Tourney "Bounty Only" Tournaments? (1 Viewer)

[pltrgyst]

Has anyone ever played a "bounty only" tournament? I've played a lot of poker, but never run into this before.

$100 buy-in, which is the bounty. There's no other payout.

Any tips or observations for how play might be affected?

Edit to add: I don't know yet whether rebuys are allowed. That might be controversial...

 

[CraigT78]

Following - intrigued on how this would run out.

 

[Highli99]

The nits will rise up in opposition.

 

[DoubleEagle]

The nits will rise up in opposition.

I resemble that remark!

 

[DoubleEagle]

Only played in a hybrid where bounties and cash prizes were paid. Could be an interesting change for our weekly tournament.

Edit: After reading more posts, IMO this would just be a clusterfk.

 

[Davism72]

Really removes all reason to not chase bounties. Is each kill worth $100, or does some of each bounty go to the killer's bounty?

 

[Irish]

I've considered it in the past a few times, but I didn't think a 100% bounty game would be a lot of fun, especially towards the end when most have been eliminated. I would think you'd have a ton of chops once you hit 3 to 4 players. @moose posted a progressive bounty game a few months back that sounds intriguing, I have this slated to try for my next bounty game:

https://www.pokerchipforum.com/thre...-slayer-tourney-sat-oct-27.33341/#post-611861

 

[Saoliver]

I've considered it in the past a few times, but I didn't think a 100% bounty game would be a lot of fun, especially towards the end when most have been eliminated. I would think you'd have a ton of chops once you hit 3 to 4 players. @moose posted a progressive bounty game a few months back that sounds intriguing, I have this slated to try for my next bounty game:

https://www.pokerchipforum.com/thre...-slayer-tourney-sat-oct-27.33341/#post-611861

No chops then?

 

[krafticus]

I think this would suck for my games. I've had many times where the final players and the bubble pitch in a bounty chip for the bubble.. and 1-2 players haven't won a bounty to pitch in. Heck, I could see winning the tournament with 1 bounty collected. I wouldn't call that a win.

Also, you'd have to consider at what point you just give up, because the time invested in the long haul isn't worth the 1 bounty you may have (essentially breaking even)

 

[Irish]

No chops then?

Possibly, then you'd just get flips

The way I see it, in a normal game, you get more invested the further you get through a tourney because the payouts are all at the end. In this setup, a random take-out is worth practically as much as winning the tourney, and technically you could take second and walk away with zilch. Completely different strategy that I would think would encourage shove-fests. Then multiply that by 100 if it includes rebuys, lol. That's just my 2¢ but the nit in me says

 

[Rhodeman77]

Might as well play it as an All-in or FOLD tournament.

Having the bounty be 50% of the total buy-in would be as high as I see being feasible.

 

[Highli99]

nit in me says

Called it

 

[Poker Zombie]

I've considered running one myself, but after looking at the data for 19 player games...

• The "winner" would scoop on average, 6 Buy-ins
• "Second" scoops 4 buy-ins
• "third" scoops 2 buy ins on average.
• 7 players take back their buy-in

Positions are relative of course, because lasting the longest wouldn't always be the big winner. And quite frankly, besting 19 players for 6 buy-ins is a pretty lame first prize, because more than a third of the field takes their buy-in back.

Now this is comparing it with a regular game. There is a meta-game to consider. You dont ever want to jam vs a player with more chips than you, because you can only weaken them, but everyone else gets the chance to eliminate them. In regular tournament poker, it is a typical strategy to call and check down a short-stack to increase the chance of eliminating a player and moving up in the money - that isn't the case here. You can't check it down with a weak hand, because you are just handing a section of the prize pool to someone else. So the meta-game could change how many bounties are paid.

But I don't think the majority of my players think in terms of the meta-game. For this reason, I nixed the idea.

 

[Suited Connector]

I don't like this format at all. I've never heard of not leaving any money up top. Maybe take most of the money out for the bounty but leave a little something for the prize pool.

 

[Mental Nomad]

Without thinking too deeply, I dislike the idea because too much poker is disrupted.

I think good strategy includes an awfully lot of jamming, and avoiding jamming against larger stacks. Chip accumulation goes down in value significantly. I don't think it plays well for people who are interested in all the richness that goes into playing hands of poker, though it might be a fun variant for people who enjoy gambooling.

The catch is that gamboolers have plenty of opportunities to gambool during normal poker, whereas normal poker players will be more limited in this kind of game - and my player are more into it for the poker than the gambool. Even those who love a gambool here and there really love the poker, too.

 

[CantSpellPoker]

 

[BGinGA]

I think it rewards selective aggression, but not necessarily 'gambol' and an all-in shove mentality. There is still plenty of room for strategy, although I dislike the 100% bounty payouts format. Getting into a bunch of coin flips for stacks isn't as strategy-sound as pushing your stack with a significant advantage (or when villains think you might have one).

In general, tight and patient players don't typically score a lot of 'regular' bounties, and in a bounty-only scenario, are at an extreme monetary disadvantage unless they alter their normal game plan.

 

[pltrgyst]

Thanks for all the thoughts. Fwiw, this is scheduled at BARGE's Embargo gathering in Vegas in February. It should have 60 or so entries.

 

[Mr. Cheese]

I think its an interesting concept. I'll be curious to hear how it went in February.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I think it rewards selective aggression, but not necessarily 'gambol' and an all-in shove mentality. There is still plenty of room for strategy, although I dislike the 100% bounty payouts format. Getting into a bunch of coin flips for stacks isn't as strategy-sound as pushing your stack with a significant advantage (or when villains think you might have one).

In general, tight and patient players don't typically score a lot of 'regular' bounties, and in a bounty-only scenario, are at an extreme monetary disadvantage unless they alter their normal game plan.

This guy gets the meta-game. It's not bet, bet, bet, bet. It's limp, check, check, jam if you have the chip edge and limp, check, check, check, min-bet if your opponent has the edge.

There will (should) be a lot of "How much do you have" questions asked. I expect fewer hands per hour to be played, as the difference between jamming with a 1 chip advantage and jamming with a 1 chip deficit are huge.

 

[Gobbs]

Seems this would not be conducive to players who enjoy a good format that allows them to be patient. That’s not necessarily a good or bad thing, but probably does limit the number of players interested in it.

 

[Taghkanic]

For tighter players, there could still be some incentive for grinding up your stack patiently at various stages, since it would be important to cover other players’ stacks.

Also should be lots of opportunities for blind-stealing/flop aggression, as some players would avoid getting into any hands without a big hand pre or outs to the nuts post.

But overall... No interest in playing one of these. A large bounty chip tourney (1/4-1/6 of the buyin) is an interesting challenge, though.

 

[pokerplayingpisces]

I ran one once, probably 5-6 years ago. It was okay (I haven’t run another one since, if that helps answer your question). As expected play was very aggressive. Any All-In was met with multiple callers. The more I think about it, it played a lot like free bar poker.