CardPlayer article re: high buy-in structures----agree or disagree?

[Alan Goehring]

An article in the 12/20 CardPlayer (p.74) makes two primary points:

1. We should eliminate players from tournaments quickly until the money is reached. "In the early stages of the tournament, eliminate players quickly. This can be done by starting at a higher level, playing shorter rounds early, or eliminating some of the early levels".

Reading this made me cringe, as I believe the "typical" big buy-in structure today is deficient in deep-chip play and the early bust out rate is too high. I think we need to see more play in the 100-300BB range, not less. For example, 30k SC with 50/100, 75/150, 100/200, 100/200/ante, 150/300/ante, 200/400/ante----would give six levels of deep chip play (i.e., over 100BB's assuming 1/4 field gone by end of level 5).

I do agree there is such a thing as "too deep". For example Fallsview started 800BB's (25/25 & 20k SC) and skipped the critical 100/200/0 level, and the upcoming Borgata event starts 600BB's (25/50 & 30k SC) but has no (extremely sweet) 100/200/25.

2. "When it doesn't matter, you have a lot of play. When it really counts, you have little or no play"

This argument says it is not really important how much randomness you have when AS=12k, it is significantly more important to have less randomness when AS=120k. I think one could make the opposite argument that if you are out of the tournament, the structure doesn't matter to you, and the play at AS=120k only impacts 10% of the players (vs. AS=12k). I believe the correct answer is that the "aggregate amount of chips in play" is constant throughout the entire event, so it "really counts" equally throughout the entire event (as the aggregate amount of chips impacted remains the same at every level). My view is you need to start off slow so that early volatility can be accomodated, and time is given for a large stack to both be accumulated AND maintained.

I guess I view the suggestions set forth in the CardPlayer article as a way to turn existing tournaments into even bigger "donkaments". And since I am already not traveling to events with marginal structures, I would play even fewer events if the early randomness factor is further increased.

So I ask you, am I misunderstanding the article, are my views those of an almost non-existent minority, or does the CardPlayer article not make sense?

[MicroBob]

I'm not much of a tourney player. And I don't know if your opinion is in the minority or not.
But I pretty much agree with you 100%.


Who wrote the article?

[Taborcarn]

It's by Steve Zolotow. The article can be read here: http://www.cardplayer.com/magazine/article/16399

[hotmark777]

I know this is off topic but how do you feel about the fact that many major tournaments are given twice the buy in starting chips instead of the actual buy in.

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
"donkaments"

[/ QUOTE ]
YES WE GOT ALAN GOEHRING TO SAY DONKAMENTS

anyway, i agree with you. anything that allows a structure to play deeper and longer and benefits more skilled players is good with me. i've been ranting about the pokerstars structure, the one all the online kids love, for a long time (too many big jumps, the antes are laughable, etc.) the last thing i want is more sped-up structures. and the whole wpt "let's cut the levels in half at the final table so our camera crew can wrap early, who cares if we're forcing these players to a crapshoot for the large majority of the prize pool?" is vile and disgusting.

[Exitonly]

wow, that's a really really bad article.


i agree 12-14 hour days are a bit excessive (9-10 is good), and that twoards the end of tournaments there are often some levels taht should be added, but i dont understand why we're trying to take out some skill advantage in the beginign. and how confidently he writes about it is disturbing, it oculd actually convince some tournaemnt directors to reverse the trend about caring about the structures.

and does anyone remember the world series main event? bad players spew off their stacks just as fast when they have 100bb as they do with 20bb. The main event actually got pretty damn deepstacked at the end because of how fast people were getting knocked out.

[NoahSD]

The current structure of tournaments is amazingly good for good players. Stacks are deep in the beginning, which naturally favors good players obv. And then when bad players typically get way too tight, stacks get really short and we get to pick on their blinds. Changing this would suck soooo much.

[shaniac]

Yeah, I thought the article was a head-scratcher, too.

But I think the point Steve is making--and the one most of us agree on probably--is that it's wack to offer a tournament that's slow at the beginning and fast in the middle/end. I think he suggests an extreme alternative in order to highlight the fact that some structures appear deep to start but are really donkified later. Of course, he should be arguing for equilibrium, like you are.

I think we (Steve Z, you, me) agree that it's preferable to start with 200 BBs but to include 75/150 and 150/300 levels rather than to start with 400BBs and loose a lot of depth when the blinds double from 50/100 to 100/200 then from 100/200 to 200/400.

I think the root of Steve Z's complaint (I heard Mike Matusow say basically the same thing during the 15K event) is that it's stupid to start at 20K chips with 25/25 or 25/50 blinds when most people don't even benefit from such deep play, and then to accelerate the tournament hard when the money at stake is high.

[Alan Goehring]

[ QUOTE ]
i agree 12-14 hour days are a bit excessive (9-10 is good),

The main event actually got pretty damn deepstacked at the end because of how fast people were getting knocked out.

[/ QUOTE ]

The hours per day comment is all about persoanal preference. I like 5 levels @ 120 minutes, or ten hours of play per day (basically noon till midnight). A lot of people prefer less. I don't play that much (under 50/days year) so I am less susceptible to burnout, unlike many players I view playing as fun, not work, and I rarely play the side games.

I probably will skip traveling to two $10k events this year because the playing time per day is actually too short, and I feel like the casino if wasting my time.

Re your last comment, it seems there is a myth that the WSOP ME ended a day early (pre FT) because of a high knockout rate. Untrue. The event ended at the exact level I predicted (I posted my prediction on 2+2 well before the event occured). The only reason for the extra day was that Harrahs played something like 5 levels per day when they only need to play 4.3 levels per day.

[Alan Goehring]

[ QUOTE ]
But I think the point Steve is making--and the one most of us agree on probably--is that it's wack to offer a tournament that's slow at the beginning and fast in the middle/end. I think he suggests an extreme alternative in order to highlight the fact that some structures appear deep to start but are really donkified later. Of course, he should be arguing for equilibrium, like you are.

I think we (Steve Z, you, me) agree that it's preferable to start with 200 BBs but to include 75/150 and 150/300 levels rather than to start with 400BBs and loose a lot of depth when the blinds double from 50/100 to 100/200 then from 100/200 to 200/400.

I think the root of Steve Z's complaint (I heard Mike Matusow say basically the same thing during the 15K event) is that it's stupid to start at 20K chips with 25/25 or 25/50 blinds when most people don't even benefit from such deep play, and then to accelerate the tournament hard when the money at stake is high.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we all agree 600BB & 800BB are a waste of valuable time. You and I are on the same page, which is "lets beef up the early part of the structure" in a sensible way, which is not the way some casinos have done it.

But he (Steve Z.) wants to accelerate play to eliminate 90% of the field, which implies that a 75/150 and 150/300 level should not be added. I hope I am wrong.

He seems to be endorsing a Bay 101 like structure, which I will probably skip this year specifically because of insufficient deep chip play and an associated very high early bust-out rate.

btw, I would prefer to start 300BB's or even 400BB's, but I also would prefer the Five Diamond structure with 100 minute levels over the Five Star structure (w/ 90 minutes).