Tourney How is this blind structure? (1 Viewer)

[BGinGA]

@Gobbs is absolutely correct -- removing L2 (25/75) while increasing the time of both L1 and L3 by half of the length of L2 works out to having about the same impact as leaving it alone as-is.

But just cutting it out entirely both shortens the overall event time, and creates the inevitable shortstack situation sooner than if left in place. Adding in another level later on will add back overall time, but it won't correct the second issue.

 

[SendThatStack]

Eliminating the 25/75 and adding a 500/1000 doesn't really give you less of a crapshoot mid/late, it just gets you there faster. Eliminating a smaller blind level for a larger one later will shorten the tournament and provide less overall play, not more. Also, eliminating the 25/75 and not adding the 500/1000 also just gets you to mid/late faster and shortens the tournament.

Believe me, if I had my way, every tournament would have deep stacks, at least 30-minute blind levels, small increments in blind increases, no antes, and last at least ten hours. I love deep-stack, long-format tournaments with a ton of play. Unfortunately, that's not realistic in most cases. The best substitute is usually not to front-load or back-load the tournament with big or small jumps, but just to have very consistent jumps and adjust the starting stacks and blind level times in accordance with how long you want the tournament to last.

If you are hell-bent on getting rid of the 25/75, I suggest increasing the length of the early blind levels (which I am not a big fan of doing) or increase the starting stack a bit. Personally, I'd just leave the 25/75 - it allows for more consistent play.

Yeah it gets you to the same level 10. I just prefer a little less shovey of a mid game than jumping from 400/800 to 600/1200. Super deep early play is pointless in tourneys especially a home game.

 

[BGinGA]

Yeah it gets you to the same level 10. I just prefer a little less shovey of a mid game than jumping from 400/800 to 600/1200. Super deep early play is pointless in tourneys especially a home game.

Adding a 500/1000 level doesn't make it any less "shovey" during that stage of the event, since it's not the last -- or only -- 50% increase. Actually, few bust-outs occur during these levels -- the first wave starts hitting earlier when the average stack is around 25BB, then it settles down until that plateau is reached again with the remaining number of players (usually not until 1000/2000 or 1500/3000).

Agree that super-deep (> 300bb) play early is somewhat pointless, but 100-150bb is not super-deep in a tournament setting.... especially if the blinds double.

 

[SendThatStack]

Well that is a good point. I'll probably end up skipping the 500/1k either way because I dont want the game to run too long and since we have rebuys there will be enough chips in play anyways. For sake of argument I still think its a smoother ride to level 10 with the 500/1k but I could be wrong about that mathematically.

 

[Poker Zombie]

The best thing is, you are not locked into a blind structure for life. Do it either way, and see if you like it. I have structures that use the 500/1000 and structures that dont. I have tweaked and adjusted structures many times to suit my group. As their play styles change (become more aggressive) I can adjust some more.

Adding a 500/1000 level doesn't make it any less "shovey" during that stage of the event, since it's not the last -- or only -- 50% increase. Actually, few bust-outs occur during these levels -- the first wave starts hitting earlier when the average stack is around 25BB, then it settles down until that plateau is reached again with the remaining number of players (usually not until 1000/2000 or 1500/3000).

My stats disagree with this statement, but my group probably plays less agro than yours. As I was copying over the line graphs, I realized you and I have had this discussion before. Our first wave hits around 20BBs, which is also the last chance to rebuy, so I think there is a direct correlation there. The first wave of real eliminations happens (for us) when the average stack is around 12-16 BB. That sweet spot where you have enough to make all but the biggest stack rethink your shove, but not enough to pay for a flop you might fold.

 

[Gobbs]

Yeah it gets you to the same level 10. I just prefer a little less shovey of a mid game than jumping from 400/800 to 600/1200. Super deep early play is pointless in tourneys especially a home game.

I see the stats on when players go out, but I really think that is all relative. The point is, adding a mid-level round really won't make it less "shovey", it will just extend the tournament. That, in a vacuum, is not a bad thing if you have the time. In fact, in my opinion, extending tournament length is a good thing if you have the time....BUT, I'm assuming you don't have the extra time. Also, any tournament extension provided by adding the level is more than offset if you also remove the 25/75 level.

I also disagree that super deep early play is pointless in home game tournaments. While I agree you can't win a tournament early, I've seen plenty of players lose it or severely hurt their chances early. (At the very least, I've seen it add to the prize pool with some rebuys.) Also, it gives me a chance to observe new players. While it's true that players will play differently in later rounds than early rounds, it still gives me a chance to see how they play, get to know them, observe them, see how they handle their chips, see how familiar they are with certain aspects of the game, etc.

Also, while this is an extreme example, you can learn things about players that really come in handy for a long time. I used to play with a guy who would basically tell you exactly how he was going to play that day if you chatted him up a bit. If he said things were going well and he was in a good mood, you could tell he was going to play loose and aggressive because he didn't care as much about cashing. If he talked about how the business wasn't going so well, he tended to play just as aggressively pre-flop, but his post-flop range for calling was much tighter because he didn't want to be eliminated and "needed" to cash. Depending on our chat during the deep-stack part of the tournament, I would avoid bluffing him or almost go out of my way to bluff him later in the tournament. (@BGinGA , you know who I am talking about, right???) The deep-stack early play allowed me to chat him up and learn this about him, but with some probing in the early stages, it also allowed me to prove my theory about him and benefit from it later.

 

[SendThatStack]

18 players, 10K stacks

lvl sb bb
L1 25 50
L2 25 75
L3 50 100
L4 75 150
L5 100 200
L6 150 300
remove T25 chips
L7 200 400
L8 300 600
L9 400 800
L10 600 1200
L11 800 1600
L12 1200 2400
remove T100 chips
L13 1500 3000
L14 2000 4000
L15 3000 6000
L16 4000 8000 ***
L17 6000 12000
L18 8000 16000
L19 10000 20000

Levels 1-8 are 15-minutes, levels 9-16(+) are 20-minutes. Or you can run the entire event with 17-minute levels.

Typical event will end no later than L16, so around 4:40 plus two 10-minute color-up breaks. Hits your 5-hour target dead-center.

If you were to add antes to this would you change anything else?

 

[BGinGA]

If you were to add antes to this would you change anything else?

I would not add antes to that particular structure, as it would make it far too aggressive for my liking -- its already at around 40% average blinds increases. I prefer much smaller blind increases when using antes (30% average or less) which works out to roughly the same stack-aggression level as a 40% structure without antes.

 

[SendThatStack]

You think I can add some levels to that one and make it reasonable? I know people advise against antes in home games but for me it makes the game more fun.

 

[Gobbs]

Remember, ante is a four-letter word.

Originally, when I started to respond, I tried to come up with a similar blind structure with antes (which I could have done). I was going to include the estimated cost per circuit and the increase between levels, but that, of course, is dependent on the number of players remaining at the table. That reminded me of another reason I love a nice, smooth blind structure (without antes).

Not that any of us can predict, with any certainty, what we will need to do in a round or two to survive/win a tournament, but I like to know that in two rounds, I am going to be paying exactly twice as much per circuit (or whatever the percentage is) than I am paying now. The consistent blind structure allows that. The inconsistent one does not. The inconsistent one with antes definitely does not....in fact, the antes make it almost impossible since you don't know if, for example, you will be paying 400 in antes or 800 in antes every circuit, depending on the number of players remaining (or when tables combine, or other factors).

I think forethought and predictability work to the advantage of the smarter player and the strategist (in this particular situation). I'm always in favor of that, even if it works to my disadvantage.

 

[Poker Zombie]

While I am neutral with the BB ante (I have not played with one yet), the BB ante would eliminate those "uncertain" changes in the cost per round.

Besides, I think the smarter player can adjust his game all the time. That includes changes in "M" (cost per orbit), as well as facing aggro players or nits.

 

[Gobbs]

While I am neutral with the BB ante (I have not played with one yet), the BB ante would eliminate those "uncertain" changes in the cost per round.

Besides, I think the smarter player can adjust his game all the time. That includes changes in "M" (cost per orbit), as well as facing aggro players or nits.

Yes, the smarter player can adjust his game all the time. The even smarter player can think two or three blind levels ahead to do it if he can successfully predict what is coming. While adjusting on the fly is good....adjusting on the fly well in advance is even better.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I agree predictable is good, but the addition of 1/5 a BB (the difference between 8 players at a table or 10 players at a table) is minimal to any human strategy calculations unless very short stacked.