Tourney Longer levels or more levels? (1 Viewer)

[RocAFella1]

Without getting too much into the actual structure itself just yet, I was wondering what people would tend to prefer in a tournament. While trying to have a tournament last around relatively the same amount of time, is it better to have more, shorter rounds or less, longer rounds?

Just going based off the top of my head from tournaments I've played, assuming the rounds aren't 5 minutes, it feels like there's more play with more rounds even if they are shorter. A difference of 3-5 minutes per round doesn't feel like a big difference.

 

[TexRex]

Different people look for vastly different things.

A tournament structure depends on the number of players, whether there are rebuys, starting stack size relative to the blinds, how much the blinds increase, how long the rounds are, whether you have antes, etc. Changing any one factor will alter what the tournament is like. For example, a difference of 3-5 minutes per round can be the difference between a tournament relying most on skill to win and a luckfest.

How long do you want your tournament to be? How many players? Do you like aggressive blind increases or slower increases? Once we know that, it's easier to offer help.

Then what is your chip set capable of?

If you want to know what YOUR players like, survey them. You might find they are all over the board, but you might also find those things that would make the most players happy.

 

[BGinGA]

While trying to have a tournament last around relatively the same amount of time, is it better to have more, shorter rounds or less, longer rounds?

Better is a pretty subjective term. For a given five hour tournament, you could set it up one of several different way. For example:

• 10-minute levels with small 20% blind increases
• 15-minute levels with gradual 30% blind increases
• 20-minute levels with average 40% blind increases
• 30-minute levels with aggressive 60% blind increases
• 50-minute levels with 100% blind increases

All five structures will end at close to the same time with similar blind amounts. How you get to that point is a very different experience. Personally, I don't like either extreme -- very short levels with small increases, or very long levels with huge increases. But I'm okay with the three middle-of-the-road choices, and have a slight preference to 20-minute levels over either 15- or 30-minute levels, given all other things relatively the same.

So I guess my answer to your question is neither, imo -- it is better to have an average or reasonable number of rounds lasting an average or reasonable amount of time.

 

[RocAFella1]

Looking for a decent structure for a single table T5000 with no rebuys or add-ons, almost a turbo without feeling like one as much as possible. Target end time is 2.5-3 hours.

The initial structure I had in mind was:
25/50 (15 min)
50/100 (15 min)
75/150 (15 min)
100/200 (15 min)
150/300 (20 min)
200/400 (20 min)
300/600 (20 min)
400/800 (12 min)
600/1200 (12 min)
800/1600 (12 min)
1000/2000 (12 min)
1500/3000 (12 min) ***

I like the idea of the 25/75 level but I would decrease the levels.

I know there's a lot of differing opinions on increasing/decreasing levels, but I have found it to work in our games, with positive feedback.

 

[BGinGA]

Your structure (average blind increase = 46%) will typically finish no later than 3 hours plus breaks (L12), which is exactly the same as if all levels were 15 minutes long. I'm not convinced that your 20-minute levels in hour two followed by 12-minute levels in hour three will help avoid a turbo feeling, however.

I've had good results with a more aggressive structure using longer blind times. We use something similar to this one for a lot of satellite events at meet-ups, typically finishing in under three hours using all 20-minute levels (58% avg increase, all 50%-67%):

lvl sb bb
L1 25 50
L2 50 75
L3 75 125
L4 100 200
L5 150 300
L6 250 500
L7 400 800
L8 600 1200
L9 1000 2000
L10 1500 3000 ***
L11 2500 5000

Blind increases still aren't crazy-high, and the 20-minute levels allows the button to make nearly two full orbits before blinds increase. Not nearly as turbo-feeling as 12-minute levels imo.

Avoiding your 100% increase in L2 combined with longer levels allows for a bit more early play before stacks get short -- your structure hits the 150/300 level (17bb avg stack) after just 60 minutes of play; this structure hits 150/300 at the 1:20 mark.

 

[RocAFella1]

I should add that this structure is to allow for multiple SNGs in a night as well for practice for the ultra turbo WSOP SNGs.

My thinking with the shorter late rounds is that play moves a lot faster. I expect the field to be at least halved after the first two hours. I would also expect that 3 handed, 12 minute levels plays a lot longer than 10 handed, 15 minute levels. Most of the play comes in the early and especially the middle rounds. By the time it's nearing the end, it should be feeling like a turbo given the time restriction. Players in our game seem to react to bigger jumps between levels.

Would it help if I added the 25/75 level to my structure?

Any reason as to why you use 50/75 as opposed to 25/75 in this structure?

 

[RocAFella1]

Double post

 

[andy699669]

I should add that this structure is to allow for multiple SNGs in a night as well for practice for the ultra turbo WSOP SNGs.

My thinking with the shorter late rounds is that play moves a lot faster. I expect the field to be at least halved after the first two hours. I would also expect that 3 handed, 12 minute levels plays a lot longer than 10 handed, 15 minute levels. Most of the play comes in the early and especially the middle rounds. By the time it's nearing the end, it should be feeling like a turbo given the time restriction. Players in our game seem to react to bigger jumps between levels.

Would it help if I added the 25/75 level to my structure?

Any reason as to why you use 50/75 as opposed to 25/75 in this structure?

Cost per round, maybe?

 

[RocAFella1]

Cost per round, maybe?

Yea makes sense. Just looks weird when everyone is so used to the typical sb/bb.

 

[BGinGA]

Would it help if I added the 25/75 level to my structure?

Yes. But I still prefer all levels at 15 minutes vs the 12-minute levels for hour three.

Any reason as to why you use 50/75 as opposed to 25/75 in this structure?

To maintain the narrower 50%-67% range of increases. 50/75 and 75/125 both accomplish this (67%/60%/50% vs 33%/75%/71% increases with 25/75 and 50/125).

 

[RocAFella1]

I guess it does come down to preference. Smaller, quicker baby steps or larger, faster leaps.

 

[BGinGA]

Yea makes sense. Just looks weird when everyone is so used to the typical sb/bb.

if this is a concern, you can run the same 100bb format with 10K stacks and 50/100 starting blinds:

lvl sb bb
L1 50 100
L2 75 150
L3 125 250
L4 200 400
L5 300 600
L6 500 1000
L7 800 1600
L8 1200 2400
L9 2000 4000
L10 3000 6000 ***
L11 5000 10000

 

[RocAFella1]

Yes. But I still prefer all levels at 15 minutes vs the 12-minute levels for hour three.

Any thoughts on short handed play moving faster than full table which would allow for more hands per level despite being shorter?

if this is a concern, you can run the same 100bb format with 10K stacks and 50/100 starting blinds:

Unfortunately this set will be limited to 5k starting stacks.

 

[BGinGA]

I guess it does come down to preference. Smaller, quicker baby steps or larger, faster leaps.

Agreed, it's a preference thing. But in my experience, players view blinds increasing in increments less than 15 minutes as "faster" than larger amounts every 20 minutes, so long as they aren't doubling. Hence better meeting your "almost a turbo without feeling like one as much as possible" requirement.

Any thoughts on short handed play moving faster than full table which would allow for more hands per level despite being shorter?

I'm on record as being a proponent of an equal amount of hands played at every blind level. Shortening the blind level times based on remaining field size accomplishes this, but arbitrarily reducing the blind level times at fixed points often times artificially creates a shove-fest mentality when more players are still alive than anticipated. It's great in theory, but needs to be micromanaged to truly be effective.

 

[BGinGA]

Just looks weird when everyone is so used to the typical sb/bb.

if this is a concern, you can run the same 100bb format with 10K stacks and 50/100 starting blinds:

Unfortunately this set will be limited to 5k starting stacks.

I've found that players pay no attention to it, once the initial "what?" reaction has passed. It's a small blind, not a half-blind.

 

[Mojo1312]

Duplicating the blind structure of the ultra turbo WSOP SNG's is the simplest solution.

Or by creating a structure that increases gradually with levels that don't fluctuate.

T5000
14 minute levels

25/50
25/75
50/100
75/150
100/200
150/300
200/400 (6 minutes)
Break
200/400 (8 minutes)
300/600
400/800
500/1000
600/1200
800/1600
1000/2000
1200/2400
1500/3000

 

[andy699669]

Duplicating the blind structure of the ultra turbo WSOP SNG's is the simplest solution.

Or by creating a structure that increases gradually with levels that don't fluctuate.

T5000
14 minute levels

25/50
25/75
50/100
75/150
100/200
150/300
200/400 (6 minutes)
Break
200/400 (8 minutes)
300/600
400/800
500/1000
600/1200
800/1600
1000/2000
1200/2400
1500/3000

Throw the 500/1000 and either 1000/2000 or 1200/2400 for better level-to-level transition consistency.

 

[JustinInMN]

I tend to prefer longer levels. I think 18-20 minutes allowed for a 2 minutes per hand average with everyone dealing one hand per level.

So if the duration is shorter than that I prefer streching levels to adding levels.

 

[Taghkanic]

There is a psychology to levels, beyond the actual math, especially with amateur players... I notice a lot more preflop folds around to the button on the first hand or two of a level, right after the jump, especially in the mid-levels.

I think this is because the change in blinds causes players who don’t normally think that hard about their remaining big blinds or “M” or whatever to stop for a moment and realize, “Oh shit—I’ve got to manage my stack. Better tighten up.”

This effect quickly wears off after a hand or two with less thinking players... until the next jump. So if you have faster but more levels, that’s going to happen more often.

On the other hand, the effect can get reversed in later stages once there are shorter stacks. The jump forces a similar realization—except this time it’s “Holy crap, I’m about to be blinded off if I don’t make a move fast.” And then you get a lot more shoves right after the jump.

The size of the jump might lessen these effects, but anything which causes players to pause and count their stacks is going to change the dynamic.

In sum: I think lower-but-fewer levels may trigger less of this stock-taking, while faster ones will force more. Not saying this is good or bad, just something to consider.

 

[EnjoyLife]

What's the fastest way to get people to bust out to get them to the cash table?

 

[Taghkanic]

10 minute second blinds, short starting stacks

 

[BGinGA]

What's the fastest way to get people to bust out to get them to the cash table?

50bb starting stacks with 10-minute levels and reasonable blind increases (and no re-buys - ie, a turbo tournament) is about the quickest method while still maintaining some element of skill in the game.

Some cruise ship tournaments start with just 20bb and short levels where the blinds double every round. Those end quickly too, but it's pretty much a crap-shoot.

 

[bigdonkey]

What's the fastest way to get people to bust out to get them to the cash table?

Level 1 BB = Starting Stack

 

[EnjoyLife]

50bb starting stacks with 10-minute levels and reasonable blind increases (and no re-buys - ie, a turbo tournament) is about the quickest method while still maintaining some element of skill in the game.

Some cruise ship tournaments start with just 20bb and short levels where the blinds double every round. Those end quickly too, but it's pretty much a crap-shoot.

Then, this would be my vote

 

[Legend5555]

What it all really comes down to is "how many hands can get played in a given amount of time?"

 

[detroitdad]

Our league started going in this direction. I really like it.

The first four levels are 20 minutes long. Then they go to 30 minutes long.

Too specifically answer your question without know the details of the blind levels I would say longer levels vs more levels.

B

 

[Dix]

Count me in the "it depends" camp.

Who's doing the dealing? Give me a competent casino dealer with a shuffler built into the table & I'm OK with 12-15 minute levels.

If we're talking recreational tourneys, I can even be good with 15 minute levels & the players dealing so long as you're using 2 decks per table.

Anything less than the above & I don't care for anything less than 20 minute levels minimum.

In the early levels of a tourney, with recreational players hand shuffling a single deck, while you're seeing a lot of flops, & a good number of hands played to the river, you're lucky to hit 25 hands/hr on average.

25 hands/hr is a little under 2-1/2 minutes per hand all-in. (Playing the hand, pushing the pot to the winner, scooping up the cards, reshuffling the deck - it all takes time).

2.4 minutes X 9 players = a few ticks past 21-1/2 minutes per orbit.

If a blind level is less than a complete orbit of the table, your levels are too short.... IMO.

 

[Dix]

If you want to know what YOUR players like, survey them. You might find they are all over the board, but you might also find those things that would make the most players happy.

I'll give you the perfect example of this....

Just a couple weeks ago we had a "substitute" TD at a local VFW Hall tourney. I'd been warned by the usual TD to kind of keep an eye on him & help him out if it looked like he needed a word or few of advice.

It was a really light turnout that day. It's Maine & it was hunting season.... goes with the territory.

So we get 18 players, & he setting up to draw for seating of 3 tables/6 players. I ask him why he's not setting up for 2 tables/9 players.

[him] "You think that would be better?"

[me] "Why don't we ask the players?"

I survey the players. I knew what the answer would be, and it was unanimous.... we started with 2 tables.

If you're running a local recreational tourney & you want to know what would make your game better for your players (or even if you don't) solicit feedback from your players.

IMO - you, as the TD of a recreational tourney, should be doing that by default... happier players just might bring a friend next time.