Starting a new link for 2018.

ChrisTD, I understand we need to expect some not so experienced dealers in your tournament and I can be patient for the 30 minute down, but, I do lose it when your staff struggles to run a good tournament. I would encourage you to visit the floor periodically at night. Floor technique and decisions are frequently real bad.

It is very difficult to find in Las Vegas during June ,July. So I don't
think it can much improve by floor or TD.

Hi Chris
Thanks again for discussing your series here, we really appreciate the time you spend listening to the players.
I had a blast playing in the Mezz in 2015 & 2016, I had to skip Vegas last summer but I'll be back in 2018, so I'm really looking forward to PH Goliath 2018!

- Overall, the 2017 schedule looked pretty good, I don't think you need to start a new one from scratch. Ultimate Goliath 600$ are great events, and I like the fact you keep non-NLH events on the schedule at a reasonable price! (thanks for Dealers Choice and 2-7)
The PLO Goliath events are among the best mid-stakes PLO events of the year...

- maybe a few 8-max PLO and NLH events?

- I agree with Salette, the sooner the better for an early draft of the schedule, early February would be nice

- I agree with Michelle, a couple of Draw events would be great, in the 150-300$ range? IMO a Triple (2-7 TD, Badugi, A-5) and a 2-7 TD event would draw the best numbers (I think you had 100+ players this summer for the 2-7 TD).

Good luck to you and your crew for all the work, see you next summer!

Echoing the request for draw games. The 2-7 TD event was very well run and a great warmup.

I like the idea of running "Warm-ups" on the day before all the $1500 WSOP Non-HE events. Hell, I also like the idea of 2nd chance toruneys on day 2 or 3 of WSOP events, but I think that would be better held in the Rio.

As before, if you decide to release a "preliminary" schedule, make sure its clearly marked as such. In other words, don't label the pdf "_final" as you have done in the past unless its actually final.

At this stage of your tournament, I would suggest you limit changes. Thousands play the tournament but only a few give you feedback. I think the multiple changes in the past year cost more problems than any good that was accomplished. I would spend more time on issues like lighting and game management. I will not talk about dealers as I understand you have a tough issue there.

Thanks for the feedback everyone, I will move all active discussions to this thread. I've been asking for suggestions on the 2017 thread.

from the other thread...

I really appreciate all of the feedback and will work on the items I have the ability to control. Moving to structures of anything that basically isn't daily turbo. See below, key changes are starting antes at the 75-150 level, removal of the double 100-200 level, addition of 7K/14K/2K (level 21), and addition of 70K/140K/20K (level 32). Keep in mind that most of our events are 15K - 30K SS. Good idea, bad idea, or do you have a better idea?


1 50 100
2 25 75 150
3 25 100 200
4 25 150 300
5 50 200 400
6 50 250 500
7 75 300 600
8 100 400 800
9 100 500 1,000
10 200 600 1,200
11 200 800 1,600
12 300 1,000 2,000
13 400 1,200 2,400
14 400 1,500 3,000
15 500 2,000 4,000
16 500 2,500 5,000
17 500 3,000 6,000
18 1,000 4,000 8,000
19 1,000 5,000 10,000
20 2,000 6,000 12,000
21 2,000 7,000 14,000
22 2,000 8,000 16,000
23 3,000 10,000 20,000
24 4,000 12,000 24,000
25 5,000 15,000 30,000
26 5,000 20,000 40,000
27 5,000 25,000 50,000
28 10,000 30,000 60,000
29 10,000 40,000 80,000
30 10,000 50,000 100,000
31 20,000 60,000 120,000
32 20,000 70,000 140,000
33 20,000 80,000 160,000
34 30,000 100,000 200,000

looking forward to having you back!

agree, certainly been an area for improvement. Looking to release a draft of the schedule in early January, and once you see a schedule with actual event numbers it becomes final.

Ok, that's fine. However, people may not know that it is the event #s that determine the finality. Make sure the schedule itself is clearly marked preliminary and it would probably be helpful to include the word "preliminary" in the pdf file name until it is finalized.

Chris, any thoughts to switching events to a BB or button ante? Makes for a smoother structure and faster game.

For what it's worth I vote for a BB ante, as there can be a dead button but never a dead BB......

Do a couple of tourneys with BB ante and see how it is received.

Only thing I am concerned about Bb ante is that tables sometimes are not even so the BB at one table may pay more than another BB. example 6-7 handed table vs 8-9 handed table.

I played the Main Event last year and was < 6 handed for nearly a whole level. So, no thank you. And this makes it so the penalty for being moved into the BB is even worse when tables break. Tournaments should be structured to try and reduce these sorts of inequities, not increase them.


I also don't really see how it makes for a smoother structure. And the speed benefits would be marginal given the confusion it might cause. And of course, there are other unrelated factors that have a lot more to do with the speed of live poker (unnecessary tanking, attention being paid elsewhere, etc.) and should be addressed before the efficiency of the ante-ing process is looked at.

def not button, I've thought about the BB ante and am watching within the industry to see how it's received. One thing I've thrown around is BB ante until levels reach 100 ante and then traditional ante.

really looking for feedback on this structure please

I quote enjoy that you've never played with the structure and still post against it, makes me giggle.

Ante is equal to the small blind when table has 3 fewer people than normal. Also, who cares in the first level?

Smoother structure should be pretty obvious-the structure posted here shows that the biggest jump is 33% and the smallest is 20% between levels. At a 9 handed table, Chris's structure above has a 55% jump between 3k/6k/500 and 4k/8k/1k followed by a 14% jump the next level to 5k/10k/1k.

You are recommending a change. Why does it matter if one has personally experienced the recommended change or not to have an opinion? Your suggested change is pretty easy to understand without having to live it.

Anyhow, I will cede the "smoothness" argument, though I fail to see how this is at all important. In any case, it is also heavily dependent on the specific structure.

However, you didn't really address the other concerns I had. So, when there are short tables, the players will pay fewer antes based on some arbitrary cutoff? That sounds like a recipe for even more confusion and annoyance. And even that does not address the issue with getting moved into the BB on a table change. This is already an inequitable situation which is probably unavoidable. Why implement a change which would make this even more inequitable?

And your request reminded me of the thread where this was first discussed, and I remember objecting to it there too...

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/6...-ante-1687297/

I didn't even mention here, the fact that this change would fundamentally change the character of play. The BB is obviously at a disadvantage in any hand. But this way the disadvantage gets magnified 2-3x.

Anyhow, I am not opposed to experimentation if there is a clear benefit. If Chris would like to experiment, by all means, he is free to do so. I just don't see the benefit at all. The time savings would be minimal and the potential for time-wasting confusion (not to mention the inequity issues inherent in making any position pay significantly more than they do now) make this structure have warts that are worse than the problem its trying to remedy.

If we're trying to get more hands per hour, there are a number of other things TDs can do which would have a far greater effect than messing with the antes.

I don't see why anyone will fret too much over losing one early level, especially with the number of starting chips in many of your tourneys. If this change will help you logistically when it comes to managing dealers, registration, etc., then just go ahead and implement it.

30 or 40 min levels?

I prolly would get rid of the antes at the 75/150 level and just start the antes at the 100/200/25.

it would be all events that use a "featured structure" which is basically anything beyond a turbo daily event. Most events 30/40/60 min levels.

If you are doing 7k/14k and 70k/140k, why not 600/1400? Not a big deal. I am okay with your proposed changes. I prefer the two 100/200 levels but with 39k starting not necessary

I think he's trying to speed day 1 up a tad. Adding a level at 700/1400 would preclude that.

give and take - more meaningful levels late.