This is not accurate, nor possible. The average stack size when reaching the money (given the same number of players and payouts) will be bigger with larger starting stacks. It's not possible to make higher average stacks out of smaller starting stacks.
Let me rephrase, the avg bb/stack. Which is more important than actual stack size. I never think of stack sizes in terms of actual chips, only in terms of bbs.
We disagree....
...and that's probably why. I prefer cash, too, but I've found an appreciation for tournaments of various styles and structures.
Same difference. More chips = more bbs.
Ummmm.... What? More total bbs at a given level for sure, but that is not a guarentee of larger average bb/stack at the money. This is where level length becomes important. The avg bb/stack at the money in a tourney that starts deep can certainly be lower than one that starts shallower. You just adjust the levels and level length and voila.
If we take your own example from earlier, which of these 2 extreme situations will result in a higher avg bbs/stack at the money. In the first you would be lucky to play 2 hands per level. So as the tournament goes on, the avg bbs/stack almost always decreases as people simply can move cops around enough to bust prior before the blinds get too big. In the 2nd it almost always increases until more stacks start to cluster around the avg. After the flurry of all in situations dies down, the avg bbs/stack increases.
It is indeed a balancing act. I'm sure there is some equalization point where a tournament with large enough starting stacks and shorter levels will produce similar avg stacks relative to the blind level around the money as a tournament with shorter starting stacks and longer levels. But in general I am willing to sacrifice deep play early for more play in the middle to late stages.
My biggest issue is your insistence that your point is correct, and the use of absolute terms to negate and describe the points of the majority (deep stacks = waste of time, etc.). Although it may come as a surprise, it's entirely possible that you not only hold an opposing view to that of the majority, but that it may also be wrong.
I guess it wasn't obvious that my use of "IMO" multiple times, even though not directly tied to the "waste of time" phrasing, was unclear that I'm staying an opinion. I just don't want to have to constantly say IMO all the time.
While the Main Event may be the called the pinnacle of the game, I personally don't think it is the "best" structure, and certainly not one that I think should be replicated in a home game environment.
Very much agree. It's at the extreme of all 3 axes of poker tournaments structures. Very long levels, very deep starting stacks, very incremental blind increases. Leading to a situation where the average stack is 60+bb for the majority of the tournament.
Is this your opinion/guess, or do you have data to back it up?
I watched the live reporting and the PokerGO coverage every day. Avg stack for the majority of the middle days up till about the final 6-8 tables was around 60bb. Sometimes a little under, sometimes a little over. Usually lower at the beginning of a level and higher toward the end (which makes sense). Once everyone tightened up and staring stalling for pay jumps and tanking all their decisions, it started to drop and I believe was under 50 at one point. The start of the final table had an average of 57bb. This is easy to find by looking at the start of day coverage for any of the days, finding the avg stack, and dividing by the BB amount.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
