Hello everyone,
The big question is NEW FORMAT VS OLD FORMAT. Which do you like?
I know there were a couple of glitches and these can easily be fixed. One that several people brought up was lack of side games. This was do to the fact that there were only three tables set up at the start which in turn was due to the weather. This can be fixed by setting up all four table right from the start. That would mean that side game action could start right away during the first game and could start after five people were out once the second game started. Hopefully soon we will not even need the heater.
There are several options we have. Try the new format next time to get more input. Go back to the old format for a week and then try the new format again. Scrap the new format and just go back to the old format. If you like the old format better please tell me if you did not like the new format at all and vice versa. Example, I know someone had said that they did not mind the new format but did like the old format better.
Please log in and let me know if you plan on making the next game and which format you would like to see.
Later,
Kurt
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
I am not sure which I like, but I think I would like to try the new format again and tweak just a couple of things. I was the bubble boy yet again, so I at least did get to play in both games.
I will be there next game.
I am in, Henry
Elaine, George and Andy will be there. Bubble girl here! Almost in the money but the points were good.
See ya then!
Elaine
John is GONE on 3/23. See you in April.
John
See you then. Personally I likes the new format a bit better, as long as we have that 4th table available for the early side games.
Jim
I vote for the old format...even though I didn't play the new format yet...I'll give it a try if that is what everyone decides to do. I will be there on the 23rd. (I hope)
Keith
"Hook em Horns"
Tim is out, Alice is in. I have to say that I like playing 2 games a night (I seem to always do better in the second!) Because I made it to 13th in the 1st game, I wasn't allowed in the second and hated just sitting there.
Any chance of
allowing buy-ins for the 2nd game -maybe until the blinds change? Or starting the second game when you have the final table (10 players)? That way the 2nd game would have a bigger payout too. As long as there were side games available, I wouldn't mind waiting for the second game to start.
The more important question: what is Elaine bringing next?
I'm in for the 23rd. I thought the goal of having better play at the final table was accomplished. It seemed people didn't feel they had to make as many desaration moves as before. I'd like to see the new format at least tried again.
Leo
I'm in for the 23rd. I'm new so it doesn't really matter which method. I just like playing. I think the old format had better continuity but I'll give the new one another shot. I may change my mind with another 25th place finish though........
Tom F
I did not like the new format, I did appreciate what it was trying to accomplish. More poker than showdowns.
Here is my suggestion on how we can accomplish that.
I think we had more poker at the final table because the chip count was 25% higher. At the final table blinds are usually 500-1000 and with 45,000 chip in play the average stack is only 4,500 So after a couple times around half the players are forced out. With the added 15,000 chips like last friday we had an average stack of 6,000 making playing poker still an option.
My suggestion is lets get 80,000 to 100,000 chips in play for the final table so the average stack is 10,000 10X the big blind. It is really the blinds that force play and changing blind levels from 12 to 25 minutes is not what is adding play to the final table it is the chip count. I say go to two games and take 100,000 and divide by the number of players and that will give you the starting stack. For example last week with 30 players we would have a 100,000 divided by 30 and the chip stack would be 3,300 therefore getting 100,000 at the final ten with the average stack of 10,000. The blinds will dictate the speed of the tournament so keeping the blinds at 13 minutes will not add much time to the two tournnments escpecially if we start on time and have the second game ready to start when the first one is over.
Then I propose points for everyone as X said 5 points for 25-30 10 points for 15-25 and then incrementally 1-15.
Just a thought.
As a comprimise how about the old format at 2,500 chips and let's see what happens.
But again Kurt it your your game and I will play what ever is decided.
I am in for 03/23/07.
I liked the new format more than I thought I would. The problem is is that it needs to be tweaked quite a bit if it is to be done again. I have said a couople of times that the stacks should be larger, like say $2500. That way it could be more proportionate to the amount of time being added to the blinds. There are a few other points that need work, but I won't bore you with them. I think it was a fun tournament with a different style. That being said, I like the old format until all the bugs are worked out of the new format. We should try it again soon with a couple of different wrinkles. Just my opinon though. See everybody then.
X
Sorry can't make it again.
Greg Spaz
I am in for 3/23.
Scott
I am in for the 23rd
Dave S
I'm in for the 3/23.
Steve C
Im out this week.
I liked the new format. I would welcome a bigger stack for the first game as suggested by some others.
I do think that if we go back to the old format but increase the stack we will run into a time issue as the games will last even longer with second game ending even later then it does now.
Paul should be there. I prefer the old format. As I have watched tournament poker played by the pros, they are forced to make decisions at their final table based on the size of the blinds and chip stack. aren't we trying to make our event mirror the actual thing?
Marc and Niki will be there. We like the new format.
I will be there.
Mark
Can't make it this time. Good luck all
Peter
I'll be there.
Mohamad
I am posting for Bob and Jack who are both in and Moe and Dave R who are both out.
If my count is correct that brings the count up to 23.
Kurt
i'm in
No opinon about new vs old as i wasn't there
see you friday
Bill
I'm in of course.
Obviously, I like the format, it allowed for a little bit more poker to be played rather than an all-in fest. The game moved along nicely although I will admit the early levels may have moved almost too slowly. I think if we move the structure around, removing an early level like the 40/80 level and adding a 150/300 level, it would balance it better.
I dealt the final table and I could tell that there was more poker being played, players could make a raise and not be committed to playing the pot, and there were a lot more interesting hands where players actually had decisions, pre-flop and post-flop. That's what I like to see in a poker tournament. The first and second chance tournament also ended at perfect times, and it went very smoothly as it begun to get into the money and heads-up.
It is awkward to play the big tournament and the later second-chance tournament points/season-wise and if that's the reason we aren't going to go with it, that makes sense. The two complete tournaments do help in the regard, but at the same time I hate the all-in fest it becomes later on. Having an average stack of three times the big blind is just silly and is a clear indicator that our tournaments simply move too fast. Tournament poker requires someone to become short-stacked, but it shouldn't be because they only saw 5 hands before the blinds go up.
Greg suggests having a larger chip stack and going back to the old format, but that will lengthen the end-game (it will go longer past 1000/2000) slightly and only marginally improve the condition in the middle of the game, where we find the problem where everyone "becomes" shortstacked. The only possibility if we wanted to make the old format work is to completely change the format so that the early rounds (10/20 - 20/40 - 30/60 - 40/80 - 50/100) which last less than hour were shorter. This could be accomplished by starting at 20/40, going to 40/80, maybe 60/120, and then 100/200. But it's a huge change and I don't think people would go for it. That and it may make people go out too quick early on.
There's simply no easy solution.
Anyway, I'd like to see the new format at least once more and then we'll see what people think. I wouldn't mind if we went back to the old format, but I would enjoy it if we at least tried to do something like this format once every few months.
Ryan
Also, if we want to tweak this structure a bit we could change the blind lengths to 20 minutes long and then make it 3000 in chips or more to start with. We could add in a few levels without removing any (add 150/300, add 800/1600), and probably still finish at about the same time but with more flow. The reason I suggested to Kurt to use 25 minute blinds is because longer blind levels = more hands to play = more poker and therefore people have more chances to bust out or to double up, etc. If we lowered the blinds a little bit but added more chips it may do the same thing.
Ryan
sporty is out
I *might* be able to make it... I'll be in Boston but I don't know what time I'm getting back... If I can get there, I'll call Mohammad...
Now, I didn't think I would say this but, I really didn't care for the 25 min levels... It was too long... Also, the second game really wasn't worth it with 15 people and only a $6 entry fee... Not enough money or points possible to make up for getting nothing in the first game...
I think that being as organized as we are dealing with 2 decks/table and people knowing who is dealing/shuffling makes the game move fast enough with enough hands during a 13 min round... The levels should be ideal at 15 mins and larger starting stacks... All tournaments have the short stack problems at certain levels and that is the way it should be...
I am suggesting that we try 2,000 and 15 min blinds and go from there... We can tweak the levels or increase the stacks to 2,500 or 3,000 but I don't think longer levels are the answer to this... At Foxwoods, the last tourney I played with 5K starting and 200 people, it didn't last any longer than 260 people and 2K starting...
Well, I think both full games are necessary for the points...
L8r...
Sorry, the last post was Steve M ;-)
Let me throw this out there.
I spoke with someone tonight who is a league in Taunton and they have two games with starting stacks of 3500 and 12 minute blinds an average night is forty to fifty people. The first game starts at around 7 and ends at around 9:30 anf the second game ends around 12 The largest chip is 2500. They give points of 16.5 for palces 9 thru 16 and the top 8 are incremental.
I'm not suggesting we do as they do but it is an example of my theory that blinds dictate length of tournament more than starting stacks
Greg
Post a Comment