I think referring to # chips is far more misleading. x # chips in level 1 does not mean the same thing as x # chips in level 25. The inequity is a percentage and in comparing inequities you need to compare the percentages.

As for the question of cost, again, tournaments structures are not evaluated by taking how much luck or skill a player has into account, since these things are unknowable. If you are the luckiest and/or most skillful player in the world, then you really shouldn't care what the structure is since you will win most of the pots anyhow.

I haven't really thought it though enough to say it is equivalent to the inequity caused by the BBA, but I would happily invite other players to play 450/900 while I am playing 400/800 every time I sit down at a table.

Of course they're different tournaments. The point is, one relies far more on luck than the other. If this is not true, then venues are wasting tons of money offering slower-structured events, and players are wasting tons of time playing them.

On the other hand, it seems like many players believe that skill plays a role in poker results. And therefore anything that decreases the role of skill is potentially a negative. That's what BBA does when it comes to table imbalance and table break inequities. It increases the luck factor and decreases the skill factor.

# of chips is absolutely the correct measure. Or # of big blinds if you wanna make it applicable through the tourney. At 40k/80k/80k, now it costs 1270 an orbit instead of 127. But the ratio to big blinds remains the same.

If you buy one lotto ticket and I give you another I have INCREASED YOUR CHANCES OF WINNING BY 100% WOW. That’s misleading because of how infinitesimal the numbers are. Same here.

Also what you have completely ignored is that this differential EXISTS IN TRADITIONAL ANTE ALSO. It wasn’t created and isn’t meaningfully exacerbated by BBA.

Also you aren’t playing 400/800 while other people are playing 450/900 at your table. Another table is playing 450/900. Guess what? Until a player moves or busts, the average stack at each table stays the exact same. Even after 4 hours of one table playing 400/800 and the other playing 450/900.

I just don't really see why you use terms like "infinitesimal". They do not apply. The inequity is on a per-hand basis. It adds up over time. And no, the situation is not the same at 4000/8000 as it is at 400/800 even if the inequity percentage is the same because, your stack size relative to the blind sizes is quite different. If I stole 1 BB from you at 4000/8000 it would be worse (probably much worse) than if I did so at 400/800. So your comparison to the lottery isn't valid. If you want to say that you don't care about the increased inequity, that's fine. But the idea that it does not exist or doesn't matter when it comes to luck and EV is just wrong. The playing field is less level with BBA late in these events. I think there are plenty of people who care about those sorts of things, myself being among them.

And the stuff about 450/900 is also wrong-headed IMO. Am I competing against the players at my table? Of course. But I am also competing against players at other tables. If they are playing under more advantageous "rules" due to something the venue has complete control over (ie strucuture), and in order to gain some pretty nebulous benefit, then I don't see that as being a desirable outcome.

Isn’t the exact same thing happening at traditional ante?

Yes. And it’s worse under BBA. That’s the whole point. BBA exacerbates an existing problem.

Doesn’t it mitigate these giant 1/20 of a BB per hand inequities by the fact that you get a few more hands per level at BBA?

/thread.

How does getting a couple more hands per hour mitigate paying more per hand? Its the opposite.

If you are at a disadvantage to be at the six handed table, would you rather be playing 400/800 or 600/1200? You said yourself the effect is worse as the levels go up.

I’m still not convinced it’s an automatic disadvantage to be at the table of 6. We are talking the difference of 400/800/100 vs 400/800/125. In many situations, playing bigger pots is better.

Do you think a player has a lower ROI in wsop $1500 six max compared to regular wsop $1500, presuming equal fields?

A player in the 6-max is not competing against the player in the standard 9-handed event, so I’m not sure how your analogy fits.

Anyhow, I think we’ve gotten deep enough into the weeds and covered about all the territory I’m prepared to cover on this topic, especially since BBA is basically the standard now. Good debate.

GL in your WSOP events this summer.

GL to you as well!

Seniors 2018/ 5000 chips

1) 0 225 225 11) 2400 4500 31725
2) 0 450 675 12) 4800 5400 41925
3) 0 675 1350 13) 4800 7200 53925
4) 600 675 2625 14) 7200 9000 70125
5) 600 900 4125 15) 9600 10800 90525
6) 1200 1350 6675 16) 12000 13500 116025
7) 1200 1800 9675 17) 12000 18000 146025
8) 1800 2250 13725 18) 12000 22500 180525
9) 2400 2700 18825 19) 24000 27000 231525
10) 2400 3600 24825 20) 24000 36000 291525

Seniors 2019/20000 chips

1) 0 600 600 11) 4800 7200 51000
2) 0 900 1500 12) 6000 9000 66000
3) 600 900 3000 13) 7200 10800 84000
4) 900 1200 5100 14) 9000 13500 106500
5) 1200 1800 8100 15) 12000 18000 136500
6) 1500 2400 12000 16) 15000 18000 174000
7) 1800 2700 16500 17) 18000 27000 219000
8) 2400 3600 22500 18) 24000 36000 279000
9) 3000 4500 30000 19) 30000 45000 354000
10) 3600 5400 39000 20) 36000 54000 444000

The calculation is 3 rounds per hour and the columns are ante,small blind+big blind, running total .

Important to notice that at level #'s 5/6 the 2018 tournament will reach the initial stack size . In the 2019 tournament this level is reached at #'s 7/8. Using this as a guide line it can be said that the 2018 tournament is more precipitant as the 2019 tournament gives the patient man a little more to work with, time wise.

But the above is not the total answer for if more chips are added to the 2018 tournament such as in the monster (15 k chips) the initial stack size level is reached between levels 8/9 which is more patience friendly than the 20K 2019 tournament.

the series has always given a paucity of chips in their tournaments as witnessed by the 5K in the seniors.

My impression is that the structure of the preponderance of tournaments in this range has the **same structure** with a difference in chips. ie,
$1000,$1500,$2500,$ 5000 . I didn't check them all but those I did check showed the same structure.

Likewise the 2019 structures are the same with differences in chips.

And so, regardless as to the argument as to relief for the dealers evaluation of the **structures** in each year reveals that the 2019 structures are chip gobblers as apposed to the 2018 variety.

Examples are at level #9 the accumulations are 18825 (2018) and 30000( 2019).

Level #15 is 90525(2018) and 136500(2019).

Level #20 which is about the end of day #2 we have 291525(2018) and 444000 (2019).

A player friendly effect , for example in the seniors ,could have been effected by starting with 10K chips to which the run out level is between 7/8 as is the 2019 with 20K chips.

Examine the numbers and the light will show that these numbers are divorced from the method of taking the so called ante and so what we have received in 2019 is a structure which is faster than previous. When I say "faster" I mean that forced entry(s) which are not a function of a players ability or lack thereof, are higher in the new structure.

It is possible that some will like the new as some do like tournaments which are more like the old turbo but I'm not calling the new "turbos" but for want of a better word I'll use the words "patience precipitator" .oh well lol

Of note is that a comparison of the totals at each level are at the range of 1.5 new/old. Example is that at level #10 the old is 24825 and the new is 39000. 39000/24825 = 1.57 .

Prior to this methodology many tournaments around town gave large amounts of chips in the same range of 2019 with the old structures but again that quality would have to be clarified for each venue.

Again the structure is not the same as the placement of the big blind by the dealer. Of course the difficulties brought out by many such as tables falling to the 6 man level as apposed to 9 men still stands out with the added feature of a structure which gobbles more chips than the old. finis

Back to the structure, the blinds in the new are:

100,100
100,200
100,400
100,600
200,800
300,1000
300,1200
400,1600
500,2000
600,2400
etc,etc.......

The so called big blind ante has no correspondence with the old system and is a misnomer. No matter what you call it, the big blind player will put in the amounts above, like it or not.

As with my previous post the old system has been substituted by a structurally significant increase in blinds and therefore we are back to no antes. lol

Its slick , a California snooker . I wonder if those who like the present system would have been so sanguine if the blinds were presented as above from the beginning.....

No because most people understand that an ante isn’t a blind even if it was posted by a player in the blind. Antes are dead money. Blinds are live. 200/400/50 and 200/400/400 are literally exactly mathematically equivalent at an eight handed table no matter if you think it is somehow 200/800 or whatever.

Yeah bro we do get that and we understand it. It’s no difference to us how the amounts get in per round. If it is tweaked and the game runs smoother then it’s cool and we aren’t going to freak out about it.

It can add some slight variance without changing EV and that’s fine with almost all of us. I’ve found from being on 2+2 for years that most of the biggest screamers for slower structures and less variance are often the worst players who are making arguments for things that actually make it less likely they’ll win money.

No, I don't think "we all get it " but maybe you get it ; in any case I tried to display the difference between the old and the new .

Not everyone discusses these matters but I'll take issue with the idea, which appears to be with some and you, that "only the losers" desire slower structures. blah, blah, blah

But I do take note of your implied advice and do see that a slower structure is not necessarily the best game for a player.

FWIW, I’m opposed to the BBA (because it’s benefits do not outweigh it’s issues), and I also oppose slower structures, at least to the degree that they have been implemented at the summer WSOP. There’s no reason you can’t have a perfectly playable/enjoyable structure which reaches the money within 1 day (or really close to it), and is completed in its entirety in 3 days. Structures like that would be better for everybody, rec and pro alike.

That carlo guys is a prime example of people not understanding. Skill gap enlarged I love it!

Lets get this straight boys, I understand some things but I doubt if some understand that there is not an equivalence from one structure to the other.

At level #5 on the old the forced monies is 900 over 3 rounds while in the new the is 1800 chips at the same level #5 (redundant, I know).

At level #9 the old is 2700 chips while the new is 4500 chips.

At level #15 the old is 7200 chips while the new is 12000 chips.

If any comparison is to be made one has to consider "time" or, how am I doing after 4 hours or 8 hours, etc...

I compared the two and one could well prefer the new but at least make sense and quit assuming that there is an equivalence at specific times. there is not.

And so, while realizing this, starting chips have been added to the WSOP events and yada,yada,yada,...

As usual, as has been presented by many, the seized chips becomes aberrant when the table falls to, for example, 6 players for the forced effect becomes accentuated. The closer we get to the end the more this effect becomes a negative as , of course, with the 6 player table and whatever is below the standard 9 player the blinds come around faster.

It is an inborn error to the system and so if in the first hour in a 5000 player tournament ask yourself if the tournament directors can balance your table fast enough if you fall to 6 players (it has happened to me many times). Ideally, online computer play can do this immediately but then again there is no need for the computer can do the old system and take individual antes without fail.

This is done .. bring on the new.....I compared , no more, no less.

JFC man. So under the new one, the costs are 2x the cost of the old one, or slightly under. But the chips are 4x the chips of the old one. It doesn't take much thought to realize that means, all else equal, that the new is much deeper/slower than the previous one.

I agree that at the end of the tourney, keeping tables balanced is very important. I disagree that it is a huge deal at 100/200/200 when we are 25k deep that my table has 6 players for an orbit.

I will be curious to see how it all shakes out in plog’s structure analysis. And yes, the table imbalance inequity is obviously far more important in later stages of an event.

I have always thought that a good compromise would be to use the BBA
in early stages when the field is largest and when ante delays, in theory, are more prevalent than decision delays. And then revert to standard antes or no antes when a certain % of the field remains (maybe like 5), and certainly when there are 5 or fewer tables remaining in smaller events.

You realize that these “inequalities” in the end will amount to 1-2 bbs total right - I mean you’ve calculated possible scenarios and hands/hour and figured out that it’s a very small net effect on stacks right? At 25 hands an hour you see that a table of 7 v a table of 8 or even 9 can play a long long time and have very little disparity in bbs put into the middle involuntarily.

I haven’t really thought about the total damage. The fact that any damage exists due to structure is a potential problem in my eyes. In any case, the total amount of time saved by reducing antes is pretty paltry too... on the order of 10 or 12 hands gained in a full 12 hour day (out of some 300 total hands)

Anyhow, I think the case for getting more hands per hour (even a paltry amount) is a bit murky. Sure, you get more of a product which you purchased. But I think an equally good case can be made that playing more hands would be a material negative for a lot (perhaps the majority) of players. So it’s not quite black and white.

On the other hand, I’m curious if you can come up with a reason why losing even a couple blinds for no reason other than structure is good for anybody. I mean the way you put it, if the structure called for a table to be chosen at random and then each player has to forfeit a couple blinds, that would be no big deal.