Tourney Opinions on rebuy options (1 Viewer)

[JustinInMN]

The most skilled player should win the most often.

What he shouldn't do is win an overwhelming amount of the time—especially in a tournament group. If that's happening, it'll eventually drive many players from the game. Poker isn't very fun if you never have a real chance at winning. There has to be some balance between the sharks and the fish.

I just think if you are that worried about having vastly inferior pockets, you are probably playing too deep in the first place. If you know you're entering a tournament with no rebuy limits and know players are going in 5-6 buys and you can't, you should just pass on the game.

Limiting rebuys is a way to prevent that dilemma so I agree to that point from a tournament perspective. But if the rules put you at a financial disadvantage, just pass.

 

[arch3r]

We allow full starting stack rebuys for the first 1 1/2 hours. Must be felted to rebuy. And there is some strategy in that. Last hand or two before rebuy period is done, short stacks go all in hoping to double up or bust out and rebuy. Many times, we just fold to them. Let them collect the blinds and keep them short stacked. Then rebuy period is over and they are crippled.

We've considered a rebuy option before you bust out, but you would have to surrender remaining chips. Those chips would be put in the pot for the next hand. That would drive the action on the next hand. Haven't tried it yet, but it could be fun. And it keeps the chip table count easy to calculate.

Currently we allow add-ons directly after the rebuy period as well. So for those who were not able to bust out, they can still add to their stacks. It's all about getting that prize pool larger. But it confuses me that some of my crew will automatically add-on, even if they are the big stack?!?! Their reasoning is, they need to keep their chip advantage from those with smaller stacks who are adding on. But money wise, they are investing an additional $25 to only get ~$15-$16 of it back. We pay 2/3 for first 1/3 for second and $25 for third. They don't see it that way and I stopped trying to explain it to them. I'll just happily play with my single buy-in and out-play them.

 

[SendThatStack]

The most skilled player should win the most often.

What he shouldn't do is win an overwhelming amount of the time—especially in a tournament group. If that's happening, it'll eventually drive many players from the game. Poker isn't very fun if you never have a real chance at winning. There has to be some balance between the sharks and the fish.

I think for that reason I wont do the rebuy at/below start stack. It would give the sharks (me) too much of an advantage. So the debate is between rebuy when felted or rebuy below 50% of stack.

 

[Darson]

The most skilled player should win the most often.

What he shouldn't do is win an overwhelming amount of the time—especially in a tournament group. If that's happening, it'll eventually drive many players from the game. Poker isn't very fun if you never have a real chance at winning. There has to be some balance between the sharks and the fish.

Exactly, he wins every time. The only time he hasn't won is when he can't make the game!

Last game he put $240 (12 buy-ins) into a $540 pot and still won. He's good and I don't begrudge him that but because he knows that he can buy himself back in indefinitely he plays a smart game and goes very loose hoping to catch the nuts early on to double up then bullies from the big stack position. He's a good player and I enjoy playing with him because I feel like I learn a lot and improve my game but some of the regulars are pulling out because they have never come close to the money and are not willing to risk more than a couple buy-ins.

 

[DoubleEagle]

Exactly, he wins every time. The only time he hasn't won is when he can't make the game!

Last game he put $240 (12 buy-ins) into a $540 pot and still won. He's good and I don't begrudge him that but because he knows that he can buy himself back in indefinitely he plays a smart game and goes very loose hoping to catch the nuts early on to double up then bullies from the big stack position. He's a good player and I enjoy playing with him because I feel like I learn a lot and improve my game but some of the regulars are pulling out because they have never come close to the money and are not willing to risk more than a couple buy-ins.

Then just play a freeze out to even things up. Problem solved if no one can re-buy. I prefer this kind of tournament anyway.

 

[SendThatStack]

Exactly, he wins every time. The only time he hasn't won is when he can't make the game!

Last game he put $240 (12 buy-ins) into a $540 pot and still won. He's good and I don't begrudge him that but because he knows that he can buy himself back in indefinitely he plays a smart game and goes very loose hoping to catch the nuts early on to double up then bullies from the big stack position. He's a good player and I enjoy playing with him because I feel like I learn a lot and improve my game but some of the regulars are pulling out because they have never come close to the money and are not willing to risk more than a couple buy-ins.

How many BB does a rebuy get in the last level of rebuy?

 

[Darson]

How many BB does a rebuy get in the last level of rebuy?

The last game, we didn't freeze out and allowed double rebuys after a while (double buy-in, double stack). So he felted several times and bought back in every time. Now I shouldn't be complaining too much because most of the time, I knew he was bullying and called his bluffs so I came second after having only committed one buy-in as he helped me build a big stack. BUT while it's nice to come second and cash also, I also want to keep my players who haven't even had a sniff of cash in all the games we've played.

 

[SendThatStack]

Single rebuys when felted should help the fish have a chance. Maybe speed up the structure too.

 

[JustinInMN]

Last game he put $240 (12 buy-ins) into a $540 pot and still won. He's good and I don't begrudge him that but because he knows that he can buy himself back in indefinitely he plays a smart game and goes very loose hoping to catch the nuts early on to double up then bullies from the big stack position. He's a good player and I enjoy playing with him because I feel like I learn a lot and improve my game but some of the regulars are pulling out because they have never come close to the money and are not willing to risk more than a couple buy-ins.

Okay I get it that's pretty extreme. Would this player stop coming if you had a rebuy limit? Even if the answer is yes, I would still consider putting in a limit anyway.

Also do you have a defined cutoff when the tournament becomes a freezout?

 

[Jonesey07]

My tourneys run like this:

$20 buy in gets you 10k in chips, 1k bonus for on time. $5 goes into a side pot (last month was best losing hand)

Unlimited rebuys for the first two hours, $20 for 10k. At the 2 hour mark, you can surrender your stack and get a fresh 10k for $20, as well as add-on, $20 for 10k additional chips. The add on is available to all, not just those who surrender stacks.

 

[Darson]

Okay I get it that's pretty extreme. Would this player stop coming if you had a rebuy limit? Even if the answer is yes, I would still consider putting in a limit anyway.

Also do you have a defined cutoff when the tournament becomes a freezout?

This is small beans to him, back in the online days he used to play the $20/$40 tables so this is way below the stakes he's used to playing. He enjoys the banter and drinking so he's still come though.

We don't have a freeze-out cut-off but it comes naturally when even two starting stacks doesn't get you more than a few BB. The way our blinds progress and staring with 100BB, after 2 hours a starting stack is ~10BB and after 4 hours it's ~1BB. After 2 hours is when we allowed the double buy-in.

Edit: Bear in mind, we only played this double buy-in thing once. I'm not sure if it's something we'll keep. I had a chat with one of the guys last week and we've agreed to limit re-buys to 2 per player. That's what we're playing tonight so we'll see how it goes!

 

[Jimulacrum]

Exactly, he wins every time. The only time he hasn't won is when he can't make the game!

Last game he put $240 (12 buy-ins) into a $540 pot and still won. He's good and I don't begrudge him that but because he knows that he can buy himself back in indefinitely he plays a smart game and goes very loose hoping to catch the nuts early on to double up then bullies from the big stack position. He's a good player and I enjoy playing with him because I feel like I learn a lot and improve my game but some of the regulars are pulling out because they have never come close to the money and are not willing to risk more than a couple buy-ins.

That's kinda crazy. As good as this guy might be, and as impressive as it is to win every time he plays, it's crazy that he can contribute up or down of 40% of the prize pool with any regularity and still be profitable long-term.

Anyway, it is a real problem that you have regulars who are pulling out of the game because of this. I probably say this in every "Help! My game is losing players!" thread, but the fact that you're playing NLHE isn't doing you any favors. What John McRebuy is doing is a good example of my point: With a big enough skill gap, it's possible for a high-skill player to consistently crush a weak field.

Based on this guy's results, unless you're exaggerating or this is just from a handful of games, he's so much better than your other players that they're almost never going to beat him. It happens, but you should adjust your game to try to mitigate the damage before you find yourself at an empty table.

For one, if you make the payouts flatter, it will take away the incentive to rebuy so much because it will make it much harder or impossible to make the money back. Consider, if 1st place were ~40% of the prize pool (say, $200 or $220), he wouldn't have been able to make money on his $240 night. More importantly, it would spread the money around a little more each game, regardless of this player or the number of rebuys.

Second, I don't know what your structure is like, but faster and more gambley structures will benefit the weaker players by giving them some semblance of a chance to win by luck. With how badly this guy is wrecking everyone, you should consider changes that will cut back on the skill factor.

And of course, limiting the number of rebuys—maybe just one or two—would prevent him from using the strategy he's using. But that doesn't mean he won't keep crushing the game, of course. I don't think the rebuy structure is the main problem here, but with that said, it's not good to have a rebuy structure (or any rule) that only one player really takes advantage of, while everyone else only rebuys once or twice. Sometimes the rules have to adapt to the culture of the game.

 

[Darson]

Based on this guy's results, unless you're exaggerating or this is just from a handful of games, he's so much better than your other players that they're almost never going to beat him.

He's played the main event a few times and was planning to play this year but his daughter arrived early. Given that we're just recreational players, he's significantly better than us. He's no Doyle but compared to us, he may as well be.

The only time I've beaten him is in no rebuy games. Hence I think the only way to reel him in is to limit rebuys. He'll still win, just not all the time.

 

[SendThatStack]

My tourneys run like this:

$20 buy in gets you 10k in chips, 1k bonus for on time. $5 goes into a side pot (last month was best losing hand)

Unlimited rebuys for the first two hours, $20 for 10k. At the 2 hour mark, you can surrender your stack and get a fresh 10k for $20, as well as add-on, $20 for 10k additional chips. The add on is available to all, not just those who surrender stacks.

Surrendering any chips in order to get just a starting stack 2 hours in sounds really -ev. What’s the problem with letting people under the start stack do a full rebuy on top of their existing stack? They will still be shortstacked anyways.

 

[arch3r]

Surrendering any chips in order to get just a starting stack 2 hours in sounds really -ev. What’s the problem with letting people under the start stack do a full rebuy on top of their existing stack? They will still be shortstacked anyways.

The question is, where do you cut it off then? If they have just 25 less than a starting stack, can they still rebuy? How about just 25 over starting? Now we're talking add-on, not rebuy. It's a slippery slope.

 

[JustinInMN]

Surrendering any chips in order to get just a starting stack 2 hours in sounds really -ev

If you are allowing some form of add on for existing stacks it's not a problem. But if you are only allowing rebuys to felt players then I think it's a problem that some people cam get larger than a starting stack with a rebuy when no else has the option to add on.

 

[DoubleEagle]

What’s the problem with letting people under the start stack do a full rebuy on top of their existing stack?

That would be an add-on, not a re-buy.

 

[SendThatStack]

The question is, where do you cut it off then? If they have just 25 less than a starting stack, can they still rebuy? How about just 25 over starting? Now we're talking add-on, not rebuy. It's a slippery slope.

My issue is with having to forfeit chips.

That would be an add-on, not a re-buy.

Semantics...

 

[BGinGA]

My issue is with having to forfeit chips.

You say that like it's some type of 'bad' thing.... it's not.

If, for example, you have endured a bad beat and are down to just 1500 chips from your original 10k stack in the final few minutes of the re-buy period, in a game which has seen a fair number of rebuys so far (say avg stack of 15k).

Without surrender rules, your only real options are to try and rebuild your stack (starting with 10% of an avg stack, good luck with that), or shove and hope to lose so you can re-buy and get enough chips to be somewhat of a threat (while simulaneously hoping that you don't actually win somehow with 72o and be forced to play with just 3k, or worse, everybody folds and you still have under 2k when the the re-buy period ends).

A surrender option ~guarantees~ that you can re-buy, no matter what craziness ensues, and totally eliminates the silly shove-to-lose mentality that randomly benefits just one player (and not you).

Surrender is not a requirement, it's just another re-buy option when extremely short-stacked, which can only work to your advantage and never your detriment.

 

[SendThatStack]

You say that like it's some type of 'bad' thing.... it's not.

If, for example, you have endured a bad beat and are down to just 1500 chips from your original 10k stack in the final few minutes of the re-buy period, in a game which has seen a fair number of rebuys so far (say avg stack of 15k).

Without surrender rules, your only real options are to try and rebuild your stack (starting with 10% of an avg stack, good luck with that), or shove and hope to lose so you can re-buy and get enough chips to be somewhat of a threat (while simulaneously hoping that you don't actually win somehow with 72o and be forced to play with just 3k, or worse, everybody folds and you still have under 2k when the the re-buy period ends).

A surrender option ~guarantees~ that you can re-buy, no matter what craziness ensues, and totally eliminates the silly shove-to-lose mentality that randomly benefits just one player (and not you).

Surrender is not a requirement, it's just another re-buy option when extremely short-stacked, which can only work to your advantage and never your detriment.

Why not allow a "rebuy" of 10k chips on top of the 1500?

 

[Jonesey07]

Surrendering any chips in order to get just a starting stack 2 hours in sounds really -ev. What’s the problem with letting people under the start stack do a full rebuy on top of their existing stack? They will still be shortstacked anyways.

It is -ev which is why you don’t want to put yourself in that position. You can always add on and not it your stack but you have the option to do both.

 

[BGinGA]

Why not allow a "rebuy" of 10k chips on top of the 1500?

Because as stated earlier, that's not a re-buy, it's an add-on. Players should not be allowed to purchase chips that results in a stack larger than the starting stack.

By allowing a player with 1500 chips to add on 10,000 chips, you must also allow players with 9,975 chips to add on 10,000 more chips. Anything else is unfair.

One viable option is to offer 1/2-stack re-buys/add-ons at half-price, with the stipulation that the player may not have more than 1/2-stack remaining at time of purchase. It's fair, it works, but it takes a lot more effort to track and implement. A player with 5,000 chips or less can add-on 5,000 chips, or a player who is felted can re-buy/add-on twice for 10,000 total chips. But nobody is ever able to create a stack larger than the original starting stack.

 

[SendThatStack]

Players should not be allowed to purchase chips that results in a stack larger than the starting stack

Says who?

By allowing a player with 1500 chips to add on 10,000 chips, you must also allow players with 9,975 chips to add on 10,000 more chips. Anything else is unfair.

So do either/or. Full rebuy below x or only rebuy when felted. Having an option to have people surrender doesn’t make sense to me, massively -ev move, I don’t see any way to say it’s never detrimental to surrender chips.

 

[BGinGA]

Having an option to have people surrender doesn’t make sense to me, massively -ev move, I don’t see any way to say it’s never detrimental to surrender chips.

Then you didn't read and/or understand post #49.

 

[SendThatStack]

Then you didn't read and/or understand post #49.

You made the claim it can never be detrimental to surrender chips. I disagree and I don’t think you can back up your claim with any math or evidence.

 

[BGinGA]

Players should not be allowed to purchase chips that results in a stack larger than the starting stack.

Says who?

Rather than ask that, the better question is "Why is that true?"


There are two basic premises being discussed. One is why full-stack add-ons (even with limitations) should not be allowed that result in larger stacks than the starting size, and the second is the value added by offering surrender options for re-buys.


The first is easy to prove. Take the example where Player A loses close to half his stack on the first hand, and wants to add on a full stack. Unless ALL players are allowed to add on full stacks (regardless of current stack size), this is patently unfair, regardless of Player A's current stack size. The rule benefits Player A at the expense of almost all of other players, who still have a starting stack. There is no justification for Player A being able to purchase the chip lead, without ~all~ players having that same option available to them. Even if the limitation to full-stack add-ons is lower (10%, 20%, whatever), the same logic applies -- no player should be able to purchase chips that propel them past others, if those others do not have the same purchase option to maintain the status quo.

The second is also easy to prove. A player who is extremely short-stacked with no surrender option is forced to either dump chips in order to re-buy, or is forced to play with an ineffective stack. The surrender option allows him to regain a full stack, and do so without simultaneously adding chips to the stacks of others (by dumping), which actually gives his new stack more value than if he dumped. That in itself makes it +ev when compared to a non-surrender scenario. Somebody with a lot of chips isn't going to surrender,because it doesn't make financial sense (same as dumping a large number of chips doesn't make sense just to be able to re-buy). Nobody is ever forced to make a decision that is to their detriment.

 

[BGinGA]

You made the claim it can never be detrimental to surrender chips.

And that's not the claim I made, btw -- that's merely how you interpreted it. What I actually said was:

Surrender is not a requirement, it's just another re-buy option when extremely short-stacked, which can only work to your advantage and never your detriment.

Voluntarily surrendering chips as a re-buy option can only work to your advantage, because if it's not, you won't (or shouldn't) do it. That's a lot different than the summary you incorrectly attributed to me.

 

[SendThatStack]

The first is easy to prove. Take the example where Player A loses close to half his stack on the first hand, and wants to add on a full stack. Unless ALL players are allowed to add on full stacks (regardless of current stack size), this is patently unfair, regardless of Player A's current stack size. The rule benefits Player A at the expense of almost all of other players, who still have a starting stack. There is no justification for Player A being able to purchase the chip lead, without ~all~ players having that same option available to them.

Not unfair at all if all players can rebuy at it below starting stack. Your argument is invalid. Are you saying that pokerstars and ftp have always had unfair rebuy mtts?

The second is also easy to prove. A player who is extremely short-stacked with no surrender option is forced to either dump chips in order to re-buy, or is forced to play with an ineffective stack. The surrender option allows him to regain a full stack, and do so without simultaneously adding chips to the stacks of others (by dumping), which actually gives his new stack more value than if he dumped. That in itself makes it +ev when compared to a non-surrender scenario. Somebody with a lot of chips isn't going to surrender,because it doesn't make financial sense (same as dumping a large number of chips doesn't make sense just to be able to re-buy). Nobody is ever forced to make a decision that is to their detriment.

Nothing you stated proves whether or not it’s +ev to surrender a stack in order to get a more “playable” stack. You haven’t proved that it’s +ev to massively overpay for a starting stack while also losing out on the chance to get lucky with the short stack. When the “ineffective” stack shoves it’s not going to lose the pot 100% of the time.

 

[longflop]

When the “ineffective” stack shoves it’s not going to lose the pot 100% of the time.

Right, but if you were down to say 1,500 chips, you would have to double up three straight times to get back above water. That's..... not too likely.

 

[Mojo1312]

Who is on first?