Comparison of online MTT structures - Page 2

burningyen · #11 10-04-2005, 01:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think a logical conclusion of what you've done is that M isn't always M. An M of 8 on one site doesn't mean the same thing at all as an M of 8 at another site.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand. M takes into account your stack, the blinds, antes and number of players at the table. The method of calculation is consistent no matter what site you play on. The only difference is the values that you plug into the formula.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the data you've presented is a good starting point for creating some sort of 'M multiplier' to use at each site. Actually, I think to really get it right you need a different M multiplier for each level at each site, since what you really care about is the structure for the remainder of the tournament at any given time(particularly the next few levels), not the entire tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]
You lost me. Can you give an example?

ZeroPointMachine · #12 10-04-2005, 01:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think a logical conclusion of what you've done is that M isn't always M. An M of 8 on one site doesn't mean the same thing at all as an M of 8 at another site.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand. M takes into account your stack, the blinds, antes and number of players at the table. The method of calculation is consistent no matter what site you play on. The only difference is the values that you plug into the formula.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the data you've presented is a good starting point for creating some sort of 'M multiplier' to use at each site. Actually, I think to really get it right you need a different M multiplier for each level at each site, since what you really care about is the structure for the remainder of the tournament at any given time(particularly the next few levels), not the entire tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]
You lost me. Can you give an example?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what he is getting at is that M does not take into account the accelerating blinds. In some structures/levels your M of 10 is going to become an M of 5 much quicker than others. Therefore your "relative M" may justify more aggressive moves than your actual M.

zoobird · #13 10-04-2005, 01:12 PM

I think an example is the easiest way to illustrate my point. Let's say I've got 1800 chips. Blinds are 50/100, so my M is 12. Now consider the following two situations:
#1: Next level is 100/200, followed by 200/400.
#2: Next level is 75/150, followed by 100/200.
Although my M is the same either way, I've got substantially less hands left before I'm blinded away in the first scenario. Factor in differences in the amount of time per level, hands played per hour, blind/ante structures, table position, and how soon the next level is, and one situation with M of 12 could have almost double the amount of hands left as another.

justT · #14 10-04-2005, 04:01 PM

OP’s data gives us some insight into the nature of the various tournaments. Your question is one step deeper, you want to know how to adjust your game to account for the nature of the tournament. Qualitatively everyone agrees that a faster structure means you have to play faster, but what exactly does that mean quantitatively?

Duck · #15 10-04-2005, 08:09 PM

Just curious, where did you get your data? Were all the structures available via (each individual) website?

I wouldnt' mind taking a crack at analyzing the structures.

TonyS0pran0 · #16 10-04-2005, 08:49 PM

Allow me to sum it up for you. UB and Full Tilt are the best for tournaments. But they just don't have the traffic of a stars or party....

burningyen · #17 10-04-2005, 09:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Allow me to sum it up for you. UB and Full Tilt are the best for tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]
Based on what?

Exitonly · #18 10-04-2005, 09:22 PM

burninggen, is this from an excel spreadsheet?

if so i'd like to see it and mess around w/ it... ]

if it is could you email it to [email protected] ? thanks.

burningyen · #19 10-04-2005, 09:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Just curious, where did you get your data? Were all the structures available via (each individual) website?

I wouldnt' mind taking a crack at analyzing the structures.

[/ QUOTE ]
In some cases I got the data from the website, in other cases I had to download the client. It was a pain in the ass.

PM me if you'd like the spreadsheet.

justT · #20 10-09-2005, 03:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't find the format of this comparision very intituitive.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm happy to hear suggestions for improvement. I have a lot of raw data that could be converted to some other presentation format.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been thinking about this a bit. Instead of starting from the data and asking "how should I present it?" I started with "what do I want to know?" (this is going to leave a gap in the middle of "how the heck do I get that?")

I think there are 2 things I'd want to know
1) how fast is the tourney?
2) what is the mix of bigstack, mid-stack and short-stack play?

I took the HH for a Party tourney and generated the following information:

For Q1, this shows the amount of time it takes until the field is reduced to x% of its original size

Field left........50%.....25%.....10%(ITM)
PTs...............57......135.......266 (time in minutes)

For Q2, this shows how long the average stack is in each of HOH2 zones.

Zone....Green...Orange....Yellow...Red
PTs......60.......206.........EOT.... N/A (time in minutes)

The average stack was in the yellow zone from minute 206 until the end of tourney (I processed only up to the FT, so it might have gone red at FT) Median stack would be a much better measure, but I doubt we'd get the data to do it.

Thoughts?