Texas Poker Supply banner Poker DIY banner Home Poker Tourney Forums
* How To Host a Poker Tournament
Welcome Guest. Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email? Apr 25, 2017 at 12:31
Login
Welcome Guest. Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?
Username:
Password:

^ Login with username, password and session length

Use the arrows at the
top to close this sidebar

Pages: [1]
Print
Author Topic: Level time vs structure  (Read 743 times)
tore
Player
**
Posts: 52



« on: Feb 11, 2017 at 14:12 »

Here's one for all the structure geeks out there :-)

In short: Is having a good blind structure more important than having generally lower blinds?

What do i mean? Well, I usually have this structure in my T10000:

25   50
50   100
75   150
100   200
150   300
200   400
300   600
400   800
600   1200
800   1600
1000   2000
1500   3000
2000   4000
3000   6000
4000   8000
6000   12000 (usually ends here)
8000   16000 (or here)

To keep the game under 5 hours, and with around 20 people in the game making on average one rebuy or addon each, which means about T400000 in play, I use a level time of 16 minutes. I know, it's too short...

I came with the suggestion to change to 22 minute blind levels, but to compensate for this I would make the structure more aggressive:
25   50
50   100
100   200
150   300
250   500
400   800
600   1200
1000   2000
1500   3000
2500   5000
4000   8000
6000   12000
10000 20000

However, my friends say "that's a horrible structure, keep the old one!". I try to explain that if you put each minute of a tournament using both structures next to each other, the "horrible structure" using 22 minute levels will most often be better! I.e., the aggressive structure on a few occasions have higher blinds, but most often have the same or lower blinds than the "good" structure. For example, during minute 16-22 the aggressive structure will have BB 50 while the good structure has BB 100, etc...
This argument falls on deaf ears, because they counter with "but the structure is poorer!"

What's the truth? (i.e. what's your opinion?)
If a poor structure actually has long enough levels which in fact makes it less aggressive than a good structure, is the poor structure still worse? Or is it actually better?

Thanks!
Logged

(not really torn)
Nerre
Regular
***
Posts: 1126


« Reply #1 on: Feb 11, 2017 at 15:16 »

The interesting figures, in my opinion, are "how fast the blinds increase over time".

Not "how fast the blinds increase over the levels".

So, if I understand you right, I agree that if the levels are longer, it does not matter as much if the steps are bigger.

BUT, an important point is that if the step from one lever to another is big, then a player who just played a hand with a stack of 20 BB suddenly has a stack of only 12 BB.

I draw a quick diagram. The gray line shows the wanted "speed" of the schedule.

The red dots is a schedule with longer levels, meaning bigger steps between levels. The blue dots have shorter levels, but smaller steps for each level. But since they both follow the gray line, both the red and the blue structure have the same speed. But the blue structure will feel less severe for the players since their stacks don't become halved from one level to another.


* Blinds.png (6.56 KB, 841x361 - viewed 66 times.)
Logged
tore
Player
**
Posts: 52



« Reply #2 on: Feb 11, 2017 at 20:24 »

Seems like our reasoning is roughly the same. I'd like to mention the graph, though. Instead of the two lines having a constant incline like that they would look more like a staircase, where the aggressive structure has big steps but longer time in between. That's what I mean with my hypothesis: With a certain tournament length, having an aggressive structure would in theory be less aggressive than a normal structure with shorter levels. In my graph the data is based on the two structures in my original post, the blue is the normal structure and the red is the aggressive structure with longer levels. The blue has more area under it, therefore it's more aggressive.

I say "theory", since I haven't yet tried it in practice.

I fully understand that it's a big hit when the blinds make a big jump, but on the other hand you've had the smaller blinds for longer than usual. Let's say, for example, that your monthly salary will be cut with $120 over the year. Would you rather have it drop $10 each month or $60 after 6 months and another $60 after a year? Dropping $60 is a bigger hit than $10, but still means you lose less during the year.

Once again, purely my theories since I haven't tried it yet... Wink

The extreme of this approach would be to double the blinds each level (I can't believe I actually wrote those words in this forum! Shocked ) and compensating with longer levels.

What I think might be a drawback of this approach is that even though the levels are longer, enough people won't be eliminated in the first half, and the second half of the tournament would be an all-in shove fest...


* Blinds.jpg (21.63 KB, 447x285 - viewed 65 times.)
« Last Edit: Feb 11, 2017 at 20:26 by tore » Logged

(not really torn)
Nerre
Regular
***
Posts: 1126


« Reply #3 on: Feb 12, 2017 at 07:15 »

Added the "stairs" to my diagram.

The comparison with salary isn't really a good one, in poker your stack size decides how much pressure you can put on other players.

For the big stacks, the size of the "step" doesn't matter much, but for the smaller stacks it will.

Imagine you have been getting cold cards for 7 hands in a row, your stack is now about 25 BB. You know that the next hand the blinds will rise, and your stack will then only be 12 BB. That will affect your play quite a lot.


* Blinds.png (6.48 KB, 841x361 - viewed 63 times.)
« Last Edit: Feb 12, 2017 at 07:18 by Nerre » Logged
tore
Player
**
Posts: 52



« Reply #4 on: Feb 12, 2017 at 13:56 »

Thanks for your input. The graph is inverted though, it should be below the grey line. Now it looks like the red structure is waaay worse.

I agree that my salary comparison didn't fit well with poker and blinds, but I think it pretty well illustrates my point, i.e. when the big jump arrives it feels too fast, but compared to the alternative you've actually been better off.

Good idea to illustrate with hands. Let's assume you play 1 hand per 2 minutes. Let's look at minutes 16-66:
Good structure: 8 hands with BB 100, 8 with BB 150, 8 hands with BB 200, 1 with BB 300.
Poor structure: 3 hands with BB 50, 11 with BB 100, 11 with BB 200. Next hand will be 300.
Limping every hand in this time-frame costs 3900 in the good structure, but 3450 in the poor structure.

In your example I have 25 BB for seven hands and then it drops to 12. This fits quite well with having 2500 left between minutes 32 and 48. With the poor structure I have 25 BB (BB is 100), then when it doubles to 200 I only have 12.5BB. My point is that with the better structure I would only have had 16.7 BB (BB is 150), and then it drops (albeit a few hands later compared to the above) to 12.5BB when the BB increases to 200.

So: Would you rather play 7 hands with 25BB before a large drop to 12.5BB, or play 9 hands with 16.7BB before a smaller drop to 12.5?

Once again, it's only hypothetical, haven't tried it yet. Just want to make my hypothesis clear. Smiley
And again, I think I might get the drawback I wrote earlier...
Logged

(not really torn)
Dr. Neau
Regular
***
Posts: 9672


Dr. Neau is a player of the pokers


WWW
« Reply #5 on: Mar 31, 2017 at 19:36 »

Hey Nerre,

The problem with your diagram is that is makes it look like the blind increase is linear over time (for instance, increasing it by 50 every level) when I know you mean that the % increase each level should be the same.
Logged

(not a real doctor)

Concentrate on winning your tournament...let Dr. Neau manage it.

http://drneau.com
tore
Player
**
Posts: 52



« Reply #6 on: Apr 01, 2017 at 06:17 »

I think the feedback I'm after is this: Is it OK to sacrifice a slow progression of blinds for the sake of having longer levels, or should the big jumps be avoided at all cost?

The easiest example to use is this: T10000 tournament, 10 players, should end between BB 3000 and 5000, give or take.

"Standard blinds", 20 minute levels:
50-100
75-150
100-200
150-300
200-400
300-600
400-800
600-1200
1200-1600
1000-2000
1500-3000
2000-4000
4 hours to here.

Doubling blinds, 40 minute levels:
50-100
100-200
200-400
400-800
800-1600
1500-3000
4 hours to here.

Which structure is better according to you all? The second structure's blind progression is horrible, but half of the time you will be playing with lower blinds than in the first, so it ought to allow for more play, right?

Or am I missing something? Will, for example, the second structure's 800-1600 level be too crowded with shortstacks that survived 400-800, who would otherwise have been knocked out during 600-1200 if the first structure had been used instead? I mean, if enough players aren't knocked out the tournament becomes a shovefest.

Happy to hear your thoughts Smiley
Logged

(not really torn)
Nerre
Regular
***
Posts: 1126


« Reply #7 on: Apr 01, 2017 at 17:08 »

The problem with your diagram is that is makes it look like the blind increase is linear over time (for instance, increasing it by 50 every level) when I know you mean that the % increase each level should be the same.

My drawing was just intended to show that you can reach the same rise of time in different ways (small steps often or large step less often). It was made in MS Paint, so it's not intended to represent a specific scale.
Logged
Pages: [1]
Print
Home Poker Tourney Forums  |  Poker Tournament Structures  |  Poker Tournament Structures  |  Topic: Level time vs structure
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!


nutN2Lewz image
Copyright © 2017 HomePokerTourney.com