Tourney Your opinion on the new Savage Average tournament structure (4 Viewers)

SPR

Pair
Supporter
Joined
Feb 7, 2020
Messages
119
Reaction score
456
Location
Bay Area, CA
I read Matt Savage’s post the other day where he introduced his “Savage Average” NL tournament structure. Looks very interesting to me and I was wondering if anyone has seen this and what are your thoughts. Sounds like blinds go up according to the number of players left and average chip stake sizes. Take a look and let me know your thoughts’


This is his post;

Introducing a new NL tournament structure I’ve recently worked on and wanted to do for many years. It will debut The Poker Room March 17th during the World Poker Tour (WPT) festival. With a $570 buy-in and $50,000 guaranteed.

Highlights:
Never below 50 BB average
No clock needed!
Registration and breaks at scheduled time not end of a level
Color changes happen quickly with all players at the table

I’ve discussed this with many industry professionals and players and look forward to hearing your thoughts as well? #LetsDiscuss


IMG_0649.jpeg
 
If he would have implemented this concept without utilizing a forced Big Blind Ante, it would be nearly perfect for events where there is no fixed-time-limit pressure.
 
Tables & chips would have to be RFID to make this work, correct?
I think blinds are just adjusted based on numbers of remaining players. Average is just total chips in play divided by # of players.

Though not sure why some levels have the same number of players listed. Must have some underlying formula not visible in the spreadsheet.
 
I think blinds are just adjusted based on numbers of remaining players. Average is just total chips in play divided by # of players.

Though not sure why some levels have the same number of players listed. Must have some underlying formula not visible in the spreadsheet.
I think I get it now. At least until level 16...
 
Though not sure why some levels have the same number of players listed. Must have some underlying formula not visible in the spreadsheet.
I read this as the blinds are at 800/1600/1600 when there are players until the number in the chart are remaining (level 3 in the example here is 50). Once there are fewer than 50 players, the next level is reached (level 4 in this case).

Not too sure what to think about this quite yet. I'd have to think about it more. It seems quite functional and does get rid of the need for a tournament clock. It might cause some abusively long levels at pay-breaks when players are just hanging on to until the next pay jump. Something has to advance the play and the pressure on players in those cases otherwise I can see a tournament stall with this method.
 
Interesting idea. Changing blind levels to keep BB to Avg stack ratio the same.

Looking forward to reports on how this works out.
 
I guess the tourney will last days. Nothing but the BBA forces action. Cool concept but for homepoker not applicable.
 
I think I get it now. At least until level 16...
Same, not sure when you level up with both levels at 3 players? I’d love to play this structure though and see. Matt says this structure forces floor staff to be more attentive during the tournament because levels are driven by players being eliminated. Color ups are not done during a break. They will have to be on their toes I guess? I’ll be playing with the Tournament Director to see how I can make it work. I think players will obviously be paying more attention to players eliminated as well.
 
. I think players will obviously be paying more attention to players eliminated as well.
If you aren’t doing this already in your tournaments, especially MTT, then you have a leak to fix. Everything matters in a tournament. You have to know where you are in the standings. One more reason why I like tournaments, you have to consider a ton of info, and you have a huge edge over the players who are still playing cash mentality. I like cash too, I’m not bashing it or preferring one over the other, it’s just tournaments bring the complexity I like.
 
I think blinds are just adjusted based on numbers of remaining players. Average is just total chips in play divided by # of players.

Though not sure why some levels have the same number of players listed. Must have some underlying formula not visible in the spreadsheet.
It appears to me that once down to 3 players, something other than player eliminations starts driving the blind increases. Maybe that's when timed levels take effect.
 
It appears to me that once down to 3 players, something other than player eliminations starts driving the blind increases. Maybe that's when timed levels take effect.
I think for a a homepoker tournament you could combine a normal blind schedule with Matts idea by adding the requirement that a certain number of players has reached before moving to the next level.

For example T10k freezout, 8 players enter, 20min blind levels

25/50
50/100
75/150
100/200
150/300
200/400 (moving to next level not before there are 7 or less player)
300/600 (... 6 or less players)
400/800 (... 5 ...)
600/1200 (... 4 ...)
800/1600 (... 3 ...)
1000/2000 (... 2 ...)
1500/3000
2000/4000

Number of players are calculated by an average stack of ~20-25 Big Blinds.

So lets say in blind level 400/800 you have a total of 100 Big Blind left. If you still have 6 players when time is running out you are not moving to next level because ther are still not 5 players reached. With an average stack of 16 Big Blinds an all-in should appear likely in the next hands without forcing the action by raising the blinds.
 
It appears to me that once down to 3 players, something other than player eliminations starts driving the blind increases. Maybe that's when timed levels take effect.
I think the structure/calculation sheet is made providing for a much higher potential number of players. Based on the criteria of keeping blind levels at an average of 50BB stacks, I would think that when moving to 3 players you would play level 16, and then level 18 when moving from 3 to 2 (in that scenario you would never use level 17). Obviously, as you increase the number of players that intermediate level might be needed again. Just as an example, here is what that those levels would look like with 500 players instead.
1713802614782.png


I think if i were to implement this for my home game, I would have to add some sort of rule along the lines of "at 10pm we move to 40BB avg, at 11PM 30BB, at 12PM 20BB" or something along those lines.
 
FWIW, I heard some reporting on the initial run of this format.
They had 91 players at $600 each. They said the average level was 45 minutes and the tournament lasted 13 hours.
So it seems about right, at least in terms of duration.
 
Here's one person's review of the format. Seems to be arguing that all tournaments should start shorter which isn't an argument I've heard too often.
A counterpoint that I heard was that this format would be tougher on recs at final tables, since final tables will play a lot deeper than normal. It’s a minor point, and one that can probably be ignored in the grand scheme.
But to your point, even if recs are better off not starting a tournament with huge stacks, good luck convincing them of that.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom