What if we played the final Heads Up best-of-three?



As a poker player, tournament director , and even as a fan; one thing that made me feel discomfort in tournaments is the lack of tension in the final stages of a tournament, even in the final Heads Up. Meanwhile in other sports or games, the biggest time of the tournament is the final match, when the champion is going to be decided, in poker undoubtly, the highest points in the tournament are the bubble time and the first half of the final table.

Later, when 2 to 4 players remain in the tournament, they feel that they had the day saved already, and they have less tension, start to think how the best deal is and mainly, that tournament ends fast, that is not important who wins at the end.

Then my idea it would be, play in determined tournaments (mainly in televised tournaments) but also it can be made in any tournament, even in Sit&Go (live or online), that the final Heads Up of some standard tournaments will be played best-of-three, as in other sports or games.

It has a lot of advantages:

-Deals can be reduced considerably, due to best players would consider has more chances to reach the top prize. Even standard players think that they can defend more their chances and money because of it.
-Difference between 1st and 2nd prize could be higher (even between 2nd and 3rd), that is something that in general sponsors and organizers like; but there would not be the usual rejection that players do to this (due that players in general like a flatter payout in the highest spots in the final table)
-There would reduce luck influence a little bit at the end (but less than people could think)
-Time to end tournament will be slightly more predictable (now a Heads Up can last a hand or a few hours; in this mode, would be easy to calculate)
-It would be much fascinating for streaming spectators; and also players would feel more that they are "in the final Heads Up" that right now
-The winner would appear in media like "A wins tournament X , defeating in the final B 2-0 (or 2-1), that gives a sporting view to this game

The final heads up, best-of-three can be made in 2 ways:

-With same levels that originally (then Heads Up will be longer; this it would be the approach for big televised tournaments and also, the largest online tournaments)
-With short levels (for example , in 45 minutes tournament, the best-of-3 Heads Up should be 20 minutes tournament starting in 100 blinds). Then, Heads Up will not be longer that could be originally, but on same time you have assured will not finished in the very first hand. (This would be the approach for mid buy-in tournaments and online sit&go)

Then, then the problem would be , what the original stack for every player should be. Because if one player has 80% of total remaining chips and the other just 20%, it would be unfair that they were the original stacks in every of this best-of-3 stacks; as also should be unfair that were 50-50.
I am going to explain this a little better. Imagine that you reach the final Heads Up in a tournament, and you have 20% of tournament chips (so your opponent has 80% of chips). It means that in order you win the tournament, you should multiply your chips by 5 in order to win. This would happen exactly 20% if both players have same poker skills. If you are better than your opponent, you would get it more than this 20%, and if you are worse, less. But if both are equally as good, you will get 20%. And if you make an arranged deal to end the tournament, tournament staff should pay money according to this 20%

Now we play best-of-three. How many chips should each player receive? If both receive 50-50 would be unfair, this would favour the player that only had 20% of total chips. And what would it happen, if give the original stack in any of the best-of-three serie? Then you have 20% of the chips, it should multiply by 5 his stack twice in three times instead that only one, needing 2 miracles instead 1, that is by far more difficult that the original situation (in fact, mathematically the 20%-80% situation will change to a 10,4%-89,6%) that would favour the player that has more chips and you would have close to half the chances to win the tournament that you had in normal situation
It would be unfair to play the three sets with original stacks, and more unfair when more difference between stacks in the starting point (it would fair only, if both players have 50% of chips)
Then I had to calculate and develop the formula that makes the equivalence, between the original stacks, according to percentage of total chips; and the new stacks in each of one of the best-of-three sets. The solution is a third grade equation "-2x^3 + 3x^2 -z = 0" ; where "z" is the original percentage of chips (in a 0 to 1 scale) and "x" the new percentage in each of the best-of-three sets (also in 0 to 1 scale). They will be 3 solutions, and then the solution for us it will be the "x" that is between the original number and 0,5.

I write you here some examples, where the first number is the original percentage of total chips just to start Heads Up , and between parenthesis the new stack:


50% (50%)
55% (53,338%)
60% (56,707%)
65% (60,139%)
70% (63,674%)
75% (67,365%)
80% (71,286%)
85% (75,560%)
90% (80,420%)
95% (86,465%)
99% (94,110%)



For example, if one player has 70% of total chips and the other one 30%, the stacks would be 63,674% and 36,326% for any of the best-of-three sets. I wrote only 50% to 100%, because the other player would have exactly the difference between 100% of chips, and opponent chips

Maybe in future we have that the final Heads Up in WSOP Main Event use this formulla to play best-of-three for some millions, or the some EPT. I think it should be a step in the right way, to make tournaments close to sporting events, and not like gambling card mode

PS: I create the best-of-three with this formula, where the original stacks are the same in all the three sets; but there are other choices, that I prefer don´t write here in order do not make more complicated and I think are not as good as the explained (where the best stack has a big advantage in 1st set and other 2 are 50-50, also in mathematical equivalence; and even best stack has advantage in 2 first sets, but 50-50 in the final one; and even, keeping the original stacks in 1st set, and modifying them in 2nd and 3rd)

A small explanation in video:

n

Somewhere, the production crews of every major televised poker tournament just experienced a collective stroke.

I'm sort of torn on your idea. On the one hand, I like the idea for the sports-analogy reasons you stated. Part of the idea of having a series rather than a single game in MLB, NBA, NHL, etc., is to more often reward the truly better team. (Of course, the real reason is the revenue.)

On the other hand, would such a system also make it less likely that an underdog rec wins the event, making them less enticing? If the NCAA basketball tournaments went to best-of-three series rather than single games, you would never see first-round upsets and the Cinderella runs that makes that event more compelling. I'd be afraid of the same happening to poker tourneys.

I worked the 2014 PCA, where the Main Event ended up with Timex and Panka battling heads up for like 7 hours. It lasted until about 5am. Everyone that had flights home the next morning really enjoyed it. Since I ended up getting stranded on the island anyway, it would have been extra fun to run it three times!

I don´t understand...

In fact, as I stated in the message, luck effect reduces but not so much. And I also opened the possibility of the best-of-3 , with shorter sets, that in practice, luck will not be practicely reduced.

I prefer with normal sets, but this could also make in very big tournaments. But anyways, a Heads Up , with same chips for both players, it is usually not more than 55-45% due to ability , not much more even if one of them is a very weak player. Best-of-3 could make it close to 60-40 but not much more.

This not reduce the cinderella much, but it could make it more spectacular

What would have it happen if Farha and Moneymaker would have continued playing with 0-1 lead...? (I don´t know who would have won it, but statistically Moneymaker would have been favourite, even being worse player, due to 1-0


Well, here I opened 2 possibilities:

-Playing the 2 (or 3 sets) in same initial structure (if they are playing for a very big amount of bucks, they can play it longer; then they can play for a few hours more (This is my favourite approach, and it should be for larger and important tournaments: WSOP, EPT, main online tournaments.

In case of WSOP Main Event it could be even more than 1 day

-Playing the 2 (or 3 sets) with faster levels , in order that Heads Up doesn´t last forever; but on same time there is a guaranteed time (I like less the idea, but I recognize that is the only real possibility for standard tournaments and sit&go; both, online and real live

I have an idea for another great tournament format:

At some point during a tournament, 3 countries are chosen at random. People from those 3 countries are allowed to keep playing, while everyone else gets disconnected. People from those 3 countries get to keep all the money they can rack up by just stealing blinds from all the sitting out players.

Great format IMO. Maybe I should pitch the idea to Pokerstars.

honestly considering how massive pay jumps are heads up in big tournaments it makes sense.

Well, I know you can be angry with it, but there are other posts where you can show your feelings, deserved by the way, than this one

PS make 2 big mistakes:

1.-The obvious, when they delay 45 minutes to pause the game

2.-Not using ICM to pay the players, that is the mathematically money that every player deserved (using other stupid formullas; paid 2 players more money than the winner)

I know ICM is difficult to calculate with a lot of players, but PS could pay a mathematic to make a simulation that pays close to ICM when something like this happens, and then players would receive fair money to their tournament situation

The issue here is the maths. If one player starts heads up with 80% of chips and the other one with 20%, the best-of-three should start in the same situation (when if both players are exactly of the same level, first must win 80% of the times and the other one with 20%

And this only happens with my formulla, that gives 71,286% in every set to the first one, and 28,714% to the second one. Then, first would win 80% of the time if both are on the same level

If we keep 80-20 in every set, first player would win 89,6% of the times and second one 10,4%, that would be unfair. You are giving almost half of the stack of the short stack to the chip leader just because unknowleadge of math issues

This makes necessary this formulla I developed, in order situation would be the same in standard HU, or in the best-of-3 Hu

yes i thought about it and you're correct.

I think you’re trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

Thanks for the comment )

And yes, just imagine one playing as a short stack and the situation is understood easily :P

When we see big tournaments played like this we will see it. Anyway, the advantages that I explained are there, are obvious and objective.

And I´m not saying that all tournaments must end like it, just it is a possibility to some kind of tournaments

This idea is not applicable in regular tournaments.
However, in shootout tournaments this could be (and maybe has been already?) applied.
For example, start with 200 players.
20 players advance from first round.
2 players advance from second round. They play best of 3 heads up.

This idea is applicable in regular tournament, in fact, it had been proved already

This is different, because it is a heads up with same stack. But here I exposed heads up with different stacks, and with the formulla that gives the equivalent chips

If you increase the number of matches and equalize the stacks an proportionate amount (as you are proposing), the heads-up won't just take 2-3x longer. Each match will take longer because by equalizing the stacks, you are always increasing the effective stack depth.

The heads-up of this year's WSOP Main Event took like 12 hours. You really think people want to see it take 40 hours instead?

Of course, you could make this faster by increase the blinds in each match. But this would seem to remove the increased skill edge that your proposal is designed to create in the first place.

The luck influence is not the primary factor to change the Heads Up. The Heads Up will last as tournament organizers want.

For example, WSOP could do it lasting 2-3 days (as they do already in final table), or just starting in 50 blinds each heads up

Just do a sporting view to the final of the tournament, and better for the spectators

Things like this:

Daniel Negreanu wins EPT XXXX beating in the final Phil Ivey 2-1

Phil Hellmuth wins another bracelet after coming back 1-0 to win 2-1

Tom Dwan goes all-in in this first set with a flush draw...

...if loses, he will go 1-0 down.

Etc.

But how much will the tournament last is the minor problem, because organizers, can calculate how much last every set .

Precisely the problem is now, that Heads Up can last one hand, a lot of hours, nothing if is dealt in the bathroom, etc...

...with this mode, the heads up last from 2 hands (in fact , paradoxically happened in one tournament where I applied this) or up to 3 sets, but sets lasts as the tournament director want (when BB is 4-5% of the full chip count, the set will be over). Then he can decide how much time a set can last...if he wants, 1 hour...if he wants...12 hours...

Why stop at best of 3 when we could make it best of 7, 15 or even 121?

Run it 3 times in every all in imo

OP didn't like your butting in, but I thought it was a great post.

That seems a pretty good alternative HU rule compared to OP's idea, if in fact there is any need at all to mess with HU play for the win.

(Just an aside, but OP is posting in this thread as a "poker player, tournament director and even as a fan", but posts anonymously ? If the idea is good, and his described background would add credibility, why the secrecy ?)

I´m not trolling. It is just one small change for some reasons that I wrote in the 1st message

There are Hold´Em tournaments with Run It Twice in certain occasions



My name is written in my nick, more clear I could not have been. And this idea was run in Spain already.

Even you can see my face in the video in the opening message. There is not secret

Okay, I did not get that is your real name and it was you in the video, at least not in the part I watched. Thanks for clearing up my mistake.

That said, a lot of HU single event elimination championship formats exist in sports and contests, i.e the World Cup, the SuperBowl, drag racing, Russian Roulette.

I am not sure why you want to change the dynamic of the pre-HU final table in poker so dramatically. I do not think skewing the prize pool toward the Winner would make up for the changes you would see among dynamics of the final 9 players or so.

But, carry on .... let us know how it fares in your live tournaments.

Or play the final table 3 times and divide each place by 3 for each match and add up all the places each person finished. Cause what people typically want is to play even longer at the end of a tourney.

Consider also how skewed the entire final table play could get ....

I´m not saying all tournaments should be like that. I´m telling that some tournament could use this format

For example, 95% use traditional format, and 5%, for some sponsor reasons, because there could be special sit&go more focused on HU or WSOP bracelets in order to increase the importance of the bracelet and the final duel

Money issue could be good, but the problem is the lack of drama, that it could be not clear winner and that the final hand is not the most imoportant. Too many problems

What do you mean?

No, Just No, nice idea just no.

Imagine if Sammy Farah / MM was best of 3? the big bluff he ran on him etc , no David n Goliath endings, the great thing about big tourneys is that ANYONE can win, Yang and Gold as examples - ffs even Liv Boeree managed to win an EPT !

Best of 3 (and as well as re-entries to the start of day 2 or very long re entry periods) these changes would and are being detrimental to big tourneys imo.

Maybe its an American / Euro thing for sports in general, Stanley Cup/NBA finals have a few games to decide semi finals and finals etc whereas the main Euro game -football ( soccer), the later stages have extra time / Penalties , the early stages there are giant killings in the English FA Cup happen and they're great, non league teams beating Premier League teams.

Everyone likes to hear the story of the guy who satty into the $10k / $5k / $3.5 tourneys and gets a huge score , these changes to make best 3 would kill it for these guys.