Tourney 1 table tournament feedback (re-buy/addon/schedule optimization) (1 Viewer)

[Frode789]

First some info. Some people have asked for more chip re-fill options, than the 1 re-buy option we have today.

Re-buy option I have today:
- Until first break, re-buy once for a new start stack.

Purposed changes:
All receive a re-buy chip. It can be used for the first 5 levels for a new start stack if you bust.

If you haven't used the chip for the first break, you can:
- Re-fill to 20K for 1 buy-in.
- Add 5K for 1/4 buy-in.

Limitations:
You can never exceed the start stack (20K).

Thoughts?

Also I'm always open for feedback on the levels etc. ->
Players: 9.
Tournament length: Target is 5,5-6 hours.
Start stack: T20K (200BB) / T22K (220BB) (2K bonus for being on-time.).

Level	Time	Small Blind	Big Blind
L1	23 minutes	50	100
L2	23 minutes	75	150
L3	23 minutes	100	200
L4	23 minutes	150	300
L5	23 minutes	200	400
Break	10 minutes	T25 race	Re-buy/addon
L6	23 minutes	300	600
L7	23 minutes	400	800
L8	23 minutes	600	1200
L9	23 minutes	800	1600
Break	8 minutes	T100 race
L10	23 minutes	1K	2K
L11	23 minutes	1500	3K
Break	2 minutes	T500 removal
L12	23 minutes	2K	4K
L13 *Estimated end	23 minutes	3K	6K
L14 *Estimated end	23 minutes	4K	8K
L15	23 minutes	6K	12K

Comments:
- The reason for having chip-race/break after L5, is because I want ~2 hours worth of play-time before re-buy closes. (and to get use of my healthy stack of T25 chips).
- Most of our tournaments (with about 210K-230K chips) end at L13.

 

[Taghkanic]

I’d think about goals: Is it more important to ensure that everyone gets to play for a long time, or having a sound structure?

For my game (two tables), I inherited from the previous host an unusual provision that the first person out at each table could rebuy once up to the break. There is also an add-on (1/5th the buy-in for 1/5th the starting stacks, though these chips obviously have less value as the blinds go up) after the first four levels.

I don’t think there is any sound theoretical basis for our plan; but it serves a social function.

We are in a rural area, so it sucks if someone drives 30 minutes, runs into a cooler early, and has to drive home only having played 10 minutes of poker.

That can still happen if there are two early coolers at the same table, but I can’t remember that happening more than once in a blue moon.

The previous host experimented with both an occasional unlimited rebuy night, and also a no-rebuy/no add-on night. The first led to annoyance from less-well-bankrolled players; the second to annoyance among the splashier ones. We actually tried a rotation (unlimited/freeze out/regular) for about a year.

Occasionally, when we have been short handed (12 or fewer players), I’ve allowed everyone to rebuy once in order to boost the prize pool and make it more worthwhile, money wise... But as it usually turns out, only 2-3 people rebuy anyway. So it makes no big difference.

Anyhow, my main reaction to your proposals is to be careful not to create a situation where the levels before the break become meaningless, as it looks to me like pretty much everyone is going to come out of the break with at least a starting stack, if I understand it correctly.

It also looks like you could wind up with a lot of chips on the table. If the later blind structure isn’t aggressive, the game might take a long time to finish. Which isn’t necessarily bad...

 

[Frode789]

Thanks for the input.

Indeed. We don't meet that often (it might be once a month, but often it is every 2 months) for poker, so it is pretty important that people have a nice time. Of course we still want to end on time, which we usually do. It is extremely rare that it goes beyond 6 hours. It is usually 5,5 hours.

So reduce the addon? You are running 1/5 addons, so I could do x1 5k addon instead of x1 10k addon. That would be pretty much the same deal then, without altering too much of the rest of the tournament.

I don't think it would mean everyone would come out with start stack though, because we have a very low re-buy/re-fill rate. (often it is 0, but sometimes it is 1. Never above 1.)

 

[Steve Birrer]

Tag

Curious to know how the first guy out at a table gets to rebuy but then that's it came about. What purpose does that sever? Totally understand the wanting to let guys continue to play when they have driving over to show up only to end up going home early. Why only the first guy? Why not allow rebuys up until some set period? Our game has unlimited rebuys until the first break. Its easy to account for that in your blind structure to ensure the game doesn't go on forever.

 

[Taghkanic]

We tried unlimited rebuys for a while, as part of a cycle of different game structures, when the game was hosted by someone else. When it was unlimited, there were a couple of better-bankrolled players who just played BINGO for the first half hour or so, which those with lesser resources found obnoxious and unfair (even if it put more $$$ in the prize pool).

The one-rebuy-per-table idea was tried just to cover those situations where someone runs into a cooler/bad beat early. It has been suggested that it be two per table (and it can’t be the same person twice). It seems to work: People don’t abuse it, and it has rarely if ever resulted in someone going home super early.

It feels kind of kludgey to me [NOTE: <<<< term which proves I was a geek in the early 1980s] but that’s what we settled on.

 

[Steve Birrer]

Get your point. But seems like a one rebuy per player max would prevent that and not screw the poor second guy who gets cooled.

 

[Taghkanic]

Rarely happens in the first four levels. And if it does, so be it.

 

[Steve Birrer]

Rarely happens in the first four levels. And if it does, so be it.

But what would be the downside for a one rebuy per player for those first four levels?

 

[Taghkanic]

It’s up to you. One rebuy per player will totally change the gameplay in some groups (much looser in the early levels). It also potentially means you’ll need a lot more color-up chips, and the game time will be longer.

 

[Steve Birrer]

It’s up to you. One rebuy per player will totally change the gameplay in some groups (much looser in the early levels). It also potentially means you’ll need a lot more color-up chips, and the game time will be longer.

Agree with your assessment with one exception. The game time doesn't need to be any longer at all. Most blind structure softwares can account for the extra buy ins to keep the game time to whatever you like to keep it to.

 

[Frode789]

It’s up to you. One rebuy per player will totally change the gameplay in some groups (much looser in the early levels). It also potentially means you’ll need a lot more color-up chips, and the game time will be longer.

This is what we have (1 per player, for 5 levels). Works fine, and we rarely have more than 2 re-buy anyway, in a 9 player tournament. (which includes those that may re-fill up to start stack during the break). It is to cover those bad-beats primarily.

But this will depend on group dynamic.. If you have tons of maniacs playing super aggro it may deteriorate the experience for the rest, provided that it is primarily a social/fun tournament and not super competitive.

 

[BGinGA]

some people have asked for more chip re-fill options, than the 1 re-buy option we have today.

Have you asked why? What is the motivation for such requests -- additional prize money? deeper stacks after the re-buy period? Knowing those answers will help define your response to meet the players needs.

Re-buy option I have today:
- Until first break, re-buy once for a new start stack.

You may want to consider other re-buy options.

One simple change is to also allow 'surrender', which means the re-buy chip can be used at any time (vs only when busted), and any remaining chips the player has are surrendered at re-buy. This prevents mindless all-ins when down to a very few chips just so they can bust and re-buy, and also allows players who take a deep beat immediately before re-buys end to still re-buy.

Another approach is use a re-load philosophy, splitting the starting stack into two halves -- 1/2 issued at start, 1/2 retained for re-load purposes. Players may redeem the second half if busted during the re-load period, and players who do not bust automatically get the re-load at break (with a bonus, typically 10-20% extra chips).

A similar option is to split the starting stacks into two halves, giving each player the option to start with either a half-stack or a full stack. The second half chips can be redeemed at any time between hands, and allows players some protection from fully busting out in the early levels. This approach can also be combined with re-buys (must lose all chips -- both halves -- to re-buy).

You can also implement 'intrinsic value' for the re-buy chip -- if not used, it can be redeemed for a free add-on (typically 25% of the starting stack value). This can be combined with any of the above, or with any re-buy structure. I am a big fan of this component for re-buy tournaments.

All four approaches give players more options on how to manage their stack, and add strategy decision points to the tournament without affecting basic play or event duration.

Additionally, you can also offer optional add-ons at the end of the re-buy period -- typically 1/2-stack for 1/2-price, with no restrictions on purchase. This can provide some incentive to the short stacks to move out of the danger zone and have a better chance for improvement after the break. The add-on option can be combined with any of the above options.

Purposed changes:
All receive a re-buy chip. It can be used for the first 5 levels for a new start stack if you bust.

If you haven't used the chip for the first break, you can:
- Re-fill to 20K for 1 buy-in.
- Add 5K for 1/4 buy-in.

Limitations:
You can never exceed the start stack (20K).

I'm not a fan of your suggestion, simply because it isn't a level playing field -- the fill limitations favor the smaller stacks. You are essentially offering a full-stack add-on, or a quarter-stack add-on, but with unfair restrictions that don't make much sense to me.

A purchased add-on should always be equally available to all players, same as was the initial buy-in. Either offer add-ons, or don't -- and the add-on shouldn't be dependent on whether or not the player has already re-bought, or the size of their stack.

I'm always open for feedback on the levels etc.

As designed, your structure will typically end no later than L14 (5:20 plus breaks), as you have discovered.

But I really dislike the unnecessarily massive 88% jump at L10, when nearly all other blind increases range between 33%-50%. This can be easily corrected by inserting a 1200/2400 level, with the T100 color-up break after (new) L10.

Worst case it adds 23 minutes to your event length (still within your desired parameters), or you can reduce blind times to 22 minutes to retain the same overall duration.

 

[BGinGA]

For my game (two tables), I inherited from the previous host an unusual provision that the first person out at each table could rebuy once up to the break. There is also an add-on (1/5th the buy-in for 1/5th the starting stacks, though these chips obviously have less value as the blinds go up) after the first four levels.

I don’t think there is any sound theoretical basis for our plan; but it serves a social function.

We are in a rural area, so it sucks if someone drives 30 minutes, runs into a cooler early, and has to drive home only having played 10 minutes of poker.

That can still happen if there are two early coolers at the same table, but I can’t remember that happening more than once in a blue moon.

The previous host experimented with both an occasional unlimited rebuy night, and also a no-rebuy/no add-on night. The first led to annoyance from less-well-bankrolled players; the second to annoyance among the splashier ones. We actually tried a rotation (unlimited/freeze out/regular) for about a year.

Occasionally, when we have been short handed (12 or fewer players), I’ve allowed everyone to rebuy once in order to boost the prize pool and make it more worthwhile, money wise... But as it usually turns out, only 2-3 people rebuy anyway. So it makes no big difference.

Tag

Curious to know how the first guy out at a table gets to rebuy but then that's it came about. What purpose does that sever? Totally understand the wanting to let guys continue to play when they have driving over to show up only to end up going home early. Why only the first guy? Why not allow rebuys up until some set period? Our game has unlimited rebuys until the first break. Its easy to account for that in your blind structure to ensure the game doesn't go on forever.

We tried unlimited rebuys for a while, as part of a cycle of different game structures, when the game was hosted by someone else. When it was unlimited, there were a couple of better-bankrolled players who just played BINGO for the first half hour or so, which those with lesser resources found obnoxious and unfair (even if it put more $$$ in the prize pool).

The one-rebuy-per-table idea was tried just to cover those situations where someone runs into a cooler/bad beat early. It has been suggested that it be two per table (and it can’t be the same person twice). It seems to work: People don’t abuse it, and it has rarely if ever resulted in someone going home super early.

It feels kind of kludgey to me [NOTE: <<<< term which proves I was a geek in the early 1980s] but that’s what we settled on.

Get your point. But seems like a one rebuy per player max would prevent that and not screw the poor second guy who gets cooled.

Rarely happens in the first four levels. And if it does, so be it.

It’s up to you. One rebuy per player will totally change the gameplay in some groups (much looser in the early levels). It also potentially means you’ll need a lot more color-up chips, and the game time will be longer.

Agree with your assessment with one exception. The game time doesn't need to be any longer at all. Most blind structure softwares can account for the extra buy ins to keep the game time to whatever you like to keep it to.

This is what we have (1 per player, for 5 levels). Works fine, and we rarely have more than 2 re-buy anyway, in a 9 player tournament. (which includes those that may re-fill up to start stack during the break). It is to cover those bad-beats primarily.

But this will depend on group dynamic.. If you have tons of maniacs playing super aggro it may deteriorate the experience for the rest, provided that it is primarily a social/fun tournament and not super competitive.

Regarding this re-buy deep-pockets/super-aggro-maniacs side-discussion, it is very rare that a well structured and reasonably-priced event will experience high re-buy rates (even if totally unlimited), unless it benefits a charity cause of some kind. Limiting re-buys to just a single person is unfair and ill-advised.

 

[Frode789]

As designed, your structure will typically end no later than L14 (5:20 plus breaks), as you have discovered.

But I really dislike the unnecessarily massive 88% jump at L10, when nearly all other blind increases range between 33%-50%. This can be easily corrected by inserting a 1200/2400 level, with the T100 color-up break after (new) L10.

Worst case it adds 23 minutes to your event length (still within your desired parameters), or you can reduce blind times to 22 minutes to retain the same overall duration.

(I will comment on the other stuff next, I just wanted to point out this

It was a typo... God that was embarrassing. I was a bit fast when copying over the levels hah. The correct levels are the above.
Obviously the jump from 1600 to 3K was horrendous, as you pointed out, it would easily get the list for awful blind schedules :lol:.

As for the 1600 BB to 2000 BB, that is a age-old discussion as I have seen on this forum. I know that it is smoother with a progression as this:
1600
2200/2400
3000
4000

But I prefer to get those 100s off a level earlier. I am fine with the lonesome 25% BB increase level because of this. =)

 

[Frode789]

Have you asked why? What is the motivation for such requests -- additional prize money? deeper stacks after the re-buy period? Knowing those answers will help define your response to meet the players needs.

Some want more money (seeing as we just average 1 re-buy per event, at most and rarely 2)... Others just looking for more safety net if they are doing a bit poorly, but not enough to justify a full buyin. (which are not winning players, but do enjoy playing).

Another approach is use a re-load philosophy, splitting the starting stack into two halves -- 1/2 issued at start, 1/2 retained for re-load purposes. Players may redeem the second half if busted during the re-load period, and players who do not bust automatically get the re-load at break (with a bonus, typically 10-20% extra chips).

Ooh, this is actually a good one!
I do understand your concerns about limiting the addons to only benefit the low stacks, and what you say does make sense of course. Thanks for pointing it out, so I will definitely remove that limitation.. Good thing I asked, as I have little experience with addons.. =)

As for the re-fill, that is the same thing as surrendering your stack and getting a new start-stack. But I will "enable" that option to be available at any time, not just during the break.

 

[Taghkanic]

Despite what BGinGA asserts as universal fact, when the previous host tried a once-monthly iteration of our then-weekly game with unlimited rebuys, a handful of richer players most certainly used their bankrolls to bully the group. I think the largest number of rebuys anyone made was 9.

Though this activity by a handful of high-bankroll players bloated the prize pools and theoretically created more value for tighter players, it was overwhelmingly deemed a failure by the group. It’s main effect was to create resentment. We cut that from the rotation, by a vote of about 15 sane players vs. 3 maniacs.

The one-per-table for the early levels idea has, by contrast, been something people appreciated and did not want changed when I took over. Also, when I have occasionally tried nights with one full rebuy per player, the result was effectively the same: about one per table. That may reflect their general playing styles. (And BTW, our blind structure is pretty standard.)

While I understand the theoretical objections purists might raise, I don’t think there are universals across all groups that can be asserted as gospel.

My own preference is for freezeouts: no rebuys. Deep stacks to begin, it’s up to the player to manage it. But as noted, in our rural area, with people traveling, a hedge against early coolers/bad bears makes sense for us. Your own mileage may vary.

 

[BGinGA]

Yeah, but then you also claim that non-denominated chips are superior to those with denominations, so nobody really takes you very seriously anymore.

Regarding this re-buy deep-pockets/super-aggro-maniacs side-discussion, it is very rare that a well structured and reasonably-priced event will experience high re-buy rates (even if totally unlimited), unless it benefits a charity cause of some kind. Limiting re-buys to just a single person is unfair and ill-advised.

Gospel or not, like I said, it's still rare, and your approach to cooler/beat protection is unfair and not advised -- as @Steve Birrer pointed out, there are better ways to handle it generating the same outcome yet without your 'so be it' nonchalant attitude.

I'm curious -- I'd like to see some transparancy regarding the actual structure and associated costs that routinely caused such an outlier situation. I suspect that would shed further light on what was actually happening.

But I understand if transparency isn't your stong suit.

 

[Taghkanic]

Yeah, so you’re just being a gratuitously insulting dick, who thinks his way is the only correct or successful way to host a game. (I’ve discussed blind structures openly and ad nauseam in other threads; feel free to go through my whole history of comments to find it, if it is so important to you.)

If someone is not running a public game, all that matters ultimately is that those who choose and are chosen to play in it keep coming back. We’ve kept our group together for 10 years, across multiple hosts, and aren’t scared or so hidebound that we’ll never tinker with this stuff — to evolve toward a game that suits our group and situation.

10 years of helping to run a fun, good game is all the validation some of us need, though some others may need more than that from their participation in chat sites.

If a private NLHE game host wanted to make 4s wild, and everyone gets a third hole card on the ocean... and his/her group enjoys that game, that’s cool by me. I wouldn’t play there, except maybe once as a lark. But if that floats their boat, good for them.

The OP can take all of this advice and options under consideration, select from it, then try what he thinks may work best. And then adjust as necessary. There doesn’t need to be one definite answer. Unless maybe for some posters who need that for their egos.

Oh, and yeah, denominations are unnecessary unless you’re someone who can’t remember how many toes are on your left foot.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Let's focus on what's important here!

This:

Have you asked why? What is the motivation for such requests -- additional prize money? deeper stacks after the re-buy period? Knowing those answers will help define your response to meet the players needs.


You may want to consider other re-buy options.

One simple change is to also allow 'surrender', which means the re-buy chip can be used at any time (vs only when busted), and any remaining chips the player has are surrendered at re-buy. This prevents mindless all-ins when down to a very few chips just so they can bust and re-buy, and also allows players who take a deep beat immediately before re-buys end to still re-buy.

Another approach is use a re-load philosophy, splitting the starting stack into two halves -- 1/2 issued at start, 1/2 retained for re-load purposes. Players may redeem the second half if busted during the re-load period, and players who do not bust automatically get the re-load at break (with a bonus, typically 10-20% extra chips).

A similar option is to split the starting stacks into two halves, giving each player the option to start with either a half-stack or a full stack. The second half chips can be redeemed at any time between hands, and allows players some protection from fully busting out in the early levels. This approach can also be combined with re-buys (must lose all chips -- both halves -- to re-buy).

You can also implement 'intrinsic value' for the re-buy chip -- if not used, it can be redeemed for a free add-on (typically 25% of the starting stack value). This can be combined with any of the above, or with any re-buy structure. I am a big fan of this component for re-buy tournaments.

All four approaches give players more options on how to manage their stack, and add strategy decision points to the tournament without affecting basic play or event duration.

Additionally, you can also offer optional add-ons at the end of the re-buy period -- typically 1/2-stack for 1/2-price, with no restrictions on purchase. This can provide some incentive to the short stacks to move out of the danger zone and have a better chance for improvement after the break. The add-on option can be combined with any of the above options.



I'm not a fan of your suggestion, simply because it isn't a level playing field -- the fill limitations favor the smaller stacks. You are essentially offering a full-stack add-on, or a quarter-stack add-on, but with unfair restrictions that don't make much sense to me.

A purchased add-on should always be equally available to all players, same as was the initial buy-in. Either offer add-ons, or don't -- and the add-on shouldn't be dependent on whether or not the player has already re-bought, or the size of their stack.



As designed, your structure will typically end no later than L14 (5:20 plus breaks), as you have discovered.

But I really dislike the unnecessarily massive 88% jump at L10, when nearly all other blind increases range between 33%-50%. This can be easily corrected by inserting a 1200/2400 level, with the T100 color-up break after (new) L10.

Worst case it adds 23 minutes to your event length (still within your desired parameters), or you can reduce blind times to 22 minutes to retain the same overall duration.

was @BGinGA's 20,000th post!!

 

[Rex]

You can also implement 'intrinsic value' for the re-buy chip -- if not used, it can be redeemed for a free add-on (typically 25% of the starting stack value). This can be combined with any of the above, or with any re-buy structure. I am a big fan of this component for re-buy tournaments

Thanks, this is a good idea, good discussion