The tourney at the Hard Rock did the same with no one having a conniption fit.

The issue is this - the "unofficial" FT is 7 players. TDA protocol indicates that there should be an odd number of players when combining to one table, which allows the FT bubble to be contested at two even tables.

If instead they consolidate to one table at 8 players, that means the "FT bubble" happens with 9 players, so one table of 5 and one of 4. ABSOLUTE STONE COLD LOCK GUARANTEE that if they had done this despite sheet saying redraw at 7, not 8, for someone at the table with 4 players, that would be a cataclysmic travesty and YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE STRUCTURE MID TOURNEY and THESE SCUM DON'T CARE ABOUT PLAYERS BECAUSE THEY WENT AGAINST MY PREFERENCE.

They couldn't go 9 b/c of COVID restrictions, and going to one table at 7 instead of 8 comports with TDA guidelines, WPT structure sheets and the general concept that the official FT in a WPT is 6 handed. If they went to one table of 8 then paid 8th and 7th the same, that would be a travesty too I'm sure.

There's a group of poker players that hysterically overreact to every single possible thing that could be done differently. There's definitely room for a discussion about if the TDA policy is the best, but also needs to address how people feel about unbalanced tables on a FT bubble. And it needs to be a discussion, not an absurd ranting diatribe about Matt Savage hating poker players or whatever.

So a straightforward policy is carried out, some players don't like it, and then chainsaw post here as if they didn't follow their own rules.

It doesn't seems that integral to me to have balanced tables on the final table bubble, but its the TDA policy and they can't go to one table at 9 handed.

If you think about it logically, this obscure rule Matt Savage pushed thru tda in 2019 makes no sense.

Why would you force 2 4 max tables in an 8 handed event when you have the option to play full ring 8max?

This is a crucial juncture of the tournament playing fot huge stakes and now you want players to suddenly play 4 max at full big blind ante?

Sure there was an inequality at 5 and 4 but that was a random event in the tourney.

By forcing 4 and 4 at 8 handed you are changing the dynamics of the events just so you can claim tables were even before the final table.

If you insist on this procedure then just cut bba in half to make it mirror the real blinds more closely.

This is a dumb rule which solves a "problem" that never existed.

Another solution would be to go hand for hand 1 from final table to reduce stalling an the uneven table situation.

Well, that’s a totally different issue. We can certainly discuss if the rule is a bad one but that’s not what you started the thread for.

You claimed that Matt Savage made a last minute decision to go 4max. Jared called Savage a liar and basically accused him of an arbitrary rule change.

Correct me if I am wrong, but now it looks like the tournament just followed TDA rules as previously advertised? Can you or somebody else please confirm or deny that?

This is not a set rule.

On the wsop circuit they tried this format after the 2019 tda meeting going 5 and 5 with full big blind ante instead of 1 10 handed table.

I took some of the tds aside and explained how even though there was a slight inequality at 6 and 5, forcing 2 5 max tables with full big blind ante did not solve any "problem".

It just created more variance and upset players trying to make a final table and ultimately win a circuit ring.

Guess what. Several, but not all venues I discussed this with on the wsop circuit ditched this dumb idea.

It is a tda guideline. Not a set in stone rule.

OK. So Matt Savage followed a TDA guideline. Is that what happened?

Do we know if it was really a “last minute decision” or is it possible/likely that the plan was to follow said TDA guideline?

tables should go shorter earlier
this is where the biggest pay jumps are and short handed requires way more skill
sorry guys like you have a harder time waiting for kk+ short handed

Weve missed you chainsaw

This riled me up so much I had to post about it.

Pretty telling sign that NVG is a shell of what it used to be. I remember when I used to just lurk until I joined in 2016, there would hardly be a day that didn't go by without a post or a thread by Kessler. Now you rarely see him. Most of the topics on a given day are pure yawnfests. They just are.

When was my last post before this thread?

June of 2019.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...-gets-1746110/

7 years later and secret rules regarding endgame play at wpt main events reappear.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/6...l#post56963670

I am in awe. This link back in time to that thread may be the POTY.

Seriously. Same sh*t, different year.

In an 8 max tournament to switch to a 4 max with 8 people left is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

If they wrote that in to their rules, at any time, is absolutely baffling and makes no sense at all.

The rules state a redraw at 16 left (would be two tables of 8) and then a redraw at 7 people. So it is in the rules that they would not combine at 8 and would play short handed until down to 7. Does it make sense? Probably not, but it was in the rules, so it does not appear to be a last minute decision.

Are poker players always this whiny?

What really doesn't make sense is playing 8 handed rather than 9 as a safety precaution during a pandemic. I guess the illusion of safety is all that is necessary for everyone to justify these tournaments.

Pay jump is still from 9th to 8th. So what exactly are they trying to accomplish here?

This rule has something to do with a "bubble" I'm assuming, but the bubble still exist. If you believe tables should be even on the final table "bubble" shouldn't the pay structure be based on that as well?

Took me awhile to find it, but if you read that thread its an eerily similar scenario.

Right before 36 left the wpt 10k lapc drops the bomb on players that they are switching to 6 max.

This is how it was explained to me from twitter conversations:

So standard TDA rules for an 8-max tournament say that when you get down to the final 10 and have two tables of 5, you then play h2h until one is eliminated, and then combine into one table of 9 and play down to 8 for the official final table. And in a 6-max, you'd do the same with 8 to play - have two tables of 4, play h2h until an elimination, and then combine to 7.

I believe this is b/c typically you want h2h play before you redraw for a final table, and if you just play down until 9 to go (in an 8-max) before going h2h, you now have a table of 5 and a table of 4 playing h2h, and that is "unfair" to those at the 4-handed table.

So the SOP for this tournament would have been to have two tables of 5 playing h2h, and then when one person gets eliminated, you combine into one table of 9 and play down until you have your final table of 8.

However, due to COVID regulations, they were not allowed, by gaming commission/law/state regulations/health codes to have 9 players at a table. So they couldn't, for legal reasons, follow their standard rules.

At which point, Savage could have made one of three decisions in regards to what to do when there was 10 to go:

1) Play 5/5 normal, then play 5/4 h2h until one person is eliminated, then combine for an official final table of 8

2) Play 5/5 normal, then play 5/4 normal, not h2h, until an official final table of 8.

3) Switch over to a 6-max tournament with 2 tables to go, play 5/5, then 5/4, then play 4/4 h2h until you have 7, at which point you combine into one table of 7 and play down until you have an official final table of 6.

Savage chose the third option, and technically it was on the sheet because it says "redraw at 7", which is, at least in the most technical sense, a notice about how the tournament will play out when there are less than 10 players to go (b/c you can infer from 'redraw at 7' that you'd have h2h with two tables of 4 before that).



So with that in mind, I can think of two things - first - it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to choose option 3 instead of options 1 or 2 in regards to trying to best follow TDA rules given COVID-regulations. Operating under the premise that you want to follow TDA rules/procedures as best as you can while following any and all COVID-related health regulations, when a TDA rule cannot be followed, by definition, because of a COVID regulation, the goal should be to deviate as LITTLE as possible. Option 1 deviates far, FAR less than Options 2 or 3 from TDA rules / standard operating procedures. Why anyone would feel Option 3 was the best choice for having the tournament stay as close to SOP as possible while following COVID-regulations is beyond me.

Second - I do not play enough tournaments to be able to adequately answer whether having the one statement "redraw at 16, redraw at 7" on the rule sheet, and then having no other references anywhere to the fact that the tournament, by COVID health regulation, could not follow normal TDA policy when it gets down to 10 players, and instead the plan for the tournament would be to essentially switch from an 8-max to a 6-max tournament at that point. But it was SOME form of notice, so you can't say Savage made the decision entirely out of the blue.

Seems to me like they made a stupid decision before the tournament and didn't do a good job making sure it was known before-hand. Both mistakes. But at the same time, it was correct to follow that rule b/c it was the decision made before the tournament started and technically was stated in some fashion before hand, even if it's arguable the communication was de minimis

While true, the Nevada gaming commission or health commission or whatever government agency makes the COVID rules stated poker tables can't have more than 8 currently, so while the substantive difference between 8 to a table and 9 to a table may not seem like much, the legal ramifications were clear - so playing 9 to a table was an absolute non-starter.

Not only is it baffling that they chose this path in response to the COVID-regulation that prohibited 9-handed play, it's equally baffling that they felt having "Redraw at 24, 16 and 7" as one bullet point of many bullet points on the tournament sheet was sufficient and adequate communication of this fact.

redraw doesn't have to mean table collapse.