Tourney Tournament exp needed. 10k or 15k? (2 Viewers)

[FiveThous]

Is there a calculator or software out there that you can enter starting stacks, desired length and have it set up a structure for you?

 

[CdnBeerLover]

Is there a calculator or software out there that you can enter starting stacks, desired length and have it set up a structure for you?

https://pokersoup.com/tool/blindStructureCalculator

Another option to avoid the odd blind jump at the beginning is to start at 50/100. Works for us.

 

[swemon]

Thanks for the replies @Mr Winberg and @Legend5555 (Y)

 

[BGinGA]

FYP

Nope.

I always thought it was SB+BB, not just BB

You are correct. When determining the blinds increase rate for a structure, it's the total blinds increase, not just the bb -- but it's only different if the sb isn't 1/2 of the bb. And antes will change the aggression factor too (if in play), since more of your stack faces forced exposure each level.

On the topic of funky progressions (I didn't want to start a new thread on a popular topic); does anyone have an opinion on the below transition? For the structure, it would mean simultaneously colouring up the T100 and T500 (after 800-1600). All jumps are still either 25%/33%/50% (average 40%) - just means having 2 x 50% jumps in a row. Yay or nay?

800-1600
1000-2000 (25%)
1000-3000 (33%)
2000-4000 (50%)
3000-6000 (50%)
etc..

If combining color-ups, I tend to do it after the 1500/3000 level, since the T100 chips only remain in play for one extra 'unused' level:
800/1600
1100/2200 (or 1200/2400)
1500/3000
remove T100/T500
2000/4000
etc.

 

[BGinGA]

https://pokersoup.com/tool/blindStructureCalculator

Another option to avoid the odd blind jump at the beginning is to start at 50/100. Works for us.

Not a fan of poker soup -- I've seen some real dogcrap schedules generated by it.

Yep, starting at 50/100 with T20k stacks also works for a 200bb structure.

 

[LinkyBabe]

Nope.

Is that because the % increase is based on the total of SB/BB and not just the BB value?

Edit: Sorry was rushing for work and read the rest of your post... thanks for correcting me.

 

[LinkyBabe]

I always thought it was SB+BB, not just BB - thanks for correcting me

Nope apparently I'm the idiot... carry on.

 

[stevea]

Not a fan of poker soup -- I've seen some real dogcrap schedules generated by it.

Yep, starting at 50/100 with T20k stacks also works for a 200bb structure.

Yeah I looked at that site and that’s why I wanted to get opinions on here. I looked at the blind schedule they gave me and didn’t like a few jumps they had in it.

 

[CdnBeerLover]

Not a fan of poker soup -- I've seen some real dogcrap schedules generated by it.

Yep, starting at 50/100 with T20k stacks also works for a 200bb structure.

That could be said for any of the automated tools. They simply give you a starting point.

We start at 50/100 with a T12k with one rebuy (no antes). The loss of the 25/50 level wasn't particularly noticeable.

 

[Steve Birrer]

I LIKE pokersoup. It gives plenty of options to play with. The key is to just try some various structures with your group and hone in on one that works for your set of players.

There is no right or wrong answer. Its all a matter of how your game plays.

 

[Taghkanic]

Going back to the “jump” debate in early levels (from 25/50 to 50/100), I don’t see it as such a big deal since stacks are so deep at that point.

I view that first level more like a pre-level. If one looks at Level 2 as the first meaningful one (and even then, no tourneys are won that early), with Level 1 as more of a warmup, the deviation from the 33-50% guidelines seems not so glaring.

The effective difference between either 25/75 or 50/75 vs 50/100 is negligible in relation to early stack sizes. Whereas a jump like that later would really skew the action.

In many deepstacked casino tournaments there are players who don’t even arrive until after the first few levels, buying in late. In my home tournament, we strive for 100% of players on-time... but there are sometimes late arrivals who get blinded down for as much as 30-60 minutes. These are at a disadvantage, but a small one which gets smoothed over quickly as blinds go up to many multiples of the first level. Often the guy who missed the first few levels actually has more chips than some of those who lost early pots.

Anyway, it seems rare that truly significant pots are played at 25/50 or 50/100 if stacks are 100-200 BB deep. And if they are, the extra 25 here or there preflop are not at all decisive. It’s more usually some colossal multiple of the blinds because of a AA vs KK or other cooler hand.

 

[Poker Zombie]

but there are sometimes late arrivals who get blinded down for as much as 30-60 minutes.

Interesting that you do this. Beside it being against commonly TDA rules, players that arrive late together could start with different stack sizes, depending on where the blinds started relative to the players position and arrival. How do you explain that to your players?

 

[Taghkanic]

It’s a policy we’ve long had which recognizes that in a small, friendly, rural home game sometimes stuff gets in the way of arriving exactly on time—while discouraging lateness.

The scenario is very unlikely that there would be more than a trivial difference, even if the tables happened to be moving at wildly different paces early on—and if somehow two players arrived late at the end of my dead-end dirt road at the very same moment.

It’s rare that even one person is late per session, let alone two showing up late at the same time. Either way, it’s a small risk of being late. Not everything is perfectly fair (e.g. in a big tournament you might get moved to a final table right after paying your small blind then draw a seat which means you have to pay the blinds again).

By your different stacks logic, rebuys/re-entries would also make no sense. A player who rebuys in Level 1 is paying for way more BB than one who does so in Level 4, for the same price. Is that “fair”? Nope. But it’s an option players often want.

Anyway... It’s a friendly home game among buddies, not the Super High Roller Bowl. Sometimes shit happens like an accident ahead of someone, or having to work late, or whatever. If someone runs late they can sit in, but the lateness is mildly disincentived.

And it only happens very occasionally (I’d say an average of maybe 1.5 times per 40 entries.)

As a host in a rural area, I’m not going to bar late entries; but I’m also not going to encourage late arrival. So we have both an on-time bonus and are willing to blind stacks off up to an hour.

The alternatives are either taking a hard-assed no late entry policy, or else taking away disincentives for arriving late. This is what was settled on long ago in our group as the fair compromise.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Ours is also similar. Friendly and rural. A wreck on the 2-lane road could delay someone from being ontime. I'm not going to penalize someone for that. The only times we have had a late arrival, we were notified well in advance (flight in from Buffalo, closing late at their new business). Penalizing them may have actually turned their "yes, but I'm going to be late" into a "no".

Cartainaly, if I knew I was going to lose out on chips, I would not attend - but I'm also going to do all within my power to be on time. Your friends may be different.

 

[Mr Winberg]

My 2 cents on blinding off vs stack on arrival (tl;dr: Stack on arrival FTW)

Some years ago I switched from blinding late players off to just giving each player their stack when they arrive (cutoff at first break). I will never ever go back, because it's 10 times easier for the host (TDA compliancy is just a bonus). I usually have a few players that are tentative until the last minute, and back when I blinded late players off I needed to know exactly who was gonna play, which was a hassle. Now I don't have to care. If you show up, great, here's your stack.

As far as getting players there on time, nothing is more effective than an on time bonus. I have PCF to thank for that, and as little as 10% bonus is ridiculously effective! I had 23 players last night, and only 1 didn't get the bonus, and that was because of a missed bus. No penalizing system will ever be that effective.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Going back to the “jump” debate in early levels (from 25/50 to 50/100), I don’t see it as such a big deal since stacks are so deep at that point.

I view that first level more like a pre-level. If one looks at Level 2 as the first meaningful one (and even then, no tourneys are won that early), with Level 1 as more of a warmup, the deviation from the 33-50% guidelines seems not so glaring.

... and I totally agree with this!

 

[Taghkanic]

Cartainaly, if I knew I was going to lose out on chips, I would not attend - but I'm also going to do all within my power to be on time. Your friends may be different.

It’s all relative, right? If you miss a couple orbits at the lowest levels, your stack is not going to be diminished by much. (We play quite deepstacked, about 200BB to start. At worst, if things fell in the worst possible way, you might be down to 197BB. Not a huge penalty.) The rule incentivizes anyone tempted to become habitually tardy to not be that guy.

Anyway, the system has worked for our group for a decade, with no one objecting to it, and almost no one is late anymore.

Frankly a much bigger problem is people racing down the road to get inside by 7:30. Lotta deer to dodge. I keep telling them to take it slow, but one of these days someone is going to incur a lot worse “penalty” than being blinded off for a couple orbits.

 

[Taghkanic]

... and I totally agree with this!

Nice to be agreed with once every few years!

I find people think about blinds in a lot of different and not always sound ways at early levels in a deepstacked tournament. Decisions about a few big blinds when you have 200 of them early in a tournament demand different strategies than the same number of bigs late when you’ve only got 15 of ’em. This should be obvious, but still some players value 2-5 bigs the same throughout, ignoring stacks, blind progression, table dynamics, etc.

For example, I was playing in a five-table social hall tourney recently... During the first orbit I got berated after the hand by a guy who had raised 3.5x from middle position. I flatted him with Kh8h from the big blind. I flopped a flush draw and got there (Ah) on the turn against his QQ, winning a big pot early. He was irate: “How could you call preflop—I made it 3.5x? OMG, you’re so bad,” etc.

I didn't bother explaining to him that early on in a tourney I am likely to play a lot more hands which have good implied odds over multiple streets... So flatting from the big blind for an additional 1.25% of my stack was not a terrible play. I am not flatting the same 3.5x raise if we’re on the bubble late in the same tourney and I have 10 BB. I’m either folding or shoving.

 

[BGinGA]

We play quite deepstacked, about 200BB to start

Although if you're doing a 100% jump at L2, your effective stacks are really only about 100BB, with a near-useless warm-up level. Not all that deep, just sayin'....

 

[Taghkanic]

Although if you're doing a 100% jump at L2, your effective stacks are really only about 100BB, with a near-useless warm-up level. Not all that deep, just sayin'....

Sure, but with 25/75 you’re still going down to ~133 BB. And either way, the low levels are... low. Winning a 20BB pot early is not inconsequential, but within a few levels its value gets seriously diminished. Just the nature of tournaments.

Anyway, I see your point. But I don’t think it makes a colossal difference. I also think there is some hidden utility to that first “useless” level.

The first round in particular I find (as a host) there is always a settling-in period. There’s more distracted conversation since people are catching up from the last time they played. You get the inevitable flurry of small requests (do you have a cushion/soda? a phone charger?). You get the debates about which game to watch, etc. etc. As long as I’ve hosted and tried to iron out all kinks, I’m often having to get up several times to adjust some small stuff during that “useless” level. Happy for it to be relatively inconsequential, really.

 

[BGinGA]

but with 25/75 you’re still going down to ~133 BB.

And that's actually a bit misleading, when comparing the per-level forced bet amounts relative to stack size.

A T10K stack with 25/50, 50/100, and 75/150 starting levels has 133, 67, and 44 total blinds per stack for the first three levels, and just 33 total blinds per stack going into L4 (100/200). This is not a 'deep' structure.

Thar same T10K stack with 25/50, 25/75, and 50/100 starting levels has 133, 100, and 67 total blinds, with 44 total blinds entering L4 (75/150).

Dropping from 133 to 67 total blinds after one level is significant, imo.... and it definitely makes a difference in optimum strategy when playing one structure vs another.

Not saying one is difinitively better than the other (although I do have a preference), but you're kidding yourself if you think it's inconsequential.

 

[Taghkanic]

Well, I get the math but still I don’t completely agree. Once you get 5-6 levels in, such differences flatten out considerably.

One could also contemplate other methods to address the issue, if one really thinks it is such a problem. For example: Extending the length of the first few levels compared to the rest; or making it a T12K tourney to compensate.

Meanwhile, using a peculiar level like 25/75 arguably introduces other issues (e.g. arbitrarily making it easier for the small blind to fold and harder for the big blind to defend for just one level). One also might consider whether the game has add-ons, rebuys, etc. in determining how significant this really is.

 

[BGinGA]

Would love to hear the argument behind a 75bb in a 25/75 level being harder to defend. And harder than what? A 37.5/75 level big blind?

 

[Max D]

Starting blinds 25/50.....10k or 15k?? And add ons/rebuys? Opinions?? One table,....two sometimes.

5K rebuys until 4 th blind. 4-5 hour tourney. 20 min blinds

 

[Mr Winberg]

This is how I look at it:

10k stacks, equal level times. When comparing these two:

SB	BB	vs	SB	BB
25	50		25	50
50	100		25	75
75	150		50	100
100	200		75	150

then I agree with @BGinGA that it makes a difference.

When comparing these

SB	BB	vs	SB	BB
25	50		25	75
50	100		50	100
75	150		75	150
100	200		100	200

then I agree with @Taghkanic that it's not that big a deal. The right follows all of BG's structure rules, but I prefer the left as it gives a deeper warm-up and doesn't have lopsided blinds.

Both these examples really show that the "Starting Stack Deepness" (SSD, patent pending) in terms of BBs is not always that relevant. The first example has two structures with the same SSD but play different, the second shows different SSD:s but the two play very similar.

 

[Taghkanic]

Would love to hear the argument behind a 75bb in a 25/75 level being harder to defend. And harder than what? A 37.5/75 level big blind?

At 25/75 the small blind is going to fold more; and the big blind is going to be slightly less incentives to defend as there will be less dead money in the pot after the SB folds.

Say it’s 25/75. Folds around to the button who makes it 200. If the SB calls the BB is getting very good odds to do the same (125 to call into a pot that already has 400).

But the SB only has 1/3 of a blind in, and so is going to fold even more often than the SB normally should. So the BB’s decision is going to be more like 125 to call against a pot of just 200, and should defend a lot less often.

 

[Taghkanic]

This is how I look at it:
[CHART]
Both these examples really show that the "Starting Stack Deepness" (SSD, patent pending) in terms of BBs is not always that relevant. The first example has two structures with the same SSD but play different, the second shows different SSD:s but the two play very similar.

Another option would be to start at 50/50 blinds, making the first level a little more action-y and making the jump to 50/100 a little less dramatic. I’ve seen a few tourneys do just that (sometimes with proportionally bigger denoms, say in a tourney with 20-25K starting stacks having the first level be 100/100).

But I still prefer a potential solution of starting out 25/50 then going to 50/100, but making those first two levels somewhat longer to effectively deepen the stacks to compensate for the higher percentage jump. If you have 20 minute levels for the rest of the tourney, make these 25 each, say—25% longer.

 

[Jon Udell]

When Im hosting on a Saturday night I like the tournament to end somewhere between 4-5 hours. It's hard to beat the blinds schedules that Lou originally posted at Home Poker Tourney. Most recreational players are not interested in playing a longer tournament.

 

[BGinGA]

At 25/75 the small blind is going to fold more; and the big blind is going to be slightly less incentives to defend as there will be less dead money in the pot after the SB folds.

Say it’s 25/75. Folds around to the button who makes it 200. If the SB calls the BB is getting very good odds to do the same (125 to call into a pot that already has 400).

But the SB only has 1/3 of a blind in, and so is going to fold even more often than the SB normally should. So the BB’s decision is going to be more like 125 to call against a pot of just 200, and should defend a lot less often.

Interesting. Others think that the 1/3 sb concept promotes less action (less blinds to steal, which results in the bb being easier to defend, not harder (fewer steal attempts from both the sb and other positions, plus less action in general with less dead money).

Not sure which argument is correct, but certainly not both. @Legend5555, care to chime in?

 

[Legend5555]

Interesting. Others think that the 1/3 sb concept promotes less action (less blinds to steal, which results in the bb being easier to defend, not harder (fewer steal attempts from both the sb and other positions, plus less action in general with less dead money).

Not sure which argument is correct, but certainly not both. @Legend5555, care to chime in?

I think that theoretically, the 1/3 structure promotes less action. Less to steal, worse odds in SB to call raises or even limp especially without antes, worse odds for BB to defend against a raise if SB folds. Of course, it's not like most people play by the theory.

I've now used both (1/3 and 2/3) in my games, and given the typical play of fast home structures and avg skill of the players, I don't think either plays much different in practice. Though, I know personally me and some of the better players I know, especially ones with a limit background, they play tighter in 1/3, especially from the SB.

I just use the 1/3 structure in tournaments now because it seems to make people happier. And while I still prefer the 2/3, it's just not enough of a difference if some don't like it.