Tourney Help me design a 10-Player Tournament Structure (2 Viewers)

[CallingStation614]

Hey,

I just read some comments on bounty tournaments and want to incorporate this for the next Saturday-Tourney that I'll host.

It will be a 10-player tournament, T25 base. I'm thinking 20€ buy-in for 10k starting stack, 2k bonus for on-time check-in. Pool therefore is 200€. 50€ Are going to the host, therefore all drinks are included (it's agreed upon in our group). Now, instead paying out 150€, I want to have a 5€ Bounty per player. So 100€ Payout for 1st, 2nd and 3rd, as well as the bounty.

Now the hard part: First hand will be dealt at 1pm, I want the tournament to be over by 6pm, because in the evening we want to bbq and have a few more drinks. Normally, we don't have a tight timeframe with this group and increase blind levels only by feel. This time, I want to have a fixed blind structure to help my with the 5h time-limit.

Starting Stacks will be 10k-12k and Level one is 25/50.

I kind of don't want to do 20min blind levels, because as I said these players are used to sometimes 1 hour per level. However, if I calculate with 30-40mins per level, I think it won't bring the tournament to an end by 6pm...

Does it make sense, to play the first levels for 30 mins, and after e.g. coloring up the 25s decrease to 20mins? I think this will feel awkward, but maybe someone tried this out.

 

[DeeVee8]

I've always found that tourneys end when the BB/Antes total 5% of the total chips in play. I'd never change the time levels, imo it's not fair to compete at one level longer than another.

10k tourney with 10 players makes 100k in chips. 5% of 100k is 5k, meaning the tourney will end around level 12-13. If you want a 5hr tourney, 20 minute levels would have you at Level 13 after about 4.5 hrs of play. If you don't want 20 minute levels, you could add a BB ante, ending your game around Level 10 or 11. You still wouldn't get more than 25 min per level.

 

[CallingStation614]

Maybe something like this then?
20 mins per level. I mean, this will go up pretty quick compared to our past tournaments but I think it will even encourage more serious play.

 

[DeeVee8]

That might work. I'd do a trial run just to see how it plays.
I cut out a few levels to get you 30 min per level. This should be done at Level 9, giving you 4.5 hrs of play.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

Agreed with @DeeVee8 , I just ran an 18 man tourney and the 5% rule was perfect. Ended exactly at the level that we passed that threshold. About 5.5 hours with 18 minute blinds and a few breaks, went very smoothly.

Just adding in: if they're used to hour long levels, the 20 minute levels will feel very fast but given your time frame will be fine. Call it a turbo, a shootout, whatever you'd like lol.

 

[DeeVee8]

Agreed with @DeeVee8 , I just ran an 18 man tourney and the 5% rule was perfect. Ended exactly at the level that we passed that threshold. Abiut 5.5 hours with 18 minute blinds and a few breaks, went very smoothly.

The 5% rule might be a little off when a short stack turns into a luckbox, but agreed, it's pretty accurate.

 

[BGinGA]

I'd never change the time levels, imo it's not fair to compete at one level longer than another.

You are assuming that all levels are equal in terms of importance or relativity to a player's equity. They are not.

In many events, the earlier levels (when players have larger numbers of 'big blinds' in their stacks) have lesser importance or impact on player equity than latter-stage levels (when play can often have a direct impact on a player's projected payout).

This would imply that the early levels could/should be shorter than the later levels to balance consistency or 'fairness'.

Your statement also assumes that 'actual time played per level' is more critical than 'actual number of hands played per level', which is also not true. Generally speaking, as the table size gets smaller (due to player eliminations), more hands per time-unit get played (fewer players to act and fewer decisions to be made).

This would imply that (later) levels with smaller table sizes could/should be of shorter duration to better match the hands-per-hour rate player at the earlier levels (when table sizes were larger) in the interest of consistency or 'fairness'.

And those two implications also appear to be at odds with each other. Bottom line is that uniformly timed levels themselves are inherently inconsistent in terms of hands-played-per-level (and thus could be considered 'unfair').

A better approach is to increase the blind amounts based on number of hands played per level (vs time), with an increasing number of hands per level being played during the later (and more important/impactful) levels.

 

[DeeVee8]

A better approach is to increase the blind amounts based on number of hands played per level (vs time), with an increasing number of hands per level being played during the later (and more important/impactful) levels.

I saw Triton poker doing this exact thing when I was watching online. Interesting. Looking for documentation on their site, but I can't find any.

 

[CallingStation614]

Yep, sounds like an interesting approach, but nothing I will try out for this group.

As I said even having fixed blind levels will be new for most of the players. We've never played with a bb-ante as well, so idk if I want to do the suggestion from @DeeVee8 even though it looks perfect for the cause. I just fear that these apes aren't capable of understanding an ante and I dont want to start explaining shit during the tournament lol