Tourney iNinja’s ”ressurection” tournament structure (1 Viewer)

[Highli99]

I heard about this on a podcast and was intrigued by 1) a unique way to do tournament rebuys 2) another type of chip.

Article explaining it is here: https://cardplayerlifestyle.com/press-release-ininja-poker-resurrection-series-begins-at-diamond-jo/

TLDR is that you get a ”ressurection” chip that gives you 20 BB at whatever level you bust. The longer you last the more valuable the chip becomes. It makes every tourney a double elimination but still very interesting.

Has anyone tried this and what do you think?

 

[Josh Kifer]

Honestly, I kinda like this idea.

 

[Gobbs]

Interesting concept. I’d be interested to hear people’s experiences. Maybe something to try as a second tournament of the night sometime, @BGinGA . Just sayin’.

 

[Labrat]

Pretty aggressive blind schedule they have there.

 

[honkydevil]

Would be interesting to know how many people at the final table have their resurrection chips left.

 

[bigdonkey]

So if you get to heads-up and there are, say, 18 BB in play and the other guy busts you, you can "resurrect" as the chip leader?

 

[Sparty]

How would you calculate how many chips you need. (I.e. - what if a bunch of players still had resurrection chips at high blind levels?)

 

[Sparty]

So if you get to heads-up and there are, say, 18 BB in play and the other guy busts you, you can "resurrect" as the chip leader?

There should be a rule that you can never get more than the chip leader.

 

[Gobbs]

There should be a rule that you can never get more than the chip leader.

I disagree. If the chip leader already used his resurrection chip, why should I be limited in the number of chips I can get when he/she was not? If the chip leader has not already used it, I really would not be getting more chips than the chip leader.

So if you get to heads-up and there are, say, 18 BB in play and the other guy busts you, you can "resurrect" as the chip leader?

What’s wrong with that? If Player 1 busts Player 2 with 18 BBs in play and Player 1 still has his/her resurrection chip, Player 2 isn’t really the (effective) leader since Player 1 still has recourse if busted. If Player 1 busts Player 2 and Player 1 doesn’t still have his/her resurrection chip, Player 2 lasted longer on his/her first go and deserves to be rewarded.

 

[bigdonkey]

I disagree. If the chip leader already used his resurrection chip, why should I be limited in the number of chips I can get when he/she was not? If the chip leader has not already used it, I really would not be getting more chips than the chip leader.



What’s wrong with that? If Player 1 busts Player 2 with 18 BBs in play and Player 1 still has his/her resurrection chip, Player 2 isn’t really the (effective) leader since Player 1 still has recourse if busted. If Player 1 busts Player 2 and Player 1 doesn’t still have his/her resurrection chip, Player 2 lasted longer on his/her first go and deserves to be rewarded.

Players 1 & 2 both have their resurrections left and sit at 9 BB each. They go all-in and Player 1 wins. Player 2 resurrects and has 20 BB to Player 1's 18 BB. They both go all-in next hand and Player 2 wins. Player 1 resurrects with 20 BB to Player 2's 38 BB. Player 1 kept his resurrection longer but only received ~1/2 the relative stack size upon resurrection.

 

[BGinGA]

How would you calculate how many chips you need. (I.e. - what if a bunch of players still had resurrection chips at high blind levels?)

Very good question. That in itself would prevent me from implementing this structure.

 

[trigs]

Sounds interesting. I think I'd probably have a cut off at some point though. Maybe like once you're in the money you can no longer "resurrect yourself".

 

[Highli99]

Interesting feedback everybody. I'm still curious if anyone has tried this.

 

[BGinGA]

Sounds interesting. I think I'd probably have a cut off at some point though. Maybe like once you're in the money you can no longer "resurrect yourself".

Yeah, that's the only way it makes sense -- at either final table or in-the-money, all outstanding chips must be redeemed immediately, and play continues on equal footing.

 

[Mr Winberg]

That in itself would prevent me from implementing this structure.

A different approach to this would be for each resurrection chip to be worth the average stack (or a certain percent of the average stack). That way, the total number of chips can be calculated beforehand.

It would also play better in @bigdonkey's example. If the resurrection is worth, say, 50% of the average stack, player 2 wouldn't be resurrected into the lead.

Just thinking out loud...

 

[Mr Winberg]

...it would also reward players lasting longer than others within the same blind level

 

[DeeVee8]

I was thinking of going with a 10k tournament, aggressive blinds. Then cut off the resurrection after 2 hrs, which would be at 500/1000, so the most you could resurrect for is 20k. Most would resurrect for 12-16k. If you don't use it, you lose it. I can see this creating some aggressive play towards the cutoff and make things interesting.

The players in my game have played against each other for a looooong time. Anything that makes people harder to predict is good for our game.

 

[Taghkanic]

Intriguing. I might be inclined to cut off the resurrection chip after a certain point (say, once the field is on the bubble), or cap its value (say, at half your original stack).

That would probably lead to a lot of random shoving right as the cut off/cap is approaching (as often happens in a tournament where rebuys end at a certain level).

 

[Gobbs]

I might be able to get on board with the resurrection chip being worth half the average stack. While it isn’t quite the same thing as awarding players for the length of their play before needing it, it does still award players for lasting longer than other players.

I might also be able to get on board with getting rid of the resurrection chip at a certain time in the tournament, but not necessarily at a specific level, and only if the player is awarded with chips for not using it. If you make players turn it in at a specific level, you would basically be treating it like an unused rebuy chip, which isn’t bad, but I’d rather see it have to be turned in once everybody left is in the money. That would prevent endgame issues but still not treat it like an unused rebuy. (Just a preference, though. No sound reasoning.)

 

[DeeVee8]

As advertised, I can see this taking a long time to complete. If each player had 100 BB to start, then adding 20 BB at a higher level...per player. Yikes.

 

[DoubleEagle]

Get back to us on how this works out. Seems it could be a CF to me.

 

[asian bino]

I want to have a tournament where the winner is the first one to LOSE all their chips.

It is not as easy as it sounds....... Go all in with 3-2? Everyone folds...you have more chips.....strategy would be nearly as complex as normal, but you don't have to play 7 hours to get a winner........

 

[Mr Winberg]

you don't have to play 7 hours to get a winner........

...but I like playing!

But it would be kinda fun to try, though! MTTs would need to be shootouts, I guess. Otherwise, if someone tanks too long it would ruin the tables chances of producing a winner.

 

[Wils]

Very good question. That in itself would prevent me from implementing this structure.

Simple - you have at least eight times more chips than you could ever need.

We should be doing this already, to be honest.

 

[toynoob]

What if down to final table those who didn't use their chip now redeemed it for x amount of chips as like a add on.

 

[BGinGA]

What if down to final table those who didn't use their chip now redeemed it for x amount of chips as like a add on.

Gee, wish I'd thought of that....

Yeah, that's the only way it makes sense -- at either final table or in-the-money, all outstanding chips must be redeemed immediately, and play continues on equal footing.

 

[Blind Joe]

I'm really intrigued by this concept and wouldn't mind trying it in one my home games. Plenty of potential pitfalls already pointed out though, it would take some thought to implement but I do fancy it.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Me too! But I still think it might work better with a percentage of the average stack. That way 1) you can predict the total chips in play and therefore the total time and 2) everyone who is resurrected are done so at equal terms, and 3) there isn't a need to "force redeem" the extra life at any time.

I think next time I have a drunken night of STTs, instead of having 2 or 3 turbos, I'd maybe try a "3 strikes and you're out" tournament (patent pending). Everyone gets 3 lives, and every time you're brought back you get the average stack (rounded up to the lowest chip in play). So when you bust, you can still play without being at a disadvantage. The last place finisher should last a few hours, unless he/she is really unlucky/bad.
When heads up, if the felted player still has lives, play continues with equal stacks.

The structure would need to be quite aggressive. Probably only practical up to ~8 players.
Might be a horribly idea, but I'm willing to give it a try
The problem I rarely run STTs...

 

[Highli99]

Me too! But I still think it might work better with a percentage of the average stack. That way 1) you can predict the total chips in play and therefore the total time and 2) everyone who is resurrected are done so at equal terms, and 3) there isn't a need to "force redeem" the extra life at any time.

I think next time I have a drunken night of STTs, instead of having 2 or 3 turbos, I'd maybe try a "3 strikes and you're out" tournament (patent pending). Everyone gets 3 lives, and every time you're brought back you get the average stack (rounded up to the lowest chip in play). So when you bust, you can still play without being at a disadvantage. The last place finisher should last a few hours, unless he/she is really unlucky/bad.
When heads up, if the felted player still has lives, play continues with equal stacks.

The structure would need to be quite aggressive. Probably only practical up to ~8 players.
Might be a horribly idea, but I'm willing to give it a try
The problem I rarely run STTs...

Great suggestion to make it a percentage “average stack”. I might try that.

 

[1A25R]

A good use for some customized "Dias de los muertos" chips