OO MTT NLHE 2007 Poker Tournament Main Thread

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Fri Jul 13, 2007 3:06 pm

Austin wrote:
Trent Steel wrote:
LordMortis wrote:Basically, are the only people allowed to flip the hourglass, Neal and the person who is next in line or can anyone at the table do it?
I would say the last person to take action can do it. As long as you receive a PM, what's the difference between a player at the table or Meal?

The only problem would be if no PM was sent because then the player in the spot AFTER the one who timed out might not know what has transpired.
Yeah, send the next guy a PM when the one before him times out.

That's why you would PM and post in my hypothetical. That way the next person theoretically is made aware that they are on the clock the best way you can inform them. I doubt it will ever come up, especially as Neal comes along enough, but you never know. It is not inconceivable that Neal is AFK and two people in a row get called away unexpectedly for an inconvenient 48 + hours at perfectly bad timing.

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Sat Jul 14, 2007 8:07 am

ScubaV wrote:I second Austin's motion. 24 hours can really throw off a table's rhythm, but 48 hours is excruciating. It hasn't happened yet at my table, though it could have in the case of gbasden if someone hadn't linked another post of his saying he'd be gone a week. For the person who's put as away, missing one or two hands is not a big deal, but for the table it can preserve a lot of continuity and continued interest in its happenings.

Noted. But it's not up for a vote.

~Neal

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Sat Jul 14, 2007 8:10 am

LordMortis wrote:Speaking of the 24 hour rule.

If someone goes 24 hours without responding, is it OK to step in for the next person up. Make a declaration and PM that next person, thereby resetting the clock without the need for Meal or the next person's interference.

It's not out of line to remind the next player that they're free to act. But until the next active player at the table takes action, the person who's technically timed out may still act.

In short is it only a "right" of the next player to jump in after 24 hours or can anyone from the game advance the game with the proper protocol in a player's unintended absence?

They don't advance the game, but they can help the game advance.

If I post that someone's hand is timed out, then the game is also advanced and a new person is on the clock.

~Neal

Inverarity · Post by **Inverarity** » Sat Jul 14, 2007 1:52 pm

Action: Request

Action on Me to explain myself.

Would you mind putting the hand number of the specific table at the beginning of your summary posts? In other words, your post of the turn in my table's thread reads Moneymaker HAND018. Could you include the fact that it's HAND004 for the table? It would help me keep track of the other tables without having to read through multiple pages (which can be a time-consuming process on this board, these days).

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:40 pm

Inverarity wrote:Action: Request

Action on Me to explain myself.

Would you mind putting the hand number of the specific table at the beginning of your summary posts? In other words, your post of the turn in my table's thread reads Moneymaker HAND018. Could you include the fact that it's HAND004 for the table? It would help me keep track of the other tables without having to read through multiple pages (which can be a time-consuming process on this board, these days).

Would it help you to use the summary post in the very first post in each table's thread?

~Neal

Austin · Post by **Austin** » Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:55 pm

The Meal wrote:
ScubaV wrote:I second Austin's motion. 24 hours can really throw off a table's rhythm, but 48 hours is excruciating. It hasn't happened yet at my table, though it could have in the case of gbasden if someone hadn't linked another post of his saying he'd be gone a week. For the person who's put as away, missing one or two hands is not a big deal, but for the table it can preserve a lot of continuity and continued interest in its happenings.
Noted. But it's not up for a vote.

~Neal

It's just feedback.

Inverarity · Post by **Inverarity** » Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 pm

The Meal wrote:Would it help you to use the summary post in the very first post in each table's thread?

Hey look! There's a summary post!

That'll work.

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:26 am

Here's a summary of the action through the completion HAND023 (with a bit of partial action on the next couple of tables). I know not everybody's paying attention to tables where they're not playing, but its useful to know how your stack is doing relative to the entire tournament.

Thanks to ImageShack for Free Image Hosting

~Neal

Austin · Post by **Austin** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:30 am

FRIGGEN GO RED SQUARE! YES! RED SQUARE!

ScubaV · Post by **ScubaV** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:10 am

What's the methodology used to determine who gets moved from one table to another?

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:03 am

Strategery question:

Why are people folding when they have the option to check? Even if you are drawing dead, it seems more prudent to force your opponent to force you out to me.

Is it a courtesy thing to keep the game moving that I missed?

Austin · Post by **Austin** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:17 am

LordMortis wrote:
a courtesy thing

Totally optional.

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:21 pm

LordMortis wrote:Strategery question:

Why are people folding when they have the option to check? Even if you are drawing dead, it seems more prudent to force your opponent to force you out to me.

Is it a courtesy thing to keep the game moving that I missed?

Different people probably have different reasons for making this move, spanning from courtesy to strategy. I don't hold anyone in ill-regard for check-folding instead of just folding outright.

The way the structure is set up, there are advantages (in some players' eyes) to keep the tables flowing as quickly as possible.

~Neal

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:22 pm

ScubaV wrote:What's the methodology used to determine who gets moved from one table to another?

Try to keep the tables even in numbers.

Take folks from an "equal relative position" to the button from one table to the next. (I.e., if you were going to be sitting three to the left of the button on your next hand at your current table, and a seat opens up three from the button at a different table, you're eligible to be moved.)

Try to keep the average chipstacks per table as close together as can be.

More discussion of considerations here.

~Neal

Chaosraven · Post by **Chaosraven** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:29 pm

The Meal wrote:
LordMortis wrote:Strategery question:

Why are people folding when they have the option to check? Even if you are drawing dead, it seems more prudent to force your opponent to force you out to me.

Is it a courtesy thing to keep the game moving that I missed?
Different people probably have different reasons for making this move, spanning from courtesy to strategy. I don't hold anyone in ill-regard for check-folding instead of just folding outright.

The way the structure is set up, there are advantages (in some players' eyes) to keep the tables flowing as quickly as possible.

~Neal

Mine was a courtesy, for example.

The 24hr window could have held everyone else up if it came back around to me again.

Chaosraven · Post by **Chaosraven** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:30 pm

could I simply have folded at any time, out-of-turn?

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:52 pm

Chaosraven wrote:could I simply have folded at any time, out-of-turn?

I can't speak the Neal's burden but he has been very kind to me when I know I am going to be away and I know I will check or check/fold. I tell him by PM and he takes care of it for me.

It's a toss up between being a PITA for him and a convenience for everyone else. If he let's me know that I am pain in the ass, then I will probably stop... And follow your lead.

You've not been the only one to fold rather than checking though. So the decision not an anomoly which is why I was asking if I missed a courtesy.

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:15 pm

Chaosraven wrote:could I simply have folded at any time, out-of-turn?

You can always PM me with out-of-turn actions. It's easiest for me if these are of the variety "Fold to any bet or raise," (or just fold outright), but I've also had folks tell me "if the bet is over 500, then call, otherwise wait for me to take my action myself." That second group of if/then requests are a lot trickier on my end (as I'd hate to misinterpret what folks want), but so far folks have been exceedingly clear in these requests (and not too many people are using these).

~Neal

Chaosraven · Post by **Chaosraven** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:21 pm

Stuff like "Fold if the bet divided by the date ends in a prime number"?

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:32 pm

Since I have crappy cards, I got ambitious:

Current Standings as of 2:35pm PST 7/19:

Chips Name Table
30150 LawBeefaroni Varkonyi
20203 ChrisGrenard Moneymaker
16239 UnicornPoint Gold
13783 tgb Hachem
13484 Papa Smurph Raymer
11978 Ralph-Wiggum Moneymaker
10947 Trent Steel Gold
10829 Pyperkub Hachem
10709 hentzau Gold
10479 Jeff V Raymer
10433 Austin Varkonyi
10101 Shinjin Varkonyi
10065 The Mad Hatter Gold
10002 Remus West Varkonyi
9975 Sudy Nym Moneymaker
9974 rshetts1 Varkonyi
9969 noxiousdog Gold
9962 Capt Caveman Raymer
9960 gbasden Raymer
9920 Green Giant Moneymaker
9899 Steron Gold
9874 godhugh Varkonyi
9861 Baroquen Hachem
9839 Padre Hachem
9804 Unagi Raymer
9801 SpaceLord Raymer
9668 Malificent Hachem
9663 tjg_marantz Varkonyi
9606 Crux Raymer
9598 dedewhale Varkonyi
9572 LordMortis Hachem
9470 msteelers Hachem
9409 Octavious230 Moneymaker
9372 itaiyo Raymer
9175 jaskerr Gold
9130 Grundbegriff Hachem
8787 Clanwolfer Moneymaker
7848 flycatcher Hachem
7726 Cortilian Moneymaker
7532 ScubaV Raymer
7429 MHS Gold
7183 Chaosraven Moneymaker
5773 Moliere Gold
4819 Inverarity Moneymaker

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:28 pm

Cool. A spot check of a few numbers shows no differences between your values and my own.

Would folks find the graphical chip chart to be something useful for me to be updating? How often would you like to see it updated?

~Neal

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:28 am

All I did was copy paste the last hand summary from each table and sort so l expect it to be the same - I'm not that ambitious

Chaosraven · Post by **Chaosraven** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:39 am

Go Go Seven Thousand Club!

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 7:52 am

The Meal wrote:Would folks find the graphical chip chart to be something useful for me to be updating? How often would you like to see it updated?

The overwhelming feedback was for this to become a regular Tuesday morning feature, so who am I to go against the grain?

Details are complete through HAND034, some of the more recent tables are still in play.

Thanks to ImageShack for Free Image Hosting

~Neal

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 1:55 pm

A little update on how things are progressing.

We've lost four participants and are down to 42. That means when we lose two more players, one table will be broken down and folks from that table will be distributed to the four remaining tables.

The table to be broken will be determined based on which table is progressing most slowly. Right now it's a pretty easy decision:
Completed Hands
Gold - 8
Hachem - 10
Raymer - 5
Moneymaker - 7
Varkonyi - 7

So folks stuck in the Raymer molasses should be optimistic that they could end up on a table that's progressing at a better pace (unless, of course, you're the problem, in which case, one of the other tables should expect that you're going to be dragging them down with you).

I was also asked about the process used for balancing the tables. Right now we've got 42 players left: three tables with 8 players on them and two tables of 9 players. If the next player we lose is from one of the 9-person tables, then no adjustment will be made. If they're lost from one of the 8-person tables, however, then I'll be yanking someone off one of the 9-person tables.

When I originally set up the tables, I identified seat numbers as "!empty" to indicate no player is seated there. As we've lost players, we've also opened up extra seats. Tables that get balanced have folks move from a more-full table to a table with a need for a player, and I try to move folks into one of the !empty seats. So if we were to lose a person from one of the current 8-player tables, I'd have six people to pick from the two 9-person tables -- any of the three seats that correspond to the relative location (with respect to the button) of one of the empty seats.

I'd then base my decision from those six players on relative chipstacks (I try to keep the same average number of chips on each of the balanced tables), and who's currently not in a hand (if the ideal candidate because of relative position and chip stacks from the two candidate tables is still active in a hand, I'm not going to wait around for them to fold before starting up the stalled table that needs balancing).

So that's how balancing works.

Breaking-up tables is a bit different. Folks moved off the broken up table will be moved at random to new tables, and will always assume the worst position available (longest time until they receive the button) from the !empty seats at their new table. Broken-up distributions don't take into account relative chip stacks or position at their now-broken table. Folks on the tables receiving new players will not have their seats moved (which makes the stipulation that new players moved from broken-up assume the worst available position at the table sort of silly -- we're filling these tables back up, so the two open seats will be where they are -- there won't be preferential seats remaining open unless there's a bizarre situation of mutiple bust-outs just prior to breaking up the tables).

And once we're down to 4 tables, the rate of blind increases will be quickening. I do give a preview of the blinds of the upcoming 21 hands (based on the tables not being broken up), but that will change as we lose tables. Right now we can grossly estimate that we lose 1 player every ten hands or so. As the blinds increase, my expectation is that this player-loss rate will also increase.

I think that's about everything. As always, if you have any general information Q's that you think may be of interest to the MTT audience at large, lay 'em on me here in this thread.

~Neal

Grundbegriff · Post by **Grundbegriff** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 6:24 pm

The Meal wrote: Hachem - 10

You know why? Because some people take the initiative and fold instead of check when they know it ain't gonna happen....

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 11:31 am

The Meal wrote:Four things many people are screwing up:

1) Not identifying who comes next after they play. You should note who's next and that you've sent them a PM.

2) Not taking action in the form of "Action: blah." Folks can quickly scan down the page searching on the text "Action:" to figure out what's happened. I understand you like dashes more than colons. It's not helpful.

3) Not using a preposition with an Action: Raise -- ####. The default (in the absense of a preposition) is "by," but not everyone at your table knows that. Please be explicit with the "by" or the "to."

4) When sending me a PM, please include your Table Name and Hand number in the subject line.

Thanks, gang.

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 7:46 am

Complete through Hand043.

~Neal

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 11:06 pm

I have laid out a proposal to modify the structure of the tournament in this thread. The tournament structure will be (or won't be) affected as goes the voting of that poll (it's binding). Please read the original post carefully and select one of the poll options once you feel like you've formed an informed opinion on the matter. If you're having difficulties deciding how you'd like to proceed, do not hesitate to discuss this matter IN THAT THREAD, and indicate that you're withholding your vote until your difficulties are cleared up.

Thanks,
~Neal

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:15 am

Still a work in progress, but I intend to migrate some features over to my web page (where they'll make for more convenient reference). Step 1 in this plan for world domination:

The Graphical Tuesday Morning Chip Count Summary.

~Neal

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Tue Aug 07, 2007 2:37 pm

The Meal is (or very nearly is) AWAY. I expect to be back on Thursday morning (which isn't Thursday morning for Padre, but he's probably more skilled at making the conversion than I -- Thursday evening for him?).

We're off to Black Hawk, CO for a mid-week gambling romp.

~Neal

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Thu Aug 09, 2007 8:05 am

I am BACK. Off to get to the threads...

~Neal

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 2:26 pm

My analysis of Clanwolfer's play for HAND011 on the Moneymaker table.

~Neal

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:28 pm

I've finally updated the rules and posted them on my website here: http://poker.the-meal.com/pOOker.shtml

This should give us a bit more flexibility in pointing out specific rules (for example, the betting options pre- and post-flop are found here.

~Neal

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:04 am

The Meal wrote:A little update on how things are progressing.

We've lost four participants and are down to 42. That means when we lose two more players, one table will be broken down and folks from that table will be distributed to the four remaining tables.

The table to be broken will be determined based on which table is progressing most slowly. Right now it's a pretty easy decision:
Completed Hands
Gold - 8
Hachem - 10
Raymer - 5
Moneymaker - 7
Varkonyi - 7

So folks stuck in the Raymer molasses should be optimistic that they could end up on a table that's progressing at a better pace (unless, of course, you're the problem, in which case, one of the other tables should expect that you're going to be dragging them down with you).

I was also asked about the process used for balancing the tables. Right now we've got 42 players left: three tables with 8 players on them and two tables of 9 players. If the next player we lose is from one of the 9-person tables, then no adjustment will be made. If they're lost from one of the 8-person tables, however, then I'll be yanking someone off one of the 9-person tables.

When I originally set up the tables, I identified seat numbers as "!empty" to indicate no player is seated there. As we've lost players, we've also opened up extra seats. Tables that get balanced have folks move from a more-full table to a table with a need for a player, and I try to move folks into one of the !empty seats. So if we were to lose a person from one of the current 8-player tables, I'd have six people to pick from the two 9-person tables -- any of the three seats that correspond to the relative location (with respect to the button) of one of the empty seats.

I'd then base my decision from those six players on relative chipstacks (I try to keep the same average number of chips on each of the balanced tables), and who's currently not in a hand (if the ideal candidate because of relative position and chip stacks from the two candidate tables is still active in a hand, I'm not going to wait around for them to fold before starting up the stalled table that needs balancing).

So that's how balancing works.

Breaking-up tables is a bit different. Folks moved off the broken up table will be moved at random to new tables, and will always assume the worst position available (longest time until they receive the button) from the !empty seats at their new table. Broken-up distributions don't take into account relative chip stacks or position at their now-broken table. Folks on the tables receiving new players will not have their seats moved (which makes the stipulation that new players moved from broken-up assume the worst available position at the table sort of silly -- we're filling these tables back up, so the two open seats will be where they are -- there won't be preferential seats remaining open unless there's a bizarre situation of mutiple bust-outs just prior to breaking up the tables).

And once we're down to 4 tables, the rate of blind increases will be quickening. I do give a preview of the blinds of the upcoming 21 hands (based on the tables not being broken up), but that will change as we lose tables. Right now we can grossly estimate that we lose 1 player every ten hands or so. As the blinds increase, my expectation is that this player-loss rate will also increase.

I think that's about everything. As always, if you have any general information Q's that you think may be of interest to the MTT audience at large, lay 'em on me here in this thread.

~Neal

So now that we're down to 40 remaining players, I've drawn to move the folks off of Table Raymer. What I did was to give each of those nine players a card, and based on the order of cards (from high to low) I distributed the players to the following nine seats:
Gold - 3
Gold - 7
Hachem - 9
Hachem - 10
Moneymaker - 6
Moneymaker - 8
Varkonyi - 5
Varkonyi - 7
Varkonyi - 10

Currently there are four players active in the hand on Raymer. One of each of those four players belongs on each of our four remaining tables, otherwise I'd get things started back up. (I won't list which active players are on which tables, as there's some slight possible chance that they'd let that information affect the strategy they're taking in the current hand.)

In every case but one, folks are up and running on the very next hand. However, the player reseated in Moneymaker-8 will end up sitting out one hand because if they were active in the next hand, they'd be seated between the button and the SB (which isn't possible).

Moneymaker HAND074
seat 5: Cortilian [button]
seat 6: !empty
seat 7: Green Giant [SB]
seat 8: !empty
seat 9: Inverarity [BB]
seat 10: Sudy Nym

Moneymaker HAND078
seat 5: Cortilian
seat 6: Person X
seat 7: Green Giant [button]
seat 8: Person Y -- forced to sit out --
seat 9: Inverarity [SB]
seat 10: Sudy Nym [BB]

Moneymaker HAND078+z
seat 5: Cortilian
seat 6: Person X
seat 7: Green Giant
seat 8: Person Y
seat 9: Inverarity [button]
seat 10: Sudy Nym [SB]
seat 1: Chaosraven [BB]

From this point forward, things progress as normal. You can see that the "odd behavior" happens in HAND078 to both Person X and Person Y, Person X gets "skipped over" for the button (as he didn't pay the blinds in the prior two hands, however, he didn't earn the button on this table), and Person Y is forced to sit out the hand. In what I called HAND078+z, both Persons X & Y get to play, but again, the button skips over Y because they didn't pay their blinds on this table.

The other seats on the other tables work out without these irregularities, fortunately.

As soon as we lose players off Raymer such that I complete the draws to new tables, then I'll be making those tables active. However, for purposes of the blinds, the Hand numbers for those tables are already determined (in order that those tables finished up), so HAND075 and HAND076 are on Varkonyi and Hachem at 43/86/8, while HAND077 is on Gold at 44/88/8, and HAND078 is on Moneymaker at 45/90/9.

~Neal

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 9:01 am

TEN! In a row.

Just so folks all have the same advantages (or disadvantages), I wanted to point out some of the data collection and analysis I've done on my website.

Why Big Preflop Raises Are Wrong (at this stage of the tournament, at least)

Table-by-table summaries for #'s of people seeing flops vs. size of preflop raises

Enjoy,
~Neal

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:27 pm

This thread goes to ELEVEN!

The 24-hour rule is waived for the holiday weekend. Won't start timing folks out until next Wednesday (at 12:01am, if I'm awake, and they've had at least 24 hours). Enjoy the slow pace of the games, everyone.

I'm around and will handle actions, but folks shouldn't have those expectations from their fellow tablemates.

~Neal

AWS260 · Post by **AWS260** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:54 am

I would just like to say that while I am not in the tournament, I'm having a really good time watching the action. Thanks, Meal!

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 6:37 pm

AWS260 wrote:I would just like to say that while I am not in the tournament, I'm having a really good time watching the action. Thanks, Meal!

Cool! If someone needs to bail out of the tournament, would you want to assume their chips and take over for them? (Note: nobody has indicated that they want to do this, but it may come up in the future.)

~*~*~

Over on page 14 of the Varkonyi Table folks started griping about their hole cards. I've been keeping tabs on who's got crappy hole cards and who's gotten quality holdings, and since I started mentioning certain folks in that thread, I thought I should probably post the whole list. So, though Hand092...

145.0% Octavious230 (43rd)
125.5% stimpy (45th)
120.7% Crux
118.7% Steron
115.6% ScubaV
112.6% gbasden (40th)
111.2% Papa Smurph
107.0% The Mad Hatter
106.7% tgb (38th)
106.3% UnicornPoint
105.8% LordMortis (37th)
104.9% Remus West
103.7% ChrisGrenard
102.9% LawBeefaroni
102.5% Padre
101.9% Moliere
101.8% Grundbegriff
100.5% Sudy Nym
100.4% dedewhale
100.0% Clanwolfer (39th)
98.0% flycatcher
97.4% Shinjin
97.3% Genghis
96.7% hentzau
96.6% MHS (44th)
95.7% Unagi
95.3% Chaosraven
95.1% Green Giant
94.6% jaskerr
94.6% tjg_marantz
94.3% Pyperkub
93.5% SpaceLord
93.4% Inverarity
93.4% RunningMn9 (46th)
92.7% godhugh
92.2% Captain Caveman
92.0% Ralph-Wiggum
91.3% Malificent (42nd)
91.0% Jeff V
90.9% msteelers
90.1% noxiousdog
89.4% Baroquen
89.3% Trent Steel
89.2% rshetts1 (41st)
88.1% Cortilian
83.2% Austin

As far as what the percentages mean... higher means better hole cards. Think of 100% as completely average hole cards. I can explain what cards are normalized to best by way of examples, but I'd like to use someone who was actually in the tournament as my example. So if you're someone who's busted out, and don't have a problem with me revealing your holdings while you were in the tournament, speak up, and I'll use you as my example.

~Neal

Austin · Post by **Austin** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:14 pm

USA! USA!

Edit: And if you want to use my past hands I have no issue with that. I'm here for the learning; for other's and my own.