[Hagar]

I might have some suggestions regarding the blind structures which might prevent a huge excalation towards the end of the tourney while providing balance throughout and at the same time preventing the tourney to go 5 or more hours.

OK. This is where I get a bit confused about critisizm about the double blinds. If the 5 or 6 hours is long enough to feel you got your money's worth, why does it matter how we get there? The point of quickly advancing blinds is to force action to move the tourney towards completion. Having a less aggressive blind structure that gets the tourney over in the same time frame is going to accomplish the same thing.

I'm guessing that your suggested structure would start at higher blinds (25/50) for the same stack. That means that the early rounds will start forcing action earlier (the round is slightly more important than a 5/10 round) so the "pressure" is on right from the start. By the third or fourth round we'd be somewhere in the neighborhood of 100/200 or 150/300 which is where it would really start to matter and this would be in a similar range as the fourth round of the structure we used (100/200 in fourth round).

After that point, the blinds would increase less severley than the structure we used which would tend to be less forceful, probably easing up on the action (mid-stacks wouldn't feel as pressured to risk lots of chips as they would knowing they will be in big trouble soon if they don't stack up a bit), which would start to increase the length of the tourney.

I'll make this clear: I have no problem with doing a real long grind out 10 hour+ tourney. In fact I'd love it if we could figure out a way to set up something that mimics the WSOP main event structure (10K chips, 2 hour blinds), but that would be incredibly hard to pull off as it would likely take several days to complete and I doubt that we could get a large group to be able to commit to being available for 2 days let alone 2, maybe 3, weekends to put this together. If we have the interest to start much earlier in the day (10:00?) and allow it linger on with a less aggrssive sructure, I'd host that in a heartbeat.

But to me, starting the blinds a little higher to accomodate a less aggressive blind structure so that we can finish in a similar time frame just doesn't make sense. I'd be happy to try it, but I don't understand what is gained from it: 5/6 hours is 5/6 hours and we all have the same hurdles to deal with in either structure.

Can you sell me on why you think a less aggressive structure makes more sense.

 

[Moddy]

I don't think I can "sell you" on a diff blind structure, but here is the one we use for my single table SNG's @ my place. I have used this structure for a 18 player tourney, and the game lasted approximately 3 hours. I'm not sure how well it'd work for a 30+ player game.

edit: The reason I slow down the increments in the later stages is because people like to play "poker" when teh table gets to be a little short handed, instead of playing the cards. Plus it makes heads up play a little more challenging, instead of an "all-in"-a-thon

 

[BigKahuna]

The one thing it would promote IMO is more post-flop play in later rounds and less Pre-flop all-in momemts of push or fold poker (crap shoot poker). That is the one thing I would like to see happen so that something that resembles some biy of skill is left in the game when you get into the later rounds and heads up does not become pre-flop play only. JMO

 

[Hagar]

The interesting thing I see is that both of our schedules hit the 2K/4K level at the same time (9th level). With an 18 person tourney, I doubt you actually get that far most of the time, but the upper levels are where things start to get serious.

I also capped the action at the 2K/4K level so that the final table could, in theory, play it out a bit instead of being forced all-in on the blinds, assuming they had a decent sized stack once the round started.

I'm not against a slower tourney - I just don't understand the desire to slow the blinds down and still get the tourney over in the same time frame. I think I am going to try a much less aggressive blind structure next time if folks are willing to commit a full day to a big event.

 

[BigKahuna]

I like Mods structure except I would include a:

1000/2000

after the 800/1600 round and I do not think you will have to go beyond the 2000/4000 round because the BB based on 5000 SC with 30 people at 150,000 TC is about 3% which is perfect for raising and seeing flops towards the end.

I also think you can stay with 20 minute rounds throughout. since it is not truly a one-half blind structure.

 

[Moddy]

I like Mods structure except I would include a:

1000/2000

after the 800/1600 round and I do not think you will have to go beyond the 2000/4000 round because the BB based on 5000 SC with 30 people at 150,000 TC is about 3% which is perfect for raising and seeing flops towards the end.

I also think you can stay with 20 minute rounds throughout. since it is not truly a one-half blind structure.

Yeah, I see where a 1k/2k blind might be warranted for a large game. Keep in mind that we play a STT most of the time @ my place, hence the starting 20 min blinds and 15 minute blinds later in teh game.

I like the idea of capping the SB & BB's at 2k/4k - that is something I had never though about, but will definately incorporate into my next home game. I'm sure it will be well received.

 

[Quads]

I like Moddy's structure, and echo BK with a 1000 round at 7/8. I would also and prefer the longer blind structure versus 15 minutes.

At 15 or 20 minutes, I think yo uare always up against the clock, waiting for that right hand to get your chips in the middle. My vote would be something along that structure and 30 minute blinds.

I'll punch it into TD and see what it spits out for tourney time, etc.

 

[Hagar]

Quads, while you're at it, try punching it in with 45 min levels. I have another plan in the works.....

Just noticed your new tag...

"So if you're Quads, do you hold 'em or fold 'em??"

If I'm Quads I shove. If I have Quads cards I fold.... :lol:

 

[Ace-in-Space]

Since I started this whole mess so let me clarify. I am just trying to fine tune it a little.

1. I am not proposing that we play a LONG 10-hour tourney (at least not one for a $50 buy in). I would like to get it over by 4 to 5 hours like the one we just had.

2. The blinds in the beginning is too low IMO compare to the stack size. There isn't really any pressure to play any hand (you could show up late, a la Phil Hellmuth, for 40 minutes and still have 4800 to 4900 chips left if you get blinded out in the meantime. If the purpose is to keep the all players in for the first hour and make them feel they got their money's worth then we could make the first 2-3 rounds longer.

3. There is too much of a crap shoot just before and entering the final table, as the posts (BK) previously pointed out. I would also like to see more play in the later rounds. However, I think the latter round should be shorter since we would be playing short handed and you would get the approximately the same amount of hands per round.

4. The antes don't both me since it is only 1/5 of the small blind. However, it is probably better to do without the ante to speed up the game.

With that I like to propose the following (modifying Moddy's structure on his post a little.) Starting stack of $5000 (assume 30 players). Maybe move up the starting time a hour or two to 2 or 3 PM start.

RD. SB BB TIME (MIN.)
1 $25 $50 30
2 $50 $100 30
3 $75 $150 20
Break, remove greens
4 $100 $200 20
5 $200 $400 20
6 $300 $600 20
7 $400 $800 20 (about 3 hours elapse time)
Break (maybe down to 1/2 of the field at this jucture)
8 $600 $800 15
9 $800 $1500 15
Break, remove blacks (probably close to final table at this point)
10 $1000 $2000 15
11 $1500 $3000 15
12 $2000 $4000 15
13 $3000 $6000 15 (probably heads up now)

So with this struture almost all would be in for the 1st hours and only after 3 hours would half of the field be eliminated, so all should have plenty of play for their entry fee. There will be some play during the middle to final stage. The tourney should be done in 4:30 to 5 hours.

 

[Quads]

Here is what TD says: (30 minute rounds) ((20 minute rounds, subtract 1:50))

 

[Ace-in-Space]

Quads, try to run your program on mine and see what you get.

 

[Hagar]

All his screen shot is showing is elapsed time - no prediction of actual tourney length (how long it takes to drop players etc.).

 

[Quads]

Quads, try to run your program on mine and see what you get.

5:20

 

[Ace-in-Space]

How about Hagar's?

 

[Hagar]

BY the clock, my structure would be about 10 hours assuming we made it to the 2K/4K level. I'd really like to try a marathon event.

 

[Ace-in-Space]

For the next tourney I would also like to see the bounty be higher. Say $10 instead of $5.

On the high hand jackpot I would like the player to have to play both cards (flush minimum).

Also, I would proposed to do a bad beat jackpot (say split the HH JP in half and have a HHJ P and a BB JP.) To qualify for BB JP you have to have a flush beaten by another higher flush as a minimum and both players have to play both cards.) The Bad Beat player wins 80% and the other player wins 20%.

 

[Hagar]

Three problems that I see with a Bad Beat Jackpot:

1. It diminishes the overall prize pool even more with all the rest of our side stuff. Our tournies tend to be fairly low buy-ins so that a lot of people can play. Some players are already unhappy with the flat payout structure, so I don't like the idea of taking anymore money from the overall prize pool.

2. More than one Bad Beat could occur. Who gets the pot? First one? Worst one? Gets tough to quantify sometimes.

3. No qualifying Bad Beat could occur. It's easy enough to roll the BBJP back into the overall prize pool,but since it's pretty likely that it's not gonna happen anyway, why not just leave it in the prize pool.

I wouldn't implement this into one of my tournies.

We could do something to the effect that the loser of a qualifying Bad Beat gets 20% of the pot rather than be eliminated from the tourney, but that probably just complicates things too much.

 

[Ace-in-Space]

The BB JP would just be $2.50 out of the $5 on the HH JP, but that is not really important. I couldn't care less whether to have a HH JP in the first place. I'd rather have a higher bounty (say $45 for the tourney and $10 for the bounty, or $50+$10, either way with no High hand).

I wouldn't mind playing a marathon tourney if we start early and the entry fee is higher (say $100). Otherwise I think a 5 hrs. tourney is long enough for me.

 

[Quads]

5 hours should be the target time for most home tourney length, unless you are planning on a large 50+ people tourney with a greater buy in.

I don't know either way on the HHJP or the Bounty or the BBJP. My gut tells me the Bounty would be fun if it were higher and to scratch the BBJP because it would be too much to manage. (what is a bad beat, what happens if two people hit it, etc. etc. etc.)

Perhaps keep the HHJP, just because it is fun, we all like it, and doesn't effect the payouts too much. Maybe the HHJP would be that the player get's thier buy in back. I think that would be kinda cool.

 

[Moddy]

The ideal 3 table $100 buy in tourney for me would be:

-T5000 in chips
-Semi relaxed (maybe "linear" is a better word?) blind structure
-Bounties on the side (additional $ needed to participate)
-5 pays: 44%, 22%, 15%, 11%, 8%

Again, just me I guess.