Tourney Money won vs. time spent (1 Viewer)

[Venturalvn]

Just curious to get all your input on how long tournaments should take in a home game environment. This is in regard to a regular buyin tournament without leaderboards or season points. Just cash in cash out. Assume it is a semi regular event, and not a one-time shot.

Say it's a $40 buy-in, 2 table tournament on a Saturday. Could be $50 including a $10 bounty. First place would pay out around $400. Is a $50 investment for a $350 ROI worth 6 hours? Or is it more worth 4 hours?

I know there's a lot of talk about tournament structures being "worth" playing, but to me there's a line to where the hours played vs money won start to matter. I'm curious to hear everyone's thoughts on the matter.

 

[CraigT78]

3.5 to 4 hours with breaks is the perfect amount of time for me with a buy-in $100 or less. Any more $$ and I'd want a longer, deep-stack format.

 

[1A25R]

I'll suggest to compare the average hourly winnings at a regular work of your players to the tournament winnings and I think you'll find the answer.
if you have lawyers and doctors at your game it will certainly don't worth it, if you have Students working at MacDonald the answer might be different.

I can't give an honest answer as for me ROI and home game tournaments on the same sentence sounds wrong ...

 

[DoubleEagle]

Our weekly tourney runs about 4 1/2 hours. $50 buy-in with re-entries.

 

[Suited Connector]

Most home tournaments I play in are 7-8 hours, with buy ins of $120-$250 (including side pot bets)

 

[Quicksilver-75]

We like a three hour tournament. A few breaks at opportune times, like after a huge hand or at chipup. But typically two games on the night with the second offering rebuys. Obviously the second game goes longer but three hours for a single table tourney is long enough.

 

[Venturalvn]

3.5 to 4 hours with breaks is the perfect amount of time for me with a buy-in $100 or less. Any more $$ and I'd want a longer, deep-stack format.

I think this right where my threshold is too!

I'll suggest to compare the average hourly winnings at a regular work of your players to the tournament winnings and I think you'll find the answer.
if you have lawyers and doctors at your game it will certainly don't worth it, if you have Students working at MacDonald the answer might be different.

I can't give an honest answer as for me ROI and home game tournaments on the same sentence sounds wrong ...

Great answer. I guess for us since we already have a set group that play for $40-60 cash buy in the buy in itself is less of an issue and more so concerned with ROI.

Our weekly tourney runs about 4 1/2 hours. $50 buy-in with re-entries.

Sounds like right where I want to be, although I'm going to start with 1 rebuy only.

 

[BGinGA]

For mid-range stakes ($50-80) I prefer a 4-6 hour event, with anything at $100+ at 7-10 hours minimum (pending field size). Small-stakes turbos (1.5-2.5 hours) have their place, too.

 

[Mike Wells]

I just hope I don't bust before the cash game starts.

 

[CraigT78]

I just hope I don't bust before the cash game starts.

This. And if there's just one cash seat open, it's highly likely that I'm the next one out of the tournament!

 

[Frogzilla]

In my opinion, the longer the tourney is, the better the poker is. Tourneys should be as long as everyone is able to comfortably commit to playing. Usually that means 7 pm to 11 pm or something close to that. But if you can get folks together to commit to a weekend early afternoon start, or a group of absolute late night degenerates, do a 8 hour tourney and do it right.

I don’t see the connection to buy-in amount or salaries.

 

[JustinInMN]

Personally I like 4-5 hours for a home tournament. If you have players with a taste for deeper games go for more.

In casino I like 8-9 hour events where I can commit for the day. But those areb150+ events.

 

[asian bino]

I don’t see the connection to buy-in amount or salaries.

If the prize is not worth playing for, either people WON'T play, or won't take it seriously......

Would you play a 4 hour tournament for 5$ first place prize? Most people would not, because 5$ is not very much to them compared to what they make. That is the connection.

 

[ReallyGoodUsername]

I don’t see the connection to buy-in amount or salaries.

If the prize is not worth playing for, either people WON'T play, or won't take it seriously......

Would you play a 4 hour tournament for 5$ first place prize? Most people would not, because 5$ is not very much to them compared to what they make. That is the connection.

You're example is to the extreme so it's moot but you yourself point out "because 5$ is not very much to them compared to what they make" so I'm not sure what you mean by not seeing the connection to salary.

If you're player are students with $0.00 income then $20 and their enjoyment of poker may be worth a 4 hour tournament but if all your players make $100,000+ it's unlikely that their love of the game will be enough for them to want to spend 4 hours playing for $20 (what they make in 8 minutes at work).

 

[APatHand]

I don’t see the connection to buy-in amount or salaries.

If the prize is not worth playing for, either people WON'T play, or won't take it seriously......

Would you play a 4 hour tournament for 5$ first place prize? Most people would not, because 5$ is not very much to them compared to what they make. That is the connection.

As a general rule, for a MTT, I want first place to be at least 10x my buy-in and a regular buy-in to be about what I would buy in to my normal cash game.
So, if I normally buy-in for $300, I want first place to pay at least $3k for the same $300 entry. With a usual payout structure that means about three tables.
Now, $300 buy-in tournaments don't happen every day, but a $100 entry that paid first $1000, would be acceptable to me.
Anything less than that and I would have to see if there was a better option available to me. If a $40, 10 person tournament that paid 50%, 30%, 20% was the only thing available, then I would probably sign up.

 

[Gobbs]

Obviously, the higher the entry fee, the longer I want the format. Nobody wants to invest a decent amount of money in a shovefest. However, I’d play all day in a $20 tournament if it was good poker.

Realistically, though, i prefer 4-5 hour tournaments for less than $100 entry and 8-10 hours for bigger events.

 

[Mr Winberg]

You're example is to the extreme so it's moot but you yourself point out "because 5$ is not very much to them compared to what they make" so I'm not sure what you mean by not seeing the connection to salary.

I think @asian bino was answering @Frogzilla but quoted him in an unorthodox way. This is the original quote he was responding to:

I don’t see the connection to buy-in amount or salaries.

So you are on the same side

 

[Mr Winberg]

I prefer 6-7 hours, I think most of my degens would prefer around 4, so I have compromised to 5 1/2 hours including breaks. Some players think this is too long, but these are the same players who at later blind levels exclaim "OMG, are the blinds ALREADY at X/Y?!?! Well, I guess it's fold-or-shove mode...", so I'm not really sure what they want

 

[CraigT78]

OMG, are the blinds ALREADY at X/Y?!?! Well, I guess it's fold-or-shove mode...", so I'm not really sure what they want

I'm sure everyone who hosts regularly hears this same complaint!!

 

[Frogzilla]

If the prize is not worth playing for, either people WON'T play, or won't take it seriously......

Would you play a 4 hour tournament for 5$ first place prize?

If you're player are students with $0.00 income then $20 and their enjoyment of poker may be worth a 4 hour tournament but if all your players make $100,000+ it's unlikely that their love of the game will be enough for them to want to spend 4 hours playing for $20 (what they make in 8 minutes at work).

Meh, I still stand by it. I've played plenty of pick-up basketball, spades, bowling, board games, ping pong, golf all with $0 on the line, I'm sure you've had similar experiences. They can still be quite competitive activities.

You lose ICM and bubble pressure as the stakes get friendlier, but tournament poker is still competitive even with no stakes. Check out the pokerstars play money tourney scene

 

[ReallyGoodUsername]

Meh, I still stand by it. I've played plenty of pick-up basketball, spades, bowling, board games, ping pong, golf all with $0 on the line, I'm sure you've had similar experiences. They can still be quite competitive activities.

You lose ICM and bubble pressure as the stakes get friendlier, but tournament poker is still competitive even with no stakes. Check out the pokerstars play money tourney scene

I guess if you have really competitive players who are skilled enough, its just that poker is so engrained with the gambling/cash aspect of it and there's a larger amount of chance that comes into play than physical sports that I couldn't find 3+ people to play a tournament without more risk than bragging rights.

 

[Gameface]

Meh, I still stand by it. I've played plenty of pick-up basketball, spades, bowling, board games, ping pong, golf all with $0 on the line, I'm sure you've had similar experiences. They can still be quite competitive activities.

You lose ICM and bubble pressure as the stakes get friendlier, but tournament poker is still competitive even with no stakes. Check out the pokerstars play money tourney scene

Poker is a game about money. You can't separate money from poker and still have poker the way we all know it. It becomes card bingo.

 

[Poker Zombie]

To the OP... 4-5 hours including breaks is the sweet spot for "fun" ($20-$40) tournaments. For serious ($100+) tournaments, 6-8 hours. For meetups, which are essentially home games, I prefer it to run 12 hours because pride and a trophy is on the line. If I learned anything from @Anthony Martino at the Shootout this year, it is that the money matters far less than the bragging rights.

I don’t see the connection to buy-in amount or salaries.

If the prize is not worth playing for, either people WON'T play, or won't take it seriously......

Would you play a 4 hour tournament for 5$ first place prize? Most people would not, because 5$ is not very much to them compared to what they make. That is the connection.

I have played many games for the thrill of winning. I have played in 5¢/10¢ cash games and enjoyed them as much as $1/$2 cash games. I prefer tournaments though, because there is a winner. The money... well that's not even the secondary concern. Friends, thrill of victory, then money.... unless it's one of my home games, because we have food as well, because the food ranks higher than the money.

Seriously, while $5 would be an exaggerated low payout for first, I would still play if the group was fun.

Poker is a game about money. You can't separate money from poker and still have poker the way we all know it. It becomes card bingo.

Cash game poker is about the money. However, tournament poker is a different animal. If someone drove 30 minutes one way they aren't shoving all-in every hand. People play to win - or at least to do better than they did the last time.

Perceptions about money and tournament poker can be skewed.

• Free online poker is terrible, because you can get in on another game. That is not possible in home games, so it plays differently... better.
• High stakes tournaments play differently, because scared money is not fun. This is an income (or more realistically, expendable funds) dependent number.
• Cash games following a tournament can ruin the tournament. If a winning player believes that he can make more money (or find more excitement) in a cash game, winning the tournament loses its luster.

Basically, money relative to income can increase the "thrill of victory", but it does not create the thrill. Money can absolutely ruin a perfectly good tournament as well.

 

[Venturalvn]

Cash games following a tournament also can ruin a tournament. If a winning player believes that he can make more money in a cash game, winning the tournament also loses its luster.

I think this is one of the things I worry about, and maybe because our tournament buy in will be near the same to our cash.

Now we don't have a grinder type cash game atmosphere anyways, so we don't have any players who come to "make" money, so I'm not too worried. But at the same time we have regular losers and winners, and I want both categories to come for both tourney and cash and not feel like they aren't getting value.

 

[Gobbs]

Cash games following a tournament can ruin the tournament. If a winning player believes that he can make more money (or find more excitement) in a cash game, winning the tournament loses its luster.

Absolutely can be true, but it’s a concept I’ve never understood. Why bother playing in the tournament if you don’t want to win it?

I know some people take the attitude that they will gamble to get a bunch of chips early because they either want to win or get eliminated early. I understand that, but some people seem to consider the tournament a simple nuisance and something they have to do to play in a cash game. Why even enter if that’s the attitude?

 

[Poker Zombie]

Absolutely can be true, but it’s a concept I’ve never understood. Why bother playing in the tournament if you don’t want to win it?

I know some people take the attitude that they will gamble to get a bunch of chips early because they either want to win or get eliminated early. I understand that, but some people seem to consider the tournament a simple nuisance and something they have to do to play in a cash game. Why even enter if that’s the attitude?

It's one of the reasons I rarely run a post tournament cash game... and when I do, the cash is micro-stakes compared to the tournament.

I accept the tournament strategy of "double or triple up early". I think it's -EV, but I accept bad strategy to still be a strategy. However, if the fallback is to play a different game, it becomes detrimental.