Tourney Help me design a tourney structure and figure out my chip set requirements (2 Viewers)

[glom]

One thing I hate with normal tourney chip sets is the progression from 500 to 1000. I have read a lot from people who have tried T2000 and T2500 chips, and talked to a few of them, and have decided that is not the answer for me.

So I was inspired by the super high roller bowl with starting stacks of 300k. Got excited, looked at the chips and they start at T500. Seems stupid.

An obvious solution would be to start with 600k chips and just double everything, then I wouldn't need T500.

I've never really designed a tourney structure. I have only played a few live tourneys in my life despite 20 years of poker behind me. So, I propose the following tourney chip set:
1,000/5,000/25,000/100,000/500,000.

That would make the super high roller structure into:

Level    Ante     Small    Big      Pot    Increase
1       2000      1000    2000     5000  
2       3000      1000    2000     6000    0.20
3       3000      1000    3000     7000    0.17
4       3000      2000    3000     8000    0.14
5       4000      2000    4000    10000    0.25
6       5000      2000    5000    12000    0.20
7       6000      3000    6000    15000    0.25
8       6000      4000    8000    18000    0.20
9       8000      4000    8000    20000    0.11
10     10000      5000   10000    25000    0.25
11     12000      6000   12000    30000    0.20
12     14000      7000   14000    35000    0.17
13     16000      8000   16000    40000    0.14
14     20000     10000   20000    50000    0.25
15     24000     12000   24000    60000    0.20
16     28000     14000   28000    70000    0.17
17     32000     16000   32000    80000    0.14
18     40000     20000   40000   100000    0.25
19     50000     20000   50000   120000    0.20
20     60000     30000   60000   150000    0.25
21     60000     40000   80000   180000    0.20
22     80000     40000   80000   200000    0.11
23    100000     50000  100000   250000    0.25
24    120000     60000  120000   300000    0.20
25    140000     70000  140000   350000    0.17
26    160000     80000  160000   400000    0.14
27    200000    100000  200000   500000    0.25
28    240000    120000  240000   600000    0.20
29    300000    150000  300000   750000    0.25
30    300000    200000  400000   900000    0.20

(BTW - the super high roller bowl website computes percentage increase wrong, I have corrected it here)

Anyone have any thoughts about this? Is the super high roller structure generally well liked by those that play it? I'm kind of out of touch when it comes to tourney stuff.

If I do this, what does a good start5ing stack look like? What do they use in the SHRB?

Thanks for any help!

 

[justsomedude]

I'd recommend scrapping the antes. They are kind of a disaster in home/self-dealt games.

 

[glom]

Also, I was under the impression the SHRB used a button ante, but their rule sheet says BB ante. Anyone know what they actually do?

 

[glom]

I'd recommend scrapping the antes. They are kind of a disaster in home/self-dealt games.

A button/big blind ante is just a third blind. And they seem to be the trend of the future.

 

[justsomedude]

A button/big blind ante is just a third blind. And they seem to be the trend of the future.

In casinos it makes sense, especially when you have an event spanning multiple days where you need to encourage action/bustouts. What's the point of it in a home game that only runs 6 or 7 hours?

 

[glom]

I plan to have an ante free structure in my back pocket as well, I just want to start here, and move forward from there. I figured since people seem to really like the structure of these things based on the podcast interviews I've heard, the structure is sound and works well, and doesn't have any huge jumps in it.

 

[Josh Kifer]

I'm doing a high roller set right now and have about the same idea down. No antes tho, they are terrible for home games. Then scrap the no blind raise but ante raise levels. It's solid then.

 

[Poker Zombie]

How many players?

 

[Coyote]

Having done some homework, I 'll put my idea to the test by tourney specialists here.
I love simplicity and hate too many zeroes, so, I think, nothing rivals the 1-5-20-100 values and the ratio among them.
To distinguish tourney chips from cash ones, however, I would opt for 10-50-200-1000.

Chips per player for 4000 starting stacks (200 or even 400BB)
10x10
50x10 (+2 optional for coloring up 10s)
200x7 (+3 for coloring up all of the above)
1000x2 (+4 for each rebuy / add-on available)
Minimum total 360 chips for 10 players

My idea of a structure would be
L0 10-10 (optional, to give an ultra-deep impression)
L1 10-20
L2 20-30
L3 30-50
L4 40-80
L5 50-100
L6 60-120
L7 70-150 - color up 10s (optional)
L8 100-200 - End of rebuy period
L9 150-300
L10 200-400
L11 300-600 -color up 50s
L12 400-800
L13 600-1200
L14 800-1600
L15 1000-2000
L16 1200-2400
L17 1600-3000
L18 2000-4000

 

[BGinGA]

I 'll put my idea to the test by tourney specialists here.

I love simplicity and hate too many zeroes, so, I think, nothing rivals the 1-5-20-100 values and the ratio among them.
To distinguish tourney chips from cash ones, however, I would opt for 10-50-200-1000.

Nothing really wrong with 10-50-200-1000, although the T50 chips will need to remain in play long after they are truly useful, simply due to the lack of a T100 chip.

But 1-5-25-100 is far superior to 1-5-20-100, both in terms of set efficiency and ease of use. The T20 chip works okay as a largest denomination chip, but is awkward when trying to build blind structures to accommodate it, or when players use it to calculate and constuct bet amounts. In addition, more T20 chips are required than T25 chips in a T1-base set.

 

[glom]

How many players?

It will vary. My smallest will be 8 and my largest capacity is 50.

 

[Lemonzest]

My 2c is to omit antes. I think it is easier and more straightforward to just use SB/BB.

 

[Poker Zombie]

It will vary. My smallest will be 8 and my largest capacity is 50.

That is a huge swing between 8 players (4.8M on the table, ending around lvl 27) and 50 (30M on the table, ending around level 37 if you maintain the structure)

Beyond that, you are looking at a typical T1/5/25/100/500 chipset and tournament, but with a lot of zeroes that only serve to make the denoms on the chip smaller (to fit in the zeroes). Players won't even say "five thousand", they will just say "five".

Furthermore, a T1 (or T1000) set is the least effective breakdown for a chipset. You will be spending a lot of money on chips that spend most of the night in the case after they have been colored up. It is my belief, that that is the reason nearly every casino tournament starts at T25. It's just economically the best breakdown.

There is nothing wrong with the structure though. It's very slow, so it will take a lot of levels to finish for the night. 20 minute levels would mean 9 hours to complete an 8 player game, and over 13 hours to wrap a 50 player game. Add on a 15 minute break every 2 hours or so, and your tournament will run from 10-15 hours. I'd love that structure in a casino but a home game has issues. If I bust in the first hour while my spouse or friend I rode in with is going to be playing for another 14 hours, there better be something else to do other than watch.

 

[DoubleEagle]

No antes tho, they are terrible for home games.

Why do you feel this way? If it is because it is a self-dealt game, then yes, it can be a hassle. However, using Big Blind antes solves this problem.

 

[BGinGA]

So I was inspired by the super high roller bowl with starting stacks of 300k. Got excited, looked at the chips and they start at T500. Seems stupid.

Yeah, I'd totally agree at first glance. But in reality, a T500-base 300K set and format has a whole lot going for it.

Set breakdown per 10-players is super-easy: one rack of each denomination (T500 through T25000) per 10 players. Stacks are 10/10/7/10, with every.single.chip seeing time on the felt (the unused 30x T5000 chips color up the T500/T1000 chips exactly). It is easily the most efficient set breakdown ever created, almost regardless of field size. Single table = four racks or 400 chips. Two tables, 800 chips. Three tables, 1200 chips.

It is also extremely flexible, especially considering that there are only four denominations. With 500/1000 opening blinds, starting stacks are deep at 300bb. You can double that to a whopping 600bb by using 500/500 opening blinds, or tone it down to a manageable afternoon event by increasing the starting blinds to 1000/2000 (150bb, still plenty deep).

You can also pare back the 300k starting stacks to anywhere from 50k-250k by reducing the number of starting 25k chips, and keep back enough T25K chips to offer re-buys and/or add-ons while still maintaining a deep starting stack. Or you can run a high-roller charity re-buy event with 50K stacks and 500/1000 blinds (50bb) to promote re-buys.

It's one of my favorite structures and set breakdowns. Even for a T25-base set, I'll often get at least a full rack of T5000 and T25000 chips on top just so the set can also be utilized for 300k single table events. Surprisingly, the normally-odd 500-to-1000 transition really isn't as apparent or annoying when things start at T500.

 

[BGinGA]

Why do you feel this way? If it is because it is a self-dealt game, then yes, it can be a hassle. However, using Big Blind antes solves this problem.

Using a big blind ante (or button ante) may correct some inherent problems with posting antes, but both variants introduce more issues while attempting to fix others. Best approach is a well-designed structure that doesn't require antes at all to achieve the desired play characteristics.

Adding a super-blind is probably the most ingenious way to handle it, but unlikely to gain traction in mainstream circles.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I have one set that starts with a T500. I agree with BG, that it flows quite easily, and very few chips spend the majority of the tournament in the box after the first color-up.

 

[Josh Kifer]

So big blind antes are okay, group antes with rotational dealing always causes an issue on our game. People forget, and it becomes a frustrating argument over and over.

 

[glom]

Yeah, I'd totally agree at first glance. But in reality, a T500-base 300K set and format has a whole lot going for it.

Set breakdown per 10-players is super-easy: one rack of each denomination (T500 through T25000) per 10 players. Stacks are 10/10/7/10, with every.single.chip seeing time on the felt (the unused 30x T5000 chips color up the T500/T1000 chips exactly). It is easily the most efficient set breakdown ever created, almost regardless of field size. Single table = four racks or 400 chips. Two tables, 800 chips. Three tables, 1200 chips.

It is also extremely flexible, especially considering that there are only four denominations. With 500/1000 opening blinds, starting stacks are deep at 300bb. You can double that to a whopping 600bb by using 500/500 opening blinds, or tone it down to a manageable afternoon event by increasing the starting blinds to 1000/2000 (150bb, still plenty deep).

You can also pare back the 300k starting stacks to anywhere from 50k-250k by reducing the number of starting 25k chips, and keep back enough T25K chips to offer re-buys and/or add-ons while still maintaining a deep starting stack. Or you can run a high-roller charity re-buy event with 50K stacks and 500/100 blinds (50bb) to promote re-buys.

It's one of my favorite structures and set breakdowns. Even for a T25-base set, I'll often get at least a full rack of T5000 and T25000 chips on top just so the set can also be utilized for 300k single table events. Surprisingly, the normally-odd 500-to-1000 transition really isn't as apparent or annoying when things start at T500.

This is a very helpful analysis.

Thanks.

 

[DoubleEagle]

...but both variants introduce more issues while attempting to fix others.

Such as?

 

[Poker Zombie]

Such as?

...with a Button Ante, who pays when there is a dead button?
...with a BB ante, what happens if the player cannot cover the ante & Big Blind?

Both create a lucrative angle-shoot of dodging the ante by "getting lost" moving between tables in a MTT. It's addressed in the rules (don't dodge blinds) but the payoff is greater, thus tempting the ass-hats more to do just that.

 

[upNdown]

Adding a super-blind is probably the most ingenious way to handle it, but unlikely to gain traction in mainstream circles.

What's that?

 

[justsomedude]

...with a Button Ante, who pays when there is a dead button?

No one. On a dead button in this format there is no ante paid into the pot.

...with a BB ante, what happens if the player cannot cover the ante & Big Blind?

I would assume it is the same as if they couldn't cover the BB... they are forced all-in, and no ante is paid into the pot.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Playing Devil's advocate, because I understand the issue, not because I'm adamant...

When there is no ante paid into the pot, it changes the game slightly. Late to act is penalized on stealing blinds and antes when there are no antes for his orbit.

Should a table at a MTT right before the bubble get an ante break sparing the short stacks - or preventing them from hitting a big hand that will take them another orbit?

If we have multiple short-stacks riding ante free, why does the big stack have to risk more chips every orbit?

Like Dave points out it solves one problem (slow posters) but creates new issues, and those issues have not been addressed by RROP or the TDA yet, so rule interpretations become a little vague if one player thinks there should be no ante and someone else thinks everyone should pay the ante that orbit.

There is also the question of going short-handed at the final table. Do you continue to pay antes for a table of 8 or 10 when it's 2-3 player? Again the rule is not addressed by RROP or TDA, so an on the spot ruling can appear to favor/penalize the short stack.

 

[upNdown]

Like Dave points out it solves one problem (slow posters) but creates new issues

I’m not even sure there’s a problem with traditional antes. I aupppse if you have one terrible slow poster at your table, it’s a problem. But more often then not, people get trained pretty well after an orbit or two and the antes move right along.
So big blind antes get you an extra two hands per hour? Whoopty do.

 

[justsomedude]

I’m not even sure there’s a problem with traditional antes. I aupppse if you have one terrible slow poster at your table, it’s a problem. But more often then not, people get trained pretty well after an orbit or two and the antes move right along.
So big blind antes get you an extra two hands per hour? Whoopty do.

I share your sentiment.

As I’ve stated, I don’t see a need for antes in a 5 hour home game. I can see the need for antes in larger/longer MTT events, to encourage more aggressive play. But a button ante or a BB ante just seems to be a solution looking for a problem.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I’m not even sure there’s a problem with traditional antes. I aupppse if you have one terrible slow poster at your table, it’s a problem. But more often then not, people get trained pretty well after an orbit or two and the antes move right along.
So big blind antes get you an extra two hands per hour? Whoopty do.

I agree. The "problem" with traditional antes is pretty small. I haven't played in a button or BB ante game yet, so it have not made up my mind as to which of the 3 methods is best, though I do prefer no antes over traditional antes.

I intend to run a traditional ante in my home game someday, but I am keenly aware that it will be an issue for some players. Since I have taught poker to so many though, I feel that skipping the chapter on antes would be doing them a disservice should they wander into a real casino.

 

[DoubleEagle]

...with a Button Ante, who pays when there is a dead button?
...with a BB ante, what happens if the player cannot cover the ante & Big Blind?

That is the problem with a button ante. That is also why button antes are not being used much.

If player can’t cover, it is opposite of regular antes. If you are short, it’s big blind first.

Well run tournaments will not have issues with players trying to dodge their blinds.

 

[DoubleEagle]

There is also the question of going short-handed at the final table. Do you continue to pay antes for a table of 8 or 10 when it's 2-3 player? Again the rule is not addressed by RROP or TDA, so an on the spot ruling can appear to favor/penalize the short stack.

Almost all venues that are using the BB ante do not change it short handed. The rule has been address by Matt Savage, founder of the TDA. All his tournaments keep the big blind ante the same when short handed. To quote him, “why would you you make a rule that favors the short stacks?”

 

[DoubleEagle]

Most of the people I have encountered that don’t like the BB ante have never played it. It is the future of tournament poker.