OO MTT NLHE 2007 Poker Tournament: Change the Structure?

[The Meal]

I'm not convinced that I like how our current structure is playing out. I would like to put a modified structure to a binding poll vote. Note, once you've voted, you cannot recind your vote, so if you're on the fence, indicate as such with a post in the thread, then let me know once you've finally voted.

I won't proceed with any tables once we're down to our final 40 players, until this vote is resolved.

The Issue
In a nutshell, I think the antes are too large relative to the blinds, encouraging many folks to stay in pots and see the flop. If folks are dealt quality preflop hands, this "stick around to see the flop" behavior encourages folks to make massive overbets to try to take the flop down preflop. The tables are not playing "typical" tournament NLHE because of my perceptions of the over-large ante-to-blind ratio.

The Evidence

• Through the first 46 completed hands, we've seen 45 flops.
• The mean number of preflop callers is 50.3%.
• Eight of those 46 hands have seen preflop action > 12x the BB, with one of those eight not being called, two of those eight only having 2 participants, the five of the remaining eight having between 34% and 56% of the table participants calling the large preflop overbets.

The proposed solution
Hands played down to 40 players will proceed as previously specified. The structure will not be changed. Let's call the last hand of 41 players HAND###. HAND###+1 is currently set to have 10 players with blinds of SB/BB/Ante, for a total prebetting total chip count of 10*Ante + 1*SB + 1*BB.

The current ratios are set such that SB = 0.5*BB, and Ante = 0.25*BB (rounded down). So the total pool of prebetting chips is equal to 4*BB (for a full table of 10 participants).

I'd like to make the structure of HAND###+1 to use the exact same total number of chips as currently indicated, but to shift the ratios of the Antes from 0.25*BB down to 0.1*BB (rounded down).

I do not wish to affect the rate at which blinds and antes increase.

An Example demonstrating the differences
Let's pretend that our 41st player gets KOed in HAND56. At that point the players left on the slowest advancing table are all to be integrated into the other 4 remaining tables. HAND057 is currently slated to be 20/40/10 (SB/BB/Ante). For a ten-person table, this makes a total prebetting pool of 160 chips (4x the BB).

In the new system, we would also begin HAND057 with 160 total chips, but instead the ratios would be 32/64/6 (only 156 total chips due to the rounding down of the blinds, but close enough).

Implications Bigger blinds (and smaller relative antes) should cause less speculative hands to be interested in seeing ultra-cheap flops (relative to the total available chips in the pot). With the increased BB for each hand, folks will have to call larger relative preflop raises to indicate interest in the pot. The expectation will be that our game will play closer to "regular" brick and mortar poker (or at least closer to online free tournaments ).

The downside is that folks will be affected more heavily when their blinds come around. I made the blinds "shallow" and the antes "heavy" in an effort to smooth out the pain on any given orbit. I see now that this affected things rather severely in what I think is an undesirable manner. We're currently playing poker, but its unlike any poker I've ever witnessed, with very different optimal strategies.

Changing the structure "midstream" implies a different optimal strategy. It doesn't seem "fair" for me to foist this on tournament participants without at least allowing for feedback, which is why this will be a binding vote. (If you have super strong opinions, there's nothing I can do to keep you from lobbying your non-participating friends from also voting in this poll -- which I'm okay with, as this tournament isn't just intended for the participants, it's also intended to be interesting to the kibbitzers, so no one should feel guilty for voting in the poll, even if they're not directly involved in the MTT.)

I will not be voting in the poll unless needed as the tiebreaker (I cash my checks from the legislative, not executive branch). My recommendation is for folks to select the new structure, but I strongly encourage folks investigate how this will affect things and extrapolate the implications for the future of the tournament. If you have questions or insights, PLEASE post them and discuss the issue here in the thread. And do not hesitate to withhold your vote until you feel confident that your ideas are addressed (but if you withhold your vote and you're a MTT participant, post that you're withholding and that you'd like the matter to not be considered closed until you've voted -- unless it appears to be a landslide decision without your vote, I won't advance things in an unreasonable time frame).

Thanks,
~Neal

[Grundbegriff]

Seems reasonable, but...

Are you sure the jump down from .25BB down to .10BB is sufficient to engineer the behavioral change you're seeking?

Are you sure altering the blind structure by implementing a more aggressive rate of increase (despite the periodic forced pain and your reluctance to augment it) isn't the droid you're looking for?

I know, for my part and speaking for no one else, that I've called in order to see many more flops than I expected to do-- almost all of them, in fact-- and that I've completely ignored the ante. I mean, I've paid no attention to it at all, and couldn't even tell you roughly what it is, if you hadn't reminded me that it's a quarter of the BB.

For me, the ease-of-access token is the blind itself. It's just not that big a deal to stick around for the flop when your stake in the pot is (not only Disney Dollars, but) some fraction of your wealth that feels like mere pocket change.

In short, I wonder whether tweaking the antes will help. If a dollar is negligible, then both a quarter and a dime are negligible.

{PS: I haven't yet voted, so that means Chaosraven's the pushover.}

[Chaosraven]

I just hope that whichever way it goes if I'm still in, someone will be able to tell me what it means

[Inverarity]

I wholeheartedly agree with the new plan, but I'm curious to hear why you

do not wish to affect the rate at which blinds and antes increase

Because that was what I thought you were going to suggest.

[Remus West]

Didn't vote as I'm good with whichever you decide but, like Grund, I have been paying zero attention to the ante and basing my call/non-call on the size of the blind or bet ahead of me.

[The Meal]

Regarding increasing the rate of blind increase: Were I to begin the tournament again (I'd say were I to run another tournament, but I already know the answer to that silly hypothetical), I would start folks out with fewer chips, and actually *reduce* the speed at which the blinds and antes increase (such that it would take 13 hands, instead of the current 10, to double the price per round once we were down to one table).

I'm comfortable with the current rate of increase, as the intent was to give everyone plenty of "play" to evaluate the tendencies of the opposition and allow skill to be a larger relative factor than luck. I know we've already lost some skillful players, but I'd like to think that that happened because of willful decisions those players made as opposed to being forced to make plays due to the chip situation.

Regarding not noticing the current size of the antes: Currently antes are being taken from four-or-five digit chipstacks by the single digits. I'd be seriously concerned about *anyone* (currently) worried about the degredation of their stacks due to the antes. However, all those micro chips are going into the same pool of chips to be won, and combined, those antes add up to a sizable portion of the initial hurdle placed in front of you -- the size of the big blind. In fact, the antes overflow that hurdle, giving folks terrific incentive to play non-standard poker (large preflop overbets to offer opponents improper odds to continue with the hand, as one example). This has the opposite effect as the stated intent above (creating a situation where luck again dominates over skill). The new proposed structure would shore up that hole, but it will also lengthen the duration of the tournament.

Combining both of these topics: Also to note, as the tables are broken down, the nature of the increasing rate of the structure will have less of an emphasis on skill and more of an emphasis on luck. The "skillful" aspect of the MTT is for folks to arrive at the later stages with enough chips to be able to make some damage or survive some hits.

2006's WSOP Main Event saw one player arrive at the final table with a monster chip lead, and then dominate over the rest of the remaining field with quality "big stack poker" by the book. I watched the live PPV of this year's Main Event, and without giving away anything too terribly exciting, things didn't quite play out the same way. In both cases, however, I would say that the most skillful player at the final tables did *not* end up winning the whole enchalada (although there were no weight-watcher-sized portions of the prize pool handed out to anyone at either of those final tables). In 2006, I expect that things would have ended differently if Cunningham (say) arrived at the final table with Gold's chip stack.

The current rate of structure is intended to give quality players that opportunuty to amass chips early (or actually mid-tournament, after making solid observations on the play of one's opponents in the early tournament).

~Neal

[LordMortis]

I'm not a big fan of changing things midstream even if I think your new blind system is better in the traditional poker sense. The reason is that I don't want to encourage changes in behavior because our behavoirs are a part of the game.

Personally, I think the result of the larger ante structure relative to the blinds is more encouraging for opening bets to not limp in and ought to make limpers think twice about limping. Stepping in becomes a statement that you intend to take a pot, not just steal blinds.

The other result of the current game is that you will accellerate the pace of the game, which I don't think is necessarliy a bad thing. People will be forced to think about jumping in on lesser hands as the blinds raise, the pacing accellerates, and their stack is being chipped away constantly as opposed to twice around the circle.

I just hope that whichever way it goes if I'm still in, someone will be able to tell me what it means

Currently if the big blind is 100 and the small blind is 50 then every one at that table antes up 25 (including big and small blind). The proposition is to say if the big was 100 and the small was 50 to make everyone at the table put in 10 instead of 25. This makes the opening pot smaller and less worthy of calling the big blind for. The theory is that right now the opening pot is too tempting to stay in with rags (total crap cards) and maintain hope that a lucky flop will save you breaking some of the strategery of the game.

My opinion is that it is up the preflop better to chase out people going in with rags or at least make it look like that odds are no longer so good for them and we therefore don't need a change.

...But changing won't kill me, it's just something I openly don't prefer. Much how when we learn a new game and have been playing a rule wrong, we tend to let the wrong rule go for the rest of the game and change things next time.

Didn't vote as I'm good with whichever you decide but, like Grund, I have been paying zero attention to the ante and basing my call/non-call on the size of the blind or bet ahead of me.

Before you don't vote based on what you are or are not doing now. Consider what you will or will not be doing later. .25 ante is huge. At the final table, if the blinds are say 2000/4000 at a moment that means another 10,000 will be thrown in addition the blinds. When you see it that way, the blinds themselves will more openly be less significant than the ante when you conider your call, fold, raise. It seems trivial now because the blinds are so small. When you are at one table and the blinds are doubling every 10 hands you will see how much the ante changes the game. I assume most people will agree with Neal, that the change will be more comfortable and familiar. I'm just not most people.

[The Meal]

No, but you make excellent points. I hope folks who are on the fence read your post carefully.

The other result of the current game is that you will accellerate the pace of the game, which I don't think is necessarliy a bad thing. People will be forced to think about jumping in on lesser hands as the blinds raise, the pacing accellerates, and their stack is being chipped away constantly as opposed to twice around the circle.

This isn't quite how I'd describe the effect. I think with higher relative antes we'll see

• more players per hand,
• leading to more chips involved per hand,
• leading to more chips redistributed per hand.

I don't think the shorthand of saying that the proposed change to the structure will slow the pace of the game is exactly accurate. I will say that I agree that I'll be sending out more hands before the game is over if we make this change.

~Neal

[LordMortis]

No, but you make excellent points. I hope folks who are on the fence read your post carefully.

~Neal

I hope so as well. The change in game will become very signifcant very quickly. And some people will feel cheated when they are dealt ten crap hands in a row later and are putting in 500 chips for the privledge of throwing them away to the 2000 chip big blind and the people raising the 2000 chip blind to 8000 chips out of the gate because the pot is already at 8000 chips. And people will feel the pressure of the antes when they start doubling on every 10 hands they see as those antes hit 100 or 200 or 500.

[The Meal]

One thing that I didn't emphasize, but should: The average cost per round (the cost of one "orbit") on a full table will not change because of this rule change. This is what I mean when I took issue with your previous point.

You'll pay less in antes for 8 of the 10 hands, then pay more in blinds when they come to you.

As the tables start getting short handed again, folks will pay a little bit more per round, but this is fairly negligible until we get to the final table (at which point the relative contribution of the antes to the blinds isn't the dominating factor with regards to bet sizing).

~Neal

[The Meal]

I'm not a big fan of changing things midstream even if I think your new blind system is better in the traditional poker sense. The reason is that I don't want to encourage changes in behavior because our behavoirs are a part of the game.

...But changing won't kill me, it's just something I openly don't prefer. Much how when we learn a new game and have been playing a rule wrong, we tend to let the wrong rule go for the rest of the game and change things next time.

This is probably the largest downside I see to making the change (well, my having to likely send out more hands is a downside, but of the nature that only affects me). I will say that if I started two tournaments on the same day and the same 46 people were in each tournament, but Tournament A was run like this one with antes being 1/4th the BB and Tournament B was run like my proposed structure with antes being 1/10th the BB, my expectation would be for at least 40 people to prefer the second tournament.

I'm trying to mitigate the "changing horses in midstream" nature of the new structure by not implementing it until we're down to 40 players and 4 tables. At that point things already get adjusted such that the prebet cost per round increases at a rate of 1.8% per hand (as opposed to 1.4%). As I stated before the proposed change does not affect the average prebet cost per round at a full table.

For most people, I think the question should come down to whether they want a game where > 50% of the players are seeing the flop. Is that the kind of poker they enjoy, or is the preference for only 2 or 3 players from a 10-person table to typically be in the hand at that point.

The genesis for this change came from my play at a B&M casino last Wednesday. I won $282 in a "Nitro" sit and go (blinds start out at T100/T200 and go up every 10 minutes, you start with T3000, and you only get 5 seconds to take any action), and even with such ripe opportunities to play shove-in preflop poker, there wasn't a single hand that saw more than 3 (of the 11 of us that started at the table -- a first for me) people seeing the flop. Certainly the non-tournament $2-$5 spread ring game was a bit different, but limit poker tends to be that way in any of its incarnations.

Our current structure rewards folks who are good at making adjustments to/from conventional wisdom. If we were playing for money and I were a participant, I'd imagine myself as being a person better suited to making those adjustments, and I'd be tempted to keep the structure the way it stands. But part of the fun of this tournament was for me to sit and watch people play in what was meant to be a normally-structured tournament. With so many chips overflowing the tiny (relative) hurdle of the big blind, what we're seeing is something completely different. Interesting, yes, but not in the way I was hoping for.

[edit:]

Much how when we learn a new game and have been playing a rule wrong, we tend to let the wrong rule go for the rest of the game and change things next time.

The reference to a "next time" made me Next time! Ha!!

~Neal

[rshetts1]

Im fine with the changes. If Im reading this correctly, then basically, in the long run you'll be dropping the same amount of cash, pre-betting. It will just be more costly, over all, to call the blinds. That is fine with me.

[The Meal]

Im fine with the changes. If Im reading this correctly, then basically, in the long run you'll be dropping the same amount of cash, pre-betting. It will just be more costly, over all, to call the blinds. That is fine with me.

That's sounds about right.

~Neal

[Trent Steel]

Im fine with the changes. If Im reading this correctly, then basically, in the long run you'll be dropping the same amount of cash, pre-betting. It will just be more costly, over all, to call the blinds. That is fine with me.

That's sounds about right.

~Neal

Thank God someone made a "OO MTT NLHE 2007 Poker Tournament: Change the Structure For Dummies" post.

I'm cool with the changes.

[jaskerr]

Im fine with the changes. If Im reading this correctly, then basically, in the long run you'll be dropping the same amount of cash, pre-betting. It will just be more costly, over all, to call the blinds. That is fine with me.

That's sounds about right.

~Neal

Thank God someone made a "OO MTT NLHE 2007 Poker Tournament: Change the Structure For Dummies" post.

I'm cool with the changes.

No kidding. I just want to play, can we do that or do I need to make a poll posing the question in mathematical terms?

[The Meal]

Im fine with the changes. If Im reading this correctly, then basically, in the long run you'll be dropping the same amount of cash, pre-betting. It will just be more costly, over all, to call the blinds. That is fine with me.

That's sounds about right.

Thank God someone made a "OO MTT NLHE 2007 Poker Tournament: Change the Structure For Dummies" post.

I'm cool with the changes.

No kidding. I just want to play, can we do that or do I need to make a poll posing the question in mathematical terms?

For people that find reading, thinking, or paying attention to be bothersome...

My recommendation is for folks to select the new structure

~Neal

[Pyperkub]

I think the behavior that meal is seeing has much less to do with the ratio of Ante to Blinds, and much more to do with the ratio of (starting) Chip Stacks to Blinds.

This effect is exacerbated by the scarcity of hands - in a standard tourney, people will see hundreds of hands in the first day. In this tourney, it will likely be 6 months before anyone has played 100 hands.

Realistically, I feel as if the blinds needed to start around 50/100 (and maybe higher) for two reasons:

1. The above mentioned ratio to chip stacks
2. The small blinds mandate smaller minimum raises

I will also add that when adding the scarcity of hands, it makes crappy cards more valuable than usual. The chance of hitting an unexpected monster hand with crappy cards and getting someone to pay out big makes calling cheap flops relative to chip stacks a no brainer for me.

As such, I voted to increase the blinds. Just to get the action moving and encourage larger bets. Even with the change, I think they will still be too small by about 1/2, but the change will help.

[The Meal]

Well, to be fair, its both (the ratio of starting pots to blinds *and* starting chips to blinds). But where one was very intentional (to give folks lots of play), the other wasn't. And the structure does go up rather quickly once the rabble starts to clear...

Were I doing things over, I'd reduce the starting chips and slow down the speed at which the structure rises (as stated before). But what we've got now is close enough to what I was hoping to give folks.

If I were running one of these every year, maybe cutting the number of starting chips in half would make sense. But this is a one-time event, and if folks get KO'ed early, I want it made clear that they could've folded their quality hand and still had plenty of chips to use for a come back.

~Neal

[SpaceLord]

I voted for Change.
Change is good.
Definitely good. Change it is.
Change.

[The Meal]

The voting is currently 86% to 13% in favor of making the change. Has everyone managed to articulate their thoughts on the matter? Right now it looks like a clear majority opinion, but I want to be sure no one is being neglected.

We're still waiting for our 41st place bust-out before implementing the new ante-ratio.

~Neal

[The Meal]

We will be implementing this change starting with HAND075. Thanks to everyone for the discussion and voting.

The blind schedule for the hands that follow HAND075 can be seen at the bottom of this post, so folks can get a nice grasp as to how this change will impact the game.

~Neal