Why so agressive? This has gotta fit your definition of "aggressive" as well? I have been nothing but civilized.Seriously? What is wrong with you?
I haven't fought at all. I've been nothing but civilized. There's only been 1 person fighting on this thread, and that's Mr "love and let love".Are you just trolling so you can argue and fight?
I wasn't expecting this much heat over a house rule that hardly ever comes into play, and when it does, it simply allows the combatants more maneuverability.Why the f would you make a post asking what we thought about your idea just so you can show how thin skinned you are?
Bogus?? Really? Now who is trolling?posting screen shots of some bogus definition
And I appreciate that. I just didn't appreciate how much hate it caused.You asked for an opinion about your opinion and I gave it
I have never ever claimed that.because you're some genius that "figured it out."
Once again, my house rule is actually bad for the bad players and good for the good players (albeit with a very small effect). Several people have pointed that out.go play with your group of "participation trophy getters"
Is this your real question? No tournament structure should have a harsh 1.5x blind jump in the late stage. Try increasing the blind level duration and/or making the blind increase smoother. Using your example of 10k/20k, try 15k/25k next instead of 15k/30k.Please remember we're talking about avoiding the jump to 20 BBs here.
This one fits very well! And thinking about it, it perfectly summarizes how opinions on my house rule can differ:Okay, if 'reinventing the wheel' is giving you pause, try this one on for size:
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
You're gonna do this with 30 BBs in play (i.e. with effective stacks of 15 BB at best) and with antes in play? I'm no good player, but even I know nitting up waiting for premiums in that scenario is disastrous.The strategy for a tournament with no blind increase is to nit it up, wait for premiums, and hope the opponent gets bored
Get some stronger coffee before you start postingSeriously? What is wrong with you? Are you just trolling so you can argue and fight? Why the f would you make a post asking what we thought about your idea just so you can show how thin skinned you are? Get over yourself. No need to respond telling me how I don't get it, or, posting screen shots of some bogus definition that bolsters your ego, because I really don't care. You asked for an opinion about your opinion and I gave it. Your idea is stupid, that's why you don't hear others doing it, not because you're some genius that "figured it out." If you like it, great, go play with your group of "participation trophy getters" and enjoy yourself, if you can.
You're gonna do this with 30 BBs in play (i.e. with effective stacks of 15 BB at best) and with antes in play? I'm no good player, but even I know nitting up waiting for premiums in that scenario is disastrous.
Probably. I've been causing a lot if misunderstandings in this thread. :-(oof okay. Language barrier?
You may be right, but only if they are locked up early. This thread is about locking then up when the tourney normally should have ended, in which case no sane person would adapt their strategy for this mid-stage.If a good player know ahead of time the blinds will stop increasing at a certain level, mid-stage strategy will be about preservation and hope others get impatient.
Not habitually, just occasionally. But thanks, maybe if I had written that I double the blind length at 30 (i.e., when the tourney normally has ended) the reactions would have been calmer?Stretch out the blind level duration or make the jumps gentler if you feel your structure habitually turn the tournament into a shovefest for the grand prize
I understand that's how you have chosen to view it (although I disagree that it's broken at all).This house rule of mine is to be seen as my "sorry for failing you, guys! But I'll allow you to duke it out with at least some play".
I felt my tournaments on rare occasions were broken.
That's pretty much the whole pie chart!I'd advise either changing the solution, giving up on the idea altogether, or simply going forward with your plan to randomly screw with player equities.
I have no problem with that, I just want to clarify a bit:Ya I agree with @KHarp1 here.
If you look a bit closer, you'll see that I quoted people to either correct misunderstandings or to further explain why I have the rule. I see how it may look like arguing, but if someone gives me feedback based in a misunderstanding then I can't really learn from it. For example: "people will nit up!" - no, the lock is too late for that, etc.You literally posted this topic and asked for thoughts on it, and are going through copy/pasting quotes to line-by-line argue it.
I never moaned when people gave me their thoughts. The heated posts where just quoted and sorted out. There were, however, some valid thoughts brought up which helped me see potential downsides to the rule, which was a big reason to me to create this thread in the first place. If people through logic and reasoning can show issues then I'm truly grateful.Want to post "what do you think about this" on a forum and then moan when people give their thoughts?
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).
Freezing the blinds heads-up typically favors the more skilled player.
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.
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.
(Sorry if I missed someone)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).
I'm pretty sure I made it clear that I hated the "idea." I also feel that I gave you the main reason why, and, quoted another post that gave my reasoning. To consistently state that I'm giving you hate is misrepresenting my post. You accused me of being aggressive, which at the time I wasn't, and, reiterated that I wasn't being aggressive that there was no hate, personally, yet you continue to use me as some validation for your inability to accept what you asked for without being able to move on. I then became assertive in my posts.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?
Seriously? What is wrong with you? Are you just trolling so you can argue and fight? Why the f would you make a post asking what we thought about your idea just so you can show how thin skinned you are? Get over yourself. No need to respond telling me how I don't get it, or, posting screen shots of some bogus definition that bolsters your ego, because I really don't care. You asked for an opinion about your opinion and I gave it. Your idea is stupid, that's why you don't hear others doing it, not because you're some genius that "figured it out." If you like it, great, go play with your group of "participation trophy getters" and enjoy yourself, if you can.
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.
That beers are on me when I do get over? Apart from that, no.Did I miss anything?
yupI’m curious as to the stack sizes vs the blinds in this hour battle.
I can't say right off, but, I'm playing in it tomorrow and will let you know. It's a T100 tourney, with 30 minute blinds, no ante. I think a couple of the blinds levels have very gentle raises early on.