Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Tournament Structure Dispute Tournament Structure Dispute

11-18-2013 , 06:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimulacrum
I'm honestly really surprised that the average response in this thread is somewhere around a shrug. Would y'all feel differently if this were a $300, $3,000, or $30,000 tournament?

I, for one, expect integrity from a host regardless of the stakes. Maybe that's just me, though.
I think you're misinterpreting the average response. There are two questions here IMO:

1) Was the host's decision correct?
2) Did the host's decision affect the outcome of the tourney?

I think the consensus is that the answer to both questions is "no." I don't think the change made a big difference in this particular tourney situation. But I also don't think the host was justified in making the change, and if I were a player in this game, I'd be a little bent out of shape about it too.
Tournament Structure Dispute Quote
11-18-2013 , 06:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimulacrum
Right, the probabilities aren't changed by a significant percent, given the stacks at that particular moment. This particular outcome is not very likely to be altered. That's true. But it's also true of a number of changes she could've made at that moment, none of which would be acceptable (e.g., making the payout structure more top-heavy, removing $6K from each player's stack).

Poker is a game in which the long run is what matters. A difference of a percentage point or two does change things, even if the outcome is likely to be the same right here and now. In this case, it's like taking money out of the shortstacks' pockets. It's a relatively small amount of money, no doubt, but it's still money. She made a change that favors the big stack, even if only a little, and in doing so made the game less fair than if she'd just let it run as planned.
Hey, we agree on the host being wrong here.

I am saying it is over with, and there is no going back. Since it is a "percentage or two," OP should let go of the anger. He could have a friendly chat with the host and give his perspective, but this is a friendly game, and it is not worth this much energy.

And if he is indeed obsessing over it--enough to post this thread, but apparently not as much as you--he should let it go.
Tournament Structure Dispute Quote
11-18-2013 , 06:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by albedoa
How many words would you like us to invest? How many paragraphs does this issue demand?

Brevity is a virtue. Your message is often lost behind blocks of text.
Fair enough. I know I talk a lot. You might be surprised, but I actually edit a lot of my posts down before I click Submit Reply. What you see now is an improvement over how much I used to write.

Fast typing speed can be a double-edged sword.
Tournament Structure Dispute Quote
11-18-2013 , 06:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eneely
And if he is indeed obsessing over it--enough to post this thread, but apparently not as much as you--he should let it go.
Yeah, I suppose I may be more bent out of shape about it than OP is. This is one of those things that would really get under my skin if someone had done it to me. I would probably "let it go" by never returning to the game.
Tournament Structure Dispute Quote
11-18-2013 , 07:02 PM
Well , I think what the host did was wrong. This executive decision is BS, you can't start changing the levels because the tournament is running late. The host should of approached the players remaining and discussed it with them first. It appears what the host did was quietly alter the blinds on the computer without telling anyone. That's two strikes against the host.

Whether the blinds moved to 3k and 6K, or 5k and 10k, you know either way the tournament is going to end with two players with 20kish stakes. Let them finish it off at 3k 6k because I don't think you would see another level.



The host should of talked with the remaining players first. I'll agree with the OP
Tournament Structure Dispute Quote
11-18-2013 , 10:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimulacrum
Yeah, I suppose I may be more bent out of shape about it than OP is. This is one of those things that would really get under my skin if someone had done it to me. I would probably "let it go" by never returning to the game.
Yeah, something like this would really grind my gears. In this case perhaps it didn't have a huge impact on the outcome- or more precisely, a high percent chance of having an impact... but it's the principal. You play poker tournaments with the rules determined and known up front, and changing them as you go is just bad practice. I doubt I would want to play here again if it happened to me.
Tournament Structure Dispute Quote
11-18-2013 , 11:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zathras
Yeah, something like this would really grind my gears. In this case perhaps it didn't have a huge impact on the outcome- or more precisely, a high percent chance of having an impact... but it's the principal. You play poker tournaments with the rules determined and known up front, and changing them as you go is just bad practice. I doubt I would want to play here again if it happened to me.
To add to the story. I received a very nice email from her this morning, she apologized and admitted the situation was not handled properly. I didn't even feel the email was needed because we talked at the game, but it was a nice gesture.

I've been playing this game over a year and this is the first time I've had an issue. I think everyone learned from it and that's all you can ask for.

Thanks for all the comments, definitely helped me see it from different angles.
Tournament Structure Dispute Quote
11-18-2013 , 11:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zathras
Yeah, something like this would really grind my gears. In this case perhaps it didn't have a huge impact on the outcome- or more precisely, a high percent chance of having an impact... but it's the principal. You play poker tournaments with the rules determined and known up front, and changing them as you go is just bad practice. I doubt I would want to play here again if it happened to me.
Exactly, man. Exactly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RabRabs
To add to the story. I received a very nice email from her this morning, she apologized and admitted the situation was not handled properly. I didn't even feel the email was needed because we talked at the game, but it was a nice gesture.

I've been playing this game over a year and this is the first time I've had an issue. I think everyone learned from it and that's all you can ask for.

Thanks for all the comments, definitely helped me see it from different angles.
That's really good to hear. No one is faultless, but being able to own up to one's mistakes is an admirable trait.
Tournament Structure Dispute Quote
11-19-2013 , 05:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimulacrum
words
I agree, just saying, mistakes were made, it's in the past. This is a small game for cheeseburgers. Not worth getting too upset over it. Learn from experience.

Were I there and the host was wanting to go to sleep, I'd probably have advocated for a chop or something. However, it now sounds like poker was still going to keep happening, so I'd probably have petitioned to keep the structure the way it was advertised.

But now it's over, so *shrug* and move on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimulacrum
I'm honestly really surprised that the average response in this thread is somewhere around a shrug. Would y'all feel differently if this were a $300, $3,000, or $30,000 tournament?
The world isn't black and white. I don't know where the line is, but $30 to me is below it.

At least it is at this point in my life. A few years ago I got really bent out of shape over something very minor at a $20 or $40 tournament, because I was dead broke and every dollar mattered. Thankfully, my employment situation and budgeting abilities have improved since then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimulacrum
I, for one, expect integrity from a host regardless of the stakes. Maybe that's just me, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimulacrum
Yeah, I suppose I may be more bent out of shape about it than OP is. This is one of those things that would really get under my skin if someone had done it to me. I would probably "let it go" by never returning to the game.
Wars are waged "on principle".

If you're angry over the principle of something, then it's probably best to walk away. Righteous anger is unproductive. This is a lesson hard-learned in my life.
Tournament Structure Dispute Quote
11-19-2013 , 10:03 AM
As a side note...

At our cash game last night, we played our usual round of Omaha where the dealer can choose high or high/low. On my turn, I got agreement to try Double Board Omaha.

Fun game. We only had time for two hands of it, though.

The first hand had two boards something like:

AA37T
87346

The pot was chopped because of the river T. 33 vs AT.

On the second hand, the pot was chopped quad 4s and quad Js. Now, even for Omaha, that was pretty wild.

I suspect we will play this again.
Tournament Structure Dispute Quote
11-19-2013 , 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eneely
As a side note...

At our cash game last night, we played our usual round of Omaha where the dealer can choose high or high/low. On my turn, I got agreement to try Double Board Omaha.

Fun game. We only had time for two hands of it, though.

The first hand had two boards something like:

AA37T
87346

The pot was chopped because of the river T. 33 vs AT.

On the second hand, the pot was chopped quad 4s and quad Js. Now, even for Omaha, that was pretty wild.

I suspect we will play this again.
Haha, yeah the game is wild. Lots of action.
Tournament Structure Dispute Quote
11-19-2013 , 11:50 AM
On both hands, I was dealt very speculative hands which did not hit the flops at all. Easy folds, but I missed out on the fun experiment for the most part.
Tournament Structure Dispute Quote
11-19-2013 , 01:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eneely
As a side note...

At our cash game last night, we played our usual round of Omaha where the dealer can choose high or high/low. On my turn, I got agreement to try Double Board Omaha.

Fun game. We only had time for two hands of it, though.

The first hand had two boards something like:

AA37T
87346

The pot was chopped because of the river T. 33 vs AT.

On the second hand, the pot was chopped quad 4s and quad Js. Now, even for Omaha, that was pretty wild.

I suspect we will play this again.
Omaha with two boards makes Homer go crazy.

"Go crazy? Don't mind if I do!"
Tournament Structure Dispute Quote
11-19-2013 , 10:31 PM
You should try Criss-Cross Omaha Hi/Lo.
Tournament Structure Dispute Quote
11-19-2013 , 10:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfapfap
You should try Criss-Cross Omaha Hi/Lo.
I might actually be able to tolerate that. For some reason, despite Omaha getting under my skin, I like Omaha 8.

It may be pot-limit that makes me crazy. I can play just about anything fixed-limit without a problem.
Tournament Structure Dispute Quote
11-20-2013 , 12:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfapfap
You should try Criss-Cross Omaha Hi/Lo.
How do you play?
Tournament Structure Dispute Quote
11-20-2013 , 12:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabRabs
How do you play?
I think this sums up Criss-Cross pretty well: http://www.onlinepoker.org/dealers-choice/criss-cross. In short, everyone gets four hole cards. Then you make a symmetrical cross on the table with facedown cards, like this:

1
4 5 2
3

The numbers on the cards indicate the order in which they're turned faceup, one at a time. Players can use either the vertical line of cards (1-5-3) or the horizontal (4-5-2) to make their best five-card hands.

I've played a high-only version of this with five hole cards, in which anywhere between two and five hole cards can play (it was madness). But if you're playing it as an Omaha Hi/Lo variant, I imagine that you have to stick with the rule that you must use exactly two hole cards. Not sure if you'd be able to play one board for high and the other for low, but that would seem logical.
Tournament Structure Dispute Quote
11-20-2013 , 01:01 AM
No, that's not the one I mean, although I realize that also shares the name. I know that as Iron Cross.

The Criss Cross I mean is this:

5 Hole Cards, round of betting.
Two Flops*, round of betting.
Two Turns, round of betting.
Two Rivers, round of betting.

You can make your hand one of two ways: Either two from your hand and three from one board (i.e., no mixing the boards), the same as regular Omaha or Big O; or using three from your hand and two corresponding cards from the two boards (i.e., both turns, or the middle cards from each flop).

One high hand, one low (8 or better), chop pot. You don't need to use the same boards or crosses for your personal high and low.

My quick math says there are 250 possibilities for the high hand, but I could be off on that.

* It's vitally important to keep the flops spread the same way, so I recommend turning each card over one at a time from the stub.

Mixed games are best FL. You can do so much more without worrying about game balance.
Tournament Structure Dispute Quote
11-20-2013 , 01:14 AM
Jesus. That is insanity. I imagine that sound strategy consists mostly of waiting for the nuts with redraws and then adopting a new religion so that you can pray to a new deity that your hand will hold up (as opposed to your old deity, who is sick of hearing it).
Tournament Structure Dispute Quote
11-20-2013 , 01:19 AM
If by "insanity" you mean "totally freakin' awesome," then yes.

Just remember that your "cross" hands are set. You're not drawing to anything except for entirely new cross hands.

It tends to be the biggest one that gets played. And I must stress that these games are far more balanced FL. Although I did play in one small home game that had found a pretty good balance of these games in PL without getting too crazy, I still prefer FL.
Tournament Structure Dispute Quote
11-20-2013 , 01:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfapfap
It tends to be the biggest one that gets played. And I must stress that these games are far more balanced FL. Although I did play in one small home game that had found a pretty good balance of these games in PL without getting too crazy, I still prefer FL.
I prefer FL for any variants with split pots and/or lots of possible hands (like Omaha). I like to reserve PL and NL for relatively simple high-only games.

I can see this game you're describing as being pretty okay. I don't think I'd want to reach for "totally freakin' awesome" until I'd made myself a nice little chip pyramid playing it.
Tournament Structure Dispute Quote
11-20-2013 , 04:19 AM
Have you heard of the HiHi variation of Omaha?

Make your nut hand with two cards for half the pot (HiHi). Now use your other two cards for the other half of the pot (LoHi).

And you can't sandbag. That is, if the winner has a boat for HiHi and a pair for LoHi, and the best you can do is a flush for HiHi, you can't choose cards to make a straight for HiHi so that you have two pair for your LoHi. You need to play your nut for HiHi, even if it loses.

Not sure how it'd work for Criss-Cross, but it's good for all 4-card Omahas, like Double Flop or 3-2-1.

Edit: Also, don't change tourney structures mid-way through. It makes people grouchy.
Tournament Structure Dispute Quote
11-20-2013 , 04:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfapfap
Have you heard of the HiHi variation of Omaha?

Make your nut hand with two cards for half the pot (HiHi). Now use your other two cards for the other half of the pot (LoHi).

And you can't sandbag. That is, if the winner has a boat for HiHi and a pair for LoHi, and the best you can do is a flush for HiHi, you can't choose cards to make a straight for HiHi so that you have two pair for your LoHi. You need to play your nut for HiHi, even if it loses.

Not sure how it'd work for Criss-Cross, but it's good for all 4-card Omahas, like Double Flop or 3-2-1.
I believe I have heard of this, but I've never played it. Sounds like some kind of Omaha/Pai Gow hybrid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pfapfap
Edit: Also, don't change tourney structures mid-way through. It makes people grouchy.
"People" like whom? Certainly not me.
Tournament Structure Dispute Quote
11-20-2013 , 05:17 AM
Just staying on topic.
Tournament Structure Dispute Quote

      
m