The 888 only has 30 min levels day 1 vs 60 min levels for the 1500. Last year with 5k chips 888 had rating of 9.07, this year with 8k chips it is 13.41. A 1000 with 5k and 60 min levels is rated 19.7. (down from 30.5 in 2015). The 1500 with 60 min levels is rated 27.8. The 10,000 main event is rated 201. The 1500 monster stack is rated 50 (down from 70 in 2015) The new 2620 marathon this year is rated 92.94 with 26.2k chips and 100 min levels-best value. Other best value is the $333 online rated at 38.

I don't know what rating system RedOak is using, but mine (Structure Points - http://www.rainbowspuppiessunshine.com/pokercalc/) says that the 2017 Monster is better than the 2015 Monster.

First, here's links to structure sheets for both so you can compare for yourselves:

2015 - https://www.wsop.com/2015/structures...-structure.pdf

2017 - http://www.wsop.com/pdfs/structuresh...1352_15647.pdf

--

#1: Without regard for which is better his system shows a signficant difference between the two strucures:

His system: (70 - 50) / 70 = 29% better

Mine: (151 - 136) / 151 = 10% better

Look at the structure sheets--they are not significantly different. I think my system shows that better than his.

--

#2: Mine chooses 2017 over 2015 because the increases in blinds/antes is more gradual in the later levels of 2017 than they were in 2015.

2015 Level 14 cost 6000 to play 10 hands
2015 Level 18 cost 12500 to play 10 hands
4 level increase of 208%

2017 Level 14 cost 7600 to play 10 hands
2017 Level 18 cost 14000 to play 10 hands
4 level increase of 184%

Yes, 10 hands in 2017 at level 18 costs more to play than 2015, but the structure is smoother in how you get there which makes for a better structure.

Again, look at them yourselves, but I say the 2017 Monster is a little bit better than the 2015 Monster.

You guys are either dum or just dont have luxury of living near foxwoods.
When the **** is 7500 starting stack ever good?
At best its a turbo size starting stack
60 min levels are a joke

To the idiot that tginks the circuit events 365$ 10k stacks are good
What are you dum? One bad beat or one mistake ur out tge door.everyone ive talked to at these events agree

Im assuming you guys dont even play wsop events?

never been up to foxwoods, why don't you post their SS and structure for us to critique.

60 mins levels a joke?



there is plenty of play in the wsop $365 circuit events.

60 min levels are not a joke, but they are too long for day 1s of all but a tiny fraction of multi-day tourneys.

Horrible spelling, grammar and lack of a logical argument aside---why are you guys still responding to scuba? The whole first page of this thread was multiple posters clearly explaining why his premise was incorrect.

I think a good conversation came out of it for all involved, but at this point he's not going to be convinced of anything and is veering into troll territory.

hes literally a math wizard and has 9 circuit rings so i think he knows a little bit on the subject.

Horrible spelling and grammar aside, I agree with scuba's general premise (to the degree that I understand it). The way I see it, tourneys with fewer than 15K in starting chips, no matter how well structured they are, are not ideal in modern poker. The game has become too aggressive and has too much variance in it. And even those tourneys that have 15K+ in starting chips, if they are too well structured (particularly early), that is also something which should be avoided, since its bad for rec players, and by extension, pros.

https://www.foxwoods.com/uploadedFil...Structure2.pdf

That structure is marginally better than the current WSOP Circuit Event $365 (73 S-Points to 65 S-Points). The percentage taken out for fees is also better for the player at Foxwoods (14.3% to 17.8%).

There comes a point where the structures can be too "good."

In a $300 or less mtt, let's have a few hours of skill that get the equity in the prize pool and then flip quarters for a pay day imo.

$1000 and up sure let's get a couple more hours in before we flip coins.

If you want better structures than WSOPc and similar 30-40 minute blind levels, play cash.

I'm more concerned with rake and payout % personally

thanks for pointing this out! I missed it too. Makes it just a little less of a super turbo, but unfortunately the 30 minute levels still make it pretty bad on day 1.

I wish they'd do 40 minute levels day 1&2, 60 minutes 3-onward. But I'm sure they have logistical issues they need to consider on these types of huge fields.

Yes, you can argue in terms of hourly. Do you really want a $365 with hour levels? Probably not considering that even at a 100% roi that definitely cuts down on your hourly. I'm thinking it takes anywhere between 16-24 hours total play + breaks to finish a standard 365 circuit event, depending on how many runners, and such. Assuming you don't always win, you play say on average 8 hours on a 365, with a 100% roi, makes it $40/hour or so. More or less.

Rec or pro player would rather have more chips
Id take on any so called pro any day of week any where in the us
Especially the young pussys that never worked a day in there life
Any pros wanna take me on?
I dont think so afraid to.be embrarrsed i assume

Isn't part of the issue the size of the fields at WSOP? In order to plan for the tournament to be done when you want it to end, you must arrange the ratio of total chips in play to the blinds at the point when you want day 1 to end in order to be at about 12-14% of the field still playing (if you want to hit the money bubble paying 15% of the field before the end of day 1). In the seniors event, for example, levels are 60 minutes, starting stacks are 5000, and play will be 10 levels on day 1. Blinds in level 10 are 500/1000 (+100 ante). Last year there were 4500 players, so that's 2.25 million chips in play. If the average chip stack when 15% of the field is left is about $33,000, that means the average stack is about 33BB.

If you gave every player 20,000 chips to start, the structure would have to increase much more quickly in order to reach that 30BB average stack level. You could run 30 min. levels and play through 20 levels instead of 10 levels and you'd get to blinds of 2000/4000 by the end of the day in order to get to the same chips-to-blind ratio so that you eliminate 85% of the field before the end of day 1. Does that make the structure "better" because in the first level you have 200BB? Might it take longer to eliminate 85% of the field if stacks are deeper and more players are hanging on with short stacks?

At my local casino they run a big series four times a year where for a $300 buy-in you get 20,000 starting chips and they get 1500+ runners over several day 1 flights but you don't reach the money until half way through day 2 and even if you bag chips after day 2 your guaranteed payout is only about 5x the buy-in. There may be 100K at the top, but the ROI given the hours of play over the first two days are really low unless you make the final table. Is that a "better" structure?

Depends on your perspective.

I agree that dealing with huge fields adds complexity since everything (breaks, color-ups, etc.) tends to take longer. But I think the speed of play-down, at least when it comes to reaching the money, has a lot more to do with the structure than it does the starting stacks.

IMO, small-stack tourneys are not necessarily worse structures (in fact, many of them have slower overall structures than those with larger starting stacks). Its just that small-stack tourneys do not have the same allowance for early variance. Modern poker is not about folding 20 hands in a row until you get a pair or a premium hand and hope to win a flip against an opponent doing the same. Modern poker is about mixing it up with a much wider range of hands against others doing the same. You have to have a certain number of BB early to do this and not find yourself in big trouble just because of a little bad luck or variance. For a typical tourney which has starting blinds at 50/100, I think a minimum of 15K is necessary with an optimum starting stack of about 20K, depending on the structure.

And, in order to reach the money in a reasonable amount of time, you don't have to skip levels. You just can't have ultra-long levels to start the tourney. 40-45 mi levels are ideal and can be increased later in the tourney.

Case in point... the recent MSPT event at the Venetian. This had 15K starting stacks and 40 minute starting levels. IMO, 18K would be better, but this was by no means a fast event. And, despite attracting a huge field of over 3200 entries over three day ones, and only playing 15 levels (10 hours ) on day 1, the tourney made the money within 2 hours on day 2. Such a perfect combination of good structure, huge prize-pool and reasonable amount of time invested.

I'm looking forward to playing the MS in a few weeks. But that event would be better if they shortened the day one levels to 40-45 minutes.

I took a quick look at the $888 for this year and I didn't think it looked that bad. 8k starting stack with all of the standard WSOP levels. Yes, day 1 only has 30 min levels but that time jumps to 60 min levels on days 2 & 3. For a sub $1k event, I didn't think it looked too bad.

Everyone is so convinced they have the right answer...

Guess what. Some players like longer levels. For them the WSOP $1500's are a great tournament.

Other players like a 20k starting stack with 30 minute levels that skip a few levels.

There are those who swear up and down that it is way easier to go broke in level one of a tournament with a 10k stack and blinds at 25-50 than a 20k stack with blinds at 50-100.

And lastly, some just want to troll and see the world burn. Like the OP.

To each their own. If WSOP changed most of their events to 20k starting stacks with 30 minute levels you think it would be celebrated? Hell no.

No matter what your preference is, there is a tournament that is geared more towards your preferences. And if you have a magic formula? Start it and someone will ***** and whine about your structures as well.

Wsop sucks big dicks

Maybe if i fired 10 bullets like daniel ne gay do id be considered a pro thats only way to beat the terrable starting stacks at wsop.
Tired of hearing how deep the play is later in the tournament?
So your telling me i have to fire 10 bullets or get lucky to make it to the point where we can play?
You guys dont make sense
7500 chips is never a playable stack that allows skills
Doesnt take a mathematician to know this
Wsop sucks dixs

Looks like the Giant starts with 20k chips?

Who cares about the actual structure and BBs, starting stacks is where its at.

You do realise they haven't had rebuys in years, right?

Wsop still sucking big dicks

Every event is a renentry event? Are you dum or just never been?

Not every event is reenetry.

Reentry and rebuys are not the same.