Tourney Tournament Round Length (3 Viewers)

[horseshoez]

I'd like to get some feedback on round lengths for an upcoming tournament.

We have 18 players with 10,000-chip starting stacks and the following blind structure:

Blind Schedule
(Level | SB | BB)
1: 25/50
2: 50/100
3: 75/150
4: 100/200
5: 150/300
6: 200/400
→ 10-minute color-up break (color up 25s)
7: 300/600
8: 400/800
9: 500/1,000
10: 600/1,200
11: 800/1,600
→ 10-minute color-up break (color up 100s)
12: 1,000/2,000
13: 1,500/3,000
14: 2,000/4,000
15: 3,000/6,000
16: 5,000/10,000
17: 6,000/12,000
etc.

Goal: Finish in approximately 5–6 hours with a good mix of early deep-stack play and later pressure.
Looking for input from those who run similar-sized tournaments.

Do you prefer consistent round times throughout, or accelerating the levels after the color-up break?
Any other tweaks to the structure that would improve flow with 18 players?

Thanks in advance. Really appreciate the input from the community!

 

[Dodger]

I usually start this structure at 25/75 just to avoid the instant doubling from Level 1 to 2. Change Level 12 to 1,100/2,200 and remove the 100s after Level 12.

As for round timing, I’d keep 20 min levels for the first 2 - 2.5 hours of play. Around level 8-9 you could go to 18 min levels. Then, around level 13-14, down to 15 min levels. If you get to Level 17, you could even get down to 12 min. You’ll have to play with the total time to get it right. (I don’t have my full structure in front of me.)

Some PCFers will balk at changing level times, but I think it works to finish within a set time limit. As players are eliminated, the changing level times will work just fine.

 

[BKisback]

I'd ditch the 125-250 level and insert 500-1000. Changing level time is okay, but I'd want longer levels later when there's more bubble/ITM pressure and more to think about. Second choice would be 20m throughout.

 

[horseshoez]

I'd ditch the 125-250 level and insert 500-1000. Changing level time is okay, but I'd want longer levels later when there's more bubble/ITM pressure and more to think about. Second choice would be 20m throughout.

True. I didn’t even spot that. What I get from quick typing it up. Normally that round isn’t in there in our tournaments.

 

[DrunkleWade]

I've found 20mins to be a little too long and 15mins to be a little too short so we've settled on 18min levels. I am considering shortening them after the second colour up to 16mins though to speed it along as we are usally down to maybe 4-5 players by then.

 

[horseshoez]

I've found 20mins to be a little too long and 15mins to be a little too short so we've settled on 18min levels. I am considering shortening them after the second colour up to 16mins though to speed it along as we are usally down to maybe 4-5 players by then.

This feels like a solid balance to me. Most players in the club have said the current setup leans too nitty and doesn’t leave much room for post-flop play. It ends up feeling very fit-or-fold, especially after the first break.

 

[horseshoez]

I'd ditch the 125-250 level and insert 500-1000. Changing level time is okay, but I'd want longer levels later when there's more bubble/ITM pressure and more to think about. Second choice would be 20m throughout.

Fixed it.

 

[BigGrizz]

I typically do 15min. My group aren't huge marathoners so if I can keep a tournament to under 6 hours including breaks (including a 30min) then that's optimal. My crew also likes the acceleration of blinds at a good pace. I'm adopting the 2, 3, 5, 8, 12 ratio for our next tournament. Its fast but not a 100% jump turbo.

I also usually give players who want more time an early hour where they can play for an hour with T-5s (good excuse to use them). Only 5s, 25s, and 100s, are unlocked for early play. Typically I do:
5 / 10
10 / 15
15 / 20
20 / 25

After that I do a break to actually start the tournament formally with new seats, color up the reds from early players, and formally start. You don't need to attend early play for the on-time bonus. For a 2 table tournament early play is usually 4 or 5 dudes throwing around red and green chips for an hour.

 

[Senzrock]

Would personally never run a (live) tournament with less than 15 minute levels. Having said that, 15 mins is plenty if the structure is well crafted. We run a weekly tournament that has run for 12+ years now week in and week out and its 9-10 players with 20k stacks and 15 min levels with a total run time of 4+ hours (tournaments have ended in as little as 3 hours and run as long as 5 hrs but 4hrs seems to be the week spot). We do offer rebuys for the first hour.

 

[Senzrock]

Btw, just seeing the voting options - You don't want to make the levels *shorter* as the tournament progresses. If anything, you want to make them longer once you get closer to the $. Many major tournaments offer 30 min starting days followed by 40 minute day 2s for example. I would do 15 or 20 mins across the board but whatever you do don't shorten the levels later on.

 

[horseshoez]

Btw, just seeing the voting options - You don't want to make the levels *shorter* as the tournament progresses. If anything, you want to make them longer once you get closer to the $. Many major tournaments offer 30 min starting days followed by 40 minute day 2s for example. I would do 15 or 20 mins across the board but whatever you do don't shorten the levels later on.

This, and exactly this. I've tried explaining this to guys who practically run and manage our tournaments (nicknamed Mussolini and Stalin for good reason) and they just refuse to understand this concept.

 

[BKisback]

I would not wait to color up the 25s, just get them off the table at the end of level 5/take a break then. Otherwise, it looks great. I would enjoy playing this structure because there are no huge jumps.

 

[GamingWithChips]

This, and exactly this. I've tried explaining this to guys who practically run and manage our tournaments (nicknamed Mussolini and Stalin for good reason) and they just refuse to understand this concept.

I think it makes sense for big “proper” tournaments as really shortening the levels and increasing the blinds at the same time should only be a negative impact to the game, buuuut, I think it’s a good sacrifice for most home games if you have people waiting around after being knocked out to see the winner, or waiting for a cash game, whatever it might be.

Our group always hates when it gets to heads up and the two people just trade chips back and forth for 1 hour by themselves to “determine the best player of the night”. At this point we’ve already played for 3-4 hours, we don’t need (or want) to let the game run 25-30% longer for just two people, it’s unnecessary in our eyes. We like either the same level lengths or dropping to 15 minutes for the last levels. I would say 75% of our tournament levels are 20min and then the last 25% are 15min levels.

 

[horseshoez]

The heads-up waiting game on our end rarely ever happens. Normally by that point the blinds are so high that both remaining players are only sitting around 10 to 12 big blinds deep. The longest we’ve ever had heads-up play go is probably 6 to 7 hands. Very rarely does it go beyond that because as soon as the third player is knocked out, both players are immediately in shove/fold territory.

To be honest, the changes to the round levels haven’t really shortened the tournament enough to prevent it from ending late anyway. Our 10-minute breaks routinely turn into 20 to 30-minute snack breaks, which completely offsets the reduction to 15 and 12-minute levels. It’s honestly counterproductive and makes zero sense.

The tournament still starts around 7:30 to 8:00 PM and ends around 12:30 to 1:00 AM, just like before. The only real difference is that the structure now encourages everyone to become SUPER SUPER nitty after the color-up break, with the tournament basically turning into shove/fold from Round 6 onward. There’s very little actual post-flop strategy being played. That’s not really a poker tournament at that point, it’s bingo.

 

[Senzrock]

Our group always hates when it gets to heads up and the two people just trade chips back and forth for 1 hour by themselves to “determine the best player of the night”. At this point we’ve already played for 3-4 hours, we don’t need (or want) to let the game run 25-30% longer for just two people, it’s unnecessary in our eyes. We like either the same level lengths or dropping to 15 minutes for the last levels. I would say 75% of our tournament levels are 20min and then the last 25% are 15min levels.

While I can appreciate this sentiment, I do think we should remember (stating the obvious here I know!) that the heads up match is actually the *most important part of the entire night*. For payouts, there is generally a fairly large disparity, for league points if you incorporate that - it's actually unfair to the two remaining players to be like "oh just move it along, the rest of us are getting bored." The other players should play cash on the other table (or even the other side of the table if you are only playing a STT) when they have a critical mass. Problem solved.

 

[GamingWithChips]

That's all fair, I should have also mentioned that our games do not involve league points and are definitely on the more small/casual side of things. We updated our levels because our early games used to run from like 7pm-2/3am and we all got tired of it. Now they would run from ~7:30pm-12pm and everyone feels they've had ample time to play and make moves as needed to have a chance at winning or at least getting to the money. For us, if you didn't put yourself into that position within the first 3-4 hours then that's your fault.

 

[Senzrock]

That's all fair, I should have also mentioned that our games do not involve league points and are definitely on the more small/casual side of things. We updated our levels because our early games used to run from like 7pm-2/3am and we all got tired of it. Now they would run from ~7:30pm-12pm and everyone feels they've had ample time to play and make moves as needed to have a chance at winning or at least getting to the money. For us, if you didn't put yourself into that position within the first 3-4 hours then that's your fault.

Oh yeah 7pm - 2/3am is wild lol. Our game goes 730-1130pm generally and it works out well.

 

[Poker Zombie]

We use different structures with different chip sets. As such, I have a lot of experience with structures of different styles - including a structure that starts out at 25 minute levels but later moves to 20 minute levels.

I prefer constant levels to minimize the impact to the easily confused, but shortening the time is not as bad as some may believe. The goal is to wrap up the tournament at a decent time. This can be handled through level timing or through blind increases. As lone as there is some predictability to the structure, the structure is good.

As for breaks, I find 12 minutes to be the sweet spot. It gets my players through the restrooms, ample time for snacks, and smokers have enough time to burn one, but not enough time for them to drop into "just hanging out" mode.

 

[Senzrock]

I prefer constant levels to minimize the impact to the easily confused, but shortening the time is not as bad as some may believe. The goal is to wrap up the tournament at a decent time.

Yes, but attempts to shorten the tournament should lean on either (1) shorter blind levels all around, if the tournament is taking too long on average or (2) Have shorter levels *early on in the structure* (when stacks are very deep and the majority of the tournament is ahead) vs later on in the tournament *when stacks are more shallow and players are approaching the most important part of the tournament, that being the money bubble*. Same amount of time but it is important where the emphasis is.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Have shorter levels *early on in the structure* (when stacks are very deep and the majority of the tournament is ahead) vs later on in the tournament *when stacks are more shallow and players are approaching the most important part of the tournament, that being the money bubble*

I agree with this, though I have no structure where the later levels get longer. The reason we use it "backwards" is because the tournament where we change the times is a relatively short-stacked tournament. As such, the rebuy period (first 2 hours) the Big Blind to Starting Stack ratio would be <16 BB (the absolute minimum, and 20+ BB would be optimal).

The structure I speak of:

0.25	0.25
0.25	0.50
Break
0.25	0.75
0.50	1.00
Break	End of rebuys
0.75	1.50
1.00	2.00
1.50	3.00
Break	Remove .25s
2.00	4.00
3.00	6.00
4.00	8.00
Break
6.00	12.00
8.00	16.00
10.00	20.00

As a side note, this tournament is our $30 Survivor tournament. It is played with cash game chips. When the bubble breaks, the remaining players are paid the cash value of their chips. One rebuy per player, chips can be surrendered to get a full starting stack, a popular option during 2nd break. Players still alive at 2nd break may add-on $30 to their stack.

 

[GamingWithChips]

Yes, but attempts to shorten the tournament should lean on either (1) shorter blind levels all around, if the tournament is taking too long on average or (2) Have shorter levels *early on in the structure* (when stacks are very deep and the majority of the tournament is ahead) vs later on in the tournament *when stacks are more shallow and players are approaching the most important part of the tournament, that being the money bubble*. Same amount of time but it is important where the emphasis is.

I think shortening levels later can also be justified as typically there are fewer players so more hands can (or should) be played per level and then they would net out to roughly the same amount of hands per-player per-level.

But now you've got me thinking about doing long levels later...first however many levels have little respect or urgency because the blinds are low and the whole tournament is in front of them, but later levels get all of the respect and feel the most urgent...so having shorter levels in the first half (as an example) and then longer levels in the second half can change those dynamics and maybe improve the tournament?

Might have to try it one time.

 

[Senzrock]

I think shortening levels later can also be justified as typically there are fewer players so more hands can (or should) be played per level and then they would net out to roughly the same amount of hands per-player per-level.

But now you've got me thinking about doing long levels later...first however many levels have little respect or urgency because the blinds are low and the whole tournament is in front of them, but later levels get all of the respect and feel the most urgent...so having shorter levels in the first half (as an example) and then longer levels in the second half can change those dynamics and maybe improve the tournament?

Might have to try it one time.

Yeah I mean to be clear, I would argue for even levels throughout as the preferred option. I am mostly using the shorter first/longer last framework here because I am seeing people posting that they do the opposite, and that is something we should really stay away from. Truthfully, no one cares how long the levels are when the blinds are at 25/500 or 50/100 because all players start with hundreds of bbs. But you better believe players care how long each level is when the blinds are 1k/2k/2k (big blind ante) and everyone is sitting between 10-30bbs!

 

[horseshoez]

Yes, but attempts to shorten the tournament should lean on either (1) shorter blind levels all around, if the tournament is taking too long on average or (2) Have shorter levels *early on in the structure* (when stacks are very deep and the majority of the tournament is ahead) vs later on in the tournament *when stacks are more shallow and players are approaching the most important part of the tournament, that being the money bubble*. Same amount of time but it is important where the emphasis is.

I’m completely with this. If anything, the levels should be shorter before the break, not after the break, when people are genuinely trying to survive and move up in the rankings. Before the break, the play is naturally a lot more splashy anyway.

As for putting pressure on the final two to wrap things up, that’s not really the goal at all, nor should it be. The final two usually finish quickly on their own because the blind-to-stack ratio naturally forces action at that stage. My point was more about the few hours leading up to that.

Ever since we reduced the levels from 15 minutes to 12 minutes, even the loosest and most aggressive players have turned into complete nits. Fold, fold, fold… then all-in. It has practically eliminated post-flop play altogether, and I honestly don’t see the fun in that.

To make matters worse, the points you walk away with each night end up being heavily determined by the outcome of one major all-in. Survive it, suddenly you’re chip leader. Get sucked out on, now you’re either busted or left crippled. I’m not sure how that positively contributes to season rankings or accurately reflects skill.

For example, getting all-in preflop with KK against J9 and losing to runner-runner 9s becomes the defining hand of your night, when in a deeper structure you may have had the opportunity to apply pressure post-flop, leverage fold equity, and force that same player into mistakes instead of reducing everything to a freakin’ preflop gamble.

Honestly, our top five players every year since shortening the levels haven’t necessarily been the most skilled players. More often than not, it’s been the nits who only show up with JJ+ lol

 

[horseshoez]

In addition to everything above, I actually broke down the tournament dynamics to a friend of mine who I’d classify as semi-pro level based on his overall results and WSOP finishes. His response was this:

“Very simple solution. Become a nit. Just be a smarter one and exploit certain spots. Nothing else you can really do since the structure technically has the characteristics of a turbo tournament, maybe even a super turbo.”

I think that pretty much sums up the issue. The structure itself naturally pushes players toward survival-style poker rather than rewarding deeper strategic play.

 

[Mojo1312]

Bump up the starting stacks to 12.5K
12K +500 early bird bonus.

20 minute levels

25/75
50/100
75/150
100/200
150/300 - 10 minutes
Break, race-off T25's
(End of re-buys)
200/300 - 10 minutes
200/400
300/600
400/800
500/1000
Break
700/1500
1000/2000
1500/3000
2000/4000
Break, race off T100's
2500/5000
3000/6000 - 25 minutes until completion
4000/8000
5000/10000

Players buying back into the tournament receive at least 40BB's. There is time for heads up play towards the end of the structure.

 

[Mojo1312]

In addition to everything above, I actually broke down the tournament dynamics to a friend of mine who I’d classify as semi-pro level based on his overall results and WSOP finishes. His response was this:

“Very simple solution. Become a nit. Just be a smarter one and exploit certain spots. Nothing else you can really do since the structure technically has the characteristics of a turbo tournament, maybe even a super turbo.”

I think that pretty much sums up the issue. The structure itself naturally pushes players toward survival-style poker rather than rewarding deeper strategic play.

Are you running two decks?

 

[Poker Zombie]

Bump up the starting stacks to 12.5K

I like Mojo. In a discussion on the length of the levels, his solution is "MOAR CHIPS".

 

[Poker Zombie]

Ever since we reduced the levels from 15 minutes to 12 minutes, even the loosest and most aggressive players have turned into complete nits. Fold, fold, fold… then all-in. It has practically eliminated post-flop play altogether, and I honestly don’t see the fun in that.

This isn't a result of level length. It's overall tournament length. A 4-5 hour tournament will always feel like a turbo/super-turbo to players that play in 12+ hour games. Yet 4-5 hours is the wheelhouse for recreational players. Nearly every casino ~$100 tournament is 4-5 hours long, because that's where the rec money is and mindset is at.

The question isn't "how long should the tournament be", it's "who is the tournament for".

 

[horseshoez]

Are you running two decks?

We are yes. Either the SB shuffles or there’s a dedicated shuffler at the table in order to keep things moving.

 

[Mojo1312]

The better method is to shuffle two behind the dealer. Hi-jack shuffles, the cut-off cuts the deck and hands it to the dealer when the action is over. The dealer, who is now the cut-off passes the deck to the player on his left.