Tourney Locking the blinds at the end (2 Viewers)

[Mr Winberg]

I schedule my tournaments to last from 6pm to midnight (including breaks, of course). I use the "30 big blind" rule to achieve this. Usually they end with around 30-50 BBs in play, meaning they often end before schedule.

On rare occasions they go overtime, into the "less than 30 BBs left" area. It doesn't really matter if the heads-up combatants go overtime since we usually have a cashgame going on way past midnight anyway. For that reason, I lock the level where there's about 30 BB left, i.e. no more blind increases after that. If they are going to go overtime, they might as well get some meaningful poker out of it.

Sure, this prolongs the heads-up battle, but realistically it's not by much. And if someone is in a hurry they can always make a deal (IMO winning a heads up battle with less 30 BBs in play isn't really winning anyway, it's just getting lucky).

Has anyone else tried this? Any thoughts? For me this has worked well.

 

[DoubleEagle]

I schedule my tournaments to last from 6pm to midnight (including breaks, of course). I use the "30 big blind" rule to achieve this. Usually they end with around 30-50 BBs in play, meaning they often end before schedule.

On rare occasions they go overtime, into the "less than 30 BBs left" area. It doesn't really matter if the heads-up combatants go overtime since we usually have a cashgame going on way past midnight anyway. For that reason, I lock the level where there's about 30 BB left, i.e. no more blind increases after that. If they are going to go overtime, they might as well get some meaningful poker out of it.

Sure, this prolongs the heads-up battle, but realistically it's not by much. And if someone is in a hurry they can always make a deal (IMO winning a heads up battle with less 30 BBs in play isn't really winning anyway, it's just getting lucky).

Has anyone else tried this? Any thoughts? For me this has worked well.

I group I used to play with does this and I hated it. Very tilting.

 

[BGinGA]

I schedule my tournaments to last from 6pm to midnight (including breaks, of course). I use the "30 big blind" rule to achieve this. Usually they end with around 30-50 BBs in play, meaning they often end before schedule.

On rare occasions they go overtime, into the "less than 30 BBs left" area. It doesn't really matter if the heads-up combatants go overtime since we usually have a cashgame going on way past midnight anyway. For that reason, I lock the level where there's about 30 BB left, i.e. no more blind increases after that. If they are going to go overtime, they might as well get some meaningful poker out of it.

Sure, this prolongs the heads-up battle, but realistically it's not by much. And if someone is in a hurry they can always make a deal (IMO winning a heads up battle with less 30 BBs in play isn't really winning anyway, it's just getting lucky).

Has anyone else tried this? Any thoughts? For me this has worked well.

I group I used to play with does this and I hated it. Very tilting.

Yeah, not a fan. It penalizes the big stack(s), who built a strategic advantage over time only to have it negated by artificially easing the pressure of increasing blinds on the smaller stack(s).

It's basically similar to giving the small stacks extra chips for free towards the end of the tournament.

 

[upNdown]

I don’t care for it personally.
As long as it’s posted that the blinds stop increasing at a certain level; as long as when people sit down at that table, they know at which level the blinds will stop increasing, then fair game.
If however, you’re making these changes mid-tournament, that’s a problem.

 

[Saxplayer]

Increasing blinds is a necessity in my opinion, especially heads-up. It's not common to have equal sized stacks and it does affect play.

 

[AWenger]

I really like this idea, especially for small home game tourneys I've played before where the tourney would get down to 2-4 people left and where everyone left has less than 10 big blinds and it just becomes a shove-fest, with little to no meaningful 'poker' play remaining.

If extended time is no concern, I like giving the folks who are in the money or close to being in the money extra play with a reasonable chip stack remaining by freezing the blinds, either at a certain level, or at a certain level relative to the total chips in play (i.e. 30 big blinds left). (*if the tourney has re-buys there might be more chips one time relative to another)

But as @upNdown pointed out, this should be clearly stated before the tournament starts, not in the middle of it.

Another way to provide more play at later blind levels might be to make the jumps in blind levels smaller. i.e. for example, if the blinds schedule in the later rounds have jump of BB 2000 to 3000, instead introduce more levels in between, like BB 2000, 2500, 3000, or BB 2000, 2200, 2600, 3000, etc. Some chip color-ups may have to be postponed, accordingly.

 

[KHarp1]

I hate this idea! As @BGinGA has stated, it penalizes the chip leader by opening up an avenue for shorter stacks to catch up. If you're over 6 hours in a tournament and looking for meaningful poker then wind the clock back to when moves were made and chip leads were built. Ends of tournaments become shove fest, usually, especially when players are short stacked. That's kinda of how the tournament is structured. Why reinvent the wheel?

What next, participation trophies?

 

[Eriks]

If we’re doing multiple sitngo style tournies, I like to do an equity chop once heads-up but if it’s just the one tourney I prefer to let the blinds keep increasing

 

[Jimulacrum]

As others have said, if this is being done, it should be happening at a time or under a condition that's clearly prescribed in the rules. Informally deciding to do this while the tourney is in progress is no good (like basically any rule employed in this manner).

As to whether this should be part of the structure at all, as long as it's clear—to everyone, from the first card pitched—I guess it's fine. I can see a case either way and don't feel strongly myself.

If we’re doing multiple sitngo style tournies, I like to do an equity chop once heads-up

Heads-up play is one of my favorite parts of the game. I suppose I understand why some people don't like it, but you'll never catch me skipping it outside of unusual circumstances (e.g., I'm being offered a very generous deal, I'm falling asleep at the table, host's house is on fire).

 

[Mr Winberg]

I respect the negative feedback, but I'm a bit surprised and perplexed.

At 20 BBs left, there's no more poker. It's pretty much shove or fold. I've always viewed it as the "You guys still here?? Wrap it up!!"-level. Very effective if you have a hard deadline. But it my case I don't, so in the rare cases when it not over at around 30-50 BBs I figured it's more fun for the two last players if they can duke it out with at least a little room for maneuverability (30 BBs is still very shallow).

But from most responses I take it you guys really enjoy a good all-in-or-fold battle? Please remember we're talking about avoiding the jump to 20 BBs here. It's not the whole heads up.

I'll respond at some items, but please keep it civil. If I seem rude let's just blame the language barrier!

As long as it’s posted

But as @upNdown pointed out, this should be clearly stated before the tournament starts, not in the middle of it.

Yes of course! I'd hate to throw a curve ball at my guests

I group I used to play with does this and I hated it. Very tilting.

I'm confused. So you have four example 300k each, the blinds are 10k/20k. If you miraculously make it through that level and instead of starting to shove at 15k/30k you keep playing at 10k/20k, and that puts you on tilt? How so? Honest question, I'm not trying to be a d*ck or anything, I'm just curious!

It penalizes the big stack(s)

Lol at plural there. Having 3 players left at 20 BBs left at a 6h tourney seems very improbable. I don't think I've ever experienced it, outside turbos.

But yes, it's a change which would affect that.

Increasing blinds is a necessity in my opinion, especially heads-up. It's not common to have equal sized stacks and it does affect play.

I agree, except that in my experience the change from 15 BBs each to 10 each shifts the play into all-in-or-fold land, so we might as well stay at 15 each (unless we're in a hurry. It'll end very soon anyway.

Once again, it's not the whole heads-up.

Another way to provide more play at later blind levels might be to make the jumps in blind levels smaller. i.e. for example, if the blinds schedule in the later rounds have jump of BB 2000 to 3000, instead introduce more levels in between, like BB 2000, 2500, 3000, or BB 2000, 2200, 2600, 3000, etc. Some chip color-ups may have to be postponed, accordingly.

Yes, but that would prolong the whole tournament and affect pretty much everyone. Locking at 30 BBs left usually affects nobody, rarely only affects two players (and then only for a short while since 30BBs is still very shallow).

I hate this idea! As @BGinGA has stated, it penalizes the chip leader by opening up an avenue for shorter stacks to catch up. If you're over 6 hours in a tournament and looking for meaningful poker then wind the clock back to when moves were made and chip leads were built. Ends of tournaments become shove fest, usually, especially when players are short stacked. That's kinda of how the tournament is structured. Why reinvent the wheel?

What next, participation trophies?

Wow. That's a pretty aggressive post, I'm not sure why that would be called for? Can we please keep it civil?


Tl;dr: I'm surprised at the heat! The only change is from "You guys still here?? Wrap it up!!" to "You guys still here?? Alright, have fun"

 

[Mr Winberg]

don't feel strongly myself

Hallelujah!! :-D

 

[Mr Winberg]

Having thought some more, I would understand all the concerns if I would have locked at 60 or something. But 30, no heads up battle in a well structured 6h tourney with antes should last beyond that on a regular basis.

 

[TheRealTeddyKGB]

I'm a fan of fixing the blind increase at some point instead of just doubling it everytime . This way it doesn't just become an all-in-fest 3 or 4 way. Or even heads up...

 

[Mr Winberg]

As others have said, if this is being done, it should be happening at a time or under a condition that's clearly prescribed in the rules. Informally deciding to do this while the tourney is in progress is no good (like basically any rule employed in this manner).

I left this out of the OP because I thought it was an obvious no-brainer, I didn't think it needed to be brought up.

I always have the blinds schedule at the flyers I create for each tourney, along with the two overrides I have done to TDA rules.

 

[Mr Winberg]

doubling it everytime

Whoa! Ok @KHarp1, you're up! ;-)

 

[JustinInMN]

I schedule my tournaments to last from 6pm to midnight (including breaks, of course). I use the "30 big blind" rule to achieve this. Usually they end with around 30-50 BBs in play, meaning they often end before schedule.

On rare occasions they go overtime, into the "less than 30 BBs left" area. It doesn't really matter if the heads-up combatants go overtime since we usually have a cashgame going on way past midnight anyway. For that reason, I lock the level where there's about 30 BB left, i.e. no more blind increases after that. If they are going to go overtime, they might as well get some meaningful poker out of it.

Sure, this prolongs the heads-up battle, but realistically it's not by much. And if someone is in a hurry they can always make a deal (IMO winning a heads up battle with less 30 BBs in play isn't really winning anyway, it's just getting lucky).

Has anyone else tried this? Any thoughts? For me this has worked well.

Tournaments are designed to eliminate people. Locking the blinds runs counter to that goal. That said, at 30BB in play, it's probably moot. Some hand will come up at forces the action. Most of my tournaments actually end around 40BB in play.

That said I do the opposite. I shorten the levels once we get to the "overtime phase" (levels where I project less than 20BB in play) Play is probably already shorthanded at this point anyway so dropping from 18 mins to 12 mins at some point doesn't hurt a ton.

 

[KHarp1]

Obviously your idea of aggressive differs from mine. You asked for our thoughts and I told you, I hate the idea. I explained why. The tournament structure is as it is for a reason. It requires a specific game plan to be successful. If I followed my game plan, set myself up to be in the money, and then you allow the shorter stacks to catch up by a rule change, well, let me repeat myself...I hate that. And I don't hate much in life. Live and let live, love all. I hate this idea, and, if I knew ahead of time, I wouldn't play in a tourney structured like that. Same as I won't play in unlimited rebuy tourneys. There is a slight correlation between the two.

My post was not meant to be aggressive, sorry if I offended, but, I gave an honest response to a question.

 

[Jimulacrum]

After an extra 15 minutes-ish to think about this, the one significant objection I can articulate is this:

Freezing the blinds heads-up typically favors the more skilled player.

Folks scoff at the extreme blind levels being a shove-fest, but it's those gotta-gamble spots where a less skilled player can find ways to come out ahead—whereas he would've been crushed 19 times out of 20 by the skilled player if the game were to play out with the same skill/chance balance. As someone who's half-decent at heads-up poker, I have seen many times how demoralizing it is for a less skilled player to get crushed at a format that highlights his skill deficit.

It may be counter-intuitive, but we should want the less skilled player to win more often. Games with structures that favor lower-skilled players make for a healthier player population in the long run.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

I really like this idea, especially for small home game tourneys I've played before where the tourney would get down to 2-4 people left and where everyone left has less than 10 big blinds and it just becomes a shove-fest, with little to no meaningful 'poker' play remaining.

I don't agree. All poker play depends on position, stack sizes, and considering what's best in that particular situation. When it's down to the very end of a tournament that's very meaningful poker, and players that consider how best to ladder up are still playing poker. Maybe it falls into semantics, but that's very real tournament poker, quotes or no quotes.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Obviously your idea of aggressive differs from mine.

Agree to...well...agree

If I followed my game plan, set myself up to be in the money, and then you allow the shorter stacks to catch up

You realize were talking about 30BBs here? Shorter stacks? Plural? This is not for turbos, I'm talking about 6h tourneys here. They are most often over before 30!

Maybe there's a misunderstanding here? There must be, because such strong reactions as "hate" from someone who doesn't hate much, when:

That said, at 30BB in play, it's probably moot.

My post was not meant to be aggressive, sorry if I offended, but, I gave an honest response to a question.

Thanks for this. No offense and thanks for your honesty!

After an extra 15 minutes-ish to think about this, the one significant objection I can articulate is this:

Freezing the blinds heads-up typically favors the more skilled player.

Folks scoff at the extreme blind levels being a shove-fest, but it's those gotta-gamble spots where a less skilled player can find ways to come out ahead—whereas he would've been crushed 19 times out of 20 by the skilled player if the game were to play out with the same skill/chance balance. As someone who's half-decent at heads-up poker, I have seen many times how demoralizing it is for a less skilled player to get crushed at a format that highlights his skill deficit.

It may be counter-intuitive, but we should want the less skilled player to win more often. Games with structures that favor lower-skilled players make for a healthier player population in the long run.

Thanks for your well thought through post. This is a valid concern. In my opinion however, favoring the skilled player is a good thing because there's enough luck already in poker. That said, I see your point that having bad players can be a good thing.

And just to avoid any misunderstanding, it's not "Freezing the blinds heads-up", it's at 30 BB. They have probably played heads-up for at least a level already, probably more.

 

[Jimulacrum]

In my opinion however, favoring the skilled player is a good thing because there's enough luck already in poker.

Hard disagree, but it can depend on the player pool.

As players get closer and closer in skill level (good or bad), outcomes are affected more and more by chance. In a player pool where everyone is equally skilled, chance is dominant.

But if there's any significant variability in skill levels—which there usually is—skill can become an extremely dominant factor, even if you only have one shark dropped in among all the fish. This is particularly an issue with NLHE because its structure is such a formidable weapon to an adept player.

That said, I see your point that having bad players can be a good thing.

Yes, but it's not just about bad players. Heads-up, it may not even be a good player versus a bad player, but an expert player versus a merely good player.

In any case, it's about preserving the player pool in general, and prioritizing keeping lower-skilled players around, without regard for how the higher-skilled players feel. The higher-skilled players are getting paid to play. They don't need more incentives. But the other players do need incentives, ideally in the form of winning money, and they need those incentives with some regularity.

And just to avoid any misunderstanding, it's not "Freezing the blinds heads-up", it's at 30 BB. They have probably played heads-up for at least a level already, probably more.

I understand the premise. And I get why you like to do it this way. I enjoy a good heads-up match myself, and it can be disappointing to lose because the blinds went to 100K/200K and some donkey beat me at some pure-gambling spots at the end.

But it's not disappointing for the donkey, and that matters a lot more to the health of the game.

 

[KHarp1]

I realize BB's do matter, but, seems like you keep emphasizing the BB's as it shouldn't be an issue with me. I have to ask if the BB's shouldn't be an issue, if it's not something that should be they big of a deal, then why would you do it in the first place. I go back to my statement of why reinvent the wheel? Even if it doesn't make that much of a difference then why do it. It does make a difference because you stated it's to prevent a shove fest. That seems a bit duplicitous. If it's at the point in the tournament where you're put to the test of "its all or nothing," then, you're trying to prevent that by easing the burden on the shorter stack. That's just part of the tournament structure. Sometimes it works in your favor, sometimes against. We're talking about home games, so, likely they're just average home game players, some better than others, but, the best way I know of to get better is to play more, play tougher opponents and learning from mistakes/experience. That's where my flippant remark about participation trophies came from. If I've dodged luck boxes all evening, I certainly don't want to have to play with any other incentives that aids said luck boxes.

 

[BGinGA]

I'd prefer a rule that increased the blind level times once down to 30bb remaining. It accomplishes the 'benefits' desired while retaining the 'forward progression' of ever-increasing blinds.

 

[Mr Winberg]

if it's not something that should be they big of a deal, then why would you do it in the first place.

Even if it doesn't make that much of a difference then why do it.

I do it because heads up at 30 BBs can involve some interesting play (albeit not much, it's still quite shovey) whereas when it's down to 20 BB (meaning the effective stack is 10 BB at most) some of the fun is taken out.

This is quite common for heads up with 20 BBs left:
Next hand:
Walk
Next hand:
All-in -> fold
Next hand:
All-in -> fold
...until...
All-in -> call
If shorty wins, then repeat.
If big stack wins, then yay, the "best" player won! Well played, big stack!


I've played heads up several times when we fail to eliminate each other so the blinds increase, we go from around 60 BBs at first with super interesting play, then 40, then 30, then 20. The play at 20 is sooooo boring! In my opinion, of course.

This is the reason. Let's just stay at 30. It affects no one else, we'll play until we're done.

I go back to my statement of why reinvent the wheel?

I'm not reinventing it. I don't get where that's coming from? I might be applying some breaks to it.

If it's at the point in the tournament where you're put to the test of "its all or nothing,"

It's hardly "put to the test". Look at the above example, were they put to the test? No! They just realized that any raise would make them pot committed so they shove or fold. Sooner or later someone calls a shove. Yawn.

That's where my flippant remark about participation trophies came from.

I was curious about where that came from. Not in a million years had I guessed. As @Jimulacrum correctly points out, locking the blinds actually favours the skilled player. The shorter the stacks, the lets of an edge a skilled player has. So you got that one backwards.

If I've dodged luck boxes all evening, I certainly don't want to have to play with any other incentives that aids said luck boxes.

Not locking the blinds aids the luckbox! The shorter the stacks, the less of an edge a skilled player has. So I take it based on this that you would hate a structure that doesn't lock the blinds? (joking)

I'd prefer a rule that increased the blind level times once down to 30bb remaining. It accomplishes the 'benefits' desired while retaining the 'forward progression' of ever-increasing blinds.

Yeah, that makes sense. That's actually what I do, I set that level to the maximum time the software supports. ;-)

 

[upNdown]

Is a long head up battle even a normal thing, at the end of a tournament?

The more I think about it, the more it has me scratching my head. Maybe home tournaments are different (haven’t been around too many of those,) but for the tournaments that I’ve been in or around or watched, it doesn’t seem to me like long head up battles are common at the end of tournaments. Occasionally you’ll see two guys battle for hours in the Main Evnt or something. But it seems to me like a single level is more of a realistic over/under time that the last two guys will typically battle.

 

[doublebooyah85]

My blind level times are longer post rebuy closing…but I don’t see a problem with what you propose for a home tourney.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Is a long head up battle even a normal thing, at the end of a tournament?

No, but it happens on occasion.

 

[KHarp1]

The monthly tournament I play in recently ended up heads up with both guys having right at $250k each. After an hour of heads up they were less than $500 apart and decided to chop. That's not usually the case. There was good play, and, I was enjoying watching, but, again, that's not usually the case. Typically the tournament structure works the way its suppose to and those that are shorter stacked are put in the position of having to make decisions based on stack/blind level/clock. That's just part of the tournament structure.

 

[BGinGA]

As @Jimulacrum correctly points out, locking the blinds actually favours the skilled player. The shorter the stacks, the lets of an edge a skilled player has.

This is the crux of the argument against locking the blinds -- doing so alters the 'normal' tournament dynamic. In the event of players with different skill levels, it favors the stronger player. And in the event of equal-strength players, if favors the shorter stack (by eliminating blind pressure).

Neither condition should artificially occur or be encouraged by the rules imo -- play should finish out naturally.

So yeah, you sorta are trying to reinvent the wheel.... and it appears most don't like it.

 

[Mr Winberg]

So yeah, you sorta are trying to reinvent the wheel....

I guess we have different definitions of "reinventing the wheel". This is the one I am used to:

1. Locking the blinds is extremely low effort. It actually takes the exact same time and effort to not do it. So about zero.
2. As some of you have pointed out I'm actually changing stuff. Not creating something that exists.

Not that it matters much, but I just don't understand where that's coming from.

and it appears most don't like it.

I get this and I respect it.

But I don't get the strong feelings from some. A reaction I would have understood would be like "Na, that's not for me." But reactions like "I don't hate much, but I hate this" and similar was not expected! So I'm not trying to convert anyone, just trying to explain how small this change is in practice.

Remember: 6h ante tournaments that usually end at around 30-50, rarely below 30. For those running shorter, non-ante tournaments, the equivalent would be locking at 15 or 20.