LotsOfChips
Flush
I'm assisting the TD for a Registered Charity Organization in setting up his "first ever" Charity MTT NLHE Tournament. The "first ever" is in quotation marks is because it is the first attempt by this TD and for this branch of the organization, but they are in effect taking over and relocating a long running MTT from a neighboring community's branch (whose TD has moved away). The plan at this point is to maintain the existing structure for the first couple of games, but the TD is open to suggestions for improvement.
Details of existing structure:
In my (very limited) opinion, the blind structure has the potential to make this into a bit of a shove-fest early (starting stacks are <10BB within 1 hr 20 minutes), and the % progression of 100/100/100/50/33/25/100/100/50/33/25 makes no sense to me whatsoever. It especially seems to concentrate the biggest % increases at the front end and middle of the tournament rather than the back end.
I am considering suggesting a more balanced blind structure that (mostly) alternates between 50% and 33% increases, and still finishes within 4.5 hours, but that would probably require 15 minute blinds:
Is this a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", or is the existing structure bad enough that it warrants improvement?
Details of existing structure:
- $50 buy in (limited by law to $100 max)
- Prize Pool $2000 (1st - $800, 2nd - $400, 3rd - $200, 4th-8th - $100, HH - $100) (again limited by law to $2k max)
- 11 tables of 10 players (existing game sells out well in advance), volunteer dealers (yet again limited by law)
- T5000 starting stacks, with optional 1K add-ons at start and at 1 hour break ($10 each)
- 20 minute blinds, 10 minute breaks each 3 levels (hourly)
- Desired run time 4.5 hours (can run for 5 if req'd)
- T25 base
- Blind Structure:
Level | SB | BB | % Increase |
1 | 25 | 50 | N/A |
2 | 50 | 100 | 100.00% |
3 | 100 | 200 | 100.00% |
10 min Break | Remove T25 | ||
4 | 200 | 400 | 100.00% |
5 | 300 | 600 | 50.00% |
6 | 400 | 800 | 33.33% |
10 min Break | Remove T100 | ||
7 | 500 | 1000 | 25.00% |
8 | 1000 | 2000 | 100.00% |
9 | 2000 | 4000 | 100.00% |
10 min Break | Remove T500 | ||
10 | 3000 | 6000 | 50.00% |
11 | 4000 | 8000 | 33.33% |
12 | 5000 | 10000 | 25.00% |
10 min Break | Remove T1000 | ||
13 | 10000 | 20000 | 100.00% |
14 | 15000 | 30000 | 50.00% |
15 | 20000 | 40000 | 33.33% |
10 min Break | |||
16 | 25000 | 50000 | 25.00% |
17 | 30000 | 60000 | 20.00% |
18 | 35000 | 70000 | 16.67% |
10 min Break | |||
19 | 40000 | 80000 | 14.29% |
20 | 45000 | 90000 | 12.50% |
21 | 50000 | 100000 | 11.11% |
In my (very limited) opinion, the blind structure has the potential to make this into a bit of a shove-fest early (starting stacks are <10BB within 1 hr 20 minutes), and the % progression of 100/100/100/50/33/25/100/100/50/33/25 makes no sense to me whatsoever. It especially seems to concentrate the biggest % increases at the front end and middle of the tournament rather than the back end.
I am considering suggesting a more balanced blind structure that (mostly) alternates between 50% and 33% increases, and still finishes within 4.5 hours, but that would probably require 15 minute blinds:
Level | SB | BB | % Increase |
1 | 25 | 50 | |
2 | 50 | 100 | 100.00% |
3 | 75 | 150 | 50.00% |
4 | 100 | 200 | 33.33% |
10 min Break | |||
5 | 150 | 300 | 50.00% |
6 | 200 | 400 | 33.33% |
7 | 300 | 600 | 50.00% |
8 | 400 | 800 | 33.33% |
10 min Break | Remove T25 | ||
9 | 600 | 1200 | 50.00% |
10 | 800 | 1600 | 33.33% |
11 | 1200 | 2400 | 50.00% |
12 | 1600 | 3200 | 33.33% |
10 min Break | Remove T100 | ||
13 | 2500 | 5000 | 56.25% |
14 | 3500 | 7000 | 40.00% |
15 | 5000 | 10000 | 42.86% |
16 | 7500 | 15000 | 50.00% |
10 min Break | Remove T500 & T1k | ||
17 | 10000 | 20000 | 33.33% |
18 | 15000 | 30000 | 50.00% |
19 | 20000 | 40000 | 33.33% |
20 | 30000 | 60000 | 50.00% |
21 | 45000 | 90000 | 50.00% |
Is this a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", or is the existing structure bad enough that it warrants improvement?
Last edited: