Tourney Local Tourney - No more T25 in 10k starting stack (1 Viewer)

[BGinGA]

For starters, I'm not arguing anything. I merely asked a simple question, and in more recent posts, a few follow-up questions. All of which you have ignored, as is your prerogative to do so.

And I'm certainly not asking you to do anything, especially not my 'homework'.

All I've asked for in this thread is any data or tendancies you may have collected or observed. All I've gotten so far is hostile attitude.

 

[Legend5555]

For starters, I'm not arguing anything. I merely asked a simple question, and in more recent posts, a few follow-up questions. All of which you have ignored, as is your prerogative to do so.

And I'm certainly not asking you to do anything, especially not my 'homework'.

All I've asked for in this thread is any data or tendancies you may have collected or observed. All I've gotten so far is hostile attitude.

Do you really not see your initial question as a little ridiculous? Who realistically keeps meaningful track of that stuff? It's not like I (or many others) get to play so many tournaments that I have the pleasure of noticing such trends, let alone want to actually cognizantly do so in the hopes of making rather minor improvements. That's why I take such issue with your questions. It presumes that I should even care. Or that I should be worried about whatever impact these minor things are having. Ain't no one got time for that when you only get to play 2 times a month at most.

 

[Frogzilla]

Maybe this will help @BGinGA ...here is a recommended raise range comparison ante vs no ante. It’s from this article on a mid-stakes training site. https://www.google.com/amp/s/upswingpoker.com/poker-antes-tournament-raising-strategy/amp/

16% recommended open range from UTG1 with no ante, 28% with.

Whether anyone in the group chooses to use this info (and it’s a pretty basic concept) will of course vary from group to group

 

[Legend5555]

Maybe this will help @BGinGA ...here is a recommended raise range comparison ante vs no ante. It’s from this article on a mid-stakes training site. https://www.google.com/amp/s/upswingpoker.com/poker-antes-tournament-raising-strategy/amp/

16% recommended open range from UTG1 with no ante, 28% with.
View attachment 390303

Whether anyone in the group chooses to use this info (and it’s a pretty basic concept) will of course vary from group to group

The greater point being that whether or not it has an actual effect on action, doesn't change that fact that it should. And if it should and people aren't adjusting, then they are playing poorly. So whether it has an effect on action from what you have experienced, @BGinGA , is irrelevant. Another reason why your initial question is sort of ridiculous.

 

[Prenders17]

Chicago Charitable Games does this. I think it’s common. I forget exactly but it goes something like:
100/100
100/200
100/300
200/400
200/400/BBA

For a deep stack starting 20K deep, it’s a decent start.

 

[BGinGA]

The greater point being that whether or not it has an actual effect on action, doesn't change that fact that it should. And if it should and people aren't adjusting, then they are playing poorly. So whether it has an effect on action from what you have experienced, @BGinGA , is irrelevant. Another reason why your initial question is sort of ridiculous.

And more insulting hostile attitude. Fuck you too, buddy. All I asked was a reasonable question..

 

[BGinGA]

Maybe this will help @BGinGA ...here is a recommended raise range comparison ante vs no ante. It’s from this article on a mid-stakes training site. https://www.google.com/amp/s/upswingpoker.com/poker-antes-tournament-raising-strategy/amp/

16% recommended open range from UTG1 with no ante, 28% with.
View attachment 390303

Whether anyone in the group chooses to use this info (and it’s a pretty basic concept) will of course vary from group to group

Thanks -- I've seen the article and the charts (and more importantly, the math behind them). I still wonder how many players actually adjust their play to compensate for the structure changes.

 

[Legend5555]

And more insulting hostile attitude. Fuck you too, buddy. All I asked was a reasonable question..

Because you've never been dismissive to me regarding anything I've said before, right? I don't often play the tit for tat game, but you are far from being free of some snarky attitude toward me and others when we don't agree with you.

 

[Frogzilla]

Thanks -- I've seen the article and the charts (and more importantly, the math behind them). I still wonder how many players actually adjust their play to compensate for the structure changes.

I tighten my ranges if there are no antes. I’d expect most folks who play lots of tourneys make that adjustment. But I’ve been surprised before

 

[AnteAndy]

Whenever I played in local tourneys, they always did T100 base when before then did use T25 base.

I personally like T100 base better since it eliminates bets like 475, and also makes reading the pot easier. Plus would help people's set and not having to worry about getting 25's and 20's, when the 25 chips wouldn't be in use for the tourney.

I'll use T100 if I ever decide to do tourneys again, but figured I'd use my cash set for a tourney, and another set for cash concurrently.

 

[Prenders17]

This is turning into a bit of a thread hijack, from eliminating green chips to ante strategy. But here we are.

I haven’t taken data, but I’ve read up on it. Read an interview with Matt Savage on it. The logic is sound. Without antes, it’s not hard for short stacks to keep hanging on. In a daily with 20 min levels, folding through the blinds might buy you the whole next level. In an ante structure, that short stack would bleed out if they waited, so there are more all ins sooner, and therefore more eliminations sooner. I don’t think it speeds up the tourney, but it serves to keep the average stack sizes deeper, because the bust outs have consolidated chip stacks. There are other factors, like player skill and level length, but let’s say it’s roughly the difference between an avg stack size of 20-25 blinds vs 30-35 blinds deep. Keeps it from being less of a shove fest in later stages.

 

[Legend5555]

This is turning into a bit of a thread hijack, from eliminating green chips to ante strategy. But here we are.

I haven’t taken data, but I’ve read up on it. Read an interview with Matt Savage on it. The logic is sound. Without antes, it’s not hard for short stacks to keep hanging on. In a daily with 20 min levels, folding through the blinds might buy you the whole next level. In an ante structure, that short stack would bleed out if they waited, so there are more all ins sooner, and therefore more eliminations sooner. I don’t think it speeds up the tourney, but it serves to keep the average stack sizes deeper, because the bust outs have consolidated chip stacks. There are other factors, like player skill and level length, but let’s say it’s roughly the difference between an avg stack size of 20-25 blinds vs 30-35 blinds deep. Keeps it from being less of a shove fest in later stages.

I am sorry for being half the blame for devolving this thread. I will depart from that conversation on this thread.

 

[Prenders17]

I am sorry for being half the blame for devolving this thread. I will depart from that conversation on this thread.

All good. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind. I just felt I should acknowledge the OP for respect.

Besides, that’s about as heated as things get here, which makes this forum the most civil social media on the internet.

 

[FordPickup92]

Just here to say I like tacos

 

[DJ_Fett]

I don't mind it at all, but typically you would see the starting stacks increased to 15-20k to compensate. My standard tourney starts at 100/100 with 20k stacks. I then repeat 100/100 with a 100 BBA. I like to get the ante started to keep the action up.

Right, but with this structure they are back to normal by level 4. BBA still kicks in at the same point as before as well. I think increasing starting stack would negate the benefit. Then your just making it a bigger T value tournament

 

[Legend5555]

Right, but with this structure they are back to normal by level 4. BBA still kicks in at the same point as before as well. I think increasing starting stack would negate the benefit. Then your just making it a bigger T value tournament

Agreed. I wouldn't do that many repeated levels of 100/100 if the stacks were increased. I should have clarified that. The problem as is though is that the starting stack depth is cut in half for the first level. Which really isn't that big a deal probably.

 

[markleteenie]

10k starting stacks, they used to start the blinds at 25/50. Now, they scrapped the T25 chip and have all three first levels as 100/100. Used to be 25/50, 50/100, 75/150. With the new structure level 4 is back to 100/200 like it was always.

That seems like an interesting way to simplify the starting stack denomination spread.

So since the first three levels are frozen at 100/100 and then it "normalizes" to 100/200 in level 4, would you still consider this a 200BB effective starting stack? (Obviously it's technically a 100BB stack 10K/100, but it's meant to effectively play as the previous stack that included the T25.)

The reason I ask, is if I'm planning on doing a T100 base, could I just replicate the first 4 levels to also start a T10k starting stack and it not be a "short" starting stack?

 

[BGinGA]

No. It's still just a 100bb event, but 100bb for a long time. It won't play like a 10k 25/50 200bb event, since the first two levels now have larger blinds.

 

[APatHand]

I have no problem wit it.

 

[DJ_Fett]

That seems like an interesting way to simplify the starting stack denomination spread.

So since the first three levels are frozen at 100/100 and then it "normalizes" to 100/200 in level 4, would you still consider this a 200BB effective starting stack? (Obviously it's technically a 100BB stack 10K/100, but it's meant to effectively play as the previous stack that included the T25.)

The reason I ask, is if I'm planning on doing a T100 base, could I just replicate the first 4 levels to also start a T10k starting stack and it not be a "short" starting stack?

No. It's still just a 100bb event, but 100bb for a long time. It won't play like a 10k 25/50 200bb event, since the first two levels now have larger blinds.

If your trying to estimate time and finishing level though I think it would still be pretty close to the 200bb structure. At least much close to 200bb than a basic 100bb

 

[BGinGA]

If your trying to estimate time and finishing level though I think it would still be pretty close to the 200bb structure. At least much close to 200bb than a basic 100bb

I'm not so sure. Pot sizes will not only be physically larger in the first two levels (due to the larger blinds), but they will also be larger in relationship to the stack sizes -- that typically translates to more players busting out in those two levels, thinning the field earlier, and resulting in the event ending sooner.

 

[DJ_Fett]

I'm not so sure. Pot sizes will not only be physically larger in the first two levels (due to the larger blinds), but they will also be larger in relationship to the stack sizes -- that typically translates to more players busting out in those two levels, thinning the field earlier, and resulting in the event ending sooner.

I could see that. I’ve only played twice on the new structure and haven’t noticed an OBVIOUS increase in early bust outs, but don’t have the stats. It’s also a low buy in tourney, so it always started pretty loose and fast. This specific tourney also seems to be ending around the same time as always, but again that has always fluctuated and the total player count varies a good bit

 

[APatHand]

I'm not so sure. Pot sizes will not only be physically larger in the first two levels (due to the larger blinds), but they will also be larger in relationship to the stack sizes -- that typically translates to more players busting out in those two levels, thinning the field earlier, and resulting in the event ending sooner.

I think that depends on the players, but I think for most home games I would tend to agree.
Should get the cash game started earlier!

 

[Legend5555]

I'm not so sure. Pot sizes will not only be physically larger in the first two levels (due to the larger blinds), but they will also be larger in relationship to the stack sizes -- that typically translates to more players busting out in those two levels, thinning the field earlier, and resulting in the event ending sooner.

I don't think it would end much earlier. The structure still lines up with the old one after a certain point. The earlier bust outs will also increase the overall avg stack during those early levels, thus increasing the amount of play a little bit. I think it probably balances out to be very similar. Maybe just a bit faster.

 

[Darson]

I consider that the casino's motivations are to reduce the number of chips they need so a pure cost cutting exercise. Cost cutting is the last reason I would ever use to influence my tourney breakdowns.

 

[bsdunbar1]

I consider that the casino's motivations are to reduce the number of chips they need so a pure cost cutting exercise.

This is what I was assuming as well.

but I don't have any factual statistics to back it up

 

[markleteenie]

I consider that the casino's motivations are to reduce the number of chips they need so a pure cost cutting exercise. Cost cutting is the last reason I would ever use to influence my tourney breakdowns.

So I have a set and I don't like the T25s as much, since they dirty stack with another chip. So I was contemplating trying a game without them where I dont need to shift the entire set upwards and buy more chips. This might solve it. I'll probably try some variation of it.

 

[bsdunbar1]

So I have a set and I don't like the T25s as much, since they dirty stack with another chip. So I was contemplating trying a game without them where I dont need to shift the entire set upwards and buy more chips. This might solve it. I'll probably try some variation of it.

It will 100% solve your issue and most people wouldn't think twice about it after 5 min.

 

[grantc54]

So I have a set and I don't like the T25s as much, since they dirty stack with another chip. So I was contemplating trying a game without them where I dont need to shift the entire set upwards and buy more chips. This might solve it. I'll probably try some variation of it.

Sounds like a good reason to buy more chips!

 

[karsus]

Interesting idea to go with 100/100 for T10,000 I get that it reduces the need for chips but the lack of progressing pressure on the blinds would make it feel off to me.

I actually went the other direction and setup my first three levels in T10k tournaments to be 25/50; 25/75; 50/100 to delay the halving in effective starting stack until the third level.