Totally agree with everything TT said, just hope stars does too now

TT the master

AWice to be frank appears to be talking out of his ass, some outlandish claims.

He doesn't even cover the biggest aspect which is the inevitable deterioration of game quality and then somehow claims it is those against ZOOM who are being short sighted, LOL.


Yep.

Okay first before I begin I just want to say I think there are a lot of people opposed to change that are just going to blindly support anything anti-zoom because they are resistant to any change. I'm not really here to convince anyone because I already know zoom is very likely to happen, but I am posting to help people that want to understand why these changes will happen and why they arent necessarily a bad thing. Again, I don't really profit directly if zoom is introduced or not so I have no ulterior motives. But again I would say by the start of 2014, the majority of mttsngs offered will likely be zoom.
-----


Hey TT, thanks for replying

-----
What I was referring to is the same thing: with zoom you will be playing more tournaments in the same amount of time (if both tournaments offer equivalent structures.) This is because basically zoom tournaments are faster for the same amount of play. I'm not sure if people are totally understanding this, so I will elaborate below.

Suppose a tournament with 5 minute levels has X hands played per level. Because zoom is faster, you can play the same X hands in about 2 minutes, instead of 5 minutes. So if a tournament has its first hour converted to zoom, instead of the usual 12 levels * 5 minutes = 60 minutes, you can now complete that in 12 levels * 2 minutes = 24 minutes. If you usually bust in level 8 on average [median], then your time to bust goes from 40 minutes (8*5min) to 16 minutes (8*2min). So zoom tournaments can be offered much more compactly. When I said 2 minute levels, I meant with the exact same amount of play as normal tournaments, because zoom tournaments typically play 2.5 to 3 times as many hands.

Also, when ZOOM tournaments get offered, it would very likely change to a normal tournament after a certain number of levels/players anyways, because of the problem you describe (can't zoom after it gets down to N players because too slow.)



-----
This won't be the case, first its likely that the 600/1200 level and onwards would be played out as a normal tournament, and/or when down to 27 players it would be played normally, like I said above. Also, zoom in general forces people to act quicker, so you won't have one hand per level if everyone is stacking because they will time out, and the other players at the table don't have to wait for that timeout for them to quickfold. And honestly I don't think it could get any worse because currently I've seen 180 HHs where people are playing 2 hands in the first level of a 180 where there wasn't even very significant action.


Obviously, players playing rush have more hands per hour, about 2.5x more. This is just a tomayytoes tomahhtoes argument I feel. Depending on the structure they go with, zoom tourneys are either going to provide more hands in the same amount of time, or it provides the same amount of hands in less time. Probably the latter. Either way its better.



Sry you misunderstood me the first time



I do both. Actually this is a very good point and maybe something that PS software crew can help with is, to queue up a zoom table both when you have the ability to fast fold at the beginning of the hand, and when it is your turn. So you can stack 8-9 tables.


Okay first, while PS does pay attention to regs, regs are more like a "natural phenomenon." Basically if you have a soft game, players will come. You can try to accomodate regs by helping to make it easier for them to multitable etc. but in the end like, its not like PS has to actively search for and advertise for regs -- they come very naturally, while fish are harder to find. So while its true that "stars pays attention to regs opinions", its only in the context that they listen to everyone. In the end they don't even need to cater specifically to regs because if a game is profitable people are going to play it.

Basically, turnover is higher. So, you might be playing only 8 tables, but you bust much faster. Infact, the number of games going off will increase. Again, the easiest why zoom improves the situation, is to see that zoom is a device that can speed up how fast a tournament takes (wrt to play.. so what I mean is that a zoom tourney with the exact same # of hands as a normal tournament can finish much quicker.)

Also, to use your example, say random#1 plays 4 normal tables, and random#2 decides to play 1 zoom table, and join another game whenever he busts. I believe on average, by the time that random#1 is done his 4 tables, random#2 will have played more tables.


=============================

Anyways, if anyone has any more questions I am happy to answer them, but basically I think its very clear that ZOOM tourneys will atleast be trialed, and after they prove to be more popular, there will be a gradual shift over the next year until the majority of regs are playing zoom. The MTTSNG economy is very big so during the transition period where both are offered, it is clear that both kinds of tourneys can be supported.

Again I ask that ppl don't "shoot the messenger", I am just saying what I am pretty sure will happen. And again this is only my opinion.

Zoom cash games are a very good indicator of if game quality would be significantly diminished by tournaments going into the zoom format. The answer is basically no -- in fact they are as soft as ever.

In general, everyone's poker play has improved every year over the last decade. If games get harder, its because people are learning how to play and playing more reasonably, not because somehow quickfold doesn't let them get bored so they won't play that T4o. Maybe look at the other side -- a lot of casual players like tournaments and especially 180s, but don't like that it takes 2 hours. If it takes less time (with same amount of play, I am not suggesting that the play/#hands/whatever gets reduced as misunderstood earlier by TT), people will play a lot more.

Stars have already announced that ZOOM tournaments are planned.

I don't see any benefit in having ZOOM MTTSNG's with 180 players when they would need to revert to normal play when a quarter of the player pool remain.

I can see (still don't like) the benefits as far as MTT's are concerned as the fields will be of a size that the ZOOM portion would drastically reduce the amount of playing time required to complete, something I don't particularly see happening in a restricted field such as a 180 man, again as mentioned with normal play being necessary with 1/4 of the field remaining.

Stars already have a thriving MTTSNG model. The slight reduction in playing time per game would not compensate for the rake lost due to forced reduction in number of tables playable.

a huge negative to zoom is that there is no table dynamic created which severely reduces the enjoyment of playing a mtt or sng. I was in the saturday micro last week on a table where some of us had played over 150 hands on the table, and ill tell you it was quite fun and equally challenging anylising the playing styles of those who had been at the table for a while.

Oh, and since WSOP introduced 4max and reentries, wonder if they are gonna have a zoom tournament next year?

First it is a very significant reduction. For example if you make the second hour 10% of the time (or 15% or whatever), then 90% of the time you are going to see a reduction of 60% of the playtime. (Eg. a tourney that you bust in 40 minutes is now going to bust in 16 minutes.)

Second there is rake gained, not rake lost. Any time people are able to play the same game (with same amount play and same amount of rake) faster, obviously this will lead to more games being played. Because for many working joes, they only have say 5 hrs a week to play (or 10 or whatever.)

Alex, I get what you're saying. The Zoom format allows more hands to be dealt per hour, so theoretically the blind level lengths could be significantly reduced without affecting the amount of hands actually played. Right now, in a $8 turbo 180 with 5 min blind levels, it's not uncommon to see 5-6 multi-tabling regs time down every hand before folding preflop at the 10/20 level. The recreational players hate that ****, plus it has a disastrous effect on the number of hands played per orbit in each game. So I understand why you think Zoom MTSNGs would be a good idea, especially in when you factor in the additional appeal to players who don't have the available time to commit to the current offerings.

There are a few problems you've overlooked though. Firstly, there's just no way a MTSNG with any worthwhile level of play is going to be over in half an hour. The logistics of how the Zoom format would struggle to handle bubble and endgame play have already been pointed out. But more importantly, the Zoom format encourages (or at least enables) players to fold more hands preflop as they can instantly receive new ones. Not only is this a disaster for the long term quality of the games, it's also a problem for the hands/hour issue.

In the current turbo 180s, we may only see 15 hands in a 5 minute blind level, but the recreational player who gets bored if he folds every hand for more than 2 mins is going to play around 40% VPIP. In 5 minutes of Zoom, perhaps we'll see 45 hands (I'm pulling these numbers out of my bottom btw), but the same recreational player with a 120-second attention span can now play 15% VPIP. So we're just not going to see enough players busting out quickly enough if we chop the blind lengths to 2 mins, and we're destroying the games. Plus there's the other issue with the removal of table chat for recreational players and the general impersonal nature of the games, especially if tournaments are going to be over so quickly. (I know, nobody chats with the fish any more anyway and the recreational experience is horrible as all the supernovas time down before every trivial decision at each of 40 tables and refuse to see flops, but there are other ways for Stars and players to address this)

Something else:

I'm 25-35tabling, and I hate it when stars puts new tables on top of the stack. Especially when I'm at a max table stack. Is it an idea to put the new tables at the bottom of the stack, so players like me don't waste time minimalizing new tables to get to the action?

Not sure if other players experience this 'annoyance'.

these 180 buy ins are just idiotic. get rid of this stupid 60. 8,15,24 should be the buy ins and then add 35s on sunday.

Why?

no

I never said that a tournament would be done in 30 minutes. I said the first hour of the tournament would be done 60% faster. Since people generally bust their tournament before the first hour ~90% of the time, this is very significant.

Second, regarding players getting naturally less vpip, again this is only one side of the coin. I ask that you look at ZOOM cash games because obviously similar arguments can apply. If zoom cash games are just as soft (which I believe to be the case) then that is a counter-example of sorts. For zoom tourneys I even think it draws more fish than zoom cash.

Finally 15 hands in a blind level is ridiculous.... I've looked through thousands of 180 hhs and I can't find ones with 10 hands of the 10/20 level. Realistically you are looking at 5 or less hands at 10/20 during peak hours.

1 60 ran today there is not enough demand. the 35s barely run but 24s would run much more, especially if in the main MTT lobby. if stars is going to have a 60 on Tuesday why not try a $11r on Thursday?

the current turbo 180s last 90 mins, and Zoom MTSNGs will not be significantly quicker from start to finish. You point out that the first 10 blind levels or so will indeed be covered in a shorter period of time, and I agree with that, but the actual running time of a tournament is not going to be reduced by a factor of 3 or even 2 as the benefits of dealing more hands per hour are removed by play becoming nittier.


to be fair, I did point out that I was just making these numbers up for example's sake.

Overall, I'm utterly unconvinced by your argument that Zoom could actually be good for a volume grinder. Admittedly, the average game time will be reduced, but the number of games played simultaneously is slashed dramatically. And I doubt the games will be as popular with recreational players long term as you appear to suggest.

The fish may well be clamouring for these games right now, but once they realise there's no chat, no atmosphere, no short term table dynamics and the games are over more quickly despite raking the same amount, they'll soon become disillusioned. I have a few alternative ideas for improving the recreational player experience which may well be unpopular with other regs, such as reducing the time to act preflop and forcing a player to sit out ALL tables if he times down at one. I agree that a good number of regs are currently ****ting on their own doorsteps by destroying the fun aspect of the games, but Zoom tournaments will just be less fun for everyone imo.

Playing tournaments? "Advanced Multi-Table Options" -> [ ] New Tournaments Take Focus

Oh wow, now I feel like an idiot. Thanks anyways.

This has already been mentioned but final table background for 18mans would be nice. Sometimes I would be making a cEV move when it's -eV to do at the final table.

Do you guys have a trick to distinguish between final table and prefinal table (besides looking at the info tab)?

when zoom sit&gos and mtts come? have someone's idea?

If it's a final table, empty seats disappear.

5.50+ $ 90 man Turbo SNGs with 2000 or 3000 stacks would be absolutely awesome hell I would even play 1500 chip one I like the 1 $ currently running on stars but it does not seem worth the time at the moment...

is there a way to re-introduce the 1$+R 3x- turbo sats for a 700$ qualifier? PCA or Passport? I could also imagine mtts with the same format. TOP 20 pays out 200-300$ each. maybe even as a sng with 180-360 players.

The best thread for suggestions about MTT and satellites, including SNG satellites, is the "OFFICIAL Stars 2012 MTT Discussion Thread", which is in the MTT Community forum. Here is the link:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/61...hread-1146917/

Is that what it is now, a $60 on just a tuesday? EXTREME LOL!

I agree, adding a smaller BI rebuy would be so much better and it's the one thing they continuously ignore us over. If, as Wice says, Zoom is going to take over the MTTSNG world anyway, then wtf do they have to lose by at least trialling a rebuy 180?