blonde poker forum

Matt Savage's views on "deepstack" tournaments.

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2009/10/pokernews-op-ed-are-deep-stacks-good-for-poker-tournaments-7419.htm

Interesting read and I agree with what he says.

I've noticed DTD seem to be falling into this trap recently. I played the £150 last month and didn't like the 10,000 chip allocation. I felt it worked better with 6,000. To me their upping it to 10,000 was nothing more than a marketing gimmick for their 20twenty tournaments.

DTD didn't remove any levels tho did they? Same structure but 4k starting stack more?

Yeah, it's not quite the same thing. The tournament as a whole though just felt like more of a grind.

Maybe because you weren't forced to stick your chips in on a coin flip sooner than you wanted to because of the good structure?

I'm not too sure about that level 16 in his preferred structure with the blinds at 1500/2000/500

Red-Dog would be apopplectic.

But the structure is essentially the same as the last one. It's just slightly longer winded. eg, Imagine if they up it to 20,000 chips, same structure/clock. Won't make the tournament more skillfull, it'll just last longer. With 20k chips the vast majority of pots in the 25/50 will either be irrelevant or coolers. By the time we get to 50/100 not much will have happened and we're basically at the equivalent level in the 10k chips tournament(10k, 25/50 = 200 bigs. 20k 50/100 = 200 bigs). So all we've done is add on a level at the beginning that we don't really need, whilst making the tournament last longer.

I think I disagree with you tbh and it does make it more skilfull, I guess we all prefer different tourney types and that I suspect is the real difference.

you assume everyone in the competition is competent, which is seriously flawed

Obviously the skill element will be increased slightly due to the extra level. Some pots will matter. Some will get knocked out. You can establish reads. Etc. But there's obviously a limit to how deep we want to make a tournament and the time we want it to take. You could increase the starting stack to 50,000 and I still challenge that the skill factor that whilst higher, won't be a lot higher, because we have the same structure and 30 minute clock that will soon catch up to everyone.

One recent example of a tournament which wasn't deepstacked and quite a lot of people complained about before hand was the WSOPE £1000 game where you started with 3,000 chips. I thought this structure was excellent, and I think quite a few players were pleasantly surprised by it too having played it.

follow the wpt model imo

those who want to play an uberdeepstack show up for level 1, those who want to shovebot can now late reg anytime up to the end of level 9 and there'll be a happy medium somewhere in between to suit everyone

from my point of view.
 i rarely travel as i just cant be bothered.
 but when i do i very much apreciate the longer early levels(deeper stack). gives me plenty of time to work stuff out enjoy some music and chill out before having to jam my chips into the middle. nothing worse then making the trip and donking off in the 1st few orbits(this is forced upon u in some structres but often voluntary on my behalf). i mean most games obviously have to become a crapshoot or the game would go on forever . embrace what is on offer and addapt to it is my opinion. i welcome more poker hands for my money if im going to go to the effort of leaving the house for a bit of fun in the live enviroment.