Tourney When to go down from 2 to 1 Table (1 Viewer)

Steve Birrer

Two Pair
Joined
Aug 16, 2017
Messages
363
Reaction score
266
Location
Idaho and MIssissippi
Having a home game tonight and for the first time in a long time actually going to have two tables. IF, and thats a big IF, all that said they were coming show I will have 12 players so plan to start with 2 tables of 6. I actually like 6 handed so this should be fun. Starting stacks are 10K and blinds start at 25/50. Using the same structure as I always do for my game and it typically runs 4 to 4 1/2 hours. Unlimited rebuys the first 6 levels (20 minute levels). No add ons.

So my question is to who I should let this run to get to a final table. Here are the options I am thinking about.

1. Play down to 5 and 5 then when someone busts combine to a 9 handed final table.
2. Play down to 4 and 4 then when someone busts combine to a 7 handed final table
3. Play down to 5 and 4 then when someone busts combine to a 8 handed final table.

I am leaning toward #2. I don't totally dislike any oh them but I do know some guys don't like #3 if you are the guys stuck at the 4 handed table since you end up paying more blinds.

What say y'all?
 

dkersey

3 of a Kind
Joined
Feb 23, 2015
Messages
613
Reaction score
457
Location
Dallas, TX
My situation/setup is virtually identical. I do #1. Reason: I don't think it's fair for 1 table to be at 5, and 1 at 4 for any time, too big of difference. It's tight for a while but I think people like the full table once we get to that point.
 

buzzmonkey

Two Pair
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Messages
404
Reaction score
697
Location
USA
My situation/setup is virtually identical. I do #1. Reason: I don't think it's fair for 1 table to be at 5, and 1 at 4 for any time, too big of difference. It's tight for a while but I think people like the full table once we get to that point.
This. Plus we don't usually stay at 10 for long. You'll usually have at one shortie from each table at the final.
 

Mojo1312

Flush
Joined
Nov 7, 2014
Messages
2,495
Reaction score
2,782
Location
Maine
I see the logic in choice #2. I hosted a two table tournament for three years that consisted of 16 to 20 players. (There were only a few occasions where we had 19 or 20 players.) We combined tables when nine players remained.

Option two appeals to those who are nitty, but cards are random. Sometimes, you have to play the hands you are dealt. Also, fewer players doesn't always equal out to a greater number of hands. Some players deal slow and others think slow.

If I were running a two table tournament today, I would combine at 8. No real reason, other than it gets players at the final table one step closer to the money.
 

Steve Birrer

Two Pair
Joined
Aug 16, 2017
Messages
363
Reaction score
266
Location
Idaho and MIssissippi
More I think about this #2 doesn't really make much sense over #3. To get to #2 you would have to play right through #3. So #2 is out. Leaning toward 3 just because if we get a fair number of rebuys it will keep the overall length shorter.
 

DoubleEagle

Full House
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
4,485
Reaction score
6,319
Location
Salina, KS
We play eight handed on 60” round tables. More comfortable that way. When we get down to 5 and 4 we combine to one nine-handed table.
 

JustinInMN

Full House
Joined
May 23, 2017
Messages
3,917
Reaction score
4,402
Location
Burnsville, MN
1. Play down to 5 and 5 then when someone busts combine to a 9 handed final table.
2. Play down to 4 and 4 then when someone busts combine to a 7 handed final table
3. Play down to 5 and 4 then when someone busts combine to a 8 handed final table.
I think #1 is pretty standard, but if you are really trying to make this a "6 max" tournament then #2 is your best option. I am not a fan of #3 at all that one table would avoid four handed play.
 

BGinGA

Royal Flush
Tourney Director
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
25,757
Reaction score
39,987
Location
Atlanta
Option #1. 6-5-9 > 6-5-4-9. Except for 6-max events, play should only be 4-handed at the final table, not at feeder tables. Seats should be redrawn once down to nine players.

Alternately, you could run a 12-player shoot-out format, where each 6-handed table plays down to one player, who then play heads-up for the title. Both table runners-up can either tie for 3rd place money if you want more than 2 payouts, or they can simultaneously play heads-up for 3rd place.

The biggest advantage of this format is that players are forced to actually play -- it is much harder (or impossible with some payout structures) to fold your way into the money once the table gets short-handed. Structurally, it doesn't take significantly longer than a freeze-out event.
 

Steve Birrer

Two Pair
Joined
Aug 16, 2017
Messages
363
Reaction score
266
Location
Idaho and MIssissippi
Option #1. 6-5-9 > 6-5-4-9. Except for 6-max events, play should only be 4-handed at the final table, not at feeder tables. Seats should be redrawn once down to nine players.

Alternately, you could run a 12-player shoot-out format, where each 6-handed table plays down to one player, who then play heads-up for the title. Both table runners-up can either tie for 3rd place money if you want more than 2 payouts, or they can simultaneously play heads-up for 3rd place.

The biggest advantage of this format is that players are forced to actually play -- it is much harder (or impossible with some payout structures) to fold your way into the money once the table gets short-handed. Structurally, it doesn't take significantly longer than a freeze-out event.
So having never played a shoot out like you are suggesting I have a question. The way you worded it seems like you start with 6 at each table and play each table separately, ie., you don't balance the tables when a player busts out. Is that right? I hope I am not reading that correctly and that you still balance the tables out each time 2 have busted out.

My thought being if you really do play each table individually that it could end up being pretty dang boring for one table winner. What happens when 4 guys are just trading chips around at Table 1 while Table 2 already has finished.....
 

BGinGA

Royal Flush
Tourney Director
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
25,757
Reaction score
39,987
Location
Atlanta
So having never played a shoot out like you are suggesting I have a question. The way you worded it seems like you start with 6 at each table and play each table separately, ie., you don't balance the tables when a player busts out. Is that right? I hope I am not reading that correctly and that you still balance the tables out each time 2 have busted out.

My thought being if you really do play each table individually that it could end up being pretty dang boring for one table winner. What happens when 4 guys are just trading chips around at Table 1 while Table 2 already has finished.....
Yes, each table plays down to one player independently., with no table balacing. Both (or most, if more than two) tables will typically finish in about the same amount of time.

I suppose you ~could~ balance the tables as you go, but that would result in the two table winners having different stack sizes when starting the heads-up match.
 

grebe

Flush
Joined
Nov 3, 2019
Messages
1,185
Reaction score
1,710
Location
Richmond, VA
As a player, I prefer 9 so much more than 10 player tables. But others hate short handed poker so much, I get why TD's combine final table at 10 players. Drives me crazy though. But, as @buzzmonkey stated, it's usually not 10 handed for long.

But option #1 works just fine.
 

BGinGA

Royal Flush
Tourney Director
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
25,757
Reaction score
39,987
Location
Atlanta
As a player, I prefer 9 so much more than 10 player tables. But others hate short handed poker so much, I get why TD's combine final table at 10 players. Drives me crazy though. But, as @buzzmonkey stated, it's usually not 10 handed for long.

But option #1 works just fine.
Many tournament rules state that the final table should be T+1, where T= table size during the event. If using 9-handed tournament tables, then a 10-player final table is used.

We run 8-player tables with a 9-handed final table.
 

Mr Winberg

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,192
Reaction score
4,335
Location
Sweden
I always merge to the final table when 8 are left. We play eight handed tables, breaking up tables at 24, 16 and 8.

I think all 3 options are ok. If there was a fourth option of 10 players, I would have discouraged it. I don't like 10 handed poker ;-)

Many tournament rules state that the final table should be T+1
I blatantly ignore this rule, for my own good reasons. :)
 

BGinGA

Royal Flush
Tourney Director
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
25,757
Reaction score
39,987
Location
Atlanta
WSOP cracks me up with the Main Event -- they play down to a single 10-handed table, eliminate one player and THEN call it the Final Table. WTF?
 

Mr Winberg

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,192
Reaction score
4,335
Location
Sweden
I've always wondered about that. Is it because they want all remaining players competing against each other on the same table for a "final table" spot?
 

buzzmonkey

Two Pair
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Messages
404
Reaction score
697
Location
USA
Plus I'm pretty sure the Raymer year they were doing 11 to a table early on because they weren't prepared for the large number of entries.
 
Top Bottom