Quote:
Originally Posted by Jkpoker10
Anyone agree with the following? I think some tournaments have way too many days. Like I want to play the monster stack- it’s a what 4-5 day tourny? Why not knock off a day.
Idk I’ve played some solid $400 tournies with big fields that finished in 2 days and the structure improved a lot on day 2. Idk I like the structure etc but idk why they can’t make a tourny that finishes in 3 days. Why not just extend day 1 and 2 and maybe make the dinner break not super long. 20 min breaks and a 75 min dinner break just seems like overkill if you ask me.
Example- I think the Venetian deep stack events with best structures are ideal. You have 2-3 starting days and finish on day 2 even though the structure is amazing. Idk I’m in vegas to fire many bullets and being stuck in a tournament where I might not final table is lols. Finish 27 for some buyins- but wasted a day or two of not firing other tournaments. Maybe I’m crazy but I would rather they start structure off kinda quicker and then progress is through the days. Maybe make day 1 40min levels, day 2 hours, day 3+ 80-90 min levels? Idk I’m more fan of having long levels when tourny matters and just get rid of your dead money early when levels are shorter
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogFace
60 minute levels are part of what makes the Monster Stack unique compared with your typical garden variety Wynn or Venetian $1k.
I like that aspect of the tournament, but I don't like the third starting flight. It turns an already huge/slow event into an even bigger/slower one.
I was going to play the Milly Maker this year, but with the changes to the schedule, I've decided to skip the huge weekend lotteries.
With top-heavy payouts, I just don't think it makes a lot of sense to fight through a 15,000 person field.
The prospect of a good return on your investment is slim.
Absolutely agree with all of this, though I will still play the MM since it isn't quite as crazy as the MS.
Boosting these fields artificially with extra flights will entice those who only care about what first place is. But I think players, even recs, are a lot more savvy nowadays than they were 10-15 years ago. Players have played a lot of events over the years and I think they recognize that super top heavy prizepolols and dragged-out structures are a painful experience to the vast majority of participants, whether you are a rec or play for profit.
To me, the perfect tournament structure is somewhere in the range of 40K chips, 40 min blinds (without skipping levels, of course). You get plenty of play early and throughout day 1 where most of the field participates. And the thing doesn't drag on forever. I understand why some prefer 60 min blinds, but it just gets to be a slog. And yes, all sorts of tournaments do exist and there are options. I just wish the WSOP would revisit their structures. I don't mean gut them so they are turbos (people often suggest that speeding up an event automatically turns it into a turbo). I mean providing a good structure that doesn't require dedicating multiple days to maybe eek out a tiny profit.
And if I had my way, the payout structures would reflect meaningful milestones with meaningful sums. Cashing a tournament is hard to do. It should come with a meaningful reward, like at least 3x, if not as high as 5x in these mega-field re-entry events. Making a final table is also a big milestone, so 9th place should be significantly more than 10th place. And yes, winning an event should come with a significant prize. But you don't have to give 10% of such a massive prizepool to one luckbox. Poker is a game of skill, but winning any individual tournament is almost entirely luck.
All of this can be achieved by a less top-heavy prizepool and a more linear approach between min-cash and final table. I think these sorts of changes would make playing these events significantly more enjoyable, and economical for the vast majority of players. And that, in turn, would be good for the poker economy.