Tourney Tournament that allows you to cash out before the end? (1 Viewer)

[Darson]

A buddy of mine plays in a game where the buy-in is translated into a chip stack of equivalent value (like a cash game) but the blinds go up as the night progresses until all but the winner remains like a tournament. However if you chose to leave before the end of the night, you can cash out your stack for it's intrinsic value. I've never heard of this before and I asked why they do this and the response was that there are some players who can't stay all night but do want to play a few hours so the cash-out mechanism allows them to participate without forcing them to stay to the end.

I've never played in a game like this before so wonder if any of you guys have experienced something similar? I can see the benefits - one of my crew is sometimes unable to stay for the entire night so sometimes just comes and drinks beer and chit-chats for the first couple hours without playing. This may be a good way to include him. Any negatives? I can imagine a rule is needed to stop the cash-out option late in the game.

 

[Josh Kifer]

..... That's weird and I don't like it.

 

[1A25R]

Strange.
So the winner may actually win less than his buy-in ?

 

[markleteenie]

It seems similar to the Zombie Survival Tournament that @Poker Zombie mentioned in another thread. But his was a tournament until the money, and then the "survivors" all got their actual stack values as prize. +1 for wanting to try this out.

So it's basically a cash value tournament, with the twist that someone can actually cash out early. To me it corrupts the tournament aspect of it, since money is theoretically worth less as blinds increase, and the value of hands increase (as ranges widen/players decrease). It doesn't seem fair to me that people can cash out early. There have been plenty of instances in tournaments where someone will have a big stack at one point and still not win or even cash.

..... That's weird and I don't like it.

^^This.

 

[DoubleEagle]

A buddy of mine plays in a game where the buy-in is translated into a chip stack of equivalent value (like a cash game) but the blinds go up as the night progresses until all but the winner remains like a tournament. However if you chose to leave before the end of the night, you can cash out your stack for it's intrinsic value. I've never heard of this before and I asked why they do this and the response was that there are some players who can't stay all night but do want to play a few hours so the cash-out mechanism allows them to participate without forcing them to stay to the end.

I've never played in a game like this before so wonder if any of you guys have experienced something similar? I can see the benefits - one of my crew is sometimes unable to stay for the entire night so sometimes just comes and drinks beer and chit-chats for the first couple hours without playing. This may be a good way to include him. Any negatives? I can imagine a rule is needed to stop the cash-out option late in the game.

Seems like they would be better off just playing a cash game.

 

[arch3r]

I understand the concept, but I don't like it. It's too easily abused. Get to be big stack, say half the chips and cash out. You are taking 1/2 the prize pool and not completing the tourney. Then those grinding it out to the end are splitting the other half.

No, don't like that.

Sounds like that game just needs to be a cash game. Buy-in and cash-out when you want to.

If they want to play with that crazy rule, there should at least be some penalty for cashing out early. Maybe you get paid $0.50 on the dollar? You would have to double in chips to get your buy-in back.

 

[Mental Nomad]

A buddy of mine plays in a game where the buy-in is translated into a chip stack of equivalent value (like a cash game) but the blinds go up as the night progresses until all but the winner remains like a tournament. However if you chose to leave before the end of the night, you can cash out your stack for it's intrinsic value. I've never heard of this before and I asked why they do this and the response was that there are some players who can't stay all night but do want to play a few hours so the cash-out mechanism allows them to participate without forcing them to stay to the end.

I've never played in a game like this before so wonder if any of you guys have experienced something similar? I can see the benefits - one of my crew is sometimes unable to stay for the entire night so sometimes just comes and drinks beer and chit-chats for the first couple hours without playing. This may be a good way to include him. Any negatives? I can imagine a rule is needed to stop the cash-out option late in the game.

Perfectly valid way to play. If you play a $50 entry winner-takes-all tourney, and buy in with $50 in chips, then it's exactly the same.


Once you make the chips cash value, you open up the possibility of people cashing out early... you also make it easy for the final two or three players to chop. How to divvy up the prize money? Easy - it's your stack!

If there's a post-tourney cash game, they don't need to change chips, they can just go play.

And you don't have to worry about tourney chips vs cash chips if they're all worth the same amount.

Strange.
So the winner may actually win less than his buy-in ?

Yeah, that's possible if a bunch of people cash out early while ahead. It makes it too weird for a lot of people to handle. And, to be fair, it does kinda break the "tournament" aspect where everyone stays in as long as they can - if you don't want that, why play tourney in the first place? (I mostly don't want that. So I play cash.)

 

[trigs]

Seems like they would be better off just playing a cash game.

This. Why not just play cash games?

 

[Mental Nomad]

Seems like they would be better off just playing a cash game.

This. Why not just play cash games?

Some people want elements of the tournament game - the increasing blinds, forced all-in moments, a ranking based on knockout order...

You can play cash, you can play tourney... but there's no law that says you can't host a game somewhere between the two.

 

[Beakertwang]

8-player tourney, $100 buy-in:
-A doubles in the first round against B, decides to take his profit and go home.
-B rebuys, wins a couple decent hands, doubles up, and cashes out to break even.
-C & D have won chips, mostly from weak players G & H, and both have 1.5x original stack. Because they’re savvy, they decide to take advantage of the early cash out.
-E & F have been playing pretty conservatively, and are just under their original stacks. They cash out.
-G & H are short stacked, and go all in. G wins the hand, and takes first place for a total of $20. H takes second for a cash prize of $0.

Sounds fun!

 

[Poker Zombie]

I don't find the idea terrible. It's not something that I would want to do, but if your group was small and you relied on every player, I can see trying to accommodate the players that can't stay late.

Beaker points out a scenario where everybody leaves when they get up. That situation could play out at any cash game, unless you had a no-leaving rule (which I find to be an even worse rule).

If all your friends leave as soon as they get above starting stack, you may want better friends.

 

[ledge4131]

... I agree with the others. Weird, and I don't like it at all. (n) :thumbsdown:

Better off playing cash.

 

[Josh Kifer]

8-player tourney, $100 buy-in:
-A doubles in the first round against B, decides to take his profit and go home.
-B rebuys, wins a couple decent hands, doubles up, and cashes out to break even.
-C & D have won chips, mostly from weak players G & H, and both have 1.5x original stack. Because they’re savvy, they decide to take advantage of the early cash out.
-E & F have been playing pretty conservatively, and are just under their original stacks. They cash out.
-G & H are short stacked, and go all in. G wins the hand, and takes first place for a total of $20. H takes second for a cash prize of $0.

Sounds fun!

THIS DOES NOT SOUND FUN.

 

[Chris Manzoni]

When I get players who only play tournaments asking me if there's a tournament on Saturday night and there's only a cash game, I tell them yes, we play a tournament where the blinds never go up and we have unlimited rebuys.

 

[Suited Connector]

Back in the day, Full Tilt ran some tournaments where you could cash out chips as the tournament was progressing. I don't think you could do a total cash out though. I didn't care for it.

 

[Beakertwang]

I could imagine a tourney that has a set time limit, say 3 hrs. Blinds increase like a normal tourney, a rebuy is allowed for the first hour or so, and at the agreed time, everyone cashes out. I could get down with that. But with some arbitrarily cashing out early, and others trying to last till the end? Just play cash.

 

[Darson]

I see the majority of you are as confused as I am with this setup!

I'll have to plug my buddy for details but I think the majority of players stay all night and there are only one or two who have to leave early hence the cash-out option. I can imagine that if your game is say 4-6 hours but someone can only play 2 hours and they state that at the start, allowing them to cash out at the appointed time is fair. Allowing them to cash out whenever they feel like it probably won't work.

 

[FDLmold]

If they put a time on it and announce it before the cards are in the air, sounds good to me.

 

[Mental Nomad]

THIS DOES NOT SOUND FUN.

Also sounds like it would never actually happen.

I'll have to plug my buddy for details but I think the majority of players stay all night and there are only one or two who have to leave early hence the cash-out option.

That's more realistic. If everyone wanted to be able to leave any time, they would just play cash. In reality, they mostly want tournament style and to play to the last man standing - and to accommodate their friends who can't stay. This way, those who can't stay still have a chance of winning something, instead of a guaranteed sacrifice when they run out of time.

 

[abby99]

Back in the day, Full Tilt ran some tournaments where you could cash out chips as the tournament was progressing. I don't think you could do a total cash out though. I didn't care for it.

Details at www.rakeback.com/full-tilt-poker/tournaments/cashout-tournament. Players could request full or partial cashouts at any time during the tournament. Half of the buy-in went into the regular prize pool and half to the cash-out pool. I've never played in one of these tournaments.

 

[JustinInMN]

the majority of you are as confused as I am with this setup!

I'll have to plug my buddy for details but I think the majority of players stay all night and there are only one or two who have to leave early hence the cash-out option.

I am certainly curious for more details how they do this and calculate the value of each chip.

I admit, I have a similar reflex to the other posters that indicated there is something untournament-like about early cash out. But I will try to reserve judgement until there are more details.

 

[Outkicked]

All in or fold tourney, should go quick

 

[abby99]

I am certainly curious for more details how they do this and calculate the value of each chip.

I'll take a stab at it with a hypothetical example.

$200 buy-in excluding fee, no rebuys, T2,000 chips, 100 players. The prize pool and the cashout pool are each $100 x 100 or $10,000. Cashouts are allowed in increments of 10% of the player's starting stack, or T200, that can be redeemed for 5% of the buy-in, or $10. A player who cashes out when in the money wins the appropriate share of the regular prize pool plus the cashout value of his chips. I don't know how odd chips are handled.

The page that I linked to in post #20 includes some brief comments about cashout tournament strategy.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Sooooooooo this structure is just a cash game with escalating blinds. The escalating blinds are literally the only place where it checks the "tournament" box in the list of differences between a cash game and a tournament. In all other respects, it's a cash game, and escalating blinds doesn't make it not a cash game.

 

[MattyMatt]

Jim, presumably also minus infinite rebuys?

 

[Jimulacrum]

Jim, presumably also minus infinite rebuys?

Oh, right. If so, it really is kinda on the cusp of the two formats.

My instinct is to dislike this, but I can't put my finger on exactly why. It does have the nasty potential to leave a "winner" in the red, but then again, so do cash games and some rebuy tournaments.

It just seems unnecessary from my perspective. As a cash-game guy, I see it as a sort of corruption of the cash format; some tournament people seem to feel that it's a corrupted form of tournament. But I guess it does fit the needs of the people who play it. They apparently want a fixed-investment game, which screams tournament, but with flexibility to leave early. Well, there you go. I can't begrudge their playing a game that makes them happy.

 

[1A25R]

If Poker Tilt did it, should be legit

 

[BGinGA]

I think the majority of players stay all night and there are only one or two who have to leave early hence the cash-out option.

Still don't like it, because those players are walking off with tournament funds that others -- who risked the same amount up-front -- cannot win.

Nothing stopping those guys from playing and leaving early, but they shouldn't expect to profit from it (unless it's a true cash game).

I'd be more inclined to just let them play for a discounted entry fee than to let them walk off with unearned (imo) tournament winnings.

My best/worst case scenario offer: they could never leave early with more money than they paid in (so max cashout would be entry fee back and never a profit, regardless of stack size). And 'intent to leave early' must be stated before the event starts, with a clearly defined preset time.

 

[Jimulacrum]

I'd be more inclined to just let them play for a discounted entry fee than to let them walk off with unearned (imo) tournament winnings.

What specifically makes the tournament winnings unearned? If I buy in for $50 and build up a $200 stack, I've won $150 chips from other players. Those are my chips now, through my own play. But they're somehow unearned?

The format you're talking about (where players can't ever cash out more than their buy-in) is even worse than the format in OP. The whole point of this weird hybrid format is that some people can't or don't want to stay the whole night to complete the tourney. In your format, those people would never be able to win anything, only break even at best. If so, then why play? I know I wouldn't if I were in their shoes.

If you're a tournament purist, I get it, but I think that's why we have to look at this format as neither a tournament nor a cash game. It is its own thing.

 

[Gobbs]

This could possibly be the worst tournament idea ever. If somebody can win the tournament and make less than their entry fee, it’s just a monumentally bad idea. Where is the value?

When I enter a $100 tournament, the TD should be able to say, if there are 20 players, the payout will be $1,000 for first place, $600 for second, $400 for third (or whatever). That way, I know my risk and reward and can make an informed decision as to if I want to play. With this rule, my reward is completely unknown. It would be foolish to play without knowing the (approximate) reward!!!