Both Snyder and Tribe overthink it

[binions]

Here's the best way to compare tournament structures:

How long does it take the big blind to equal the starting chips?

That's pretty much it. Double the time for an online tourney to compare it to live. Add 10% to live tourneys that use shuffle machines vs. those that don't.

The longer it takes, the better the structure. Players paying bigger buy ins deserve more time before BB = SC.

My preferences include starting with at least 200xBB and having at least 3 levels where the average stack is greater than 100xBB.

[govman6767]

Your right but underthinking it does not get articles published or books sold.

[Sherman]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's the best way to compare tournament structures:

How long does it take the big blind to equal the starting chips?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure this is the best way? How do you know? How can you prove that this is the best way?

That sort of analysis does not respond well to tournaments that start slow but pick up speed late (like a lot of home tournies do). Those types of tournies would have slow Blind off times, but their overall speed would be mis-represented by only using blind off times. Of course, Tribe's and Snyder's don't take these sorts of things into account either. The point is that using a simplistic measure of blind off time isn't necessarily the "best" or most accurate way of analyzing tournament structure.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's the best way to compare tournament structures:

How long does it take the big blind to equal the starting chips?

That's pretty much it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh.

[ QUOTE ]
Double the time for an online tourney to compare it to live. Add 10% to live tourneys that use shuffle machines vs. those that don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh. I guess that wasn't it after all. Back to the drawing board.....

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's the best way to compare tournament structures:

How long does it take the big blind to equal the starting chips?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure this is the best way? How do you know? How can you prove that this is the best way?



[/ QUOTE ]

How can anything subjective be proven?

I will say that no pro goes through Snyder's drill of figuring how long it takes to be blinded off and then squaring the time.

Here's one pro discussing how he analyzes structures:

http://www.cardplayer.com/magazine/article/15347

JM: The first WPT championship you won, the 2003 $25,000 WPT Championship, was unique in that it was one of the first events in which players started out with a monstrous amount of chips ($50,000). Do you think events like this, in which players are allowed a ton of play, are vastly superior to others?

AG: I think it is important to have a reasonable amount of "deep-chip play." To be able to utilize all the tools available in a game, you need to have the average stack at 200 times the big blind. Almost all the skill in no-limit is after the flop, and the game is complex when you are forced to play every street well. The game is still pretty good when the average stack is 80 times the big blind or more. However, when it drops below 80, "Kill Phil" strategies start to become relevant - and I don't view that as great poker.

I love playing the first two days of a four- or five-day event. However, when we are playing with the average stack at 25-35 times the big blind, I don't enjoy playing, as most of the play is out of the game. When it's reraise all in preflop, or all in on the flop, it is relatively easy to play close to optimal strategy.

In a nutshell, I believe there are fewer than 10 great deep-chip players in the world, but there are hundreds (possibly thousands) of players who play extremely well with an average stack at 30 times the big blind. In my opinion, the six best deep-chip players, what some would call chip accumulators, are Michael Mizrachi, Barry Greenstein, David Pham, Patrik Antonius, Fabrice Soulier, and myself.

JM: As someone who is not a fixture on the grueling tournament circuit, how do you choose which events you play?

AG: Blind structure is absolutely the most important factor for me, as I have many strong and explicit views on this issue. For an out-of-town event, if the structure is not posted on the casino's website, I will request that the casino send me the structure via e-mail. I have tried to be a little proactive, as I have sent a 12-page letter to the World Poker Tour (WPT), outlining all of my views and stating why it is critical for WPT events to have better structures.

I feel so strongly about a good structure that I won't even consider playing a regular full-table no-limit (or pot-limit) event that starts at an average stack of less than 100 times the big blind.

JM: So, what do you think is the perfect structure for big buy-in tournament poker?

AG: I don't think you can have a perfect structure, since it would require play to be maintained at 200 times the big blind. A close-to-perfect structure would be to start with an average stack of at least 200 times the big blind and eventually flatten out and oscillate between an average stack of 80-100 times the big blind.

JM: Well, unfortunately, with TV production dictating structure, this probably won't happen soon. But, I know you are passionate about this topic, so what criteria make a good structure for real-world big buy-in events?

AG: Basically, I believe the quality of structures deteriorated significantly in the second season of the WPT. The casinos' response to the massive increase in field sizes was to shortchange the structure by reducing level lengths, when the correct response would have been to add a day.

To me, good structure is not about separating good players from bad players; it is about separating great players from good players. I strongly believe that as the buy-in increases, players should get a better structure and more play. <font color="blue"> A quick way to analyze structure is to look at the amount of time it takes for the big blind to reach the amount of each player's starting chips. On this basis, a "reasonably good" structure would have 25 hours for a $5,000 event, 30 hours for a $10,000 event, 36 hours for a $15,000 event, and 45 to 54 hours for a $25,000 event. A "great" structure would have about 20 percent more play, and would never see the blinds increase more than 33.33 percent after the $150-$300 level.</font>

JM: So, are any favorable changes on the horizon?

AG: The good news is that many WPT events - such as the World Poker Open, the L.A. Poker Classic, Mirage, Bike, and Borgata - have had improved structures over the last year. But further improvement is needed. The bad news is that the World Series $10,000 championship is going to 100-minute levels throughout, making it even more difficult for the best player to win. With $10,000 in starting chips and no $75-$150 level, play will be at an average stack of 60 times the big blind after only 200 minutes of play. However, the World Series has done some things right. Namely, $5,000 events were extended to 75-minute levels, and they maintained the integrity of the smaller events by making many of them three days as opposed to going to 45-minute levels.

[Sherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's the best way to compare tournament structures:

How long does it take the big blind to equal the starting chips?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure this is the best way? How do you know? How can you prove that this is the best way?



[/ QUOTE ]

How can anything subjective be proven?

[/ QUOTE ]


I have no idea. You are the one who said it was the best way. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]