Tourney How do you evaluate a tournament? (2 Viewers)

[dmoney]

I suppose this is a question for more discerning players - beyond just affordability and schedule: How do you evaluate a tournament?

Before a trip to Vegas earlier this year I looked at a bunch of the tournament structure sheets for the casino dailys and some circuits that were in town. Eventually, I built a spreadsheet that takes into consideration:

• Starting stack relative to starting blinds & antes ("M ratio" is a bit outdated, but works nicely here, imo)
• The rate at which blinds increase - usually the average rate of increase for the first 10 levels or so
• The approximate # of hands per level - mostly useful in distinguishing between online and live events

To arrive at what I call "Playability" and "Value" scores. Playability helps to quantify deeper/skill-advantaged events versus shove-fests, and Value reveals how much playability there is per dollar spent to enter, to make comparisons at various buy-in levels easier.

I'm sure I'm missing something, but at a minimum, I feel like I can at least have a consistent way of thinking about how good or bad a tournament might be.

 

[JustinInMN]

I suppose this is a question for more discerning players - beyond just affordability and schedule: How do you evaluate a tournament?

Before a trip to Vegas earlier this year I looked at a bunch of the tournament structure sheets for the casino dailys and some circuits that were in town. Eventually, I built a spreadsheet that takes into consideration:

• Starting stack relative to starting blinds & antes ("M ratio" is a bit outdated, but works nicely here, imo)
• The rate at which blinds increase - usually the average rate of increase for the first 10 levels or so
• The approximate # of hands per level - mostly useful in distinguishing between online and live events

To arrive at what I call "Playability" and "Value" scores. Playability helps to quantify deeper/skill-advantaged events versus shove-fests, and Value reveals how much playability there is per dollar spent to enter, to make comparisons at various buy-in levels easier.

I'm sure I'm missing something, but at a minimum, I feel like I can at least have a consistent way of thinking about how good or bad a tournament might be.

The rake. What portion of the buy in goes to the prize pool versus the house.

Otherwise, this is a very good list.

 

[dmoney]

The rake. What portion of the buy in goes to the prize pool versus the house.

Otherwise, this is a very good list.

Good idea. I wonder if the rake % should be a throttle for Value.

50% rake cuts value in half.
0% rake is 100% the most valuable a tournament could be.

that seem right?

 

[Rhodeman77]

is there an overlay?
Are many pros expected to play?
How big of a field is expected?
Single day tournament vs multi day event.

For me personally, is there a cash game I could be playing in instead?

How many friends are playing in the tournament that I feel obligated to play it now?

 

[ekricket]

How close I am to it when it starts usually is my determining factor. If I can make the starting time then it’s a good one.

 

[JustinInMN]

Good idea. I wonder if the rake % should be a throttle for Value.

50% rake cuts value in half.
0% rake is 100% the most valuable a tournament could be.

that seem right?

Yeah that would make sense, and @Rhodeman77 brings up a great related point that a guarantee with an overlay would mitigate the negative rake effect. So that should be considered.

Perhaps for the sake of your calculation, it would just be easier to just think in terms of the percentage that does go to the prize pool so high numbers are good and low numbers are bad, instead of figuring the rake percentage and having to flip it using some factor. Example, if no fees, then 100% to prize pool, if it's $100 in fees on $200 to enter that's 50% to the prize pool (which would be awful.) 70-80% going to the prize pool seems to be the norm. I don't think I would even consider a tournament where less than 70% goes into the prize pool.

 

[upNdown]

The fewer available addons and rebuys/reentries available, the better. Ideally that number is zero.

 

[4SUMERZ]

I prefer a cash game set up rather than a tournament style. The problem I have with tournaments is that they have way too much time alloted for extra rebuys.
Maybe I'm just soured by one such Vegas casino tournament I was in, and this joker kept going all in and busting, then rebuy, then do it again and again. He must have bought 3 times at least. After hours of playing and getting closer to settling the final table, I go all in with A-A vs his 3-3...of course, we can all guess which card flopped. The worst of this was that I could have rebought, even at this late stage, but refused at this point. I prefer a tournament where the rebuys can only be made in the first hour, or none at all.

 

[bergs]

I usually look at the schedule and see the tournament and think to myself “ahhhh fuck naw”.

 

[dmoney]

Just for the heck of it, I put some WSOP Paradise events into my spreadsheet to check out their "Playability" scores: the $5k Main Event and $100k Super High Roller.

My "Playability Score" is a function of starting stack size relative to blinds (M ratio), an estimate of # hands to be played in each blind level, and the average rate at which the blinds increase. Deeper-stack, long-level events with gradual blind increases have higher Playability scores than shallow-stack turbos with rapid blind increases.

2024 WSOP Paradise
$5k Main Event: 1,554
$100k SHR: 2,303.62

Other random events for context:
$1.7k 2023 WSOP Circuit Turning Stone Main Event: 925.43
$140 Aria Daily Tournament: 632.96
$10k 2019 WSOP Main Event: 5682.27

 

[Chanceman]

I prefer a cash game set up rather than a tournament style. The problem I have with tournaments is that they have way too much time alloted for extra rebuys.
Maybe I'm just soured by one such Vegas casino tournament I was in, and this joker kept going all in and busting, then rebuy, then do it again and again. He must have bought 3 times at least. After hours of playing and getting closer to settling the final table, I go all in with A-A vs his 3-3...of course, we can all guess which card flopped. The worst of this was that I could have rebought, even at this late stage, but refused at this point. I prefer a tournament where the rebuys can only be made in the first hour, or none at all.

I played with a guy that pushed all-in three straight hands and lost. We both wound up at the final table. I wonder if he even broke even.

 

[ngmcs8203]

This sounds cool. Do you have the sheet available to share?

 

[dmoney]

This sounds cool. Do you have the sheet available to share?

Here's a link to view/download a version of it. I fill in the fields in yellow - the others are formula-based.

 

[inca911]

Made me think of the Dead Poets Society Pritchard score. Hehe

 

[ChrisTot]

I suppose this is a question for more discerning players - beyond just affordability and schedule: How do you evaluate a tournament?

Before a trip to Vegas earlier this year I looked at a bunch of the tournament structure sheets for the casino dailys and some circuits that were in town. Eventually, I built a spreadsheet that takes into consideration:

• Starting stack relative to starting blinds & antes ("M ratio" is a bit outdated, but works nicely here, imo)
• The rate at which blinds increase - usually the average rate of increase for the first 10 levels or so
• The approximate # of hands per level - mostly useful in distinguishing between online and live events

To arrive at what I call "Playability" and "Value" scores. Playability helps to quantify deeper/skill-advantaged events versus shove-fests, and Value reveals how much playability there is per dollar spent to enter, to make comparisons at various buy-in levels easier.

I'm sure I'm missing something, but at a minimum, I feel like I can at least have a consistent way of thinking about how good or bad a tournament might be.

What did I miss about M ratio?

 

[ngmcs8203]

What did I miss about M ratio?

I think a lot of people assume the ideas and theories that were presented and generally accepted as gospel 20 years ago are no longer valid.

 

[JustinInMN]

What did I miss about M ratio?

I think a lot of people assume the ideas and theories that were presented and generally accepted as gospel 20 years ago are no longer valid.

(removing my comments after realizing I misunderstood)

I will switch to this. M-ratio is still a valid way to compare stack sizes across different tournament situations regardless of structure. Simply discussing stack sizes in terms of BB only instead of the full M calculation (which includes the SB and antes) is an admittedly simpler shortcut that dominates modern strategy discussion. However the BB only approach does have a glaring weakness in not adjusting the initial pot size between tournaments that use antes and those that do not.

 

[ChrisTot]

Feels like one of the things about M I never read in books was M differences in live tournaments vs online.

 

[JustinInMN]

Feels like one of the things about M I never read in books was M differences in live tournaments vs online.

The actual M calculation wouldn't be different. But the main difference between live and online is the pace of play being over twice as fast, so in terms of actual hands played your M wouldn't drop for blind increases as quickly, meaning you may have the option to be a little more selective in certain spots than live strategy would dictate.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Many moons ago, I used a spreadsheet to evaluate Vegas card room structures. I don't know if I still have a copy of it on my current computer, but it used rake and the estimated time to the end of the tournament (assuming 50 players). From there it would tell me my approximate dollar cost per hour, assuming that poker is actually a zero-sum game. The games with the lowest cost per hour got my attention.

That was back in the poker boom days though. Most casinos were pitching poker, so there were a variety of options. Many casinos made their structures available so you knew what you were getting into. Today, There aren't that many games available, and I sometimes have a tough time getting a blind structure when I'm in the poker room, so the spreadsheet doesn't have the same allure.

Now my biggest factors are proximity and what chips are used.