Tourney 3-bullet tourney (super high roller v) (1 Viewer)

Frogzilla

4 of a Kind
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
5,145
Reaction score
6,774
Location
Frisco, TX
The super high roller bowl has got an interesting format this year. Each player can choose when to deploy their three starting stacks...you could go for the full 300k from the first deal, you could only buy in for 100k bust and then buy in for 200k, you could buy in for 200k and top up the other 100k later, etc. The only restriction is all three must be in play by level 9.

On the broadcast, the players are voicing their displeasure with the format. They’ve also almost universally chosen to buy in for the minimum, valuing insurance against bust outs over the big stack advantages.
 

Beakertwang

Royal Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
May 22, 2018
Messages
11,194
Reaction score
17,805
Location
Iowa
Our local casino's Wednesday game is sort of like this. $20 gets you 5K (starting blinds, 25/50), $10 gets you another 5K, and $20 gets you 10K. You can add on or rebuy anytime up to the cutoff. I always take the first one at the start, and sometimes the 2nd one. I've never busted early, but it is nice to have that protection against an early exit.
 

Highli99

4 of a Kind
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2018
Messages
6,305
Reaction score
13,173
Location
Maryland
Why don't the players like the format? It's pretty interesting if you ask me....
 

kmccormick100

4 of a Kind
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Messages
6,896
Reaction score
19,645
Location
Concord, CA
I’m kind of surprised nobody has deployed more than a single bullet at a time. I feel like the deep stack nature of the SHRB has been one of its greatest features. I feel like the leverage of a bigger stack earlier could be more advantageous than adding 100k to a 400k stack at the end of day 1. Not sure of the optimal line, but if there’s anybody who would know it it’s these guys, so I’m clearly mistaken haha.
 

BGinGA

Royal Flush
Tourney Director
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
26,318
Reaction score
41,575
Location
Atlanta
The super high roller bowl has got an interesting format this year. Each player can choose when to deploy their three starting stacks...you could go for the full 300k from the first deal, you could only buy in for 100k bust and then buy in for 200k, you could buy in for 200k and top up the other 100k later, etc. The only restriction is all three must be in play by level 9.
We've done this with our premier league for several years. At one time it was 30K in 10K increments (10k 20k, or 30k to start), but now it's just 20K or 10k with 10K reserve.

the players are voicing their displeasure with the format. They’ve also almost universally chosen to buy in for the minimum, valuing insurance against bust outs over the big stack advantages.
I feel like the leverage of a bigger stack earlier could be more advantageous than adding 100k to a 400k stack at the end of day 1. Not sure of the optimal line, but if there’s anybody who would know it it’s these guys, so I’m clearly mistaken haha.
No, I think you are absolutely correct. From a cost-per-unit perspective, it's madness to wait to utilize chips until they have diminished in value, versus using them initially when at full-force. And if you're a big stack (especially when nobody else is), you don't need bust-out insurance.

I think it's only (possibly) correct to hold back chips if you are one of the weaker players in the field, since it can make many of the complicated deep-stack decisions easier when playing those tournament spots with a relative short stack.

Very surprised that a) the "top pros" don't like it, and b) are choosing to approach it using the 'weaker player' option.
 

trigs

Flush
Joined
Sep 29, 2017
Messages
1,329
Reaction score
1,557
Location
Canada
We've done this with our premier league for several years. At one time it was 30K in 10K increments (10k 20k, or 30k to start), but now it's just 20K or 10k with 10K reserve.



No, I think you are absolutely correct. From a cost-per-unit perspective, it's madness to wait to utilize chips until they have diminished in value, versus using them initially when at full-force. And if you're a big stack (especially when nobody else is), you don't need bust-out insurance.

I think it's only (possibly) correct to hold back chips if you are one of the weaker players in the field, since it can make many of the complicated deep-stack decisions easier when playing those tournament spots with a relative short stack.

Very surprised that a) the "top pros" don't like it, and b) are choosing to approach it using the 'weaker player' option.
This was always my understanding as well. I've played home tournaments that have an option like this and I was surprised that I was one of the very few who would use the "add-on" right away.
 

Frogzilla

4 of a Kind
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
5,145
Reaction score
6,774
Location
Frisco, TX
From a cost-per-unit perspective, it's madness to wait to utilize chips until they have diminished in value, versus using them initially when at full-force. And if you're a big stack (especially when nobody else is), you don't need bust-out insurance.

I think it's only (possibly) correct to hold back chips if you are one of the weaker players in the field, since it can make many of the complicated deep-stack decisions easier when playing those tournament spots with a relative short stack.

These guys have certainly prepared for this tourney. If all but one (Rick salomon) came to the conclusion that optimal strategy is to hold back chips, then that is strong evidence that’s the right answer.

Perhaps that’s why they are displeased with the format...at the highest levels no one adds on and it just plays super short.
 
Top Bottom