Time for a fundamental change in tournament poker?

[easypickings]

The problem:

    £200 can buy you a lot of things, but it can't buy you a seat in a well-structured poker tournament. Main Events aside, it is near impossible to find a tournament where poker is played throughout; one where you can sustain a bad beat or a cold deck and still be in with a chance, one where you can fire three shots at a pot without moving all in, one where you can sneak in a cheeky re-raise before the flop and not be commited for all your chips, one that at the moment you can only find by travelling as far as Helsinki or Vienna.
    Even many Main Events are guilty of the same problem with the structure; there are always a couple, maybe several, levels of good play, but they eventually reach a point where anyone but the biggest stack has two choices every hand- all in or fold.
    Good players lose out at this stage where the skill element is massively reduced. A strong player who regular plays side events and is trying to climb the ladder to play with the big boys may have their fate decided more by luck than by skill.

The solution:
 
     There is a solution which seems remarkably simple; never play more than a 7-handed table, maybe even a six or a five. At a guess, the action, in terms of shifting of chips and eliminating players, would be twice as quick 7-handed as 10-handed. Twice the action would allow for twice the starting stack, half the blinds....however you want to put it, twice the play.
     Short handed play intensifies the elements that make poker interesting- agressive play, having to make decisions with more marginal hands, and the psychology of playing for a long time against the same few opponents.

The problems with the solution:

    Changing to a short handed table heavily changes the type of play required to do well, and may make some types of players more succesful and others less. In essence, it changes the nature of a game that people have got used to, and would take some getting used to.
    Of course, one reason for the time pressure on poker tournaments is the massive fields filling out large card rooms across the country. For a change to short handed play not to reduce capacities, it may need card rooms to bring in a new-sized table. With players spread across more tables, the job of the organiser becomes more difficult, and it would be very important to quickly balance the tables.
  And the strange one? Maybe we don't want the better players to have an even better chance. One of the beauties of poker and something that is bringing so many new people to the game is that many lesser-experienced players have had huge successes. Maybe the balance of skill and luck is just about right at the moment, and does not need changing?

[scotty2hatty]

Yeah I agree that is hard to find such tournaments.

However, i think your solution is flawed: action twice as quick, and twice the starting stack (or half blinds)? Would they not just cancel each other out? Meaning it would be the same as before?

[Woodsey]

Don't like it too slow it slow. Gives the rocks too much of an advantage and makes the game boring, I wanna play pokahhhhhh!!!

[byronkincaid]

with the amount of 6 max cash games played on teh internet I'm sure a lot of people would love this idea myself included.

[easypickings]

Yeah I agree that is hard to find such tournaments.

However, i think your solution is flawed: action twice as quick, and twice the starting stack (or half blinds)? Would they not just cancel each other out? Meaning it would be the same as before?

I guess what I mean is that in each hours play, each player would be involved in much more action, and more pots. Therefore, the tournament would fit into the same space of time, but be more intense.

Byronkincaid is right, alot of people are used to 6 seated play as their usual game. This idea would never come in quickly, but I'd love to see a short handed event tried at a few festivals in England.

[NoflopsHomer]

Yeah I agree that is hard to find such tournaments.

However, i think your solution is flawed: action twice as quick, and twice the starting stack (or half blinds)? Would they not just cancel each other out? Meaning it would be the same as before?

I guess what I mean is that in each hours play, each player would be involved in much more action, and more pots. Therefore, the tournament would fit into the same space of time, but be more intense.

Byronkincaid is right, alot of people are used to 6 seated play as their usual game. This idea would never come in quickly, but I'd love to see a short handed event tried at a few festivals in England.

Blue Square are doing another of their 6-handed events soon I think. Ask Jon Raab.

[tikay]

Yeah I agree that is hard to find such tournaments.

However, i think your solution is flawed: action twice as quick, and twice the starting stack (or half blinds)? Would they not just cancel each other out? Meaning it would be the same as before?

I guess what I mean is that in each hours play, each player would be involved in much more action, and more pots. Therefore, the tournament would fit into the same space of time, but be more intense.

Byronkincaid is right, alot of people are used to 6 seated play as their usual game. This idea would never come in quickly, but I'd love to see a short handed event tried at a few festivals in England.

Blue Square are doing another of their 6-handed events soon I think. Ask Jon Raab.

Yes, there is a repeat of last year's "Super Six" at Bolton in July, 15th to 17th, but that's subject to confirmation.

[tikay]

Good Post by Stuart, fresh from his excellent 2nd in gthe Gala Jobbie at Notts.

One problem not taken into account is that to play 6 or 7 handed requires about 50% more Dealers, & that has a big cost implications for the venue. It also reduces venue Capcity by about a third, & with the three big "Tours" currently all selling out already, that's another headache. Personally, if I had to pay higher reg fees to get well structured Tourneys, I'd happily do so, but I would be in a minority there I fancy.....

[byronkincaid]

Yeah I agree that is hard to find such tournaments.

However, i think your solution is flawed: action twice as quick, and twice the starting stack (or half blinds)? Would they not just cancel each other out? Meaning it would be the same as before?

I guess what I mean is that in each hours play, each player would be involved in much more action, and more pots. Therefore, the tournament would fit into the same space of time, but be more intense.

Byronkincaid is right, alot of people are used to 6 seated play as their usual game. This idea would never come in quickly, but I'd love to see a short handed event tried at a few festivals in England.

Blue Square are doing another of their 6-handed events soon I think. Ask Jon Raab.

Yes, there is a repeat of last year's "Super Six" at Bolton in July, 15th to 17th, but that's subject to confirmation.

unfortunately it's in June when I'm on holiday

[AndrewT]

Running a good, long, deepstack live tournament is really expensive. Doing anything to make the tournament better (longer clock, more chips, short-handed tables) will increase costs (more dealers, more hours for staff etc). Getting more players (and therefore more reg fees) increases the revenue, but extra players increase the expense almost linearly - there's little economy of scale in live poker tournaments.

To make any money you need the sponsorship and TV coverage, which you're just not going to get for a £200 tournament. If you're running a $10,000 tournament (and taking $600 from each player) you have free rein to run a good multi-day event. You can't do that if you're taking £20 from each player. Who still want a free buffet!!

Maybe someone who was a pre-internet player can tell us about the structure of tournaments before the internet boom. Was this a utopia of deepstack, long clock tourneys, or were they the same as today, but no one noticed because that's all they ever knew

[dime]

I think reducing tables so they are short handed would be a great idea and to be fair the casino in Cardiff do tend to keep the tables so they have 6 - 8 players (depending on stage of the tournament) which keep it ticking along. Saying this it dosen't stop the play slowing down by the late mid stages / late stage you still get a lot of all-in moves ect. The vast majority of tournaments I've played in have been self delt (the only exeption being the APAT, which has abuy-in under £200 and a great structure which probly explains why its so hard to get a seat) whilst playing self delt with novices is a slow when you get used to dealing it seems to be quick. Last night I noticed we were dealing a hand about every 2 miniutes, how do you think this compares to dealer delt hand rates? Hard for me to comapre as I'm generaly only used to dealers at the final table.

 I rember reading somewhere about a structure that was pot limit preflop and no limit post flop, this seemed a sensible structure that would stop players pushing pre flop but maintained the thrill of no limit post flop.

[byronkincaid]

I rember reading somewhere about a structure that was pot limit preflop and no limit post flop, this seemed a sensible structure that would stop players pushing pre flop but maintained the thrill of no limit post flop.

i think that might have been the mansion poker dome where they started with something completely rediculous like 30 BBs.

[boldie]

I would love to see a shorthanded event for a reasonable price in a cardroom near me..shorthanded play is a completely different skill from a normal 10 seater game and contrary to popular belief a game in which TAG's like myself can actually do very well.

[matt674]

    £200 can buy you a lot of things, but it can't buy you a seat in a well-structured poker tournament.

It can online and then you dont have to worry about spending another £200 on top of your buy in for food and accomodation.

Some people dont want a well structured tournament for less than £200 as it means you need a top 3-4 finish just to pay for the expenses - they just want a tourney thats over in one night. Its the age old arguement you cant please all the people all of the time.

With the poker boom as it is at the moment there are plenty of tournaments out there to suit everyone, you just got to shop around a bit.

[boldie]

    £200 can buy you a lot of things, but it can't buy you a seat in a well-structured poker tournament.

It can online and then you dont have to worry about spending another £200 on top of your buy in for food and accomodation.

Some people dont want a well structured tournament for less than £200 as it means you need a top 3-4 finish just to pay for the expenses - they just want a tourney thats over in one night. Its the age old arguement you cant please all the people all of the time.

With the poker boom as it is at the moment there are plenty of tournaments out there to suit everyone, you just got to shop around a bit.

excellent point my monkey brained friend.