Tourney Who does T20K? (1 Viewer)

[natumes]

I do a T25k, t100 base turbo tourney for the bar games I run. We are usually done in 3 hours, and have a large number of "newbie" players. In my opinion as a poker player the structure is not great (I had designed around a t25 base but another bar with a truly terrible structure does t100 so we were told to match that...), but ~30 people have a good time twice a week on a weeknight. The first half of the night you can play poker before the blind structure starts to punish the limp heavy players.

I wouldn't do what I do at the bars for a home game or any event where it's mostly serious players, but it works well for the people we get. They can limp pots for a good hour at least before the blinds will pressure them out and good players will build a stack that will get them to the final table with chips to play with. And it doesn't last long enough that casual participants lose interest.

 

[Frogzilla]

Feel relieved when I assure you that it's actually a table ante, not a true BBA. It also is an improved-rules version (imo), and not the potential clusterfuck you see in most casino tournaments that utilize table antes (BBA or Button antes).

Table Ante Rules:
1. Table ante is equal to the current big blind amount (6-9 players), or equal to the current small blind amount (3-5 players)
2. Table ante is posted by the small blind player (if dead SB position, no ante is posted for that hand)
3. The small blind amount is posted first, then the table ante (or largest portion thereof available)
4. Table ante is not used during heads-up play

These rules ensure that any player who wins a hand will always be +EV, and never simply break even -- regardless of player position or stack size.

It also more closely mimics the play of individual antes regarding the posted ante size, as well as placing the ante responsibility on the player with the worst possible table position.

Ok so it finally happened last night, a sweat at worst case scenario for the ante-first BBA format. 100+ BBA tournaments in and finally it was here. UTG on my left covered CO by exactly T100, lowest chip in play, and lost.

Dealer confirms the ante first rule from the TD (this part is kind of rare too, but Ive seen it, but this is my first witness at the one chip). The TD is good, the dealer is good, so time for a rule clarification by me the SB…”so what happens to that chip if we chop”. “Y’all aren’t going to chop”. “I mean what if board runs out like broadway rainbow”. The TD has a sudden tinge of fear in his eyebrows. “Well if that happens let me know”, TD walks off. Handled that situation decently I think.

Cards dealt, I call to see a flop, shit u not, AKQ. The excitement at the table, palpable. But the other guys bet, I didn’t have a piece and I folded. Crisis averted, BB now has position rights to the ante. Board did not run out chop anyways.

Close though!

 

[CrazyEddie]

Ok so it finally happened last night, a sweat at worst case scenario for the ante-first BBA format. 100+ BBA tournaments in and finally it was here. UTG on my left covered CO by exactly T100, lowest chip in play, and lost.

Dealer confirms the ante first rule from the TD (this part is kind of rare too, but Ive seen it, but this is my first witness at the one chip). The TD is good, the dealer is good, so time for a rule clarification by me the SB…”so what happens to that chip if we chop”.

Odd chips are awarded to the earliest hand.

 

[LeLe]

Odd chips are awarded to the earliest hand.

That’s what we do for Cash Game as well, no splitting of half blind chips too

Example extra 2 x 25c will be awarded to the SB rather than 1 x 25c each to SB & BB for a 50c/$1 stake game that used double chips for Small blind

 

[Poker Zombie]

Odd chips are awarded to the earliest hand.

Of course that means, in theory, a SB and a BB could go into a hand (with or without other callers) where the BB can only cover one chip of the ante. If SB and BB chop, the BB is felted - even though he won.

 

[CrazyEddie]

Of course that means, in theory, a SB and a BB could go into a hand (with or without other callers) where the BB can only cover one chip of the ante. If SB and BB chop, the BB is felted - even though he won.

Tough break, kid. You'll get 'em next time.

 

[BGinGA]

Of course that means, in theory, a SB and a BB could go into a hand (with or without other callers) where the BB can only cover one chip of the ante. If SB and BB chop, the BB is felted - even though he won.

Tough break, kid. You'll get 'em next time.

The concept that a player with the best hand at a proper showdown can somehow be harmed by the rules is incredibly stupid, and flies in the face of the most basic principles of poker.

 

[Poker Zombie]

The concept that a player with the best hand at a proper showdown can somehow be harmed by the rules is incredibly stupid, and flies in the face of the most basic principles of poker.

"...and then the case Jack of spades came on the river, putting a royal flush on the board. It was my first Royal ever... and I was felted"

"um.... play better?"

Yes, BBA is stupid. The only reason I use it occasionally now, is because it has become so prevalent. I feel the need to use it so my players (myself included) can adjust to it for casino play.

 

[CrazyEddie]

The concept that a player with the best hand at a proper showdown can somehow be harmed by the rules is incredibly stupid, and flies in the face of the most basic principles of poker.

Tournaments are already bastardizations of the principles of poker. You're no longer playing for money; you're playing for points in a board game with prizes for whoever does the best according to the rules of that game. Making one of those rules "If you've already lost almost all of your game tokens and you're down to a single chip and you tie for the best hand under this very particular and unlikely circumstance then you lose" doesn't really offend my sensibilities.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Tournaments are already bastardizations of the principles of poker. You're no longer playing for money; you're playing for points in a board game with prizes for whoever does the best according to the rules of that game. Making one of those rules "If you've already lost almost all of your game tokens and you're down to a single chip and you tie for the best hand under this very particular and unlikely circumstance then you lose" doesn't really offend my sensibilities.

I can't disagree with that. I don't necessarily like it, but cannot refute it either.

 

[JustinInMN]

Tournaments are already bastardizations of the principles of poker. You're no longer playing for money; you're playing for points in a board game with prizes for whoever does the best according to the rules of that game. Making one of those rules "If you've already lost almost all of your game tokens and you're down to a single chip and you tie for the best hand under this very particular and unlikely circumstance then you lose" doesn't really offend my sensibilities.

How many love reacts can I give this post?

 

[CrazyEddie]

How many love reacts can I give this post?

 

[BGinGA]

Tournaments are already bastardizations of the principles of poker. You're no longer playing for money; you're playing for points in a board game with prizes for whoever does the best according to the rules of that game. Making one of those rules "If you've already lost almost all of your game tokens and you're down to a single chip and you tie for the best hand under this very particular and unlikely circumstance then you lose" doesn't really offend my sensibilities.

Fuck it, then. Just make it a rule that players are eliminated when their stack size falls below the amount of the current big blind. No chip-and-a-chair for you, loser.

 

[BGinGA]

I shall henceforth refer to this^ rule as the Crazy Eddie Rule.

 

[CrazyEddie]

How would you handle the original hypothetical (other than "don't use ante-first BBA", assume the tournament has already started and you need a ruling at Frog's table) ?

"Odd chip goes to the earlier position" is otherwise a pretty good (and necessary!) rule; what would you put here in its place, and/or under what specific circumstances would you invoke its replacement? I'm not a big fan of special-case exceptions to simple general rules, but I suppose they have their places at times...

 

[buzzmonkey]

It wouldn't be hard to make a rule that "The odd chip is awarded to the player left of the dealer, UNLESS doing so would eliminate a player with a claim to a portion of that chip, in which case the chip is awarded to said player."

 

[Poker Zombie]

How would you handle the original hypothetical (other than "don't use ante-first BBA", assume the tournament has already started and you need a ruling at Frog's table) ?

"Odd chip goes to the earlier position" is otherwise a pretty good (and necessary!) rule; what would you put here in its place, and/or under what specific circumstances would you invoke its replacement? I'm not a big fan of special-case exceptions to simple general rules, but I suppose they have their places at times...

I'm not sure it would be terrible to award both players a chip in that circumstance. The TDA already allows (rule 24a) "...a player losing his or her last chip(s) in a race will get 1 chip of the lowest denomination still in play". Thus, you cannot lose your last chip due to non-poker related luck.

 

[CrazyEddie]

I'm not sure it would be terrible to award both players a chip in that circumstance. The TDA already allows (rule 24a) "...a player losing his or her last chip(s) in a race will get 1 chip of the lowest denomination still in play". Thus, you cannot lose your last chip due to non-poker related luck.

Agreed it wouldn't be terrible. How would you define the circumstance? "A player losing his last chip during [... ?? ...] will be awarded 1 chip" ?

I would still characterize this as "poker-related luck" and thus distinct from the chip race, but I don't think it matters that much (which is why I'd also be fine with applying the standard odd chip rule, but I guess some people are bothered by that).

 

[buzzmonkey]

Agreed it wouldn't be terrible. How would you define the circumstance? "A player losing his last chip during [... ?? ...] will be awarded 1 chip" ?

I would still characterize this as "poker-related luck" and thus distinct from the chip race, but I don't think it matters that much (which is why I'd also be fine with applying the standard odd chip rule, but I guess some people are bothered by that).

I'd just state, "You can't be eliminated from a tournament with a winning hand." Since the player to the left of the dealer technically 'earned' their chip, I like the idea of adding one of the lowest chip to the game to provide to the player that would have been eliminated.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I'd just state, "You can't be eliminated from a tournament with a winning hand." Since the player to the left of the dealer technically 'earned' their chip, I like the idea of adding one of the lowest chip to the game to provide to the player that would have been eliminated.

I would not oppose this rule. It falls directly in line with rule 1:

"The best interest of the game and fairness are top priorities in decision-making. Unusual circumstances occasionally dictate that common-sense decisions in the interest of fairness take priority over technical rules."

Having just a single chip, and that single chip being the lowest denomination in play, and the player is the big blind, and the player chops, and the player with just one chip isn't the closest to the dealer's left sounds to be a fairly unusual circumstance.

 

[BGinGA]

I would not oppose this rule. It falls directly in line with rule 1:

"The best interest of the game and fairness are top priorities in decision-making. Unusual circumstances occasionally dictate that common-sense decisions in the interest of fairness take priority over technical rules."

Having just a single chip, and that single chip being the lowest denomination in play, and the player is the big blind, and the player chops, and the player with just one chip isn't the closest to the dealer's left sounds to be a fairly unusual circumstance.

Sure, a fairly unusual circumstance. But do tell, is it more likely to occur than somebody calling gman with J4 and not be cheating?

 

[BGinGA]

How would you handle the original hypothetical (other than "don't use ante-first BBA", assume the tournament has already started and you need a ruling at Frog's table) ?

"Odd chip goes to the earlier position" is otherwise a pretty good (and necessary!) rule; what would you put here in its place, and/or under what specific circumstances would you invoke its replacement? I'm not a big fan of special-case exceptions to simple general rules, but I suppose they have their places at times...

As stated by quite a few others above, I think one can justify ruling that the BB player gets a chip simply because it's in the best interest of the game to not eliminate a player when holding a winning hand. I would use the chip-up rule as a guideline (i.e., both players get a chip).

 

[CrazyEddie]

Sure, a fairly unusual circumstance. But do tell, is it more likely to occur than somebody calling gman with J4 and not be cheating?

Or more likely than a hot dog being a sandwich?

 

[Stebo0792]

I do a T25 base 20k setup every Monday. It's my main setup.

What is your chip breakdown for start stack

 

[LeLe]

What is your chip breakdown for start stack

Most common breakdown for T25 20K Stack is

25/100/500/1K/5K 12/12/5/6/2

 

[Josh Kifer]

What is your chip breakdown for start stack

More common breakdown for T25 20K Stack is

25/100/500/1K/5K 12/12/5/6/2

Yup!

 

[Kid_Eastwood]

I used to run T20.000 freezeout tournament for quite deep starting stacks (400BB).
The first levels I used were 25-50, 25-75 and then 50-100.
I worked great.
For my newer set, I wanted to follow the current tournament trend and then moved to T100.
400BB was a little bit too deep for my liking and then I moved to T30.000 freezeout with the first levels being 100-100, 100-200, 100-300, 200-400.

 

[BDub]

What is your chip breakdown for start stack

I've been using 25/100/500/1K/5K 8/8/6/6/2 with 2 10k plaques for rebuy to add a little flavor. Keeps the pots easy to read, and stacks don't get out of control. I've only run that starting stack a few times now, but everyone seems to like it so far.

 

[allforcharity]

I know @MrCastro127 and @Pippa use this structure.

T25 base, 12/12/7/5/2 stacks (or slight variation). Rebuys with T1K/T5K.

 

[Pippa]

Or 8/8/6/6/2