Tourney The abyss - 8 hours level 1 (1 Viewer)

[Legend5555]

Highlighted part is probably accurate..... since your above statements pretty much summarize my take on you, too (you thinking clear and obvious issues are not really problems, you discounting the opinions of others and their importance when they don't align with yours, your snarky attitude towards others holding differing opinions, you holding rigid opinions and being unwilling to discuss without interjecting attitude, etc.).

I don't know you, and you don't know me. Hell, could be we'd be best friends irl. But I'm not going to just sit back and just let you throw opinions out as facts without response, or tolerate condescension on your part when others disagree.

I'm not sure how much clearer I could have been with everything here. I feel i've really cleared up the opinions vs. facts issue and admitted my earlier error in how I phrased things. And why is me disagreeing and using reasoning to explain why I disagree with what you think are serious issues equate to me discounting other's opinions? That doesn't make any sense to me.

I acknowledged the issues with BBA and why I don't think they outweigh the benefits. So it's not as if I don't recognize what the pros and cons are. I made it clear numerous times that I understand how you can balance ante and non-ante structures and why I just happen to prefer ante. And that most of this all just comes down to preference. But I still just argued my case in both instances.

Outside of a few earlier posts where I now realize I needed to be clear that I am speaking in opinion, i'm not sure how I've been snarky other than it must have been the digital medium problem. I'm truly sorry if we've had a misunderstanding about each other's intended attitude here. If I didn't hold a somewhat rigid opinion on the matter, then it wouldn't be a very interesting discussion. I could say the same about your opinions as well, but I don't see why that's a negative thing. I think it makes for a good back and forth discussion.

From my perspective, you are the one that has been snarky and a bit rude:
You have insinuated that i'm not arguing in good faith and being purposely deceitful by saying i'm am speaking with a "forked tongue."
You have called me f-ing condescending.
Said I discount others opinions for seemingly no reason other than I disagree and want to explain why.
Said i've manipulated examples instead of asking me for clarification.

I promise you that any similar feelings you have gotten from me are not intentional. I've been pretty clear with my language I think. I've never made any disparaging remarks about you or anyone else. I've just argued my point on the issues we have been discussing. I've never made it personal (I guess until now, but this isn't related the the ante discussion). So again, i'm not sure what i've done to deserve this other than you just don't like my opinion on these issues and don't like how strongly I argue my position.

 

[Gobbs]

@Gobbs, Well, I actually think you should. The more hands per level the better, IMO. At least if

1. You like playing poker. More hands = more fun!
2. You think you are better than average. More hands means more situations where your edge can be utilized.

If there's a procedural advantage where 20 minute levels play like 22 minute levels, then I think that is in the interest of the players, not just the casino or dealer. IMO, of course.

...and I think this is the crux of the debate (and why I stated “very little game play advantage” instead of none). I just don’t believe you get near that much of a gameplay advantage. I don’t think it’s even half that much. However, regardless of how much time is actually saved, this is also why you can’t look at these two options in a vacuum. No antes does the same thing as the procedural advantage option (BBA), only even better!

 

[Gobbs]

I'm not sure how much clearer I could have been with everything here. I feel i've really cleared up the opinions vs. facts issue and admitted my earlier error in how I phrased things.

With all sincerity and compassion, and a total lack of intended sarcasm, maybe that’s the problem.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I'm not sure how much clearer I could have been with everything here. I feel i've really cleared up the opinions vs. facts issue and admitted my earlier error in how I phrased things. And why is me disagreeing and using reasoning to explain why I disagree with what you think are serious issues equate to me discounting other's opinions? That doesn't make any sense to me.

I think you've done a fine job.

I get that some people like antes. Who wouldn't like a table full of opponents that put money in preflop then fold? I think it's bad for generating new players, because new players tend to be passive. Passive players are less likely to return to a game that they got slaughtered in - which is still, after 14 years teaching poker, the toughest hurdle to getting new players into the game.

Host: "Would you like to come to the game this weekend"
Prospect: "You just want to take all my money"

It's the toughest thing about expanding poker, and the biggest reason a certain political party had shot down all the poker sites in the US.

Antes, BBA or otherwise make expanding the game difficult.

 

[Legend5555]

I think you've done a fine job.

I get that some people like antes. Who wouldn't like a table full of opponents that put money in preflop then fold? I think it's bad for generating new players, because new players tend to be passive. Passive players are less likely to return to a game that they got slaughtered in - which is still, after 14 years teaching poker, the toughest hurdle to getting new players into the game.

Host: "Would you like to come to the game this weekend"
Prospect: "You just want to take all my money"

It's the toughest thing about expanding poker, and the biggest reason a certain political party had shot down all the poker sites in the US.

Antes, BBA or otherwise make expanding the game difficult.

For sure. I wouldn't generally use antes with newer players. I'm trying to introduce my player base to games other than NLHE right now too. It's always tough because learning can be costly. Though I've kept it at 0.50/1 limits. Trying make it as easy as possible. Some have taken well to it.

 

[SendThatStack]

I dont see individual antes as harmful to new players. I think no ante mtts are actually harder for a fish to be profitable than individual ante structure. My distaste for no ante tourneys is that they seem to cause average stack sizes in terms of bb to be lower in the later stages of the tourney.

 

[Legend5555]

I dont see individual antes as harmful to new players. I think no ante mtts are actually harder for a fish to be profitable than individual ante structure. My distaste for no ante tourneys is that they seem to cause average stack sizes in terms of bb to be lower in the later stages of the tourney.

I agree they can be shorter as play tends to be tighter. I don't think anyone has figured out any hard numbers on it, but Matt Savage has said from what he has seen that BBA has made the final tables deeper than they were with traditional antes mostly due to the increase in hands dealt.

I think the sample is still fairly small and I don't think anyone is really tracking it.

 

[SendThatStack]

I was talking about regular antes vs no antes. I dont like BBA at all and would never use them in a home game.

 

[Legend5555]

I was talking about regular antes vs no antes. I dont like BBA at all and would never use them in a home game.

I think it's true that ante structures lead to deeper stacks, but you could argue that they aren't much if at all deeper in terms of M.

 

[Gobbs]

I think it's true that ante structures lead to deeper stacks, but you could argue that they aren't much if at all deeper in terms of M.

Saying ante structures are deeper when looking at the number of BBs is like saying buying bubble gum for $5 online is cheaper than buying bubblegum for $6 at the store and ignoring the $3 shipping fee on the online purchase.

 

[Legend5555]

Saying ante structures are deeper when looking at the number of BBs is like saying buying bubble gum for $5 online is cheaper than buying bubblegum for $6 at the store and ignoring the $3 shipping fee on the online purchase.

For small tournaments and/or fast structures I don't think the difference is very big, if any between the two formats. For large tournaments and/or slower structures the stacks likely are deeper in terms of bbs as you get later inthe tournament. But the stacks are likely similar in terms of M.

Assuming people adjust to having an ante vs not, each person will simply play more of the hands dealt in ante structures. Thus more people will likely bust in a given amount of time. Though it's possible that since people will play tighter in non-ante structures, they might play more hands and this will even out. It would be interesting to see data on this, but most large field tournaments all use antes. So probably never going to find out.

But regardless, in terms of strictly bbs, ante structures will quite likeky be "deeper" as the blinds will generally be smaller when the cost per orbit between ante and non-ante is the same. This is assuming that cost per orbit is what truly determines bust out rates. Though that's obviously not the whole picture.

 

[BGinGA]

With a pre-determined number of total chips in play (i.e., no re-buys or add-ons) for any given blind/ante structure, the only variable that directly affects the average stack size (number of BB) late in the tournament (determined by number of levels played, not by actual time) is the number of remaining players in the field. Everything else is an indirect affect that alters the number of remaining players.

Changing the blind level times (within a reasonably-narrow range) will not affect average stack size significantly (or at all). Greatly increasing the blind level times will actually shorten the event (in terms of number of levels played), simply because many more hands are played. That creates a deeper-stacked average in the late rounds, since it ends sooner with the blind/ante levels being lower than would occur with shorter blind level times, because many more hands played = more eliminated players.

However, the type of players in the field can also alter it a lot -- tight players typically last longer (making the average stacks smaller), and loose players typically bust faster (making the average stacks larger) as the event progresses. Events full of loose players are shorter (and deeper stacked in later levels) because those players are eliminated more quickly.

For structures of comparable total forced risk per level (forced blinds or forced blinds+antes) which are designed to end at approximately the same time, there is little difference in the average stack size at any given level, especially when compared to the effects of the player styles on average stack size.

Event that use table antes -- if not appropriately sized to the table size -- will be shorter than a comparable individual antes event, simply because the total forced risk per level is significantly higher. So no surprise there that a badly-designed BBA event will end sooner than an individual ante event, thus making the average stack size larger in the latter stages.

 

[Legend5555]

With a pre-determined number of total chips in play (i.e., no re-buys or add-ons) for any given blind/ante structure, the only variable that directly affects the average stack size (number of BB) late in the tournament (determined by number of levels played, not by actual time) is the number of remaining players in the field. Everything else is an indirect affect that alters the number of remaining players.

Changing the blind level times (within a reasonably-narrow range) will not affect average stack size significantly (or at all). Greatly increasing the blind level times will actually shorten the event (in terms of number of levels played), simply because many more hands are played. That creates a deeper-stacked average in the late rounds, since it ends sooner with the blind/ante levels being lower than would occur with shorter blind level times, because many more hands played = more eliminated players.

However, the type of players in the field can also alter it a lot -- tight players typically last longer (making the average stacks smaller), and loose players typically bust faster (making the average stacks larger) as the event progresses. Events full of loose players are shorter (and deeper stacked in later levels) because those players are eliminated more quickly.

For structures of comparable total forced risk per level (forced blinds or forced blinds+antes) which are designed to end at approximately the same time, there is little difference in the average stack size at any given level, especially when compared to the effects of the player styles on average stack size.

Event that use table antes -- if not appropriately sized to the table size -- will be shorter than a comparable individual antes event, simply because the total forced risk per level is significantly higher. So no surprise there that a badly-designed BBA event will end sooner than an individual ante event, thus making the average stack size larger in the latter stages.

That's not inherently bad or good though. Just something different and something players should account for and adjust to.

In large field events it's not until the end stages when down to only a single digit number of tables that the effect of the BBA becomes that much different than regular antes. And given traditional per player ante sizes in most tournaments, the total BBA is actually smaller (for 9 and 10 handed) for any level that used an ante larger than 1/8th the BB (3k/6k/1k). Which are several of the levels. And only rarely would the total BBA be larger than the total of individual antes typically. (Say 500/1000/100.) Maybe this ends up a wash though.

I'm very open to the idea of reducing the BBA at 5-6 handed. But I'm not entirely sure it's worth the extra rules overhead of changing ante sizes frequently during the end stages.

But BBA will definitely lead to a faster bust out rate per level all things being equal since you get more hands in per level (how many obviously depends on level length). I think it really comes down to how many hands are played total when seeing how "fast" a tournament ends. I'd rather play a tournament where I can play more hands per level assuming level times are the same. As is obvious though, for small changes in level time, this effect isn't that pronounced.

I just don't see how any of this is necessarily bad or good.

 

[SendThatStack]

Saying ante structures are deeper when looking at the number of BBs is like saying buying bubble gum for $5 online is cheaper than buying bubblegum for $6 at the store and ignoring the $3 shipping fee on the online purchase

Sure but the amount of bb in the average stack opposed to just M makes a definite difference in pre and post flop play.

For structures of comparable total forced risk per level (forced blinds or forced blinds+antes) which are designed to end at approximately the same time, there is little difference in the average stack size at any given level, especially when compared to the effects of the player styles on average stack size.

Have you tracked stats on that? I find it hard to believe.

 

[BGinGA]

In large field events it's not until the end stages when down to only a single digit number of tables that the effect of the BBA becomes that much different than regular antes.

The biggest difference is that individual antes are dynamic -- adjusting automatically to the table size and number of potential players competing for a pot -- while table antes are typically fixed regardless of table size. In that regard, table antes are much more intrusive to player stacks as a forced risk tool, and create a number of inconsistencies as table sizes shrink and grow during an event.

I just don't see how any of this is necessarily bad or good.

I think consistency in a tournament structure is very important, which includes relatively uniform increases in forced risk over the duration of the event. This can easily be accomplished with a properly-designed blinds-only structure, an antes-only structure, a blinds/antes structure using individual antes. or a blinds/antes structure using a table ante provided the ante size is geared towards the table size.

But a blinds/antes structure that uses a fixed-size table ante has the effect of dramatically increasing (and sometimes decreasing) the forced risk amount as table sizes change, similar to a blinds-only structure that dramatically increases the required forced blind bets as the table size decreases. It significantly ramps up the aggression level of the structure as the tournament reaches conclusion, and is similar in nature to having a structure with 40% average blind increases suddenly jumping to 100% or more when in the final stages of the event, in terms of the forced risk imposed on the players.

I think this is less desirable (inherently bad) than maintaining structure uniformity and consistency,

I'm very open to the idea of reducing the BBA at 5-6 handed. But I'm not entirely sure it's worth the extra rules overhead of changing ante sizes frequently during the end stages.

A relatively simple solution can be implemented to counter the negative effects of a table ante as the table size changes. Breaking table sizes into three categories (full, short, heads-up) and applying a different table ante amount for each will more closely resemble the consistent changes found in individual ante events. Posting a full BB-sized table ante for full tables (7-10 players), posting a SB-sized table ante for short tables (3-6 players), and eliminating the table ante altogether when heads-up is an easily-implemented solution, which helps preserve the dynamic nature of individual antes and lessen the impact of unnecessary increases in forced risk caused by a fixed table ante amount.

I think this is desirable (inherently good) to help maintain structure uniformity and consistency,

 

[BGinGA]

For structures of comparable total forced risk per level (forced blinds or forced blinds+antes) which are designed to end at approximately the same time, there is little difference in the average stack size at any given level

Have you tracked stats on that?

Yes. Knock-outs rates (and when they occur) for blinds-only and blinds+antes structures are nearly identical, meaning that the average stack size at each level in both type of events is also very similar, based on my compiled data for single and two-table events since 2005. Ask @Poker Zombie if his data concurs (assuming he has data on blinds+antes events).

 

[Poker Zombie]

Yes. Knock-outs rates (and when they occur) for blinds-only and blinds+antes structures are nearly identical, meaning that the average stack size at each level in both type of events is also very similar, based on my compiled data for single and two-table events since 2005. Ask @Poker Zombie if his data concurs (assuming he has data on blinds+antes events).

Our first blinds+antes event won't be until next year. Even then, the data pool will be very shallow until we do more events - and I suspect that there will not be many of them.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Does anyone know if the BBA topic came up at the TDA conference this year? I haven't taken the time to sit down and watch it this year.

 

[SendThatStack]

Yes. Knock-outs rates (and when they occur) for blinds-only and blinds+antes structures are nearly identical, meaning that the average stack size at each level in both type of events is also very similar, based on my compiled data for single and two-table events since 2005. Ask @Poker Zombie if his data concurs (assuming he has data on blinds+antes events).

Is that stack size in terms of M or big blinds?

 

[JustinInMN]

Tournaments suck. Just play cash.

 

[Legend5555]

Tournaments suck. Just play cash.

What's funny... I generally agree. But I have to run tournies to keep the people coming as that's all many of them do. I don't mind them every now and then though.