Blind Structure

....continued from previous post......

My thoughts on blinds have to do with the type of event that we're running.

The tourneys are basically primers for the cash game. The tourney's fun and it's different experience, but in reality, it really is just a warmup for the cash game(s). With that in mind, we need to get and go - we have people hanging around waiting for the cash game and it's a little rude to hog a table with 3 or 4 players while 6+ are standing around. That's why we have such aggressive blind structures. Yes luck is huge going down the stretch, but tourneys tend to have a big dependence on luck anyway - it's the nature of the beast.

I would be highly supportive of a tourney only event. A cash game could happen afterwords if people want to hang around, but the primaru focus of the event is the tourney. Then we could really stretch the blinds out, maybe even go to 30 or 40 minute rounds. Limit the top end blinds to something like 500/1000 (or even less) and let the final 2,3, or 5 players really get into a good solid battle. Let them work it out a hand at a time instead of having to decide if they need to shove on one of the next 3 hands.

If bust outs want to hang around for a couple of hours (or even come back) there could easily be a cash game, but we would all understand that the focus of the event is the TOURNEY.

Otherwise we need to keep them aggressive so everyone can get back into play.


How far should we take the blinds? That's a question that we will just need to keep feeling out. With 20 players there's 20K chips in play. If the final 2 have even chips, they each have just 5 big blinds when it gets to the 1K/2K level. Seems just a little crazy. I'm thinking we try capping it at 500/1K (Unless we have a much bigger field). Maybe play at that level for up to an hour and then kick it up if there's no progress. (I think I'll try that at my next tourney and see if it's too much of a slow down.)

I'm also considering having the final table start with a full new 20 minute cycle of the round we were in - a little bonus for making the final table. I think last week we had like 3 minutes left in a round, so it's just a little extra time.

Now I understand. Hagar and I think very differently about the tourney being a primer for the cash game. That of which I do not believe it is. People come to play the tourney, because there is a tourney. (Take Dino for example). Tourneys are a totally different style and method of play. Different money and at times, different players. If in fact the tourney is a primer to the cash game, then we should play / structure it totally differently. For example, when it gets down to 5 people, call it right then and there and name the winners based on chip stack. (that's how they do it in Stockton at the Cameo club) I strongly believe our tourney is a staple in our gaming evening and the hosts offerings that attracts people to play, just as the cash game does the same thing in its own respect.

So on that premise, I agree that the tourney needs to be timely, but not at an unfair as to slight to the people who have lasted that long to get where they are (in the bubble, heads up, what ever) to get others (who have busted out) in the seat for a cash game. That is the premise of two tables. The "bust outs" can grab a cash game, watch the rest of the tourney, run for food, hand out, read, learn from other players style / etc.

Tourneys as well are not based on luck and winning them. When the blinds scream up high and higher, yes, it can be luck of the draw and what you are dealt, but winning one isn't luck at all. I think on that note it makes sense to consider this the next tourney we have to give all players an equal advantage.

I believe if we were to limit the increasing of the blinds, then it would need to be around the 1K/2K level, I don't think that 500/1K would be high enough. We need to have a blind that is competitive with the amount of chips on the table and ultimately, gets the tourney over (from that point on) in a round or two. I also think that the ante is something that is worth considering as part of our normal format for our higher level tourney play.

It did kind of suck when we went to the final table and had 3 minutes left in the round. I don't know that there is a fair way to do this. How I've seen it done in the casino and other tourney structures is just that, the clock is the clock. I agree that there is some value in it, and or taking a break, coloring up some of the chips in play and getting the tourney back on the way again for the last table to battle it out. There should be no advantage for the last 10 players left in the tourney that the first 10 players didn't have. Likewise when it gets down to 3 players. Those three players shouldn’t have any advantage over the first three players that went out.

I also would favor a tourney only night. Either 2 tables down to one, or two separate (single table) to qualify for the final table where the money is.

Here is one other thought. If our tourneys are paying out what card room tourneys do, they will come running to get in. Not often do you hear about a guy playing a home tourney taking close to $500 for winning it. Being that it was a $40 buy in. Those are attractive numbers.

Being that different people host, the other nice thing about this is that we can try different things, solicit feedback from the players and build on it for the next event. If a host doesn’t like rebuy tourneys or only likes lower buy in tourneys for example, then they have the option in structuring their / the tourney to their liking, and someone else can do differently. This is one of the things that keeps our group dynamic and fluid.

Just for the record. I disagree with most of what Quads says in regards to tourneys. To keep things civil and on-track, I'll just agree to disagree and understand that we have 2 different valid viewpoints (his is just wrong :wink: ) and that's OK!

I will make 3 brief points:

1. It's pretty well documented that tourneys have a much higher luck factor than cash games as a general rule. I'm not saying that there is no skill involved, but the luck:skill ratio plays a bigger bearing in the "short term environment" of a tourney than in a ring game.

2. We bill our tourneys as "tourney followed by cash game". To me, I expect to get into a cash game in a reasonable time-frame after I bust out with this wording. That's why I see it as a primer for the cash game. If it was billed as a "tourney and we'll see what happens", then it has a different meaning even if we all know that there's a good chance for cash games to follow.

3. In a tourney I've run with another group, we just paid the players based on chip stacks once the money line was drawn. It was not prefered. All but the winner wanted to take their shots of improving their positions. Our tourneys tend to move pretty quick once we're in the money, so I see no need to move to that extreme.

I do agree that different hosts can try different things and we'll see what most folks like and fine tune from there.

Oh, yeah you're not "in the bubble", you're "on the bubble" which means you're the top player who doesn't get paid. Repeat after me - "In the money", "On the Bubble"........


Jeez - kids these days...... :wink: