Trip Report: Heads-Up Tournament (long)

[82Steve]

Since I enjoy reading all your trip reports so much I decided to write one of my own. First of all, my group is running a league where additionally to the regular prices we award points to the top5 of each tourney. From time to time we run special tourneys w/ increased buyin which are worth more points. This time we decided to run a Heads-Up Tournament. None of us had any experience with this, but we wanted to give it a try.

I am administrating all the league stuff but we always hold our tourneys at a friends place where we have a custom-made poker table and a few table tops. My goal was to create a tournament for up to 16 guys that will allow some skillful play. I researched at homepokertourney.com and used the 2p2-search and came up with a nice setup.

The structure was Double-Elimination. Most of our crew lives pretty nearby (except one), but there's not much more frustrating than playing one match (maybe only a few hands) of poker and bust out very early. That way we ensured everyone to play at least 2 matches. Our blinds were comparatively low to what I mostly read, but I will come to that later. At work I printed out a big sheet with the tournament tree, which I highly recommend. People were constantly asking for it to see where they were at. Here it is:


On to tournament day:
12 players showed up to play in the tournament. Our group varies a lot from 10-20 players, which is something I dont like that much. We have like 6-8 regulars who almost always come to play but some only come occasionally. Well, 12 players is just barely ok to play in this structure. We had to give 4 byes, which went to the top 4 players in our leaderboard (we seeded the players according to the current league standings). Unfortunately that wasnt me [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. So I had to play my first match vs. Kevin.

Kevin isnt a bad player. He plays in a few other poker groups as well, but generally overestimates his abilities a lot. However, I count as one of the strongest players in the group, but havent had much success this year in any of our events. But I know that he is not happy to play me first round, and he is joking around about how he has no chance at all against me. He will play a tight-passive game and I know that I can crush him by playing ultra-loose and aggressive. Said and done, this worked out well in the beginning. But as the game progressed he seemed to pick up on it and I lost a few pots on the turn when he suddenly woke up (dunno if he had much there, i doubt it). After climbing to a nice 1400-600 lead, he worked me down to like 500-1500. The blinds rose and rose and things started to not look to pretty for me. One key hand was when I c/r-ed him (AI for me) on a K88 board with a pure bluff to get him to fold K9. That was the nit in him. We were like 40 minutes deep into the match and we both had like 10-12BB each when I started to get really aggressive and steal pots w/ a lot of Allin-moves. Finally I move AI w/ 92 on a Q9x board and he called w/ JT. Turn and river bricked and I was happy to survive this marathon. 2 of the other matches were over pretty quick, just my brother Tom was still playing against my university friend. 10 minutes later my brother lost when my friend caught up on the river to send Tom into the Loser Bracket.

Next Match was against Fil, a friend of the 2 hosting brothers. He had a bye first round. After playing a few hands and doing a few continuation bets I noticed that he was the biggest nit I have ever seen. He would fold almost everything under Top Pair. Everyone of you who has played Heads-Up before knows that mostly both players miss the flop, but he just refused to play back. So I played like 95% of my hands (just a few to give him the impression that i do hand selection) and cbet or donked almost every flop. I worked out pretty well and I stole pot after pot. When we went to showdown I always had the best hand and he seemed a bit frustrated from this. Now I just had to finish him off, but that turned out to be very hard. Three times i had him down to around 700 when we moved AI. First hand, K2 vs A5 on Kxx and he rivered an Ace. Second hand i dont remember, but it was something like hand one (think i had second pair). Third hand, JJ vs 77 on 975 board. That third hand put me down to around 800 and I really feared elimination. Fortunately he still played his ultra-tight game and we got around even again. Then due to the blinds I moved AI on a flop of QJx w/ A6 and got called by King-hi. This time my cards held up and after around an hour of play I finally won.

In the Winner Bracket Semi-Final I had to play vs. my friend Tobi. He had a bye first round and won his first match in the very first hand. I dont know the details, I just know he held JJ on J-hi board. So while I have played 2 long matches and around 100 hands, he had the experience of exactly one Heads-Up-Hand [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] This match was similar to my previous match. He wasnt as tight as Fil though, he played more hands, but gave up a lot on the flop. When he had like 700 left I tried to eliminate him by calling w/ A9s and a flush draw vs his second pair on a 873-board, but turn and river bricked. Later I raised on the button w/ AJs and he reraised (first time I have been reraised the entire tournament). I held a pretty good hand, but decided that it is probably easier to give him this pot but steal 8 out of the next 10. He told me later he held AT, but I still think that I made the right choice. A few hands later he minraised on the button. I called w/ 98o. flop was 765, bingo. I checked, he bet the pot, i minraised (I usually dont do this, but i felt like it was the right time). He then quickly moved AI and I called. He flipped QQ, turn bricked and I'm in the Winner Bracket Final.

Next match I played vs. Sheriff. He was the best player I had to face up to now, but still far away from good. I continued my semi-LAG-game and again it worked pretty well. I won a few pots and the blinds rose again. I had worked him down pretty well when the final hand came up. He limped on the button and I moved AI for 5BB more w/ KJs. He called and turned over AKo. Fortunately the flop gave me a Jack and neither turn nor river were an Ace.

I then had to wait for the Grande Finale. My opponent was determined between the 2 hosting brothers. Sheriff was in the Loser Bracket Final but decided to leave as it was getting late and he had to get up at like 6am, he was satisfied w/ 3rd place. So the brothers were actually playing for a place in the big finale. After around 20 minutes Erik beat his brother and everything was set for the championship match.

I went into the match w/ a 16k-10k chip advantage since I came from the Winner Bracket. Erik is probably the best player from the group besides me and my brother but he has a tendency to try crazy bluffs when he is getting bored. Anyways, the match started out pretty boring (you see [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ). He was more aggressive than my other opponents, so we exchanged a few chips. Then this hand came up: He minraised from the button and I called w/ Q4. The flop was Q64. He bet out 2k in a pot of 1.2k. I figured he had something but I thought most likely just a higher Q. I was contemplating about a minute and put out 2 yellow chips for the call. Turn was a 9. He paused for a few secs and announced Allin. I quickly called and flipped over my Two Pair. He reluctantly showed K7 and knew he was already drawing dead.

So the PSOP Heads-Up Champion 2007 is... me [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] This victory pushed me from place 16 to 3 on our leaderboard and Erik moved from 2 to 1. So it was a good night for both of us. I think most people enjoyed the change of tournament. But for the rest of the year we will probably stick to regular Tourneys.

Lessons learned while organizing:
-Print a big sheet with the tournament tree. Everybody loved it.
-Put out 2 decks of cards for every match. Shuffling takes so much time and you play soooo many quick PF hands in a HU match.
-Send out an Email concerning the different rules in HU poker in advance (but be prepared that people did not read it). Explain the concept of double elimination, most people dont know it.
-10 minute blind levels are perfect
-50BB is a HUGE stack. Adjust your blind schedule accordingly. I wanted a skillful tourney but when you start w/ 50-80BB and you play against people who dont raise then it will take a lot of time. If your crew is more aggressive then my blind structure is probably good for you. In the later matches we skipped the first blind level to make things faster.
-Blind structure in the loser bracket has to be very aggressive. I think mine worked just about right, but keep in mind that the LB takes a lot more matches to finish.
-KITN for people who show up late (my brother).

Lessons learned while playing:
-read the HU part in HoH2. it is GOLD.
-TPGK is the nuts.
-never open-fold on the button, if so, only for advertising reasons

[Lottery Larry]

Interesting report- a few minor comments:

1) "Our group varies a lot from 10-20 players, which is something I dont like that much"

Nature of the beast, or am I missing something here? What is it you don't "like" about it, other than the obvious?

2) Losers bracket (bad name, btw) stacks are pretty low, but it seems as if you were looking for some quick resolutions and a one-night HU tourney, so not much to say.

3) The 16k vs. 10k seems to be a pretty big advantage. The "whiffed first match" bracket seems to require more wins to get to the championship, not sure I like the 60% head start... especially since it's single-elim matches on the normal side.

Congrats on the win

[82Steve]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting report- a few minor comments:

1) "Our group varies a lot from 10-20 players, which is something I dont like that much"

Nature of the beast, or am I missing something here? What is it you don't "like" about it, other than the obvious?

[/ QUOTE ]
i dont like the huge variation. People dont answer emails, back off from confirmed attendance etc. Sometimes we have 3 tables running, sometimes i have to call people to get them to come so we have at least 8 players. But i guess, most groups do have these issues.

[ QUOTE ]

2) Losers bracket (bad name, btw) stacks are pretty low, but it seems as if you were looking for some quick resolutions and a one-night HU tourney, so not much to say.


[/ QUOTE ]
Hmm, i thought the names were standard. But i think the name is ok, since all the players in it have already lost a match, so they can be called losers [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
I was aware of the short stacks in the LB, it doesnt allow too much poker, but it was necessary to keep the tournament moving. Some matches were over pretty quick, some lasted well over 30 minutes. LB is definately the bottleneck and each round there has to end quicker than on the other side to get to the final in like 5 hours.

[ QUOTE ]

3) The 16k vs. 10k seems to be a pretty big advantage. The "whiffed first match" bracket seems to require more wins to get to the championship, not sure I like the 60% head start... especially since it's single-elim matches on the normal side.


[/ QUOTE ]
I think the player from WB has to have some kind of advantage, since he did not lose a match yet. The usual approach would have been to give both players even stacks, but the player from the LB would have to win 2 times in a row. But I think one match w/ different stacks is better (gives that match more drama). I had the same discussion w/ my final opponent, but he later admitted, that an even match would not be right.

Hmm, "..espectially since it's single-elim on the normal side" makes me wonder, if you got our structure right. Everybody started out in the winnerbracket. Dont know what you consider to be the normal side. Maybe it would have been clearer if I wrote "Loser of #16 vs #1, ...." on the very right side.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting report- a few minor comments:

1) "Our group varies a lot from 10-20 players, which is something I dont like that much"

Nature of the beast, or am I missing something here? What is it you don't "like" about it, other than the obvious?

[/ QUOTE ]
i dont like the huge variation. People dont answer emails, back off from confirmed attendance etc. Sometimes we have 3 tables running, sometimes i have to call people to get them to come so we have at least 8 players. But i guess, most groups do have these issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

Welcome to home games. If this is more than an irritation to you, I'd guess that you haven't been hosting for long?

(and yes, we all hate it)

[ QUOTE ]
The usual approach would have been to give both players even stacks, but the player from the LB would have to win 2 times in a row.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Usual" approach?

[ QUOTE ]

I think the player from WB has to have some kind of advantage, since he did not lose a match yet.
.
.
.
I had the same discussion w/ my final opponent, but he later admitted, that an even match would not be right.

Hmm, "..espectially since it's single-elim on the normal side" makes me wonder, if you got our structure right. Everybody started out in the winnerbracket. Dont know what you consider to be the normal side. Maybe it would have been clearer if I wrote "Loser of #16 vs #1, ...." on the very right side.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, can you clear this up a little?

My interpretation was that players a-d had a bye, players e-h lost and went to the loser bracket, then players a-d might only have to play 3 matches to reach the championship. You basically have to go undefeated for 3-4 matches to be the winners' bracket champ.

... while I don't know how many players from i-l (for example) get seeded in, at one time or later, for the losers' bracket pairoffs.

How many matches/wins did the loser bracket champ have when you played?

IMO, the problem with giving the winners bracket such an advantage is that, HU with somewhat short SS, card variance plays much more of a role than skill. Just because the cards can run bad in one single match, at the wrong time (as in, early on in the tourney matches), doesn't mean the undefeated "winners' champ" is a better player than the "losers' champ".

[82Steve]

k, ill try to explain:
Everbody is seeded by the current league standings. A-D got a bye, E-L played their first round match in the WB, so there were 4 losers that went to the LB (lets call them I-L). Because they play their 2nd round match against the byes, they advance automatically. Now the winners from first round play A-D. and so on.

You are correct by saying that you have to win 3-4 matches in a row to be WB champion. LB has to play more because of the nature of double elim. LB champ Erik had a bye first round, lost his first match (Q1) and won all of his matches in the loser bracket, so he played a total of 6 matches before the championship match (actually 5 because LB final was forfeited by sheriff) against my 4 matches.

A detailed explanation of double elimination can be found on Wikipedia. Regarding the final you can read there "The championship finals of a double elimination tournament is usually set up to be a possible two games. The rationale is that since the tournament is indeed double elimination, it is unfair to have the Winners' Bracket champion eliminated with its first loss. Therefore, while the Winners' Bracket champion needs to beat the Losers' Bracket champion only once to win the tournament, the Losers' Bracket champion must beat the Winners' Bracket champion twice."
I made it one match. I think the 16k-10k chip advantage is about the same handycap as playing best of 2. If early on the LB champ manages to get 3K more chips its already even. If he doubles up, hes in front by far. But he has no reason to be desperate, as he starts out w/ 50BB, which is plenty HU.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
LB champ Erik had a bye first round, lost his first match (Q1) and won all of his matches in the loser bracket, so he played a total of 6 matches before the championship match (actually 5 because LB final was forfeited by sheriff) against my 4 matches.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, I did interpret correctly. Notice that the LB champ had a better record (5-1) than you did, yet he got the big penalty, just because his single loss happened early.

Most of his matches are within a blind structure where luck plays more of a role, so whether that offsets or augments his charge up the ladder is a judgement call.



[ QUOTE ]
"...The rationale is that since the tournament is indeed double elimination, it is unfair to have the Winners' Bracket champion eliminated with its first loss."

[/ QUOTE ]

And on the other hand, is it fair for the person with more wins to have to win 2x as much in the finals? I don't like that one-sided structure that they suggest.

If you're going to give the winner bracket more chips, that's fine (though I wouldn't make it as drastic) but it should be double elim for BOTH players in the final, imo. Give the loser bracket champ more of a chance to let the cards break evenly.

But, if it works for your group, my opinion means nothing.

[82Steve]

[ QUOTE ]
So, I did interpret correctly. Notice that the LB champ had a better record (5-1) than you did, yet he got the big penalty, just because his single loss happened early.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would not call 5-1 a better record than 4-0. Additionally, the LB champ plays his matches vs. weaker opponents. the WB champ plays all of his matches vs. strong opponents that have not lost yet. sometimes a weaker player defeats a stronger player to counter that statement, but in general the better players can be found in the WB.

[ QUOTE ]
And on the other hand, is it fair for the person with more wins to have to win 2x as much in the finals?

[/ QUOTE ]
hmm, i dont agree with your focus on number of wins. Keep in mind that the WB champ has a flawless record going into the finals. I agree that it would be better to play best of 3 in the final (someone actually asked at the start of the tourney if all matches were played best of 3). WB champ should have a slight chip advantage in all 3 matches. That would be better and fairer approach. But it is much more time consuming, thats why i didnt do it.

But I appreciate your comments leading to this discussion about sense and nonsense of double elim.

[Small Fry]

I finally took the time to read this and, personally I think you made this much, much more convoluted than it needs to be. Although I will say up front I like your Tournament tree.

My take on a good heads up game format (these are just my opinions):

1. all rounds start with same amount of chips and have same blind levels. In your case this could be the very first level of 1000.

2. #1 applies to both winner and loser brackets

3. If you understand the double-elim format you know the loser bracket has two more rounds and starts one round after winner bracket. This adds considerable time to the overall game and causes delays / waiting on the winner side. I don't like the idea of forcing their play, via shorter stacks, faster blind levels or whatever, to get them to finish faster.

4. Double elim means you have to lose twice. The consequence of losing a match is if you are successful enough to make it to the final you must now beat your opponent, who is from the winning bracket and undefeated, twice. He must only beat you once. You should not recieve additional handicaps such as shorter stacks.

My apologies if this came across as a rant as thats not what I intended. Just wanted to offer some food for thought for future matches.