Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

I posted this on my blog on PokerWire, and I think it's a very important consideration for players.
----------------------------------------------------------

The announcement that the World Series of Poker would begin each tournament with double the starting stack of last year’s events was initially recognized as a move on their part to accommodate the players’ request for more play. However, the move was tempered by adjustments to the blind levels.

On his way to a Stud 8-or-better event, Daniel Negreanu stated, “There’s absolutely no difference with the double stacks because of the blind structure. People just don’t realize it.”

Daniel is not alone in his opinion; I posted a conversation between Mike Matusow and Greg Mueller a few days ago. FBT summarized their conversation by stating, "It's so annoying. You want to make a play---it's the World Series. They used to play for a bracelet until 6 AM because there was play. Now they just want you out of here. There's more play at the beginning, but who wants to play for four hours then get busted?"

I hesitate to say I agree with anything that comes out of “The Mouth,” but the outspoken pros are right—the new structure offers more play in the first few levels but turns the late stages into a shove-fest. Players have the freedom to splash around a bit more in the early going, but have little room to maneuver when the chips matter the most.

The structure really begins to speed up when players return for Day 2. By the time they are down to four tables a standard raise usually pot-commits the average stack. If you want to see where the greatest discrepancies lie, look no farther than any final table.

After writing about Mike Binger’s quick start to this year’s WSOP, I began following his play through the final sixty players of the $5,000 No-Limit Holdem event. By the end of the night, Mike had made the final table (albeit as the short stack) along with several other good players.

The next day I found a seat outside the media center at the Rio to watch the one-hour delayed final table on the big-screen TV. I was anticipating a final table that would demonstrate some great end game play.

If I were a betting man, I would’ve placed money on Nick Schulman to win. It’s a good thing I’m not, because Nick made an appearance by the TV while he was still on it. Confused? So was I, because Nick had a ton of chips on the big screen, and it was only a one hour delay. As it turns out, play was an all-in fest from the time the cards were in the air.

Last year’s $5,000 event had a field of 622 and a star-studded final table (Phil Hellmuth, Marcel Luske, and Eugene Todd, bro to name a few). Play began just after 2:00 PM and lasted until just after midnight. Take out the dinner break and they played for 8.5 hours.

As a spectator and poker fan, I was horrified by the rapidity of eliminations at this year’s final table. After whittling down the field of 640, it only took James Mackey 48 hands to claim his bracelet. They played for about 2.5 hours. In no way do I want to take away from the bracelet-winning efforts of “mig.com”, but the disparity in times must be pointed out.

Second place finisher Stuart Fox played exactly one hand before he was heads-up with Mackey. One hand. He then folded the next three before he was all-in and lost. Two hands equals second place.

When Jon Friedberg captured the $1,000 No Limit Holdem bracelet in the 2006 WSOP, it took him 122 hands. With double the starting stack, this year’s first $1,500 No-Limit event took less than half that many hands to finish—only 59. Brandon Cantu’s victory in event #2 last year lasted nearly 10 hours; Ciarin O'Leary’s took less than 5.

WSOP officials have shown a bit more willingness to make changes on the fly this year, and I hope they can see a problem when players begin describing the end of tournaments as a “crap-shoot.” I’m not sure what changes the Nevada Gaming Commission allow to structures once they have been posted, but something needs to be done about the late stages of these events.

An immediate solution would be rolling back the blinds once players reach the final table. Officials could make an easy decision based on X# of big blinds for the average chip stack (50 would be ideal; 35 seems more likely). Yes, events would last several hours longer, putting that much more of a strain on tournament staff and the media…but we’re not the ones playing for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In the words of the not-always-articulate-but-usually-insightful Mike Matusow, “We can fix it.”

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

Nice post. I noticed many of the same things. It just shows that all Harrah's wants to do is "get em in, and get em out." I'm still baffled that there isn't a standard structure in place for FTs like you mentioned in your last paragraph. Especially with tournaments being the most popular form of poker.

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

advantage for online players, not much post flop play

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

Citing that final tables are finishing faster isn't sufficient evidence for your claim that the strucutre of the tournament is poor.

Somebody needs to look up and post the stack sizes and blind structure of two similar tournament final tables from 2006 and 2007 to provide the proper evidence.

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

in 2005 phil ivey and jeff lisandro played heads up for 8 hrs of a circuit event, i guess thats not technically at the wsop
we will never have a 8 hour heads up match ever again

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

[ QUOTE ]
Citing that final tables are finishing faster isn't sufficient evidence for your claim that the strucutre of the tournament is poor.

Somebody needs to look up and post the stack sizes and blind structure of two similar tournament final tables from 2006 and 2007 to provide the proper evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

IIRC the difference was larger stack sizes, but larger jumps in the middle levels which in effect pretty much evened things out. But if this trend continues it may have made them a lot worse at the FT.

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

The levels that have been removed for holdem events are: 25-25, 2.5k-5k, 12k-24k, and 25k-50k.

After two and a half hours, the final blind level was 30k-60k-5k for Mackey. After ten hours, Cabinillas defeated Hellmuth with blinds at 25k-50k. Even though the average stack for the final 9 may be doubled, the missing levels have clearly impacted late stage play. While it's possible that some players may be playing faster, almost every no-limit holdem final table has finished in half of the time. I find it hard to imagine that the difference lies in the players and not the structure.

I recognize that these figures are not deeply rooted in math but unfortunately that's about all my pea-sized brain can handle. I would love to see someone crunch the numbers on all the stacks/blinds/etc from each table. I'll post your results on pokerwire.

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

Last year I'm pretty sure they increased the time for each level at the final table. Can someone confirm/deny?

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

Yeah I think all the FT's had 90 minute levels.

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

[ QUOTE ]
The levels that have been removed for holdem events are: 25-25, 2.5k-5k, 12k-24k, and 25k-50k.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, these levels have been missed. It's absurd, really, to eliminate them, and it's noticeable how crapshoot-y the late stages of these tournaments are. I couldn't frickin' believe how quickly the 5K final table was finished. Also, didn't they have different structures for 5K events and 1500 events in 2006?

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

could it be b/c we are only half way through the wsop?

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

Structures are different this year too in the 1500 v 5k.

I also strongly agree. The double stacks minus levels is very annoying - esp in the limit events. You're pretty much stuck there for five hours period and then when you get to where it matters the chips aren't there. When I finished the O8 event there were 16 big bets in play - playing for a bracelet.

Devo

Devo

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

[ QUOTE ]
Citing that final tables are finishing faster isn't sufficient evidence for your claim that the strucutre of the tournament is poor.

Somebody needs to look up and post the stack sizes and blind structure of two similar tournament final tables from 2006 and 2007 to provide the proper evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

All I know is the NL 5k(the one mig.com won), was done in 45 hands.

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

On the o8 final table, we were 8 handed to start and there were a totla of 69 bets in play.

I agree. The structure this year is worse than it has been.

And to dynasty: Yes, ALL the final tables taking half the time to finish does mean something. It's not variance for every tournament to end in half or 1/3rd the hands, it's NO or little play.

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

Although I would still give anything to be out tthere playing it seems to me that Harrah's have made some huge errors this year.

Hopefully there will be some attempts to rectify the several problems before the 50k HORSE and the Main Event so that at leats these events aren't spoilt.

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

Harrah's is no different than Lipscomb at the WPT. They want those final tables to end in under eight hours. No overtime for the film crew.
Slower blind structure would offer more play. Better for the players and spectators. But risk running over eight hours.
Very few finals are played at a faster rate then 25 deals per hour. The ingrained culture of poker says players aren't to call the clock on slow players. You can't have it both ways. Either play faster or expect blind levels to move up quickly. Those film crews will be out in under eight hours.

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

A FT < 8 hours is fine, I'm sure most would happily agree with that.

But the 2nd biggest NLHE (5k) tourney with 640 runners should have a 9 man FT last longer than 45 hands. It's second placed finisher shouldn't be able to grab second having played only 2 hands in the entire FT. This is too far to the other extreme.

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

In case you missed it, not all the final tables are televised. And the ones that are, are filmed by ESPN and their affiliated companies. Harrahs has nothing to do with the final table nor do they care how long a final table runs. The daily schedule for Harrahs and the WSOP is pretty much from 12pm to 3am every day. People can complain about how horribly the WSOP is run, and blame Harrahs all they want because its obvious that the people in charge of running the event have never played a serious tournament in their life. However they did take the time to listen to the concerns of an advisory board, and did provide the structures to the players on that board well in advance. Its pretty sad that the players we have representing us never took the time to look at the structure sheets and or realize how poor they were.

I would be pretty embarrassed if I was one of the players on this board. It took me about 5 mins of looking at the structure sheets for me to realize how horrible they were.

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

I did one comparison: the 1st 2K NLH event from 2006 and 2007. In 2006, the average M going into the final table was 10.1. This year, the average M going into the final table was 8.47. This is a slight difference, but not a very significant one. The cause of the difference I believe is a slightly larger field in 2006 -- I believe in general the time it takes an event to finish is not proportional, but rather exponential to the field size. In other words, for a given structure, the percentage of the field lost in a given amount of time should be the same regardless of the size of the field.

I think a similar comparison needs to be made across all events before Harrah's is raked over the coals for this. The NLH events, with similar field sizes as last year, are getting down to a final table in 2 full days, just like last year. The speed of the final table usually has to do mostly with how frequently two people pick up big hands against each other, which is completely random. It happened quite often in this year's 5K, which I watched on the Internet, which is why it was over so quickly.

The limit events apparently are a different story, I know nothing about those.

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

[ QUOTE ]
In case you missed it, not all the final tables are televised. And the ones that are, are filmed by ESPN and their affiliated companies. Harrahs has nothing to do with the final table nor do they care how long a final table runs. The daily schedule for Harrahs and the WSOP is pretty much from 12pm to 3am every day. People can complain about how horribly the WSOP is run, and blame Harrahs all they want because its obvious that the people in charge of running the event have never played a serious tournament in their life. However they did take the time to listen to the concerns of an advisory board, and did provide the structures to the players on that board well in advance. Its pretty sad that the players we have representing us never took the time to look at the structure sheets and or realize how poor they were.

I would be pretty embarrassed if I was one of the players on this board. It took me about 5 mins of looking at the structure sheets for me to realize how horrible they were.

[/ QUOTE ]

Howard Lederer came up with the structures. Wich makes it even more frustrating I think.

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

How much of a difference do you think it would make if they just made a few simple adjustments, something like freezing the tournament clock immediately as soon as there is an all-in and a call?

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

[ QUOTE ]
The speed of the final table usually has to do with the size of the blinds, and how fast the blinds go up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In case you missed it, not all the final tables are televised. And the ones that are, are filmed by ESPN and their affiliated companies. Harrahs has nothing to do with the final table nor do they care how long a final table runs. The daily schedule for Harrahs and the WSOP is pretty much from 12pm to 3am every day. People can complain about how horribly the WSOP is run, and blame Harrahs all they want because its obvious that the people in charge of running the event have never played a serious tournament in their life. However they did take the time to listen to the concerns of an advisory board, and did provide the structures to the players on that board well in advance. Its pretty sad that the players we have representing us never took the time to look at the structure sheets and or realize how poor they were.

I would be pretty embarrassed if I was one of the players on this board. It took me about 5 mins of looking at the structure sheets for me to realize how horrible they were.

[/ QUOTE ]

Howard Lederer came up with the structures. Wich makes it even more frustrating I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

it wasn't just Howard, DN had a chance to look them over and basically ignored them in his email. every one on the advisory committee had a chance to look them over and make comments but evidently failed to do so.

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

Here's the FT set up for the 2K FT today featuring 2p2 super mod Jurollo. From pokernews.

Seat 1: Evan Schwartz - 792,000
Seat 2: Justin Rollo - 772,000
Seat 4: Darryl Ronconi - 662,000
Seat 3: Adam Ross - 346,000
Seat 5: Ben Ponzio - 415,000
Seat 6: Danny Noam - 563,000
Seat 7: David Hewitt - 600,000
Seat 8: Ken Einiger - 1,039,000
Seat 9: Travis Rice - 1,284,000

They're starting at 20/40/5 which means the big stack has 30 BB and a M of about 12. 8 players have less than 20 BB or 8 M. This might break the 5K's record for time because there's more play at the FT of some midstake Stars' guaranteed tournamnet.

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

this was brough up in a thread last week by doublejoker and on allen kessler's blog www.myspace.com/allenkessler. the limit tourneys are even worse. In the late stages, the payers have only 6 or 8 big bets; meaning one hand and youre out.

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

Scary that when the $$$ matters most almost all of the "play" is gone.

One MINOR ( [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] ) oversight by the committee and powers that be.

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

[ QUOTE ]
Although I would still give anything to be out tthere playing it seems to me that Harrah's have made some huge errors this year.

Hopefully there will be some attempts to rectify the several problems before the 50k HORSE and the Main Event so that at leats these events aren't spoilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please be absolutely clear that the main event IS the HORSE event. The socalled main event is really the "internet world championship donk event". Sorry but your main {donkament}event structure means nothing when 99% of the players have no clue of any poker concepts.
Sadly most all of the poker public is ignorant of this fact. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

[ QUOTE ]
Although I would still give anything to be out tthere playing it seems to me that Harrah's have made some huge errors this year.

Hopefully there will be some attempts to rectify the several problems before the 50k HORSE and the Main Event so that at leats these events aren't spoilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please be absolutely clear that the main event IS the HORSE event. The socalled main event is really the "internet world championship donk event". Sorry but your main {donkament}event structure means nothing when 99% of the players have no clue of any poker concepts.
Sadly most all of the poker public is ignorant of this fact.

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

This is a problem with every site/structure especially with limit games. Cause you are usually calling till the end, a raise in blind levels in a limit/pot limit structure will grow more exponentially more than NL.

What happens is the first few levels are essentially useless. Of course, this will be changed, and you will see a structure that compensates for this.

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

[ QUOTE ]
How much of a difference do you think it would make if they just made a few simple adjustments, something like freezing the tournament clock immediately as soon as there is an all-in and a call?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this would help a bunch. For some reason players love to ham it up at a final table and take forever to make decisions. The final table I was at, we played 9 hands in the first 40 minutes.

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How much of a difference do you think it would make if they just made a few simple adjustments, something like freezing the tournament clock immediately as soon as there is an all-in and a call?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this would help a bunch. For some reason players love to ham it up at a final table and take forever to make decisions. The final table I was at, we played 9 hands in the first 40 minutes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't ESPN encourage players to play up to the cameras? It guarantees the player air time. The more the players ham it up, wasting time, the worst the blind structures will be. Those final tables will finish on time, just with fewer hands played.

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

Why not just roll back the blinds come final table?

It really did suck watching the 5k NL webcast and Nick Schulman shipping with A5 being tied for 2nd in chips with six left because there was no other move.

The mixed games structures seem even worse. With like 50 left in the Stud Hi/Lo 3k, the chip leaders with double the avg. stack had like 12 bets.

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Although I would still give anything to be out tthere playing it seems to me that Harrah's have made some huge errors this year.

Hopefully there will be some attempts to rectify the several problems before the 50k HORSE and the Main Event so that at leats these events aren't spoilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please be absolutely clear that the main event IS the HORSE event. The socalled main event is really the "internet world championship donk event". Sorry but your main {donkament}event structure means nothing when 99% of the players have no clue of any poker concepts.
Sadly most all of the poker public is ignorant of this fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that the 50k HORSE is certainly the most prestigious to win and also requires world-class ability to even begin to compete in, but when 99% of the players heading for Vegas and the World Series will be going for the 10k NLHE ME then this will be considered the overall Main Event regardless of average skill of the participants.

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Although I would still give anything to be out tthere playing it seems to me that Harrah's have made some huge errors this year.

Hopefully there will be some attempts to rectify the several problems before the 50k HORSE and the Main Event so that at leats these events aren't spoilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please be absolutely clear that the main event IS the HORSE event. The socalled main event is really the "internet world championship donk event". Sorry but your main {donkament}event structure means nothing when 99% of the players have no clue of any poker concepts.
Sadly most all of the poker public is ignorant of this fact. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

What is sad about a soft field for a 10K buyin tournament? You don't like money?

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

[ QUOTE ]
Structures are different this year too in the 1500 v 5k.

I also strongly agree. The double stacks minus levels is very annoying - esp in the limit events. You're pretty much stuck there for five hours period and then when you get to where it matters the chips aren't there. When I finished the O8 event there were 16 big bets in play - playing for a bracelet.

Devo

Devo

[/ QUOTE ]

That's [censored] horrible.

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

I ran the numbers on all of the structures as soon as they were released. Results showed that tourneys were going to speed up v. fast in the late stages.

This was the primary reason I booked so much side action in FT & bracelet bets this year.

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

Let me start this extremely long post by answering a few questions.

[ QUOTE ]
How much of a difference do you think it would make if they just made a few simple adjustments, something like freezing the tournament clock immediately as soon as there is an all-in and a call?

[/ QUOTE ]
Harrah's has specifically implemented that this year, and I have witnessed this first-hand at the ESPN final tables. When there is an all in and a call, the TD stops the clock while ESPN plays out the moment for drama. Sometimes there is an additional delay while they interview a busted player, but the clock doesn't resume until the cards are shuffled for the next hand.

It's a welcome change, but one that only affects ESPN events. In all other events (even the webcast ones), the all-in hands aren't slowed down at all for dramatic purposes -- trust me, I'm *very* aware of this as I try to keep up the live hand-by-hand coverage. So score one for Harrah's on this point, compared to the last few years.


[ QUOTE ]
Last year I'm pretty sure they increased the time for each level at the final table. Can someone confirm/deny?

[/ QUOTE ]
While I can't find the official structure sheets from last year on WorldSeriesOfPoker.com, Card Player has them embedded in their coverage for 2006. And carefully checking last year's live updates confirms that at the final table, the levels were increased to 90 minutes. This year, levels are 60 minutes all the way to the end.

How did the Player's Advisory Council allow this significant change? Probably because it's buried in the fine print at the bottom of the structure sheets, and the Advisory Council probably never noticed. It's doubtful that anyone told them, "By the way, the levels at the final table are decreasing from 90 minutes to 60 minutes this year." But when the player's signed off on the structure sheets (whether it was literal or figurative), they unknowingly approved the change.


[ QUOTE ]
Also, didn't they have different structures for 5K events and 1500 events in 2006?

[/ QUOTE ]
According to CardPlayer.com's 2006 coverage, the structures were slightly different. Comparing the two structures side-by-side, the blinds were slightly higher in the 5,000 events than the 1,500 events.

2006 $1,500 NLHE Structure - http://www.cardplayer.com/tournaments/blinds/3191

2006 $5,000 NLHE Structure - http://www.cardplayer.com/tournaments/blinds/3198


[ QUOTE ]
I ran the numbers on all of the structures as soon as they were released. Results showed that the tourneys were going to speed up v. fast in the late stages.

[/ QUOTE ]
I commend jsmith5 for bringing this issue to light with such a thorough, well-written blog entry at Pokerwire and here on 2+2. It's sparked a lot of much-needed analysis. (Admo, who I quoted above this paragraph, seemed to understand the core issue before most of us.)

Before I do a side-by-side comparison of last year's structure and this year's structure, I'd like to address a few misconceptions.


THE SPEED OF A FINAL TABLE

The speed of a final table (whether measured by time or number of hands) is a symptom of a problem, not proof of one. There are a lot of factors that determine the speed of a final table.

Example: At a WSOP Circuit Championship in Atlantic City in December, 2005, the first seven players busted in just 75 hands before John Juanda and Chris Reslock battled heads-up for another 225 hands -- three times as many hands as it took to reach heads-up play. (Coincidence: Nick Schulman finished 4th that day, and he was also at the 48-hand massacre in Event #22 a few days ago.) For what it's worth, I was the one covering that event for Card Player. Link: http://www.cardplayer.com/tournament...?view_all=true


FINAL TABLE STARTING STACKS RELATIVE TO BLINDS

Final table starting stacks relative to the blinds is not a reliable indicator either, for the same reasons. Sometimes the final table is reached more quickly than others. That 10th-place finisher can bust in a few hands, or a few hours (and levels). The average starting stack would be the same in both cases, but the comparison to the blinds would obviously be much different.


NUMBER OF ENTRANTS

The number of entrants is also irrelevant. If more players enter an event, there will be more chips in play, but it will usually take longer to reach the final nine players -- and those differences cancel each other out. I can't think of a single case where a structure sheet was changed because of the number of entrants -- even in 2004, when the 2,576 entrants in the Main Event represented a 307% increase over the previous year and completely overwhelmed expectations at Binion's. A good tournament structure is good regardless of the number of entrants.


SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON: 2006-2007

Harrah's has made a big deal out of the fact that all events start with double the number of chips this year. The blinds increased as well, but Harrah's claimed the extra chips gave them flexibility to slow the structure in the early and middle rounds.

However, in this thread, anecdotal evidence points to the possibility that the blinds are actually *higher* than last year.

So which is it?

This is a relatively simple comparison. Since players start with twice as many chips this year, just divide all the blinds and antes in half to compare them with last year. That's it -- divide by two.

For example, if the starting stacks were doubled, and all the blind levels were exactly double of what they were last year, the net effect would be zero. You could triple the chips or quadruple the chips, and as long as the blinds and antes increased proportionally, the net effect would always be zero. (Psychologically there might be an effect, but that's outside this discussion -- if players trick themselves into playing faster, it's their own fault.)

I've compiled a side-by-side comparison (adjusted for starting stacks) of the blinds for the $5,000 no-limit hold'em event that Jeff Cabanillas won last year in roughly 8 1/2 hours (field: 622 players), and James Mackey won this year in 48 hands (field: 640 players).

We don't know how many hands were played in the event last year, because Card Player didn't do hand-by-hand coverage. I offered to freelance for them, but they turned me down so quickly it made me dizzy.

2006 Structure: http://www.cardplayer.com/tournaments/blinds/3198

2007 Structure: http://www.worldseriesofpoker.com/to...mp;groupid=309

Level 1
2006: 25-50 (0)
2007: 12.5-25 (0)

Level 2
2006: 50-100 (0)
2007: 25-50 (0)

Level 3
2006: 100-200 (0)
2007: 50-100 (0)

Level 4
2006: 100-200 (25)
2007: 50-100 (12.5)

Level 5
2006: 150-300 (25)
2007: 75-150 (12.5)

Level 6
2006: 200-400 (50)
2007: 100-200 (25)

Level 7
2006: 300-600 (75)
2007: 150-300 (37.5)

Level 8
2006: 400-800 (100)
2007: 200-400 (50)

Level 9
2006: 600-1,200 (200)
2007: 300-600 (50)

Level 10
2006: 800-1,600 (200)
2007: 400-800 (100)

Level 11
2006: 1,200-2,400 (300)
2007: 500-1,000 (150)

Level 12
2006: 1,500-3,000 (400)
2007: 750-1,500 (200)

Level 13
2006: 2,000-4,000 (500)
2007: 1,000-2,000 (250)

Level 14
2006: 2,500-5,000 (500)
2007: 1,500-3,000 (250)

Level 15
2006: 3,000-6,000 (1,000)
2007: 2,000-4,000 (500)

Level 16
2006: 4,000-8,000 (1,000)
2007: 3,000-6,000 (500)

Level 17
2006: 6,000-12,000 (2,000)
2007: 4,000-8,000 (1,000)

Level 18
2006: 8,000-16,000 (2,000)
2007: 5,000-10,000 (1,500)

Level 19
2006: 10,000-20,000 (3,000)
2007: 7,500-15,000 (2,000)

Level 20
2006: 12,000-24,000 (4,000)
2007: 10,000-20,000 (2,500)

Level 21
2006: 15,000-30,000 (5,000)
2007: 15,000-30,000 (2,500)

Level 22
2006: 20,000-40,000 (5,000)
2007: 20,000-40,000 (5,000)

Level 23
2006: 25,000-50,000 (5,000)
2007: 30,000-60,000 (7,500)

Note: Play ended during Level 23 in 2006 and during Level 21 in 2007.

As you can see, the blinds and antes were lower during the entire tournament in 2007 (through Level 21, when it ended). In that sense, the 2007 structure is "better" -- there *is* more play, as promised.

However ...

While the blinds and antes are lower, they accelerate much faster on Days Two and Three. Take another look at the side-by-side comparions -- for the first 13 levels, the blinds were about 50% of what they were last year. Statistically speaking, a higher percentage of the starting field should survive Day One.

But from Level 14 to Level 21, the blinds quickly catch up to where they were last year. In just seven levels (mostly on Day Two), the blinds go from 50% of last year to 100% of last year. That's a steep acceleration curve that seasoned tournament players aren't used to. Statistically, that will increase the chip swings and the rate of bustouts during that period of acceleration.

It's a weird juxtaposition. While this year's structure definitely offers more "play," it's a much "faster" structure. Traditionally, poker players have assumed that these two variables were one and the same.

They're not.

Harrah's can't be blamed too much. In past years, everyone complained that there wasn't enough play at the start of the lower buy-in events ($2,000 and less). Harrah's has definitely corrected that. And since there is mathematically more "play" than last year, it was difficult to argue with the new structure.

But the law of unintended consequences has kicked in, and most people didn't see this coming -- including the Players' Advisory Council and the poker media. (Kudos to Admo for figuring it out before the rest of us.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CONCLUSIONS

1. Blind levels at the final tables should be 90 minutes, like they were last year. The levels at final tables are changing 33% more often than they were last year.

2. The 2007 blind structure offers more "play" throughout the tournament than 2006, but is much "faster" on Day Two, when it matters more than Day One.

3. I have too much time on my hands, and I'm an idiot for not writing this up as a PokerNews article and getting paid for all this research/writing. But it's late, and I'm too tired to reformat this as an article.

4. Everyone from the Players' Advisory Council on down should lobby for 90-minute levels at the final table. I think Harrah's would be willing to make this change, but I don't know how much influence ESPN has on this decision -- and Harrah's would never open themselves to WPT-style criticism by blatantly changing the final table structures solely for ESPN events.

5. When the structures are evaluated for next year, they need to be compared more directly and more closely to prior years. The speed with which the blinds increase (and during which stage of the tournament) is just as important as the size of the blinds themselves.

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

[ QUOTE ]
5. When the structures are evaluated for next year, they need to be compared more directly and more closely to prior years. The speed with which the blinds increase (and during which stage of the tournament) is just as important as the size of the blinds themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have they ever considered having blind structures not set in stone? Make it table or mixture of player styles dependent. If the players came to play and are busting out quickly, use more gradual blind increases. On a table where all the players are folding and trying to chip up, use steep increases. Allow the TD flexibility to decide which is appropriate for that final table.

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

[ QUOTE ]
Have they ever considered having blind structures not set in stone? Make it table or mixture of player styles dependent. If the players came to play and are busting out quickly, use more gradual blind increases. On a table where all the players are folding and trying to chip up, use steep increases. Allow the TD flexibility to decide which is appropriate for that final table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose this could work if an exact formula could be devised and published so that anyone with the information needed could independently figure out what the changes would be in advance. Anything else involves subjective judgement by the TD that would be open to second guessing and rightfully so.

If you came to the final table and the tournament organizers unilaterally announced a change in the blind structure from what had been previously published wouldn't you object? I would probably do so unless given stack sizes, relative skill levels (as I perceived them) and so on I thought the change increased my EV. If it increases my EV it must be decreasing somebody elses.

Re: Final tables taking 1/2 as long at 2007 WSOP
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How much of a difference do you think it would make if they just made a few simple adjustments, something like freezing the tournament clock immediately as soon as there is an all-in and a call?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this would help a bunch. For some reason players love to ham it up at a final table and take forever to make decisions. The final table I was at, we played 9 hands in the first 40 minutes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't ESPN encourage players to play up to the cameras? It guarantees the player air time. The more the players ham it up, wasting time, the worst the blind structures will be. Those final tables will finish on time, just with fewer hands played.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't televised.