Tourney Thoughts on this T5000 25/50 structure (1 Viewer)

[APatHand]

Please elaborate. T200?

Typo, T2000.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Aha, gotcha! Using the 500-2000-10000 progression instead of the standard 500-1000-5000 is an interesting topic and I personally like the idea of it, although I haven't tried it (yet).

@Blind Joe, if you're interested in this, I recommend this thread where pros and cons are weighed.
https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/arguments-against-t25-t100-t500-t2000-t10000-sets.38197/

Some points where people actually seem to agree is that if you choose to go down this route, using a T2000 is far better than a T2500, and to avoid confusing it with a T1000, it should not be yellow.

 

[Blind Joe]

I'd probably keep the starting stack at 150BB, depending on your time restraints. I'd also consider giving the re-buy chip intrinsic value, by awarding a small free add-on (5-10BB) to those that don't use it.

We aim for 4—5 hours but have been done in 3.5 the last couple of times (since implementing timed blind schedules). That said, the more enthusiastic of us who usually reach the bubble tend to stick around for a few hours more so finishing a couple of levels later might not be terrible.

 

[BGinGA]

You should be able to implement the following parameters with your blind structure (post #25) and still fall within your 5-hour window:

• single-table tournament (10 players)
• T10000 starting stacks (200 BB)
• T10000 re-buys (first 6 levels, one per player)
• optional T5000 add-on (1/2-price of buy-in/re-buys)
• T1000 free add-on for unused re-buy chip
• 20-minute blind levels for L1-L11 (T100 color-up) and 15-minute levels from L12 to completion

Most events should finish no later than L15, or about 4:40 of actual play plus breaks.

Side note: Although I personally like a T25-T100-T500-T2000 tournament denomination progression, it does not play well for single-table T10000 events. More chips need to be in play for the benefits to be fully realized, either 2+ tables or T20K+ starting stacks (preferably both).

 

[Blind Joe]

Probably a daft question but how do rebuy chips work? Are they handed out when rebuys are limited to keep track of how many a player has had? We've never used them (I've only ever seen them mentioned here), we just buy more chips directly with cash when we rebuy.

Eta: something else I've been meaning to ask is would you only allow rebuys once a player has fully busted out? Recently I've been allowing them once a player's stack has fallen to 20% or below his starting stack. These rebuys cost full price but only top a player up to a maximum value of the original starting stack. I did this to make rebuys a little bit more accessible and therefore encourage them a little bit.

 

[BGinGA]

Typical re-buy chip use is to include it with the initial buy-in, and it can be exchanged (with cash) for another stack if the player busts. No chip, no re-buy. You can issue 1, 2, or however many you like.

Your second question refers to 'surrender'. Instead of being totally busted, players can 'surrender' their remaining stack when re-buying. Becoming more popular in many home game tournaments, since it eliminates a lot of the desperation all-in plays if a player loses almost-but-not-all of his chips in a hand.

Some events use a different type of re-buy approach (almost more of an add-on), where a player can re-buy a 1/2-stack once his stack size drops to below 1/2 of his original buy-in. This can either be unlimited, or restricted (1, 2, or 3 times). So a player with a 10K starting stack could re-buy 5000 chips any time between hands, so long as his current stack size was below 5000.

All of the variations work, and have different effects on game play and optimum strategy.

 

[Blind Joe]

Thanks @BGinGA that explains it nicely. I think I'll try the latter approach for my next tournament - if I offer 2 half price 50% rebuys per player through rounds 1—6 it's effectively the same as a full rebuy but I can imagine it having a bigger uptake. I will try it and see!

 

[Blind Joe]

Another update on my evolving tournament. Hosted again on Friday using the same blinds schedule (except the first 3 levels were reduced from 30 to 25 min).

Two changes were made:

1. T10K (200BB) starting stacks instead of T7500 (150BB)
2. Changed from a full rebuy under 20% (surrendering remaining chips) during L1—3 to half price half stack rebuy/top-up under 50% during L1—6.

Here's what happened:

1. Previously we had finished at around 50-60BB rather than the 20BB that is generally used as the rule of thumb. This time we finished all the way at L17 with 90K on the table - just 9BB!
2. The rebuy uptake increased, ie, at a table of 6, instead of 2 full rebuys we got 6 half rebuys, which was what I was expecting.

Thoughts:

1. I didn't expect to get anywhere near L17 and thought we would finish soon after the last colour up. I'm not sure if this was just an anomaly or if I need to change anything to stop it happening again. I could shorten the blind levels across the board but if we revert to form we could end up with a very short tournament. We've had 3.5 hours before but I'd prefer 4ish. Friday was close to 6!
2. There's no need for the 3 extended early levels. Even with new players and a couple of complete beginners 20 minutes is long enough. I'm used to managing the deck and the pot so things run smoothly and efficiently, unlike in the past when I felt 20 minutes would have been a bit of a rush and a panic.

Any thoughts and input is welcome

 

[Mr Winberg]

Great to hear that your tournament is evolving! Keep it up!

I'm not sure why you have only a 25% increase to level 17? When reaching level 17 you want the tournament to be over asap, so I don't understand why the increase is lower. 6000/12000 would be more consistent and mirror level 10.

I didn't expect to get anywhere near L17 and thought we would finish soon after the last colour up. I'm not sure if this was just an anomaly or if I need to change anything to stop it happening again. I could shorten the blind levels across the board but if we revert to form we could end up with a very short tournament.

These things happen. Sometimes the shortstacks just keep surviving, there's not much you can do about it. One thing I do is accelerate the blinds after the predicted last level (I call these the GTFO levels ). In your case perhaps consolidating levels 14 and 15 into 2500/5000, that would have saved you 15 minutes. Or even more aggressive, have levels 12 and upwards be
1200/2400
* color-up T100 *
2k/4k
3k/6k
5k/10k
That would have saved you 30 minutes.

just 9BB!

Ha! I see your 9BB...and I lower you 2.3 less!

I'm glad I wrote that disclaimer. I hosted a T20k freezout tournament on Saturday for 18 degens. With on-time-bonus and rounding up on color-ups there was around 400k in play towards the end. I had planned on it ending at the 8k/16k level at the latest, but the final three lasted long and it wasn't down to heads up until the last minute of that level.

The next level had a steep increase to 12k/24k and was only 16 minutes long (I call this the "time to leave" level). With around 8 BBs each they managed to survive the whole level!

The next level (the "Still here? GTFO!" level) is 20k/40k and only lasts 12 minutes. I have no idea how, cause I was busy destroying the cash game (which may or may not be true), but somehow 5 BBs each was enough for them to stay afloat! WTF???

The next level, 30k/60 (or the "how is this even possible!?" level) finally ended things. I'm not sure why, but it seems that having just 3.3 BBs per player causes them to make rash decisions...

I have barely had a tournament survive past 30 BBs left in years, and never ever had one survive 20 (except turbo STTs). I didn't think I'd ever experience one surviving to 6.7!

 

[Blind Joe]

I remember reading that thread @Mr Winberg

I take your point about the 25% increase at the last level. I suppose it was just a nice round number that I thought would work with lots of T5000s on the table, but in all honesty I think we barely got into the level as it was heads up and that forced the short stack all in, so a more aggressive increase at that late stage really wouldn't have mattered.

At this point I might just pin my hopes on that being an anomaly (like you say sometimes the small stacks just survive). I'll kick things off earlier just so that the guys who have to leave early (between 12 and 1am) aren't in a fix and if it turns out we have another long tournament I'll think about shortening level durations slightly.

 

[BGinGA]

Over the long term, you'll find it all averages out to right about 30bb, and very rarely exceeds 20bb. There will be the occasional outlier, in both directions. But shorter events are much more common than overly-long ones.

I wouldn't make any changes until you have more data that indicates they are needed.

 

[Blind Joe]

@BGinGA I know you said leave any changes for now but I have been mulling over a slight change to the blinds, as below - not really motivated by the tournament length (though it does have an effect), more a case of something that seems like it might be better from both player and director pov.

Feel free to set me straight if you think this is a bad idea (I know you will if you do lol). First, the amended schedule has 4 breaks, one every 60 minutes rather than 3 breaks at differing intervals. Second, the final colour up removes both T100 and T500 rather than just the T100s. What do you think?

 

[BGinGA]

@BGinGA I know you said leave any changes for now but I have been mulling over a slight change to the blinds, as below - not really motivated by the tournament length (though it does have an effect), more a case of something that seems like it might be better from both player and director pov.

Feel free to set me straight if you think this is a bad idea (I know you will if you do lol). First, the amended schedule has 4 breaks, one every 60 minutes rather than 3 breaks at differing intervals. Second, the final colour up removes both T100 and T500 rather than just the T100s. What do you think?

View attachment 303425

This looks fine.

 

[Mr Winberg]

My only objection is level 12, I would change to 1000/2000. I just think it looks a bit weird now, but I guess there's really nothing wrong with it.

You also seem to have shortened the tournament? You have reduced the first levels to 20 (which I agree with) and started with 15 minutes earlier than before (which I don't agree with) and added 10 more minutes of breaks, which according to my calcs means you end the tournament 35 minutes earlier and loose 45 minutes of poker.

I would add some levels to compensate, for example adding 500/1000 and splitting level 12 into 1000/2000 and 1200/2400.
Or add 2-3 minutes per level.

Unless of course if it was intentional

 

[Blind Joe]

My only objection is level 12, I would change to 1000/2000. I just think it looks a bit weird now, but I guess there's really nothing wrong with it.

Originally it was 1000/2000 which is only a 25% increase and somewhat inconsistent with the other increases, but that was to facilitate removal of T100s. Since T100s are now being coloured up along with the T500s after L13 it's possible to go with more consistent increases of 37%—36%—33% rather than 33%—25%—50%.

You also seem to have shortened the tournament? You have reduced the first levels to 20 (which I agree with) and started with 15 minutes earlier than before (which I don't agree with) and added 10 more minutes of breaks, which according to my calcs means you end the tournament 35 minutes earlier and loose 45 minutes of poker.

That's true, but only if the tournament ran all the way to L17, which we seem to agree should be a rarity and not something I really want to encourage. Those end levels are more contingency levels aren't they? My desired length is between 4—4.5 hours, which I'd hope to get on an average night of poker using this schedule.

What's your reason for not liking the reduction to 15 minute levels. Do you mean in general (as in all levels should be the same length) or the point at which they reduce? Honestly, my reasoning for this is to have the next break at an even 60 minutes, so maybe not the best reason, but since the player pool will have started to reduce around this time I thought it would work out OK.

I would add some levels to compensate, for example adding 500/1000 and splitting level 12 into 1000/2000 and 1200/2400.
Or add 2-3 minutes per level.

Unless of course if it was intentional

To some extent yes, but it mainly began by trying to get 4 breaks at regular intervals, something I realised on Friday would have made the night run just that little bit better. The fact that it trims a bit off the maximum length of the tournament is OK with me.

 

[Mr Winberg]

That's true, but only if the tournament ran all the way to L17, which we seem to agree should be a rarity and not something I really want to encourage.

No, I was comparing to the tournament ending at level 14 since there are a little over 20 BBs in play then. It starts 4:35 instead of 5:10, and there has been 10 more minutes of breaks, so the tournament should end 35 minutes earlier with another 10 minutes less poker, meaning 45 minutes less poker.

If you end before the break you are still 35 minutes ahead of the other schedule.

However, this seems to be inline with your intended tournament length, so your adjustments seem fit.

What's your reason for not liking the reduction to 15 minute levels. Do you mean in general (as in all levels should be the same length) or the point at which they reduce?

I agree with the concept of either shortening the levels (or accelerating the increases) towards the end when the final table is (or should be) short handed. I just think it's a bit to early. At 600/1200 there might very well be 5 players left with an average stack of 18k (15 BBs), meaning a lot of shoving and tanking. My preference would be to have the level time decrease a few levels later. Then again, that would mean you have to compensate by removing a break or a level, or shorten all levels, so choose your poison I guess... When I wrote "I don't agree" I thought you wanted the same tournament length as before, so a bit of a misunderstanding.

 

[Blind Joe]

No, I was comparing to the tournament ending at level 14 since there are a little over 20 BBs in play then. It starts 4:35 instead of 5:10, and there has been 10 more minutes of breaks, so the tournament should end 35 minutes earlier with another 10 minutes less poker, meaning 45 minutes less poker.

If you end before the break you are still 35 minutes ahead of the other schedule.

However, this seems to be inline with your intended tournament length, so your adjustments seem fit.



I agree with the concept of either shortening the levels (or accelerating the increases) towards the end when the final table is (or should be) short handed. I just think it's a bit to early. At 600/1200 there might very well be 5 players left with an average stack of 18k (15 BBs), meaning a lot of shoving and tanking. My preference would be to have the level time decrease a few levels later. Then again, that would mean you have to compensate by removing a break or a level, or shorten all levels, so choose your poison I guess... When I wrote "I don't agree" I thought you wanted the same tournament length as before, so a bit of a misunderstanding.

I see what you mean. At 600/1200 we went down to 4 handed, but we only started with 6. Starting with 8 or 9 this may be an issue that needs addressing somehow.

 

[Blind Joe]

@Mr Winberg with your comments in mind I've been tinkering with a "third way" for my schedule; one which maintains 20 minute levels until the final break and which therefore may suit a full table with 5+ players remaining after the 3rd break.

The increase in aggression between breaks 3 and 4 does bother me, but it allows for the final colour up of both T100 and T500 to occur at the scheduled break and to maintain the desired 4 breaks one hour apart.

I think I shall run a few of the B schedules to gather some data and keep this one in my repertoire to be used for a fuller table if necessary. Despite the B schedule reducing to 15 minute levels after the 3rd break when, as you point out, most of the field may still be present, that point still represents around 60—75% of the tournament length so I'm hopeful that it will not cause much of an issue. As I say, I shall keep an eye on that period to see if gameplay is adversely affected.

 

[BGinGA]

Previous version was much better.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Previous version was much better.

I agree. My feedback was based on me not realizing that you wanted the tournament to end around 4h30m.

That said, if using this as a backup, I would change levels 11 and 12 to 800/1600 and 1200/2400 respectively. The blinds are lower meaning the play will be more meaningful (less shovey). The tournament "should" still end at level 14, plus/minus a level, but with a better progression in the endgame.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Another benefit is that the T100 are actually used until they are colored up!

I actually think that choosing between the last two posted structures and my last suggestion, I would go with my last suggestion.

• It enjoys the lowest blinds in the endgame of the three (more play)
• The level times are consistent up until the GTFO levels (I would also remove level 16 to really force the tournament to end)
• T100 are meaningful up until they are colored up
• "Should" still end around level 14
• Most important: It was my suggestion

 

[Blind Joe]

I think that's a good call @Mr Winberg

I seem to have gone the long way around to get to this point (with your help) but I think it really might be the best option.

This does keep 20 min levels for the longest period and pretty much always complies with the 33/50% pattern, L14 being slightly more aggressive and the last level being 25% which is the same as all other versions. The blinds only decrease to 15 minutes at the GTFO levels as you call them, which on a shorter tournament may not be reached thus the level duration has the most consistency.

 

[Mr Winberg]

I think that's a good call @Mr Winberg [...] I think it really might be the best option.

Thanks, but we don't know that until the king has spoken! If there's something wrong with this, @BGinGA will find it.

 

[BGinGA]

I still prefer the previous version. If it's really that important to you to eliminae the 15-minute level times (personally, I don't think it is), then just keep the blind amounts from post #42, and run it with all 20-minute blind levels. You can remove *some* of the extra T500 chips at the T100 color-up, since they will only be used for the SB during the next level (if it even gets that far).

 

[Outkicked]

Found this and worked pretty well for a tournament with T5 chips, starting stack was 2000 and blinds went up every 20 min, definite worked well with back to back football games on Sunday start and noon and done at 7:30/8ish even with a 25 min break for grub

Color up lvl 7 & 11 not sure if I should add a 500/1000 level though in the future

 

[Outkicked]

Found this and worked pretty well for a tournament with T5 chips, starting stack was 2000 and blinds went up every 20 min, definite worked well with back to back football games on Sunday start and noon and done at 7:30/8ish even with a 25 min break for grub View attachment 315723
Color up lvl 7 & 11 not sure if I should add a 500/1000 level though in the future

Used the 10/10/7/2 with extra $1k for color ups

 

[guyfleegman]

Looks solid!!
Only thing I do differently is I usually start at 10/20 with 4000 stacks.