I didn't want to hijack any other threads, but I keep seeing posts questioning how good each tournaments' structure compare to others, particularly those in Vegas this summer.

I came up with a formula 2 years ago and have been using it myself ever since. I was bored at work and threw together a calculator, an explanation page and also a small database of all the NLH tournaments in Vegas this summer that scores each of their structures.

The calculator is here: http://www.rainbowspuppiessunshine.com/pokercalc/

You can get to the tournaments and apply criteria from there as well. Not trying to be spammer (that page has no ads, and never will) or take over the great work Spacey does every year. I just wanted everyone to agree on a way to evaluate structures and make casinos give us better ones.

Nice. I will use this. Thanks.

What does the 100% Minutes field mean, total # of minutes?

Yes, total number of minutes you can play in a tournament a before an Orbit Cost (10*Antes + Big Blind + Small Blind) is more than the starting stack size of that tournament.

Where do you input level length? It's comparing "M" at various levels, but reaching level 6 might be after 5 hours with 60 min levels, or just 75 minutes with 15 minute levels.

Because of the issue you identified (differing level lenghts), you don't directly input it. Instead its incorporated into the [100% Mins] value you input. If you scroll to Step 3 of the Example on the calculator (http://www.rainbowspuppiessunshine.com/pokercalc/) it explains this in detail.

For [100% Mins], you determine the Level where the Orbit Cost (10*Antes + Big Blind + Small Blind) is more than the starting stack size of that tournament. Then you add up all the minutes you can play through that level and use that value for [100% Mins].

Suppose the first 10 levels in a tournament are 30 minutes and those after are 40, you start with 15,000, its [Level 16 Orbit Cost] is 11,000 and its [Level 17 Orbit Cost] is 19,000. In that tournament you can play through 16 levels before an orbit of the button costs more than your starting stack. So, its [100% Mins] is 540 (10*30 + 6*40).

Got it. Thank you and nice work!

This is great!

I have a couple of suggestions. One is to allow different orbit levels to be input. 6, 10, 14, and 18 are all going to be levels in many large-field tournaments, but some tournaments I play with only 40 people only go to, say, 14 or 16 levels.

The other is to provide examples of S-points for different tournaments (either here or on the page), if you already have them.

Thanks for this; it's quite useful.

nice work, thank you

Looks cool. A few suggestions to improve if you want

1) On the already pre-inputted tournaments, color code each casino with its own color, rather than alternatively

2) Make it so we can just sort/exclude certain venues

and of course

3) Make sure it's Kessler approved.

Oh, duh; I didn't realize you already provided a list of the tournaments; my bad.

Made good use of your list last year! Any chance you gonna put together a similar one this year?

Thanks. Wasn't sure if anyone actually used it so was debating doing it this year. March is usually a slow month at work and when these schedules come out. I will update it now that you ask.

Any suggestions/improvements?

Haven't looked yet, but based on "Orbit Cost (10*Antes + Big Blind + Small Blind)" above: I suggest making the number of players per table a variable.

Arnold Synder's book "poker tournament formula" has a rating for tournament structures as well. You can download his spreadsheet here:

http://www.blackjackforumonline.com/...Calculator.xls

Why do you wait to level 6 blinds for your ratings. The WSOP this year made big changes to levels 3,4,5 which really reduce the skill rating, but if using level 6 or higher, it would look like there is no change at all. Skill rating went from 30.5 to only 19.7 in the 1k events, and monster stack went from 70 to 50. (higher is better). But main event went up from 176 to 203 based on above spreadsheet.

Ok, I see the 100% minutes adjusts for blind off time.

I ran the 1k NL wsop event with 60 minute levels and 5k starting chips.

using levels 1,2,3,4 the S rating is 43 for 2016.
for 2015 it was 69.

Using levels 6, 10, 14, 18, the S rating for 2016 is 44
but for 2015 it was only 35.

Level 18 last year was 4k/8k/1k this year it is 3k/6k/500
I guess that was the key difference.

the blind off in minutes last year was 331.4 minutes but this year it is
only 266.2 minutes.

I would still MUCH rather see year 2015 wsop 1k structure vs. the new 2016 structure.

Of course you would or anyone for that matter. WSOP removed a level from going to 2015 to 2016. The single 100/200 and antes up one level effectively moving antes up two levels.

The antes coming earlier is a good thing for a tournament structure overall but might be a bit too aggressive for the 1k/1.5ks with only 5000/7500 chips at the 75/150/25 level but whatever.

You need a smooth progression to ensure bustouts at a consistent rate and more aggressive antes do that.

Patient factor formula is not really a good way to determine how good a structure is since it just calculates how long until you would blind out. You should care how good the structure is when you get deep which is fine and is the same as 2015. The average BB of FTs will most likely be the same.

One problem with the spreadsheet from Snyder's book is it assumes 10-handed tables. I've adapted the spreadsheet to allow the user to input the number of players per table. If someone can tell me how to share my file I'd be happy to. I've used this spreadsheet for the last several years to compare different tournaments for playability. I've found that the Venetian's Deepstacks are generally as good or better than most.

I choose to start with Level 6 because the earlier rounds are both less important and increase dispropirtionally to the later rounds. Looking at the 2016 1k event the blinds more than sextuple from Level 1 (25/50) to Level 5 (50/150/300). After that, the change in blinds/antes flattens out and changes less drastically from level to level.

dimeat put it well with:

I agree and think S-Points takes both those ideas into consideration. It essentially divides relative value of chips you get to the rate of increase in the antes/blinds at the later levels.

Comparing the WSOP 1K from 2015 (Event 30) to 2016 (Event 17) using S-Points verifies S-Points is a good metric for overall structure comparisons. Here's what I have for those tournaments:

Year, Level6, Level10, Level14, Level18, 100%Minutes, S-Points
2015, 700, 2200, 6000, 12500, 780, 98
2016, 1100, 2500, 7600, 14000, 720, 101

You get more relative chips in the 2015 structure (780 minutes to 720 minutes), but that is neutralized by the blinds increasing slower in the 2016 structure. In 2015 the blinds more than doubled from Level 14 to Level 18, while in 2016 its about 1.8.

Thinking out loud, I think 100% minutes should be changed to how long it takes to blind off if you never play a hand from the start of the event, rather that waiting till 1st level where it costs more than 100% of your starting stack to blind off. You will need to make an assumption on how many hands are played per hour. Arnold synder might use 30 to 35 in a live event. (more for online). for 1k wsop event it was 266 minutes in 2016 and 333 in 2015. a difference of 67 minutes. using your method above it is 60 minutes. close enough I guess.

If looking at the structure in isolation then the later look at the a tructure is important but a tournament has players who respond to the structure insome way.

If one gets "blinded off' early then that is important (the most patient player in the world) for the very chips which the later player plays with a the later better levels are won within this early level and if the early level is "quick" this "look at" is extremely important.

A few years ago there was a discussion on this site about later levels and there were some who pointed out how the later levels at the Venetian were much more player friendly than others. Just at a glance I'd say that the Wynn structure is at par with the Venetian. The question of Planet Hollywood is important but with their tournament stretching out into interminable time we'd probably see the same.

Short of it is that if your playing style is dependent upon patience (variable within each player) then the patience factor is apropos whereas if one considers one's self as to being "loose" so to speak, then one may like early action.

I believe, the Venetian, Wynn and Planet Hollywood structures would have and did appeal to the most patient player and even then these tournaments had(have) good to excellent structures at higher levels.

The WSOP structures this year will eliminate earlier irrespective of the character of the players and this is directly a result of the structure no matter how much it is dissected. Patient players, be aware... but of course the chips are larger than at the beginning opf this series and in essence the tournament has always paid off the quick whether by character or by deed.

Big fan of using S points to evaluate tournament options, I also look at $/SPoint ratio for best value.

S points ? Ratio ?

Use this to calculate tournament S points. Divide buy-in by S points to find good tournament values if all else is equal (travel, field makeup, etc)

Am I right that the WSOPME has 339 S-Points?