give me the Matt Savage 3k starting stack with 40 min levels with his structure.

This is exactly what Vicious Vinny is talking about being right about in thishttp://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...php?p=44057244 post. He claims to have analyzed several $1500 events + the monster and found a 10bb disparity at the final table. I believe him & the reasoning why it happens makes sense to me.

Sent from my GT-N7105 using 2+2 Forums

Its real simple, The more chips you give, the more levels and time you must give, or else you have a bad structure late. I think the problem that was first questioned was rare with my structures. Not to say they are the best etc, but I have checked many times in middle and late at tourney and normally are around the 40 big blind mark. The instance in question, may have been out of the norm.

The recreational player just wants chips, so at times you have to please them even know we know that it will make for a bad structure late.

The bottom line is players have to be knocked out of tournaments. This happens 4 ways. 1) Bad beats 2) Bad play 3) Increasing blinds 4) Putting chips in pockets

So you have to knock players out at sometime with the blinds. I prefer to knock players out in the early middle rounds , so that when you are in the money or near the money there is plenty of play left.

If I give more chips , I HAVE to add levels to give the player a chance to knock themselves out, instead of the blinds catching up with them.

This is all my opinion, and im sure there are players and tds out there that disagree. Just my 2 cents worth.

A little fewer chips and more levels and time gives more play at the end.

But... As a player you should look at the structure and adjust your play to the structure. Whether its fast, slow or whatever , if you are a good player you will make adjustments.

I will look at my structure avg chip count and make sure that they hold the 30 t 40 big blinds through out. Hopefully this situation was a rare instance that maybe the final table had more non aggressive players and they were hanging on too long which caused this.

I will listen and make adjustments if needed.


Thanks, Jimmy

Thanks Jimmy. I believe you know me and have always supported your structure until this one.
The group was definitely not afraid to gamble.
I would not have said anything had it simply been just me and maybe another player, but it was a general consensus.
Thanks for listening as usual, and I look forward to seeing how it works out.

I participated in and read that thread. I think that a one tourney sample isn't sufficient. Also, there very well may be other factors at play that led to a 10BB disparity (rec players playing tighter and making up a huge part of this pool, huge part of this pool being people playing their only WSOP event of the year, etc).

I would like to see the data on all the 1500s to help compare.

Going into the final table in the Monster stack.... The short stack had 20 bb's.
So if you are using this as an example you basically just proved yourself wrong...again.

Jeez, Lynn has 591,000 chips at the end of day 1a of the main. Crazy rungood to increase your stack by nearly 30 fold.

Tex, looks like the discussion has changed. Absolutely we would all like longer levels! I don't think anyone is discussing that. But think about the WSOP 1k's.
Those are 1 hour levels and lets be honest, if you don't get off to a good start you will be handcuffed very early. Only thing that increases is variance.

And in the 1k's 3-5 players usually start final table with less than 20 bb's

Headed up to donate, Have on UCF Hat and BlueGreen Dri-fit shirt

I started off her run good thanks for the reminder

Not rlly up to speed on THIS structure discussion...but the CP Main structures are the shizzzzzzzite. Gotta be about the best for a $1600 ish mtt. WSOP Circuit Mains PALE in comparison.

First time at choctaw and I was very happy with the cash action during this series, played the nightly just donking around and ran KK into AA, dealers were solid, in-house and traveling. Will be returning next time I'm in Dallas area.

52 left inda Main....hangin around.

Wow, thanks for this reply - I really do appreciate your insight. This reply and insight makes me much more likely to be interested in playing your events in spite of high rake. You DO provide good dealers and well run events and that is valuable.

Thanks Jimmy!

Any details on the next series?

Had a big ass poster up but didn't look for/at a schedule heard late oct

I went up to OK for the first week of this event. I'd honestly rather stay at home and play WPN or Bovada. It reminded me of how miserable live poker was. Not that anyone cares, but I feel like ranting...

The rake.. Aka. Gas money, hotel, 1$ for water, and overpriced low quality food.

I look young so people immediately assume I'm loose and call me with crap pre busting my big hands with a hand I could never put them on in a million years.

Everyone plays so horrible that it is hard to put anyone on a hand. Players like this get eaten up and spit out pretty quick online, as mostly everyone understands MTT fundamentals.

The people are mostly miserable (both dealers and players) and it kind of wore off on me towards the end of the week, becoming rather miserable myself.

I can't toke it up without feeling like a criminal whilst hunched down in the parking lot in my car while on break. In constant fear of being locked up.. I feel much safer at home. People online don't complain I smell like weed either hahaahahaha.

The average age of the players seemed to be above 40.. Not exactly people I would hang out with on a day to day basis.

The structures are pretty horrible when comparing them to online tournaments due to their being much less overhead for the online poker networks, they can afford to have much better structures.

I think small tournament series such as this will be a short lived success. Once online poker is regulated and readily available to the masses, I just can't see these smaller live tournament series being nearly as popular.

I believe the wsopc will still have it's place because it has the wsop brand behind it, but small series such as this are doomed.

I'm sure that I'm forgetting something, but online I don't have any of these issues, and the daily guarantees across bovada and WPN are larger for a smaller buy in and less rake.. Except for maybe the main event.

/rant

LOL at bitching that the players are too bad for you to beat and that you can't smoke weed comfortably.

So let me ask you, Mr. Lookin For Fish, if you raise AA to 1700 at 400/800 and it folds to the BB with 25k effective stacks, what range do you WANT him to call you with?

ATC

BUT OMG WHEN IT COMES K82 AND HE HAS 82 YOU CANT PUT HIM ON THAT OMG OMG

Not surprised to see the usual cast of characters to immediately jump in and defend their beloved form of live poker. I've seen you guys posting here for years. I have also been playing in OK tournaments for years, but never felt the need to come here and discuss it. I am entitled to my opinion though, and for once felt like sharing it. I suppose I'll crawl back into my hole. I should of realized my post would ruffle your feathers. You guys are obviously so much better than me, much more so than I could ever dream to be. So, just ignore my opinion piece if you like. I will explain a bit further about the variance though.

I guess mileage may vary, but it comes down the to amount of volume I can do live compared to the amount of volume I can do online. I'm not saying there aren't bad players online that do the same bad plays, but I do think there are less of them around. Furthermore, when I'm playing online, I have at least 8 other tournaments going so when that does happen I have 8 more chances for variance to not kick me in the ass. When playing live I can play 3 tournaments max per day and only one at a time. I suppose in regards to variance in live play my sample size is small, so you can omit that argument if you like. The amount of volume I can get online... Up to 10-20 tournaments a day and up to 12 at a time makes it that much easier to deal with beats because you always have multiple chances for variance to be nicer to you. Of course variance could kick you in the ass across all 10-20 tournaments, but that doesn't happen very often.

I admit that argument was the weakest one out of all the others I posted, but it is just my personal experience.

Bronson, you are 100% correct. As the guy who lost $500 to Vinny on that prop bet I can tell you that had the tourney gone 9 handed about 30 minutes earlier ---- in level 35 (150/300k) vs. level 36 (200/400k) ----- Vinny would have lost. That one level created a difference of 11 bb's (43.7 vs. 32.8). So, I agree and still contend deeper stacks does not necessarily equal shallower final table play. I think the huge number of entrants could have played as much of a role. Fact is the tourney went 10 handed with 47 minutes left in level 35, at which point I would have been willing to double the bet ---- who knew it would take over an hour to lose one player.

lol

So you think bad players INCREASE variance in your win rate? What do you think playing only good players does to your win rate?

To make it simpler, if you played at a table of 9 other yous, the ONLY thing that would determine the winner is variance (who gets the good cards, who wins the flips, who is on the good end of coolers). The difference in skill DECREASES variance, because it allows skill to determine the outcome in part.