Tourney Omaha Tournaments - Format and suprises? (1 Viewer)

[timinater]

Just want to see if anyone here has ran a Omaha Tournament before and has some insights to share. I have with our group ages ago, and all I remember is that it was over very quick using the same structure as our Hold'em tournaments.

The idea would be to run a PLO tournament $20 with unlimited re-entry or a max of 5 re-entry's. Our usual game is $50 buy in with one re-entry. Keep in mind this is a league format so I want to make sure the tournament is roughly on par with the rest of the events in the season.

I'm wondering a few things:

1. What changes did you make if any to the structure/starting stacks?
2. What about limiting the re-entries to 5 to keep on par with usual $100 max buy in to the tournament? Is it necessary to limit? 5 bullets in four levels might be a feat anyhow.
3. Was there anything about your Omaha tournament that surprised you?
4. Anything I'm missing?

NLHE Structure for reference:
20 minute levels 1500 chip starting stacks.
5/10
10/20
15/30
20/40
BREAK *Re-Entry's end*
30/60
40/80
60/120
BREAK - Remove 5s
75/150
100/200
150/300
BREAK
200/400
300/600
400/800 * Usually ends before here.
BREAK
600/1200
800/1600
1000/2000
1500/3000

@Kain8

 

[fieldsy]

I assume you're talking about pot-limit Omaha, not limit Omaha/8, right? If so, my experience has also been that PLO tournaments play out more quickly than NLH tournaments with the same structure. To answer your questions:
1. Assuming your NLH tourney structure is a no-ante structure, I would definitely modify to add a few levels if you want the PLO structure to roughly parallel your usual. So maybe add 25/50, 50/100, and either 250/500 or 500/1000. But if your chipset allows it, I might also consider a structure like T5000 or T10000 stacks, with more round numbers in the blinds and fewer of these levels that will make for more difficult pot-counting. Rounder numbers make for easier pots to count when someone announces pot.
2. I don't know the duration of your levels, but 5 rebuys is a lot, and $20 is a lot less than $50. I'm guessing you're proposing this with a group that doesn't play much Omaha, which is why the substantially reduced buy-in? If it were me, I would probably do somewhere between $25 and $40.
3. If you are playing with casual players who haven't played Omaha before or at all, I think it's helpful to do a very clear reminder of the rules ("you have to make your hand with exactly two of your hole cards, make sure you know which two you are using"). There's nothing worse, when playing a game you aren't really comfortable with, than losing because of a stupid mistake where you didn't understand the basic rules. So I try to make sure to remind people as much as possible to avoid those embarrassing mistakes.

 

[timinater]

I assume you're talking about pot-limit Omaha, not limit Omaha/8, right? Yup, fixed OP
1. But if your chipset allows it, I might also consider a structure like T5000 or T10000 stacks, with more round numbers in the blinds and fewer of these levels that will make for more difficult pot-counting. Rounder numbers make for easier pots to count when someone announces pot. Great idea I will take a look.
2. I'm guessing you're proposing this with a group that doesn't play much Omaha, which is why the substantially reduced buy-in? More or less yeah - I'm assuming everyone is good for 2-3 bullets just based on how action heavy Omaha is.
3. If you are playing with casual players who haven't played Omaha before or at all, I think it's helpful to do a very clear reminder of the rules. 100% Luckily with most of the group we've done a learn to play Omaha cash game a few weeks back.

 

[DoubleEagle]

or a max of 5 re-entry's.

I have never understood why anyone would not want to let a fish be a fish. Unlimited re-buys.

 

[Alex Lundstrum]

I might also consider a structure like T5000 or T10000 stacks, with more round numbers in the blinds and fewer of these levels that will make for more difficult pot-counting. Rounder numbers make for easier pots to count when someone announces pot.

If you are using a tourney timer software, it helps to also list what an opening pot size bet is: 3BB+SB. This is where you will get a large number of Pot bets in a PLO tournament and can save a lot of time. Past that, no real way around counting the pot when it is declared.

I suggest that if you do a PL tournament, you make it clear who is counting the pot beforehand, whether you have a dedicated counter or whoever is dealing. Else you run into 20 sets of fingers counting a hundred different ways.

 

[DoubleEagle]

I find most home game players around here do not know how to calculate a pot size raise.

 

[timinater]

If you are using a tourney timer software, it helps to also list what an opening pot size bet is: 3BB+SB. This is where you will get a large number of Pot bets in a PLO tournament and can save a lot of time. Past that, no real way around counting the pot when it is declared.

I suggest that if you do a PL tournament, you make it clear who is counting the pot beforehand, whether you have a dedicated counter or whoever is dealing. Else you run into 20 sets of fingers counting a hundred different ways.

Yeah. 3xBB + SB is the way we do it. The house etiquitte is to know how much is in the pot if you're going to pot it, and we'll take their word for it. Anyone can pause the action for a count if they think it's off. It's a friendly game.

I find most home game players around here do not know how to calculate a pot size raise.

Plus a fascination with saying "pot" too. Haha. 3x the last bet plus the dead money is an easy shorthand for counting the pot.

I have never understood why anyone would not want to let a fish be a fish. Unlimited re-buys.

Something about shearing a sheep. Just thinking out loud about the re-entry (not re-buy) limit really. Pretty much the reason I started this thread, I want more Omaha in my life, not less.

 

[BGinGA]

A few things regarding PLO tournaments vs NLHE based on my experience running such events:

• PLO will typically run about 20%-25% shorter -- a 4 hr NLHE structure used for PLO will generally finish in about 3:15 or less.
• Never run a PLO tourney with a T5-base set. Even T25-base can be a challenge; using a T100-base set is best imo.
• 100BB starting stacks work well. Rather than unlimited full-stack re-buys only when felted, I prefer to allow unlimited 1/2-stack add-ons when player's stack size drops beliw 50% of starting stack size. A felted player can buy either one or two add-ons.
• Always consider the SB as a full bet when calculating pot size. An opening max raise is 4x BB. Odd chip amounts are rounded-up for post-flop betting purposes.
• Use a dedicated dealer -- it is their job to know (or count/calculate) the pot size. If no dedicated dealer, then simply do not allow players to announce "pot" when betting -- make them announce actual bet/raise sizes. This will speed up the game considerably, and also probably result in better/more appropriate bet sizing than just betting the maximum every opportunity.

I've never figured out why most players don't actually figure out proper bet sizing in PLO and instead just bet the maximum allowed at every single opportunity. The same players would never move all-in every bet (or even make pot-size bets or raises) in a no-limit game.

And partly because of those reasons, I firmly believe that an Omaha tournament without a dedicated dealer is best run as either Fixed-Limit or No-Limit. Either will result in a more manageable and pleasant tournament experience than if Pot-Limit.

 

[Kid_Eastwood]

My PLO tournament (freezeout) lasts slightly shorter than my NLHE with the same starting stacks and structure. I would say +/- 20% shorter.

 

[timinater]

Following up on this thread...

Thanks the suggestions @Kid_Eastwood @BGinGA @DoubleEagle and @Alex Lundstrum. Ran the event this weekend. At first it was looking dire - only six players confirmed. In the end we had 11 entries and 7 re-entries (a couple un-announced, sigh, but whatever) and used every one of the 52 cards in the deck while 11 handed. Probably not within the rules, but hey.

The game ran well, and only ran into one or two occasions where we needed to count the pot and reduce someone's bet. Counted it a few other times for posterity as well. The game flowed well in general, but it's a pretty competent group. Using a T25 base was a great idea, it kept the pot counting and opens a fair bit simpler.

Interestingly enough, the tournament didn't really play out all that much quicker than a normal Hold'em tournament. Ended at Level 14 below which is pretty close to where I'd expect the hold'em events to be ending as well. All in all the event was well received - except for the buy-in amount. The first four levels played a bit tighter than I'd expected, so the prize pool didn't grow as much. All of the feedback was for a higher buy-in. $20 even with unlimited re-entry ended up being a bit low for our group. Next time (yes!), now that there is more comfort with Omaha we'll perhaps try tinkering with the buy-in amount, but that's about it.

I used the below structure with T15,000 starting stacks/re-entry stack.

Level​	SB​	BB​	BB's in Play​	BB % of Chips​
1​	50​	100​	2700​	0.0%​
2​	100​	200​	1350​	0.1%​
3​	150​	300​	900​	0.1%​
4​	200​	400​	675​	0.1%​
​	BREAK ​	​	​	​
5​	300​	600​	450​	0.2%​
6​	400​	800​	338​	0.3%​
7​	500​	1000​	270​	0.4%​
​	BREAK​	​	​	​
8​	600​	1200​	225​	0.4%​
9​	800​	1600*​	180​	0.6%​
10​	1000​	2000​	135​	0.7%​
​	BREAK​	​	​	​
11​	1500​	3000​	90​	1.1%​
12​	2000​	4000​	68​	1.5%​
13​	3000​	6000​	45​	2.2%​
​	BREAK​	​	​	​
14​	4000​	8000​	34​	3.0%​
15​	6000​	12000​	23​	4.4%​
16​	8000​	16000​	17​	5.9%​

Edit: had the 800/1600 level typo'd at 750/1500. Oops​

 

[Kid_Eastwood]

For PLO events, you shall not have more than 8 players per table. If you have 11 players, I would personnally have split your players on 2 tables. When down to 8 players, merge the tables and re-draw the seats.
Also, the game would have been looser short-handed.

 

[fieldsy]

Interestingly enough, the tournament didn't really play out all that much quicker than a normal Hold'em tournament.

I'm guessing that if your players are relatively inexperienced with PLO, you had a lot of preflop limping and multiway pots on the flop. And if that's the case it doesn't necessarily run as quickly. When 5-6 players see the flop in PLO, there aren't many bluffing opportunities because someone usually has the nuts. Plus you need to have a reasonable amount of preflop raising in order to have stack-to-pot ratios that allow players to get their stacks in. The "coin flip" equivalent in PLO to the preflop pocket-pair-versus-two-overcards in NLH actually happens on the flop, with a big made hand like top set versus a big combo draw. In order to bust people out the pot has to get large enough preflop for players to want to get their money in. Your players will get more experienced over time and start raising better hands. But if you're having a lot of players limp preflop, set the example. Raise to 3x-3.5x preflop. Others will follow.

In the end we had 11 entries and 7 re-entries (a couple un-announced, sigh, but whatever) and used every one of the 52 cards in the deck while 11 handed. Probably not within the rules, but hey.

I agree with @Kid_Eastwood , 11-handed is too big for PLO. It's hard to play much poker at that size. I personally think 6-7 players is ideal in PLO, but even shorter-handed can be fun with 4 cards.

 

[Alex Lundstrum]

In the end we had 11 entries and 7 re-entries (a couple un-announced, sigh, but whatever) and used every one of the 52 cards in the deck while 11 handed. Probably not within the rules, but hey.

Definitely would have gone 8-handed unless you know 100% there will be 9 or 10 people. As a note, if you do go 6-, 8-, or 9-handed, it should be included in the event description.

Your structure is a bit choppy (some levels have a 100% jump while others are a 25% jump). I'd suggest in future:

Level	SB	BB
1	50	100
2	75	150
3	100	200
4	150	300
Break	x 25	Re-buy over, add-on available
5	200	400
6	300	600
7	400	800
8	600	1,200

9	800	1,600
Break	x 100
10	1,000	2,000
11	1,500	3,000
12	2,000	4,000
13	3,000	6,000
14	4,000	8,000
Break	x 500
15	6,000	12,000
16	8,000	16,000

17	10,000	20,000
18	15,000	30,000
19	20,000	40,000

 

[timinater]

For PLO events, you shall not have more than 8 players

Is that an official rule? Couldn't find anything definitive with some googling, and nobody really mentioned it.

I'm guessing that if your players are relatively inexperienced with PLO, you had a lot of preflop limping and multiway pots on the flop.

That certainly could be, though I didn't get the impression there was a passive table dynamic like you describe. I mean players went busto 7x before the end of the 200/400 level with 15K stacks (Equivalent HE structure would usually have 1-3 ko's) I just thought it might be even more action heavy than it was. There's been some wild Omaha cash game hands with the core of this crew.

Definitely would have gone 8-handed unless you know 100% there will be 9 or 10 people. As a note, if you do go 6-, 8-, or 9-handed, it should be included in the event description.

I agree with @Kid_Eastwood , 11-handed is too big for PLO. It's hard to play much poker at that size. I personally think 6-7 players is ideal in PLO, but even shorter-handed can be fun with 4 cards.

I hear ya'll loud an clear re: 11 handed. Wasn't my intention to play 11up. Leading up we had 7 confirmed, day of bumped to 9 confirmed in advance. Good enough. Then a 10th showed up unannounced, and then an 11th also unannounced sometime in level two. Weather was shit so wasn't going to waitlist him or send him home, so we made due. Know'm'sayin'?

Your structure is a bit choppy (some levels have a 100% jump while others are a 25% jump).

That structure looks fine too, and you get to the same place in the higher levels at roughly the same time as I do in mine.

For me though I'd rather have that single 100% increase between levels 1 & 2, than have some larger jumps in the later stages. It's a tradeoff, I realize, though I think it's a worthwhile one. I think sacrificing an early level to allow for a more gradual increase in the late stages is a no brainer.

On the other hand, maybe I don't have a brain.

I prefer:
400/800
500/1000
600/1200
800/1600 (in my post above had a typo, fixed)

Over:

400/800
600/1200
800/1600

Could be just me, I guess. I know plenty around here loathe a 100% increase and avoid it at all costs.

 

[BGinGA]

I know plenty around here loathe a 100% increase and avoid it at all costs.

Count me heavily in that group.

Kid's structure eliminates the needless 100% jump -- it makes no sense to start with large stacks only to slice them in half after just 20 minutes of play; better off doubling the starting stack size and eliminating L1, His structure also has every blind level increasing at the same consistent 33% or 50% increase, except L10 which is needed to transition from the T100 chips (same as yours).

Comparing the two schedules, your scheduled increases range widely from 20% to 100%, vs consistent 33% to 50% increases throughout with a single required 25% jump. Imo, it's a no-brainer decision between the two. The 500/1000 level simply isn't needed in the middle of the event, and the 75/150 level near the start performs a valid function.


Fwiw, I never run PLO with more than 10 players at the table, because (10 x 4)+3+5 = 48, leaving four cards in the deck stub (which should never equal zero). However, I do think that 6-8 players is optimum for decent tournament play.

 

[timinater]

better off doubling the starting stack size and eliminating L1

That sounds like having my cake and eating it too. Stop making so much sense.

The 500/1000 level simply isn't needed in the middle of the event, and the 75/150 level near the start performs a valid function.

Can you expand on the merits of this a little? Intuition leads me to believe a gradual increase later when the rubber meets the road would have a bigger benefit to a skilled player's outcomes than extra time in the early stages, ie: more time when consequences/rewards of decisions have a greater impact on chance of winning; along the lines of ICM. In a ideal scenario we have all the time in the world, but this is a compromise I lean to to fit a tournament into a window of time.

Like I say, that's just a gut feeling. I'm all ears.

 

[BGinGA]

Intuition leads me to believe a gradual increase later when the rubber meets the road would have a bigger benefit to a skilled player's outcomes than extra time in the early stages,

I might tend to agree with this to some extent, if your gradual increases in later levels were consistent and continued for the duration of the tournament after they were introduced. But not the way you have it structured -- it's simply a semi-random couple of rounds where blinds don't increase the same as every other level in the event. Nothing about those two mid-game levels is special, imo, and they shouldn't be treated any differently.

Another way to view it is by adding time into the equation. For example, there is far less of an argument against a 100% increase, if the prior level is played for twice as long -- essentially getting to the same number of average blinds-per-stack in the same time span as if there had been an extra 50% increase level between them. The only way that randomly dropping the increase rate (and subsequently raising it back up again) makes sense is if you also reduce the amount of time spent at those slower levels to compensate.

Lastly, you speak of the benefit to a skilled player -- but there are a lot of individual skill components in a successful tournament player's arsenal. Those include how to optimally play early when stacks are deep, in addition to when conditions change in the mid- and late-game environment, along with short-handed play, and eventually heads-up. A player who can master all of those facets is the true skilled player. Although the saying "you can't win the tournament in the first round, but you can lose it" may be true, it is also true that the early levels -- if played optimally -- can be used to set up for a future run deep into the event.

But less so if they are skipped, and what was once a very healthy deep starting stack is suddenly just a turbo-event sized stack. The point being, you may as well just start out as a turbo event with turbo stacks, since that's what it almost immediately morphs into. The deep-stack allure is mostly a mirage.

 

[timinater]

I might tend to agree with this to some extent, if your gradual increases in later levels were consistent and continued for the duration of the tournament after they were introduced. But not the way you have it structured -- it's simply a semi-random couple of rounds where blinds don't increase the same as every other level in the event. Nothing about those two mid-game levels is special, imo, and they shouldn't be treated any differently.

Another way to view it is by adding time into the equation. For example, there is far less of an argument against a 100% increase, if the prior level is played for twice as long -- essentially getting to the same number of average blinds-per-stack in the same time span as if there had been an extra 50% increase level between them. The only way that randomly dropping the increase rate (and subsequently raising it back up again) makes sense is if you also reduce the amount of time spent at those slower levels to compensate.

Lastly, you speak of the benefit to a skilled player -- but there are a lot of individual skill components in a successful tournament player's arsenal. Those include how to optimally play early when stacks are deep, in addition to when conditions change in the mid- and late-game environment, along with short-handed play, and eventually heads-up. A player who can master all of those facets is the true skilled player. Although the saying "you can't win the tournament in the first round, but you can lose it" may be true, it is also true that the early levels -- if played optimally -- can be used to set up for a future run deep into the event.

But less so if they are skipped, and what was once a very healthy deep starting stack is suddenly just a turbo-event sized stack. The point being, you may as well just start out as a turbo event with turbo stacks, since that's what it almost immediately morphs into. The deep-stack allure is mostly a mirage.

Really good stuff, thanks for taking the time. Gives me some things to think about and tinker with for our next game.

 

[Nine_high]

Very helpful to read!

I'm trying to get my group comfortable with PLO, because I love to play it. So far it is going over like a lead balloon. I suspect they really dislike it because they don't quite understand one or more aspects of the game. Generally we just play cash games but I'm thinking of putting on a low buy in PLO tourney so they can get comfortable without risking a bunch of cash. I intend it to be a learning game.

A few things regarding PLO tournaments vs NLHE based on my experience running such events:

• PLO will typically run about 20%-25% shorter -- a 4 hr NLHE structure used for PLO will generally finish in about 3:15 or less.

Good to know, I was wondering about this.

• Never run a PLO tourney with a T5-base set. Even T25-base can be a challenge; using a T100-base set is best imo.

Check.

• 100BB starting stacks work well. Rather than unlimited full-stack re-buys only when felted, I prefer to allow unlimited 1/2-stack add-ons when player's stack size drops beliw 50% of starting stack size. A felted player can buy either one or two add-ons.

Interesting idea I had never considered. I might try this.

• Always consider the SB as a full bet when calculating pot size. An opening max raise is 4x BB. Odd chip amounts are rounded-up for post-flop betting purposes.

So I thought about this previously during cash play. The pot limit in general is really messing with people. Even my more competent players struggle with it. I know you're supposed to do this, and I of course see why and how this simplifies betting but does it add more confusion because now it's "pot limit plus some round up sometimes"? Curious your experience with newer players.

• Use a dedicated dealer -- it is their job to know (or count/calculate) the pot size.

I have a couple people in mind I might reach out to. I love having a dealer as long as they know what they are doing.

• If no dedicated dealer, then simply do not allow players to announce "pot" when betting -- make them announce actual bet/raise sizes. This will speed up the game considerably, and also probably result in better/more appropriate bet sizing than just betting the maximum every opportunity.

I do this already and it helps for sure.

I've never figured out why most players don't actually figure out proper bet sizing in PLO and instead just bet the maximum allowed at every single opportunity. The same players would never move all-in every bet (or even make pot-size bets or raises) in a no-limit game.

A lot of this early on during cash games but it has settled down.

And partly because of those reasons, I firmly believe that an Omaha tournament without a dedicated dealer is best run as either Fixed-Limit or No-Limit. Either will result in a more manageable and pleasant tournament experience than if Pot-Limit.

I hear this, and might end up here at some point. But part of my goal with this exercise is to get people comfortable playing pot limit in general. So I intend to keep it pot limit. If I end up doing Omaha tournaments for their own sake I can see myself just going NL.

Thanks.

 

[BGinGA]

I'm trying to get my group comfortable with PLO, because I love to play it. So far it is going over like a lead balloon. I suspect they really dislike it because they don't quite understand one or more aspects of the game.

Generally we just play cash games but I'm thinking of putting on a low buy in PLO tourney so they can get comfortable without risking a bunch of cash. I intend it to be a learning game.

The pot limit in general is really messing with people. Even my more competent players struggle with it.

part of my goal with this exercise is to get people comfortable playing pot limit in general. So I intend to keep it pot limit.

When I first started introducing non-Hold'em events to our group (Pineapple, Omaha, O8, and other multiple card/board/pot variants), it was always in a fixed-limit tournament setting. Doing so gives players an opportunity to learn the new game at a slower pace and at a lower cost/risk, and allows more hands to be played as part of that learning process (without getting stacked multiple times in the process).

Once players were comfortable with the new game mechanics, the pot-limit format was introduced... and it was a much easier transition, since they were already familiar with the game being played.

Teach the game, then teach the betting structure. They will develop a better understanding of the game, and lose a lot less money along the way.

 

[Nine_high]

it was always in a fixed-limit tournament setting.

I've never heard of FL in a tournament setting. Is it straightforward in the sense that you just have an increasing FL analogous to a blind schedule?

If I were starting with, say, 50k, what's a good starting FL? 100/200? 300/600?

 

[BGinGA]

I've never heard of FL in a tournament setting. Is it straightforward in the sense that you just have an increasing FL analogous to a blind schedule?

If I were starting with, say, 50k, what's a good starting FL? 100/200? 300/600?

Nearly all stud games are played fixed limit, as well as HORSE (cash or tourney). Limit Hold'em and Limit Omaha (and O8) tournaments, too; all WSOP events.

For Hold'em or Omaha (or O8), a typical/standard NLHE blind structure can also be used for fixed-limit or pot-limit tournaments. Usually FL events will run a couple of levels longer than NL, and PL events will run a couple of levels shorter.

Like NLHE tournaments, pairing stack size with opening blind amounts (and blind level times) depends on how deep you want it to play and how long you want the event to last. For typical home game fixed-limit tournaments lasting about 4 hours, I think 150 big bet stacks work well -- so 75/150 opening blinds (150 & 300 bets) with 50k stacks.

 

[Nine_high]

Nearly all stud games are played fixed limit, as well as HORSE (cash or tourney). Limit Hold'em and Limit Omaha (and O8) tournaments, too; all WSOP events.

For Hold'em or Omaha (or O8), a typical/standard NLHE blind structure can also be used for fixed-limit or pot-limit tournaments. Usually FL events will run a couple of levels longer than NL, and PL events will run a couple of levels shorter.

Like NLHE tournaments, pairing stack size with opening blind amounts (and blind level times) depends on how deep you want it to play and how long you want the event to last. For typical home game fixed-limit tournaments lasting about 4 hours, I think 150 big bet stacks work well -- so 75/150 opening blinds (150 & 300 bets) with 50k stacks.

Thank you for this, very helpful. I've played plenty of FL just never as a tournament.

If I do it, I'll be using a T100 set. I have a large set ordered so plenty of each chip. I'm curious would you recommend flooding the zone with more small denom chips for a single table FL tourney? Like 30/18/18/4 or something like this for 50k and first level 200/400? Or will it play just as well with a typical NL type breakdown?

 

[BGinGA]

Thank you for this, very helpful. I've played plenty of FL just never as a tournament.

If I do it, I'll be using a T100 set. I have a large set ordered so plenty of each chip. I'm curious would you recommend flooding the zone with more small denom chips for a single table FL tourney? Like 30/18/18/4 or something like this for 50k and first level 200/400? Or will it play just as well with a typical NL type breakdown?

Unlike cash FL games, I think a more standard stack construction works better in FL tournaments.