Quote:
Originally Posted by coffeeyay
I strongly recommend playing one home game of this style before you commit to this structure. Personally I found the structure led to very long and boring games where you trade small amounts of chips for a long time before it's suddenly shallow. I'm a HU hypers reg but I like deep play too, it's just that in this specific structure it doesn't feel like the deep play is meaningful. It's just a bit of a weird blind level structure.
Everyone's different ofc, but thought I'd drop my 2cents since I've played this home-game structure with high hopes and ended up disappointed. Looking at the structure more though maybe the "fast" fixes it a bit--I know the slower style HU home-games are way worse. This one might be OKish. Just make sure to play one before to get a feel for avg match length and such.
Thanks for the feedback. It can't be a bad idea to check out the format beforehand. As for the structure, I understand that some people may not love it, but the alternatives are slim. The main reason we can't play a format that resembles HU cash better is outlined above; the gameplay is just way too fast to 1/2-table, which will lead to a lot of timeout-folds. There are other reasons such as players having to buy PM chips; payers can't really know how much they are up/down using auto-rebuy without a HUD because PM cash is raked; setting a fixed amount of hands leads to some perverse endgame-tactics etc.
People may not like the format because some of these matches will undoubtly end in a shortstacked endgame situation, and that's a reasonable objection. Regarding the unmeaningful play at the deeper blind levels, I think I disagree but it's all subjective. I'm open to discussing changes but the options are slim as well; the next shortest blind level is 5mins which would turn this into a turbo fest while the intention is cleary to ensure a lot of play at the deeper blind levels; the next biggest stack size is 10k (I think), which surely only works in favour of your argument.
Personally, I believe the format is fine as it is. You are correct that the Fast option really speeds things up (I believe in the Slow version not only do players have way too much time to act, but also the cards are being dealt slower). I have played a few sets of two matches at a time, and the gameplay is really fun. I haven't measured it but it feels like it's simliar to the timing on HU zoom tables.
As for the expected time spent for this tournament, it of course depends on each opponent and how the match is going. I think a good estimate of the average time for one round is about 3.5hrs, or 4hrs if players agree on breaks. Some rounds may be over way quicker, and I think the max. time for one round if it goes all the way is like 6hrs. One advantage of this tournament is that players are really flexible with regards to setting up their matches, and time spent is time spent playing (when you register into a HU MTT you usually have to wait up to 2hrs before you even start playing).