Tourney Locking the blinds at the end (2 Viewers)

[BGinGA]

Okay, if 'reinventing the wheel' is giving you pause, try this one on for size:

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

 

[KHarp1]

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.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Seriously? What is wrong with you?

Why so agressive? This has gotta fit your definition of "aggressive" as well? I have been nothing but civilized.

Are you just trolling so you can argue and fight?

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".

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?

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.

posting screen shots of some bogus definition

Bogus?? Really? Now who is trolling?

You asked for an opinion about your opinion and I gave it

And I appreciate that. I just didn't appreciate how much hate it caused.

because you're some genius that "figured it out."

I have never ever claimed that.

go play with your group of "participation trophy getters"

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.

Listen man, I didn't mean to stir up such hate. Shall we call it quits?

 

[ArielVer18]

Please remember we're talking about avoiding the jump to 20 BBs here.

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.

You haven't encounter any issues with locking the level yet because your player pool hasn't adjusted their strategy to this new development. The strategy for a tournament with no blind increase is to nit it up, wait for premiums, and hope the opponent gets bored. It's not fun waiting for coolers to decide the tournament. Remember, it's not like a cash game where the goal is to win as many chips as possible; you don't get any prize money until you knock out the opponent.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Okay, if 'reinventing the wheel' is giving you pause, try this one on for size:

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

This one fits very well! And thinking about it, it perfectly summarizes how opinions on my house rule can differ:

When an ante tournament reaches 20 BBs (or a non-ante one reaches e.g. 15), is this something that is enjoyed? If yes, if we fist pump our way into the dice rolling, then we should definitely not fix it! That would be absurd!

However, I always feel that I've failed as a host if the tournament reaches that stage (thank god it's a rare occurrence!). I go back to the drawing board and ask myself "how did I let my 6h tournament turn into a shovefest for the grand prize?". I have made several adjustments over the years that have made this occur less and less. 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'm not trying to push this at all. If you have a hard deadline, then it's a very stupid rule. If you enjoy the all-in action of two shortstacks battling it out, then it's a stupid rule. But if you don't have anything against the last two going into overtime while the rest play cash, I think it's reasonable to consider this.

So thanks @BGinGA for the phrase, it helped me straighten my thoughts: I felt my tournaments on rare occasions were broken.

 

[Mr Winberg]

The strategy for a tournament with no blind increase is to nit it up, wait for premiums, and hope the opponent gets bored

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.

 

[Eriks]

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.

Get some stronger coffee before you start posting

 

[ArielVer18]

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.

oof okay. Language barrier? I incorrectly assumed you were looking for specific, actionable recommendations and opinions about the idea to lock the blinds. 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. If this player built up a big stack, he'll try to preserve his stack instead of risking it to knock out smaller stacks and extremely shallow stacks will try to hold on for dear life.

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, but there's no need to completely lock it up.

 

[Mr Winberg]

oof okay. Language barrier?

Probably. I've been causing a lot if misunderstandings in this thread. :-(

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.

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.

For example, a 3h tourney without antes is a perfect candidate for the "20 BB rule", so in that situation the OP's suggestion would have been to lock it at, say, 15 or something.

But alas, I failed to translate my thoughts into words, so this thread became a war zone. :-(

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

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?

 

[BGinGA]

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.

I understand that's how you have chosen to view it (although I disagree that it's broken at all).

The problem is that your 'fix' actually breaks the tournament in other ways -- so it still remains 'broken'.

Implementing rules that unfairly alter the current player equities is simply wrong -- and is far worse than the original condition you are trying to 'fix'.

And that's likely the root cause of some of the unhappiness displayed in this thread -- you forcing your equity-altering 'solution' on other players. It's not better in their eyes.

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.

 

[Saxplayer]

Ya I agree with @KHarp1 here. You literally posted this topic and asked for thoughts on it, and are going through copy/pasting quotes to line-by-line argue it.

If you want to do this structure - go ahead! Want to post "what do you think about this" on a forum and then moan when people give their thoughts? I hate it too. I think you being so insulted that any of us would say that, is silly.

 

[lane_robert_s]

Our tournaments end up going to 10 to 15 big blinds between the heads up players at the end. It's definitely a different type of strategy when you get to that type of play. But since we usually have top 2 in the money of a tournament of 12 to 16 players,those top 2 are not too upset When luck is a big factor between whose first and second

 

[doublebooyah85]

More annoying to me is my group of friends alway like to chop so I try to make the payouts closer to one another now so we get to play short handed.

 

[Mr Winberg]

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.

That's pretty much the whole pie chart!

Ya I agree with @KHarp1 here.

I have no problem with that, I just want to clarify a bit:

You literally posted this topic and asked for thoughts on it, and are going through copy/pasting quotes to line-by-line argue it.

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.

I also got plenty "why?" which I've tried responding to. I also got lots of heat, to which I've tried to explain that the rule rarely comes into play and has a small impact, so strong feelings are hardly warranted.

But when someone gives me unwarranted hate then I'll try to sort things out, which is why one poster was quoted more than others.

Want to post "what do you think about this" on a forum and then moan when people give their thoughts?

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.

Examples include:

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.

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).

(Sorry if I missed someone)

So now I have to decide if (in the rare cases that my tourneys go overtime) I want to accept those cons in order to provide a tiny bit more "play" for the two remaining players, or if avoiding those cons is more important than avoiding a shovefest.

Those simply hating without providing a case didn't help me reach any conclusions.

 

[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?

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.
So, why would you continue to state that I'm hating without offering reasoning?

 

[Mr Winberg]

@KHarp1, I really don't want to start a fight or anything. I'm gonna try to respond to your post in a matter-of-fact manner, please don't weigh too much into it.

I interpreted the post you're quoting as "aggressive". The main reason was the general tone. The "what's next" bit didn't help either. However, we sorted that out a few posts ago. You explained that it wasn't aggression, and I accepted.

But then this happened:

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 above is the reason. But please let's not fight anymore. I apologize to you here and now for accusing you of hate, I'll see it as heat instead. Fair?

 

[Jimulacrum]

Seems like @KHarp1 enjoys hating the idea a little too much.

 

[KHarp1]

Yes that happened, and, that's the part I'm referring to as assertive. Yes, I hate the idea, stated why, then you just kept posting line-by-line things that you, well, I don't know what you were thinking, exactly. I do apologize for that post, I was getting a bit miffed. It's interactions like this that give me pause when engaging in a thread such as this. I feel you've been very thin skinned when you got what you asked for. Seems like a lose, lose situation. Continually calling me out line by line gets irritating, especially when I was just answering your question. If that was you purpose, well done. I'm choosing to believe that wasn't what your intent was

I agree, let's move on. I have no ill will towards you, are, anyone for that matter. If you lived closer I'd be happy to donk off some of my money to you in a game of your choice.

So, in summation, I hate your idea, for reasons stated, you hated my response, for reasons stated. We agree its your game and you can run it any way you see fit. I say if your group likes that adjustment then you're doing the right thing, they need to be happy. We probably both acted defensive and slightly inappropriate, which only leads to more tension. We hugged, made up and your going to call when you get to the states and come to a game. Did I miss anything?

 

[GetUrShineBox]

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.

I’m curious as to the stack sizes vs the blinds in this hour battle.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Did I miss anything?

That beers are on me when I do get over? Apart from that, no.

 

[upNdown]

I’m curious as to the stack sizes vs the blinds in this hour battle.

yup

 

[GetUrShineBox]

I don’t think it’s a terrible idea and it certainly wouldn’t deter me from playing in a tournament. I was at a 30 person house tournament and the last 3/4 guys asked to host to pause the blinds so they could actually play poker and it not be a shove fest.
The bottom line is there is no perfect way to run a tournament when you are trying to put a time limit on it. Yes they all need to end eventually and yes most just become a shove fest.
I agree with the points that pausing them will benefit stronger players however I think that would be when it’s more deep stacked than 20 or 30 BBs.
I don’t however agree that it automatically helps the larger stack. By the blind’s getting so high it forces the shorter stacks to shove and if the bigger stack gets dealt 72, 83, 92, 62, a bunch of hands in a row they are toast. So one can argue the other way that pausing the blinds might help the larger stacks bc they can sit on their stacks more patiently and pick better spots to call the short stacks.
This is one of the huge reasons I’m all for chopping or payouts that aren’t so top heavy. You can play flawlessly for 6 hours and then are forced to call shoves at the end.

 

[KHarp1]

yup

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.