/thread

Unless we're doing that button has to jump over alligator tank idea. Than i'm obv on board.

Most of the poker have played has been cash - wound up focusing on cash games after reading Small Stakes Hold'em, which taught me so much of what i know

Small Stakes Hold'em: https://www.twoplustwo.com/books/pok...g-expert-play/

At first, it seemed like maybe the final 3 might have been a bit boring because of the lack of post-flop play - but afterwards, started to wonder if maybe more detailed commentary might have made a world of difference?

Something that makes me wonder about that, is that was a spot on the final table bubble where Ben Lamb went all-in with A7 - and since there was a lull in the conversation between Lon and Norm, Antonio had a chance to discuss all the factors that Lamb might have been considering that made his shove so unusual, like if Sinclair was raising from middle position slightly lighter, even with 27bbs, and how Lamb might decide if he wanted to put his tournament life on the line by doing something outside the norm. Guess with Lon and Norm in the booth, 2/3 of the time the discussion tended to be more light-hearted and so some of that detail got missed?

Have been trying to learn more about tournaments the past couple of years, now that Amaya's been cutting back rakeback more and more, making cash games so much harder - and there seems to be much more complexity than just shoving for flips, like it can seem at times to cash players who are used to seeing more turns and rivers? Maybe tournaments are a bit like cash some of the time, but a bit like other games at other times?

• cash games - see lots of rivers, are used to folding 2nd nuts a lot
• hyper-turbos - know how to adapt push-fold ranges, in light of ICM?
• heads-up - maybe more comfortable defending blinds out of position with a wider range?

And guess the one thing that's special to tournaments are the big stack differentials that can develop, and the dynamics that creates - like guess tournament players have to be able to do a bit of everything that other players have to do ... and then also have to know how to play with a big stack, and with a little stack as well?

Can't help but wonder if maybe the final 3 of the WSOP might have been more interesting with more detailed commentary of some of the considerations that might have been going into the play - since that big stack vs short stack dynamic in tournaments is such a special thing? Guess ESPN would have to give Ali and Nick a chance to provide commentary for us to be able to tell if there was much more that could have been added - maybe there wasn't too much more to add ... not sure

Something tells me that altering the pay schedule is a smaller change than letting the world, including their opponents, see every single one of their hands thirty minutes after they are dealt to them.

Nit-folding from pure fear of eliminating gave Hesp fourth place and Moneymaker and Nguyen first Like my grandmother said, every coin has two sides. Seeing Hesp happily betting like in tourist bar after midnight is refreshing.

How can we ameliorate the advantage that comes from position?

Also I was wondering how we can ameliorate the advantage that regs have over recreational players?

You were probably joking but actually both things ARE a problem that should be ameliorated. Interestingly if you ameliorate the first you ameliorate the second.

literally a non-issue

Exactly.

You cater to TV viewers to lessen the chances that you will ever have to get a job, have a boss, or get up in the morning before you want to. I'm told those things suck.

I know that you might have said this in jest, but if not, and you're trying to convince others that regulars shouldn't have an advantage--well, just in case, I'm going to give you my grumpy old man rant:


I have played a few hundred tournaments online this year. Even so, 25% of my poker time is spent studying. I earned that advantage that good regulars have and I'm not ready to give it up because poker players get bored and always want new variants/new rules/something to "make the game more exciting or something that "gives the amateurs a chance." Why don't we change the rules of chess while we're at it, since it's not exciting enough for some people?

EXAMPLE: WSOP.com doesn't just have poker tournaments, they go on "missions," which could mean knocking a certain numbers of players out, winning a tournament or whatever. They want it to be the site where the cool kinds are playing, complete with graphics exploring all over the screen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpf0_xSMsLU


I don't need a "mission." I already have one--making better decisions than my opponents and making money. I don't want someone taking that away from me because it's not exciting enough when the regulars win.

Chess is not normally played for money. Making poker more exciting or giving amateurs a chance is similar to casino adding cool graphics to their slot machines or upping the payback percentage. Its to increase their profits in the long run. Or in the case of poker, yours.

Actually, I've found them to be the best things ever. If you have the right kind of job it's a fantastic way to spend time with your friends. And the absolutely wonderful thing about having a boss (has to be the right kind though) is that it's THEIR job to make sure you are happy and can do the work you should be doing, meaning you can unload all the boring meetings and vague project plans onto them and they have to fix it.

Love what you do and do what you love and everything else will fall into place.

Chess is absolutly played for money, but that besides the point.

You keep suggesting the payout should be altered. What kind of payout do you suggest then? Give an example. I pointed out already that the WSOP is about as topheavy as it gets if you compare to f.e online poker. With the added sponsorship/exposure/bracelet for winning such events esp if you do it in a way that is exciting for the viewers. Will allow you to gamble as a shortstack.

So the payout doesnt seem to be the problem at all. People won't completly change their style and go run massive bluffs because the payout suddenly allows it a bit more. Even more so if they are playing for livechanging money for the first time.

Tournaments just aren't that interesting, because most of the time you just see randoms. It needs charachters, storylines and good commentary. Besides for me it's more exciting to see someone ICM rape the rest then just see everybody flip it in at the first opportuinity. The bigstack applying pressure and people wanting to call, but can't or are scared to do so is what tournament poker is all about.

If you want exciting poker; run a HS cashgame with all the best and fun pokerplayers; like HSP. Or do something like the vlogs about the life of pokerplayers(people seem to like that). But it seems delusional to think that every tournament will suddenly be a must see for everybody just because of some small tweaks.

This definitely tops your list of worst ideas Mr. Skalansky

Big stacks going berserk and tiny stacks making ridiculous folds is like the best thing about tournament poker. The natural advantage of big stacks is greatly exaggerated as well, if you get out of line too much shorties can just start reshoving normal ranges on you and print. The fact that they fold QTs with 17bb in the sb vs a guy who opens 92s on the button is not a problem with the payout structure.

If you gave the big stack the option to sit out without having to pay the blinds until the chips are not distributed in this way, under what conditions should the big stack accept that option?

i think everyone has overlooked the fact that if you ameliaearhart the big stack at final tables you would probably never see a rec. win a tournament of any value again.
taking away the biggest edge an amateur could have and would most likely have to have if they were to win a tournament.

Things I learned ITT:

1) It is absolutely wonderful having a boss because it's THEIR job to make sure you are happy

2) Chess is not normally played for money

3) David Sklansky ROCKS!!

EDIT: 4) The word Ameliorated...ty

The thread is won by the people who don't know the word "ameliorate" and know they don't know, and it is lost by the people who don't know the meaning of "ameliorate" and also don't know that they don't know, thinking its interchangeable with "alleviate" when it's meaning is actually closer to "enhance".

And Penetrator's definition is numbers 11 (i.e. first listed), 14 and 19.

Position, average bubble factor, payout

1 left: Winner 8150000
2 left: 1.0000 4700000
3 left: 1.2581 3500000
4 left: 1.4370 2600000
5 left: 1.5208 2000000
6 left: 1.5196 1675000
7 left: 1.5230 1425000
8 left: 1.5408 1200000
9 left: 1.5620 1000000

So pretty much the whole final table is like being on the bubble of a 6-max SNG.

My solution: just pay positions 2-18 one million each and brag about creating 18 millionaires, play the final table based on chip EV.