Tourney Preferred starting bbs? (1 Viewer)

[Legend5555]

Assuming non-doubling levels, no rebuys, that you have antes, and that buy-in amount does not affect things, what is your preferred number of big blinds your starting stack should have in a home game NLHE tournaments?

I personally like sticking to 100 as I think 200+ is just wasting time. Make those pots matter from the get go. Of course I generally like to play cash, so taking too long in any low buyin small field tourney feels awful to me.

 

[BGinGA]

Prefer 200 to 300, with generally 150bb as a bare minimum. Otherwise it's a turbo.

 

[Legend5555]

Prefer 200 to 300, with generally 150bb as a bare minimum. Otherwise it's a turbo.

I think level speed has way more impact on the turbo nature of a tourney than starting bbs. I'm reminded of a casino daily with 20min levels that had starting bbs of 400. Until we got to 50-100bbs average those pots hardly seemed to matter except that certain players could now stack you, but even then it would cripple them if they lost. By the money though, the avg was only like 17bbs.

I think the slow structures of WPT, EPT, and WSOP events have warped the thinking on structures, especially for low buy in home tournaments with less than 30 people. I feel like having a structure that maintains an avg stack of 30-40bb is ideal. I don't mind having some play early, but at 200+bb, those levels just don't mean anything. Just play cash if you want that kind of play IMO.

I'm not trying to be contrarian for no reason, I think it's an interesting topic. And I'd never really turn down a tourney that started that deep, but I would have to consider if being on time at that point was worth it if I'm not there primarily to see friends.

 

[AnteAndy]

I like 100BB, no more than 1200BB. I can only devote so much time to play tournaments before it gets late, I'm tired, and I have either work or family time the next day. So I guess I'm in the turbo crowd.

Plus I much prefer cash games over tourneys.

 

[TheBigTater]

Prefer cash to tourneys myself but if I'm going to play a tourney then I'd prefer 200bb (or deeper), 100bb just leads to a shovefest which is pretty much a waste of time.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I like all sorts of blind structures. One the docket this year are...

• 500 BB - Ladies Night event. After the first hour the "real" play begins (100 BB), but new players can limp a lot in that first hour with minimal damage to their chip stacks.
• 500 BB - 50%, 68% and 100% increases throughout the tourney.
• 320 BB - 2 100% increases and one 50% increase, before settling in to a series of 20%-33% levels.
• 202 BB - A bonus chip in the starting stack for the Hall of Fame event , otherwise it's the same as the 200 BB directly below...
• 200 BB - a single 100% and a 50% increase on the get-go. My favorite "standard" structure.
• 200 BB - Used the tournament structure from Bally's Las Vegas. It's erratic with 100% increases and 25% increases, but if you ignore the math, the increases are really easy to understand and anticipate.
• 200 BB - using a BB ante.
• 74 BB - The "Survivor" tournament. Lots of short stacks, but an add-on is allowed if you survive 2 hours.

All games are scheduled to run 4.5 hours.

I also have a couple of structures that start at 100 BB. One is for meet-ups with more serious players (slow progression, 6 hours) and the other is for plane trips (heads-up or 3 player tournaments).

In the end, I think it behooves a NLHE player to be able to adapt to multiple styles of poker brought on by various blind structures. If I had the ability to run longer tournaments, I would do even more, so I work within the constraints I have.

 

[BGinGA]

I think level speed has way more impact on the turbo nature of a tourney than starting bbs.

I totally disagree. To view the relative impact of each, it is often enlightening to view each argument at the extremes.

Which tournament structure is better, assuming that the blinds increase at the same rate for each?

• 300 BB with 2-minute blind levels
• 10 BB with 60-minute blind levels

Viewed this way, it's pretty clear to most people that level speed is less important than stack size relative to the starting blinds. The first tournament is still playable, the second is clearly not.


The best tournament structures are a balanced combination of blind level times, blind increase percentages, and # of starting blinds. Going too big or too small on any of the three can diminish the experience.

 

[Legend5555]

I totally disagree. To view the relative impact of each, it is often enlightening to view each argument at the extremes.

Which tournament structure is better, assuming that the blinds increase at the same rate for each?

• 300 BB with 2-minute blind levels
• 10 BB with 60-minute blind levels

Viewed this way, it's pretty clear to most people that level speed is less important than stack size relative to the starting blinds. The first tournament is still playable, the second is clearly not.


The best tournament structures are a balanced combination of blind level times, blind increase percentages, and # of starting blinds. Going too big or too small on any of the three can diminish the experience.

And 100 is too little? My point is that you aren't going to spend very long at 200bbs. Even at best, you'll typically only play 3 levels before the blinds double. And the vast majority of tournament poker is played on avg stacks under 50bb (and often under 40) except in the slowest of events. I just think if there isn't a real risk of a pot potentially eliminating you because the stacks are so deep, then what's the point?

I think such extreme starting stacks are just so people can feel like they got their money's worth, not because it actually makes for better tournament poker.

What about starting people with 100bb but having the first or first couple levels be longer? Then you retain some slowness, but aren't playing pots that don't matter that much.

 

[pltrgyst]

....I think such extreme starting stacks are just so people can feel like they got their money's worth, not because it actually makes for better tournament poker.

What about starting people with 100bb but having the first or first couple levels be longer? Then you retain some slowness, but aren't playing pots that don't matter that much.

Agreed.

 

[Legend5555]

I totally disagree. To view the relative impact of each, it is often enlightening to view each argument at the extremes.

Which tournament structure is better, assuming that the blinds increase at the same rate for each?

• 300 BB with 2-minute blind levels
• 10 BB with 60-minute blind levels

Viewed this way, it's pretty clear to most people that level speed is less important than stack size relative to the starting blinds. The first tournament is still playable, the second is clearly not.


The best tournament structures are a balanced combination of blind level times, blind increase percentages, and # of starting blinds. Going too big or too small on any of the three can diminish the experience.

Starting with 10 big blinds and 60 minute levels, that tournament is a much truer test of skill than the one that starts off deeper with two minute levels. Both suffer in that neither of them has a well distributed amount of play. The first example quickly devolves into a situation where there is no play. the second example starts with very little play but quickly ramps into a situation where people have a lot of play. So if anything the second structure is actually better than the first. But it incentivizes a different type of play at the beginning.

I think the goal of a tournament structure should produce a well distributed amount of play throughout the entire tournament. I take no issue with the early levels being a little less impactful. But to start so deep that I don't even need to be there for the first couple levels seems bad.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I just think if there isn't a real risk of a pot potentially eliminating you because the stacks are so deep, then what's the point?

You have completely missed the reason I (and I suspect, most people) play poker.

Poker is fun.

If you run a significant risk of being eliminated right from the start, there is no time to drink, socialize, and just have fun. Sure, the blinds go up, and eventually you need to get serious. Eventually. In the meantime, lighten up and have some fun.

to start so deep that I don't even need to be there for the first couple levels seems bad.

Step 1: You have to be there to have fun.

 

[Legend5555]

You have completely missed the reason I (and I suspect, most people) play poker.

Poker is fun.

If you run a significant risk of being eliminated right from the start, there is no time to drink, socialize, and just have fun. Sure, the blinds go up, and eventually you need to get serious. Eventually. In the meantime, lighten up and have some fun.


Step 1: You have to be there to have fun.

And if that's what the point is for those players then good, by all means make the tournament take longer. But the point of the gathering then isn't really the poker. Poker is just a means to a different end. But if the point is to actually play meaningful tournament poker, super deep starting stacks is not the way to go IMO. If that's what you want, then you should just be playing cash games, no? You can play deep there for as long as you like assuming you can take any potential losses.

I get that there is an large element of personal taste at play here. But playing super deep in tournaments doesn't mean that much since the value of chips changes over time. Chip stack fluctuation relative to the blinds early doesn't mean as much as chip stack fluctuation relative to the blinds later in a tourney. I personally don't think that having deep starting stacks relative to the blinds accomplishes anything except make the tournament take longer.

 

[Poker Zombie]

super deep starting stacks is not the way to go IMO. If that's what you want, then you should just be playing cash games, no?

The problem with cash vs tournaments is that in cash games the value of the chips varies by the player.

If I can stomach $50 in losses, I can play far looser that the guy that can only afford $20 in losses. The player that has $1000 to burn isn't going to be phased by my all-in. He's perpetually deep-stacked to my short-stack.

A tournament equalizes all bankrolls.

But this thread isn't about which is better, tournament or cash.

playing super deep in tournaments doesn't mean that much

Again, completely disagree. At 500 BB, players still have fun. Fun means a lot, but there is more than that to it. The game gets a little more "swingy" as a 4x bet isn't pushing anyone away, so later on the 4x bet "feels" normal. Poker is a very psychological game, and you set the tone early in the tournament. Levels of laughter, bet sizing, table talk. This is all formed because the first hour people were getting loose, without their life being on the line.

Compare that to BG's "10 BB for an hour scenario". Nobody is going to talk or laugh. They are going to make a move and, if they lose decry "poker is stupid". It would be, if you never feel free to go prospecting with small pairs, or make a hero call without crippling your chances to win. A very boring, mathematical way to approach the game.

Also, even with big stacks, a significant advantage can be built for the mid-game.

 

[Legend5555]

The problem with cash vs tournaments is that in cash games the value of the chips varies by the player.

If I can stomach $50 in losses, I can play far looser that the guy that can only afford $20 in losses. The player that has $1000 to burn isn't going to be phased by my all-in. He's perpetually deep-stacked to my short-stack.

A tournament equalizes all bankrolls.

But this thread isn't about which is better, tournament or cash.

Again, completely disagree. At 500 BB, players still have fun. Fun means a lot, but there is more than that to it. The game gets a little more "swingy" as a 4x bet isn't pushing anyone away, so later on the 4x bet "feels" normal. Poker is a very psychological game, and you set the tone early in the tournament. Levels of laughter, bet sizing, table talk. This is all formed because the first hour people were getting loose, without their life being on the line.

Compare that to BG's "10 BB for an hour scenario". Nobody is going to talk or laugh. They are going to make a move and, if they lose decry "poker is stupid". It would be, if you never feel free to go prospecting with small pairs, or make a hero call without crippling your chances to win. A very boring, mathematical way to approach the game.

Also, even with big stacks, a significant advantage can be built for the mid-game.

I feel like you completely missed where I said if people's primary reason for being there is to have fun, then they can do whatever. My point is that from an abstract perspective, looking only at the playing of the poker, these early super deep levels don't mean much. My primary reason for playing poker, especially with people I don't really know that well yet, is to play good poker and try to make money; my time is valuable. Table talk and the socializing, while not at all meaningless to me, is secondary.

So to reiterate:

Primary goal is fun - do whatever.
Primary goal is good poker - super deep stacks are pointless and just make things take longer.

 

[BGinGA]

So to reiterate:

Primary goal is fun - do whatever.
Primary goal is good poker - super deep stacks are pointless and just make things take longer.

And to reiterate:

I disagree. Anybody who thinks deep starting stacks are 'pointless' probably doesn't know how to optimally play with deep starting stacks. It really has nothing to do with the 'fun' aspect vs short stack events, imo (although Zombie makes good corollary points). There is a point of diminishing returns regarding size, of course, but 200-300BB is not the snooze-fest that a 1000BB event can initially be.

Don't get me wrong; short-stack events certainly have their place, and require a completely different strategic approach initially. I personally find deep stack events more challenging and enjoyable, because they incorporate both deep stack strategy and short stack strategy.

 

[BGinGA]

100 is too little? My point is that you aren't going to spend very long at 200bbs. Even at best, you'll typically only play 3 levels before the blinds double.

The flip side of that coin is that with 100BB, you'll typically only play 3 levels before you're in shove mode. That puts a premium on luck vs skill.

 

[Legend5555]

And to reiterate:

I disagree. Anybody who thinks deep starting stacks are 'pointless' probably doesn't know how to optimally play with deep starting stacks. It really has nothing to do with the 'fun' aspect vs short stack events, imo (although Zombie makes good corollary points). There is a point of diminishing returns regarding size, of course, but 200-300BB is not the snooze-fest that a 1000BB event can initially be.

Don't get me wrong; short-stack events certainly have their place, and require a completely different strategic approach initially. I personally find deep stack events more challenging and enjoyable, because they incorporate both deep stack strategy and short stack strategy.

How long are the blind levels though? I feel like under 45 min levels is not enough time to really capitalize on playing super deep. In typical 20-30 min levels, starting super deep doesn't accomplish a whole lot.

 

[Legend5555]

The flip side of that coin is that with 100BB, you'll typically only play 3 levels before you're in shove mode. That puts a premium on luck vs skill.

What kind of blind jumps are you doing? 3 jumps should put the avg stack in the 35-50bb range. That's hardly a shove fest. That's bread and butter tournament poker and where most of the tournament takes place. Plus I disagree in that playing short is more luck. There is still a lot of skill involved.

 

[DoubleEagle]

We start with 200 BB and levels are all 20 min. It is a nice balance for a game we want to end in about 4 1/2 hours.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I see the perfect tournament to be an act in 3 parts:

• Act 1: Early game (avg stack 50+ BB). This is where you get to know the characters. Stacks are deep... enough rope to hang oneself as it were. The main characters build stacks here, and take a 25-50% advantage into act 2. The secondary characters are down 20-30%. They took shots, and you note who they are. They still have enough to wreak havoc. Tertiary characters maintain starting stack. Barring big swings that just happened to land them at even(ish), we can identify these characters as the nits. Not likely to ascend to the throne in act 3, but with enough power to mincash. Stronger players will use these players as pawns.
• Act 2: Mid-game (avg stack 50-20 BB). This is where the twists and turns occur. Your favorite character may be crippled or killed, or they may turn their advantage from act 1 into a huge advantage. Big stacks here can tighten up and min-cash, or they can get greedy and try to take it all. Greed makes the better story . It is likely a secondary or tertiary character has risen from the ashes of act 1 to prove to be a greater threat than anyone expected - the downtrodden has picked up an army. Now there are a couple of big armies ready to clash in act 3, but there are plenty of players that are willing to turn things in their favor.
• Act 3: Late Game (avg stack <20 BB). Short stacks are in shove mode. Big stacks can play the odds and try to absorb their chips, but risk losing their advantage if they bully too much. Some will get paid, many wont. Only one will take the crown.

You can cut the first act if you really want. Pros do it all the time at the WSOP by late registering. You can also skip the first 15 minutes of nearly any movie (it's in the screenwriters handbook) and not miss anything. But the truth is, there is substance in that first act. It's up to you to decide how long you want that first act to be. I have a lot of recreational players, and I want them to get at least 2 hours of fun for their 1 hour trip to my house. If you are inviting friends over just to take their money you can skip the first act. Since the OP stated...

what is your preferred number of big blinds your starting stack should have in a home game

...we can infer you are playing with friends, and not just taking money from strangers. In this case a longer 1st act is essential, or I would not play there a second time.

 

[Legend5555]

I feel like I'm trying to cut Act 0 where avg stack is above 100bb. My general structure is 100bb or 150bb starting stacks and 2 staring levels of 100/200, one w/o ante, then one with. Then up to 200/300, 200/400, etc. No 500/1000 or 5k/10k levels.

 

[sem0030]

I think both parties are coming at this with entirely different mindsets. Meaningful poker only being satges where you can lose your stack just doesn't sit well with me.

 

[v1pe]

My preference is deep stacked cash games, so that's where my perspective is. 200+ bb preferred.

Totally disagree that deep stacks don't equate with "good poker". 10-20 blind poker is 98% solved via Nash Equilibrium and push/fold charts. Not much skill involved there IMO. The ideal tournament IMO will always have an average chip stack of at least 100bb. I understand that means lengthy tournaments in most cases so for home games it makes sense to have shorter stacks towards the end and larger stacks at the beginning.

I guess if you are saying you know your player base well enough that you have built a structure that will maintain a 100bb average stack per remaining player throughout the event... Well I'd be okay with that. I just don't think that's very possible given the normal tourney dynamics and that's why I start my games at 200-250bb.

 

[Legend5555]

My preference is deep stacked cash games, so that's where my perspective is. 200+ bb preferred.

Totally disagree that deep stacks don't equate with "good poker". 10-20 blind poker is 98% solved via Nash Equilibrium and push/fold charts. Not much skill involved there IMO. The ideal tournament IMO will always have an average chip stack of at least 100bb. I understand that means lengthy tournaments in most cases so for home games it makes sense to have shorter stacks towards the end and larger stacks at the beginning.

I guess if you are saying you know your player base well enough that you have built a structure that will maintain a 100bb average stack per remaining player throughout the event... Well I'd be okay with that. I just don't think that's very possible given the normal tourney dynamics and that's why I start my games at 200-250bb.

Whoa, hold up, I never said 200+bb wasn't good poker. I'm primarily a cash game player after all. Given the general standard of 20-30 minute levels, I just think the amount of actual play during those early levels doesn't amount to much meaningful impact on stacks. Your early decisions aren't as important as ones later in the tournament. I'm just interested in flattening out that decision curve.

There is no perfect solution as blinds will always start to engulf avg stack sizes as some point. It's not that I don't like playing deep, but for smaller tournaments with realtively fast levels, playing deep at the beginning doesn't impact things all that much IMO. So if my primary interest is ROI and time spent, these early super deep levels are just a waste of time.

Again I'm totally open to the argument of keeping it deep when playing with friends or if the goal is just to have fun. But when the primary goal is the $$$, I'm generally not looking to waste time.

 

[Anthony Martino]

The deeper stacked the better, you can take advantage of players who overvalue medium-strength hands in spots for a TON of their chips.

 

[Mr Winberg]

what is your preferred number of big blinds your starting stack should have in a home game NLHE tournaments?

Again I'm totally open to the argument of keeping it deep when playing with friends or if the goal is just to have fun. But when the primary goal is the $$$, I'm generally not looking to waste time.

I think most people play home games with the goal to have fun. For me, the bragging rights are more important than the money. It seems as if your goal is primarily the money, which is fine, just don't let your degenerates find out or they might stop coming/inviting you.

But even for the purpose of making money, I don't think it is pointless to play 200BB deep. As @Anthony Martino wrote, you can really take advantage of some people.

I like mixing up my tournaments, I've tried shortening the deep part with the purpose of spending more time in the mid/end game and thereby, through an increased rate of eliminations, increase the average stack (and thereby the "amount of play") in the end game without lengthening the tournament. It's hard to draw a conclusion from my small sample set whether or not this succeeded, but one thing that was clear was the the players really missed the deep levels. Even if I would cut the BBs in half on the second level with a raise from 25/50 to 50/100, they would still be happy because they got a level of deep poker.

I would personally prefer a structure starting around 100-150 BBs, but I tend to start around 200 for the sake of my players.

That said, I'm thinking about having a super-duper deepstack tourney next time around!

 

[Poker Zombie]

I'm primarily a cash game player after all.

This may be our divide. I rarely chime in on threads discussing cash games, because I am primarily a tournament player. I have honed my structures over the years to achieve what I believe to be the best possible structures for Home game, 4-5 hour, single rebuy, 2-3 table tournaments.

There are others (BGinGA for example) that have me crushed in Home Game experience, so I rarely counter his points on the topic - they are coming from years of experience as well.

A cash game player will have a very different opinion of what makes the best tournament - because they are looking for something very different in their game. In a cash game every hand is money. It's played, then it's over.

In a tournament, every hand is a part of something bigger. It's a broader picture, and every hand is just a brush-stroke. The stroke at the end game may mean more than the first layers of paint, but every stroke means something.

If you want the best tournament experience, ask the players that play (and host) a lot of different tournaments. If those people also have extensive knowledge in game theory, so much the better.

 

[Legend5555]

I don't think there is a right answer. That's why it's an interesting topic to discuss.

 

[v1pe]

Whoa, hold up, I never said 200+bb wasn't good poker. I'm primarily a cash game player after all. Given the general standard of 20-30 minute levels, I just think the amount of actual play during those early levels doesn't amount to much meaningful impact on stacks. Your early decisions aren't as important as ones later in the tournament. I'm just interested in flattening out that decision curve.

There is no perfect solution as blinds will always start to engulf avg stack sizes as some point. It's not that I don't like playing deep, but for smaller tournaments with realtively fast levels, playing deep at the beginning doesn't impact things all that much IMO. So if my primary interest is ROI and time spent, these early super deep levels are just a waste of time.

Again I'm totally open to the argument of keeping it deep when playing with friends or if the goal is just to have fun. But when the primary goal is the $$$, I'm generally not looking to waste time.

Maybe I took it out of context, but this was your comment I was referring to:

Primary goal is fun - do whatever.
Primary goal is good poker - super deep stacks are pointless and just make things take longer.

I don't think there is a right answer. That's why it's an interesting topic to discuss.

I definitely agree with this.

I think another part of the equation is also the people you are playing with. I know at my home game, once I get less than ~40 blinds it becomes near impossible to bluff. Many of my friends are just very unlikely to find a fold if they have a piece even when my range has theirs crushed. Couple that with the number of limp/calls that bloat the post flop SPR. That means that after the first few levels of the tournament when blinds really start to get impactful I really have to tighten up. Trust me when I say I already have one of the tightest images at my game.

Like I said I much prefer deep cash games when I can open up a little bit, so the later stages of the tourney can get very stale for me... Hence why I relish the first 3-4 levels when I can still play some of those implied odds type hands that I have to pitch when my life is on the line. These levels give me a chance to build up a stack to carry me through the mid game.

 

[Legend5555]

Maybe I took it out of context, but this was your comment I was referring to:





I definitely agree with this.

I think another part of the equation is also the people you are playing with. I know at my home game, once I get less than ~40 blinds it becomes near impossible to bluff. Many of my friends are just very unlikely to find a fold if they have a piece even when my range has theirs crushed. Couple that with the number of limp/calls that bloat the post flop SPR. That means that after the first few levels of the tournament when blinds really start to get impactful I really have to tighten up. Trust me when I say I already have one of the tightest images at my game.

Like I said I much prefer deep cash games when I can open up a little bit, so the later stages of the tourney can get very stale for me... Hence why I relish the first 3-4 levels when I can still play some of those implied odds type hands that I have to pitch when my life is on the line. These levels give me a chance to build up a stack to carry me through the mid game.

I meant "good tournament poker" as that is primarily what we were discussing. But I get the confusion.

For me, the under 50bb play is actually quite interesting to me. Plus it's where the bulk of tournament poker happens, and it's where all of the critical money decisions happen. If I want to play deep for a long period of time, i'll play cash. I actually like push/fold because it's an easy place to get an edge since most people hate it and don't focus on it. I'm not one that gets tired of playing poker and seeing the "same" spots over and over. I also could quite happily play nothing but NLHE, though I do very much enjoy other games as well. I don't get to play as often as i'd like (especially live). But that's just because of life.

My gripe with the early levels of typical home/casino daily tournament poker is that you are only getting 30-40 hands during the time you are deep, if even that. So there is huge variance in even playing a deep stacked hand that adds a significant % to your stack. If you add 50bb to your stack in the first level over 4 hands, but then the blinds double, then those 4 hands of work now only translate into 25bb. So you could play half the hands at the new level for the same result in theory. The fast increases in most tournaments thus make the early levels not that important overall as each hand you played at an earlier level translates to less and less bb/hand played as the tournament progress. And fast levels mean less time to take advantage of the chips earned within in a level, so the skill edge of playing deep vanishes quickly. Now that doesn't amount to 0, but to me it's just not worth the extra time. (Obviously there is a balance as my argument taken to the extreme would be a single flip for all the money.) Now if we are talking something like the ME with 2 hour levels, then i'm on board with playing deep. It just doesn't make much sense to me in tournaments where you see far less hands per level. (Though even the ME is getting to the point now where that 2 hour level is getting very similar to the amount of hands per level seen in daily tournaments. It sucks to watch.)

I enjoy it all regardless. I just think a tournament that starts 200+bb deep, but by the money has an avg stack around 25bb is not as good as one that starts shorter but keeps the avg higher throughout. It seems somewhat backwards to me that when all the real money situations arise, there is less play because starting deep was more important.