HSNL HU Tournament

[Ship Ship McGipp]

[ QUOTE ]
3 tabling is a bad idea because once you win one table and let's say your opponent has like 40 big blinds and 300 big blinds on his other two tables. Naturally you would ultra TAG on the 300 big blinds and just win the 40 big blinds table which is very unfair. I think it should just be 2 tables of 300 big blinds and a sudden death if it's a tie.

[/ QUOTE ]

i said this exact thing already, but no one seems to care/understand the point, so i'll just go with the flow, but if it causes problems in a match or two, i def warned everyone

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3 tabling is a bad idea because once you win one table and let's say your opponent has like 40 big blinds and 300 big blinds on his other two tables. Naturally you would ultra TAG on the 300 big blinds and just win the 40 big blinds table which is very unfair. I think it should just be 2 tables of 300 big blinds and a sudden death if it's a tie.

[/ QUOTE ]

i said this exact thing already, but no one seems to care/understand the point, so i'll just go with the flow, but if it causes problems in a match or two, i def warned everyone

[/ QUOTE ]

nothing is stopping you from just playing mega tight to begin with. i dont see how this changes anything. however, i am fine doing 2 tables then a sudden death. i really dont wanna 1 table 300x deep though ill be bored out of my mind.

[Ansky]

All,

How about 2 300x at the same time, then 1 100bb to settle if it's tied (w/ the third being 300bb in the final, 4)? Or would you rather play all 300bb? Keep the ideas coming.

[king_of_drafts]

[ QUOTE ]
All,

How about 2 300x at the same time, then 1 100bb to settle if it's tied (w/ the third being 300bb in the final, 4)? Or would you rather play all 300bb? Keep the ideas coming.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think three tables is that much harder than two.

[NHFunkii]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3 tabling is a bad idea because once you win one table and let's say your opponent has like 40 big blinds and 300 big blinds on his other two tables. Naturally you would ultra TAG on the 300 big blinds and just win the 40 big blinds table which is very unfair. I think it should just be 2 tables of 300 big blinds and a sudden death if it's a tie.

[/ QUOTE ]

i said this exact thing already, but no one seems to care/understand the point, so i'll just go with the flow, but if it causes problems in a match or two, i def warned everyone

[/ QUOTE ]

this doesnt make any sense.
why would they play tighter on the table with 300 bbs? They still want to maximize the probability that they win that table, regardless of the other table. am I missing something?

[AK87]

I would rather play 3 tables

[fsuplayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3 tabling is a bad idea because once you win one table and let's say your opponent has like 40 big blinds and 300 big blinds on his other two tables. Naturally you would ultra TAG on the 300 big blinds and just win the 40 big blinds table which is very unfair. I think it should just be 2 tables of 300 big blinds and a sudden death if it's a tie.

[/ QUOTE ]

i said this exact thing already, but no one seems to care/understand the point, so i'll just go with the flow, but if it causes problems in a match or two, i def warned everyone

[/ QUOTE ]

plz explain, bc ur making very little sense to me. and it seems like im not the only one.

[Ship Ship McGipp]

alright.

it's like this (the way i see it, it might be hard to explain but i'll try i guess- i could definitely be wrong here, but i'm fairly confident this makes sense).

if you get done with the first match and player A wins, now there are two matches left. let's say taht player A has a 450 to 150 bb lead on table 2, while player B has a 325 to 275 bb lead on another table. player B is going to drastically change his style to very tag (nitty) on table 2, because, by the nature of NL holdem (assuming equal skill), he's only got a 25% chance of winning on that table.

although these matches are individual, the individual results affect the whole (for instance, it's not like someone gets 25% of the entry fee back since they lost 2 to 1 and not 2 to 0).

basically, the players can start really tanking and taking a full timebank (even if this only a few seconds, it obviously adds up incredibly quickly HU) on the tables that they're behind on, because suddenly they don't want to win those as much.

i don't really know how to further explain it... but it takes away from the poker and adds outside factors IMO that shouldn't be part of the match by altering styles, bluff frequencies, etc.

an example i can randomly think of was on that tournament circuit on Fox sports net. the superstars one where there was a point system, the point system affected the outcome of the matches, so people were gunning for specific players because they needed to get specific places, and not necessarily the overall EV or "best" poker plays they can make. that's a weird example and taht was a few years ago but it's all i could think of.

[Ansky]

aejones what the hell are you talking about

you would still have to win 1 of the 2, what you are saying really makes no sense.

[Ship Ship McGipp]

ok nevermind, procede, sorry for the fuss