sites
Mercury69 3 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 How about short levels to start and lengthening the levels as the blinds get higher. Maybe some kind of "time/blinds/average chipstack/players left" formula that allows for more play. Link to post Share on other sites
I_fold08 1 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 How about short levels to start and lengthening the levels as the blinds get higher. Maybe some kind of "time/blinds/average chipstack/players left" formula that allows for more play.at the LAPC on the first day levels are 60 minutes long and after that the levels become 90 minutes long. (a matt savage tournament as well) Link to post Share on other sites
Fade2241 0 Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 you are an idiotI am. I wasn't thinking this is for live events with higher buyins, I was thinking more for online. I'll stfu now. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now