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

[1A25R]

Day 1 is a big 8h level 1

your thoughts?

 

[Forty4]

I don’t like the 2 hour level two followed by 21 twenty minute levels. Very interesting format but not sure I like it or find it pointless. I know I probably wouldn’t play all of day one, probably skip at least half.

 

[toynoob]

Ya just come in on day 2

 

[APatHand]

I think entry at the beginning of day 2 is the way to go.

I don't like the long late- and re-entry period, but if they are going to have them, exploit them.

 

[BGinGA]

BBA rule is stupid. No big surprise, given the absurdity of the rest of the format.

 

[trigs]

I'd assume barely anyone would even show up day one and most people would just register start of day two.

EDIT: However, it does make me think about this idea being used in a MTT. Something like play five 20 minute levels and next level goes for 2 hours then another 5 20 minute levels and another 2 hour level or something like that. Could make for some interesting dynamics as some players would be trying to hang on to make it to the longer level.

 

[APatHand]

BBA rule is stupid. No big surprise, given the absurdity of the rest of the format.

I interpret their statement of the rule as 'ante first - blind second', as opposed to blind first - ante second, for a big blind position player with less than the sum of the big blind plus ante amounts.

Without going into too much detail, what do you find stupid about the big blind ante, the concept of one player anteing for the table or their particular implementation?

 

[BGinGA]

Both, but particularly the latter.

 

[1A25R]

I guess that if you don't play on Day 1, you are blinded out in 40 orbits, which can take 6 hours ?
Another point it's that with a single 8h level the dynamics are more like cash game and 20K stack represents 40BB...
I'll never play cash with 40BB

40 M corrected because i'm a donkey. Thanks @Legend5555

I'll would like to test, just give a try knowing that it will be bad and hoping that i'm wrong

 

[Legend5555]

I guess that if you don't play on Day 1, you are blinded out in 40 orbits, which can take 6 hours ?
Another point it's that with a single 8h level the dynamics are more like cash game and 20K stack represents 40BB...
I'll never play cash with 40BB

I'll would like to test, just give a try knowing that it will be bad and hoping that i'm wrong

Where do you get 40bb from? 20k with the starting level of 100/200/200 is 100bb deep. Do you mean after getting blinded down?

I'd play this as a cool little novelty, but it's nothing more than that. After the first level is over it goes to 20min levels which is a turbo. With 20min levels you could start 400bb deep, but after 2-3 hours (depending on level jumps obviously), the avg stack will be crippled. So starting 100bb deep, even when playing level 1 for basically 10hrs between day 1 and 2, makes the 20min levels seem even shallower than a larger starting stack and just using 20 min levels the whole time.

It's just another silly idea to extend play in the early levels. Levels where you aren't even making any money decisions. IMO a tournament should strive to keep the average stack at some reasonable amount throughout the whole tournament rather than give tons of play in the early levels and basically none from the middle levels onward. The blind increases will always outpace the play, as that's a necessity in tournaments, but I'd rather play "meaningful" poker in the later stages too even if it means lowering the deepstack play in the early levels.

 

[Legend5555]

Both, but particularly the latter.

It's been well established that you don't like antes in tournaments in general.

BB first gives a player with less than 2bb a larger pot to play for (good for the player), but allows them to essentially steal money from the others by not anteing for everyone. If they win, they get a larger pot AND they got to avoid paying the ante.

Ante first puts the player in an annoying spot where with 1bb exactly, they can only win back that 1bb since after the ante they will have no blind to play for ("bad" for the player), but it ensures they pay the ante for everyone and no one is cheated out of money.

Both have the issue of putting the BB player at a "disadvantage" in an even stacked all in situation as the BB will not be able to stack a person that began the hand with an even stack, but with traditional antes they would be able to do so. I think it's a minor enough issue that it's worth putting up with. Plus it can happen equally to everyone, it just sucks when it happens to you.

 

[BGinGA]

Both have the issue of putting the BB player at a "disadvantage" in an even stacked all in situation as the BB will not be able to stack a person that began the hand with an even stack, but with traditional antes they would be able to do so.

And both artificially-manufactured inequities/disadvantages are totally and easily avoidable.

Either use individually-posted antes, or no antes at all. Neither option causes inequities whatsoever.

It is ridiculous to introduce an unnecessary game structure that contains built-in flaws.

 

[Legend5555]

And both artificially-manufactured inequities/disadvantages are totally and easily avoidable.

Either use individually-posted antes, or no antes at all. Neither option causes inequities whatsoever.

It is ridiculous to introduce an unnecessary game structure that contains built-in flaws.

Because many believe the advantages outweigh the downsides as with nearly every choice in life.

I would call BB before Ante a flaw. But not the even stacked all in conundrum as it's just an aspect of how the system works and it affects everyone equally over time. It just feels bad when it's your time. It's not inherently bad, it's just different.

 

[BGinGA]

Any system that creates the possibility of a player forced to be all-in (and risk elimination) with zero chance of winning any chips (except his own) is seriously -- and inherently -- flawed.

 

[1A25R]

Where do you get 40bb from? 20k with the starting level of 100/200/200 is 100bb deep.

100sb + 200BB + 200 ante = 500
20,000 / 500 = 40

 

[Legend5555]

Any system that creates the possibility of a player forced to be all-in (and risk elimination) with zero chance of winning any chips (except his own) is seriously -- and inherently -- flawed.

It's no different than a person in the BB having only a single ante left with traditional antes. He wins only the antes. It just changes how this is going to occurs. It's more unfair to the rest of the people that a player should get to "rob" people of their ante by posting the BB first.

In the BB Ante scenario, this player actually retains more chips in between the times he owes the ante, and can profit more during those hands as he isn't losing an ante every hand. He can actually play tighter as he keeps all those chips until he is in the BB again.

So again, it's just tradeoffs. It creates some weird, but not necessarily unfair, spots in exchange for a slight increase in # of hands played, less chip clutter, and easier accounting. I think it really benefits tournaments with shorter levels as each extra hand you get by not having to wait for the dealer to rake in individual antes is a huge benefit.

 

[Legend5555]

100sb + 200BB + 200 ante = 500
20,000 / 500 = 40

That's M not bb.

You conflated how many rounds a person lasts with how many bbs are in the starting stack. Having an opportunity for an M of 40 for that long in a tournament is REALLY rare. If given the option, would you rather start at 100/200/200 with 20k for 8 hours, or 100/200/200 with 40k with standard 30min levels?

 

[Gobbs]

Three points.

First, the blind structure is stupid. Level one takes ten hours (even though they call it two levels of eight and two hours) then the next ten hours has 26 levels? I’d much rather see the levels split evenly over the 20 hours.

Second, they want to be the deepest tournament in history but introduce antes in the first level - stupid and contradictory. Starting with 40 orbits in chips is not a deep stack.

Third, the very fact that the BBA (or any form of ante in which one player posts for all players) requires a “trade-off” or “compromise” shows it has an inherent flaw. I totally agree that the dealer not having to ask for antes from a couple players is an advantage (for the dealer) and it might speed up play to a small extent. However, it comes at the expense of other game aspects that have already been mentioned. It doesn’t matter if the pros outweigh the cons when simply eliminating antes (and having an appropriate structure) has the same pros and fewer cons (if any).

 

[Legend5555]

Three points.

First, the blind structure is stupid. Level one takes ten hours (even though they call it two levels of eight and two hours) then the next ten hours has 26 levels? I’d much rather see the levels split evenly over the 20 hours.

Second, they want to be the deepest tournament in history but introduce antes in the first level - stupid and contradictory. Starting with 40 orbits in chips is not a deep stack.

Third, the very fact that the BBA (or any form of ante in which one player posts for all players) requires a “trade-off” or “compromise” shows it has an inherent flaw. I totally agree that the dealer not having to ask for antes from a couple players is an advantage (for the dealer) and it might speed up play to a small extent. However, it comes at the expense of other game aspects that have already been mentioned. It doesn’t matter if the pros outweigh the cons when simply eliminating antes (and having an appropriate structure) has the same pros and fewer cons (if any).

Eliminating antes has the huge con of not putting enough pressure on short stacks and causing tournaments to take longer. No ante creates tighter play, which IMO is not good for the game.

 

[Poker Zombie]

10 hours of blinds not increasing.

The whole purpose of playing a tournament is so you don't have to grind.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Eliminating antes has the huge con of not putting enough pressure on short stacks and causing tournaments to take longer. No ante creates tighter play, which IMO is not good for the game.

Increasing the blinds puts plenty of pressure on the short stacks. In the end, you pay M every orbit. Adjusting the blind structure accordingly does the same thing.

 

[Legend5555]

Three points.

First, the blind structure is stupid. Level one takes ten hours (even though they call it two levels of eight and two hours) then the next ten hours has 26 levels? I’d much rather see the levels split evenly over the 20 hours.

Second, they want to be the deepest tournament in history but introduce antes in the first level - stupid and contradictory. Starting with 40 orbits in chips is not a deep stack.

Third, the very fact that the BBA (or any form of ante in which one player posts for all players) requires a “trade-off” or “compromise” shows it has an inherent flaw. I totally agree that the dealer not having to ask for antes from a couple players is an advantage (for the dealer) and it might speed up play to a small extent. However, it comes at the expense of other game aspects that have already been mentioned. It doesn’t matter if the pros outweigh the cons when simply eliminating antes (and having an appropriate structure) has the same pros and fewer cons (if any).

Also, what constitutes a deep stack is subjective. An avg M of 40 (and increasing) that is set to last 10 hours is VERY deep for a tournament. It always boggles my mind how people only seen to care about being "deep" in a tournament in the beginning but not the middle and later stages. This structure (which is bad) seeks to emulate the early middle stages of a tournament and freeze it there for a long time by eliminating the super deep beginning.

As the levels increase, each hand you played in an earlier level has less and less an effect on your overall stack (in terms of big blinds). Winning 6 hands in the first level could have the same effect as winning a single hand 3-4 levels later. So there later levels carry more importance per hand than the early levels. I'm not sure how much the butterfly effect of winning some small pots early overcomes this fact. It's hard to quantify.

But it seems to me that having a more gradual depletion of avg stack size (in terms of big blinds) over the course of the entire tournament is better than having a beginning where the stack is super deep, and an end where the stacks are very shallow. So a tournament that starts me with 100bb but is structured such that the avg stack by the final table is still in the 30-40bb range seems more attractive to me than one that starts me 200bb deep, but the avg stack at the final table is only around 20bb.

 

[Legend5555]

Increasing the blinds puts plenty of pressure on the short stacks. In the end, you pay M every orbit. Adjusting the blind structure accordingly does the same thing.

Yes, but then you have to make the level jumps bigger (which people generally don't want) and it doesn't solve the action problem. No ante means less action as pot odds are worse with no ante. Promoting tight play is not fun.

 

[nitzilla]

I won't make any comments until I hear what Allen 'The Chainsaw' Kessler thinks.....

 

[Legend5555]

I won't make any comments until I hear what Allen 'The Chainsaw' Kessler thinks.....

Spoiler: he hates everything.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Promoting tight play is not fun.

I would 100% disagree. Long levels (like in the WSOP) promote tight play. Promoting loose/aggressive play is not fun for me. I prefer picking spots, but with the spectre of the clock. This can be with an ante, just blinds, or ante only. However blinds only is the fastest for getting people to post. BB Ante is equally fast as blinds only, but with cracks in the logistics.

If level jumps are consistent, the difference between slightly bigger jumps or an ante is psychological.

If you prefer antes, have at them. M is M. Some prefer the "bomb pot" an ante brings. That's why progressive slots are popular. I think in the terms of the big picture, so I dont care. All I need to know:

• Rake (less is better)
• Pay table (Not too flat, not too steep)
• Estimated time to completion

If the blind structure is fairly consistent, antes are meaningless.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I think it's important to note that the tournament in the OP is Wednesday for level one, and Saturday for levels 2+.

Basically, they dont expect it to start until day 2, but they can get a few more rebuys built in on the Wednesday grind.

 

[Legend5555]

I would 100% disagree. Long levels (like in the WSOP) promote tight play. Promoting loose/aggressive play is not fun for me. I prefer picking spots, but with the spectre of the clock. This can be with an ante, just blinds, or ante only. However blinds only is the fastest for getting people to post. BB Ante is equally fast as blinds only, but with cracks in the logistics.

If level jumps are consistent, the difference between slightly bigger jumps or an ante is psychological.

If you prefer antes, have at them. M is M. Some prefer the "bomb pot" an ante brings. That's why progressive slots are popular. I think in the terms of the big picture, so I dont care. All I need to know:

• Rake (less is better)
• Pay table (Not too flat, not too steep)
• Estimated time to completion

If the blind structure is fairly consistent, antes are meaningless.

I agree with your list, we just disagree about the meaningfulness of antes. It's obvious that you can alter structures to end at approximately the same time with or without antes. But antes are far from meaningless in terms of their affect on the game.

Antes promote playing more hands as there is more money in the pot too be won. This benefits aggressive players and players that can play well postflop with a wider range of hands. Both are things I think are good for the game and good for better players.

Even though the M is smaller at a given level with an ante than without, preflop raise sizes are about the same for both styles. And the playability of a given stack is not exceedingly different between the 2 styles. As a matter of fact, given general opening raise sizes, the ante situation creates larger stack to pot ratios preflop under most circumstances when you balance the amount of posted money before the cards are dealt. Playing 100/200/200 has more post flop playability than even 150/300 with no ante even though the latter has less posted money at the start of the hand.

At 100/200/200, there is 500 in the middle. If a player raises to 500 and gets called by the BB, there is now 1300 in the pot going to the flop.

At 150/300 no ante, there is 450 in the middle. If a player min raises to 600 and gets called by the BB, there is now 1350 in the pot.

Post flop playability is reduced in the latter situation as the pot is now larger despite the near equivalence in posted blinds and antes between the two situations. If it was actually equivalent (166/333), it would be even more skewed in favor of the ante.

You can't even raise to an amount preflop in the 2nd scenario that would generate an equivalent situation to the 1st.

 

[Poker Zombie]

This benefits aggressive players

All you needed to say.

You prefer a game that plays to your style. I dont have a preference. Either way all the chips get into the middle by the end of the night, via slower increases with antes or steeper increases without.

 

[Legend5555]

All you needed to say.

You prefer a game that plays to your style. I dont have a preference. Either way all the chips get into the middle by the end of the night, via slower increases with antes or steeper increases without.

But that wasn't even the main point of my post. It in theory benefits anyone that cares about having larger stack to pot ratios post flop. For a given M, and assuming standard opening raise sizes, the ante structure allows more playability.