Cash Tour - Cardiff

[SirPercival]

Having played the Cash Tour in Coventry I am considering my options for Cardiff.

Will there be any changes to the format/buy-in etc in light of the feedback from Coventry?

If so, when will these be announced so that I (and others) can make an informed decision?

[Delboy]

What feedback? Can"t find anything on the boards.

What happened?

[Fatcatstu]

What feedback? Can"t find anything on the boards.

What happened?

Rodders let me down the massive donkey!!!

[SirPercival]

What feedback? Can"t find anything on the boards.

What happened?

It was a good event and players were discussing their preferred tweeks. Some of these were fed back to Mark and Des.

[AAroddersAA]

What feedback? Can"t find anything on the boards.

What happened?

Rodders let me down the massive donkey!!!

I can"t be blamed for this.

The rest of the field were cheating, they were clearly sober on an APAT Friday night. I have written a strongly worded letter to Des and the team regarding this, and I am expecting them all to be suspending pending an inquiry. I mean surely action must be taken.

[MintTrav]

I played the one in Coventry and enjoyed it. However, it wasn"t a cash game. It was one-hundred percent a tournament (with static blinds).

One idea could be to allow unlimited reloads, making it more like a real cash game. This would allow players to make decisions on percentages, knowing they can reload if it goes wrong, instead of needing to avoid elimination. This would also help to achieve the deeper stacks that several players expressed a desire for.

[dwh103]

Didn"t quite feel deep enough to me (though I know others disagree). Almost everybody took the top up immediately, so it forces you towards being nitty and protecting your "tournament" life. Also suggests people weren"t too bothered with a £100 cost.

- Could increase the buy-ins to Nottingham levels, but retain the Coventry stakes. Stacks are immediately 200BBs
- I didn"t like the ability to instantly top up, I think some restriction on this would be better. 2 top ups rather than 1 might help too, though it begins to get expensive!

Though it was certainly impacted by only having 18 runners. Was still fun though.

[MarkTheShark]

What feedback? Can"t find anything on the boards.

What happened?

It was a good event and players were discussing their preferred tweeks. Some of these were fed back to Mark and Des.

Most definitely were - i fielded several comments and opinions expressed as feedback - all were greatly appreciated.

I have summarised these and we will be reviewing the structure for the Cash Tour Legs for Cardiff and beyond.

[KarmaDope]

Didn"t quite feel deep enough to me (though I know others disagree). Almost everybody took the top up immediately, so it forces you towards being nitty and protecting your "tournament" life. Also suggests people weren"t too bothered with a £100 cost.

- Could increase the buy-ins to Nottingham levels, but retain the Coventry stakes. Stacks are immediately 200BBs
- I didn"t like the ability to instantly top up, I think some restriction on this would be better. 2 top ups rather than 1 might help too, though it begins to get expensive!

Though it was certainly impacted by only having 18 runners. Was still fun though.

Sorry Dave, completely disagree.

2 x £50 is a perfect level. Gets people who are not really cash players interested for a total loss of £100. Any higher than that and you"re looking at £200-£300 - and a lot of the people that play APATs are generally a bit wary of losing such sums of money in one night. Have to look at the total loss at the end of the day or it will die out.

Agree with the immediate top up thought though - game should be treated as a double chance.

[SirPercival]

Didn"t quite feel deep enough to me (though I know others disagree). Almost everybody took the top up immediately, so it forces you towards being nitty and protecting your "tournament" life. Also suggests people weren"t too bothered with a £100 cost.

- Could increase the buy-ins to Nottingham levels, but retain the Coventry stakes. Stacks are immediately 200BBs
- I didn"t like the ability to instantly top up, I think some restriction on this would be better. 2 top ups rather than 1 might help too, though it begins to get expensive!

Though it was certainly impacted by only having 18 runners. Was still fun though.

Sorry Dave, completely disagree.

2 x £50 is a perfect level. Gets people who are not really cash players interested for a total loss of £100. Any higher than that and you"re looking at £200-£300 - and a lot of the people that play APATs are generally a bit wary of losing such sums of money in one night. Have to look at the total loss at the end of the day or it will die out.

Agree with the immediate top up thought though - game should be treated as a double chance.

I don"t think 2 x £50 is a perfect level and I don"t think most others who played it do either.

I think there are many other factors that people will consider before choosing to play this or not. Extra accommodation costs, missing out on the Friday night on the beer, the late finish, being some of those.

I also don"t think the fact it was only £110 attracted that many people who are "not really cash players".

If the maximum was £200/£300 etc then someone wanting to dip their toe in the cash game water can still buy-in for £50 and walk away if they do the lot, exactly like any other cash game.

[Delboy]

I agree with Adam. Between 100 and 200 BBs is the perfect starting level, should lead to deeper stacks at the final table.

Although TBH, I fail to see the need for a FT with no medals to play for. Why not just have a 5 hour Cash game, and the three biggest winners get the points/ bonus money?  




EDIT: p.s. what were the tweeks suggested please?

[Delboy]

Also don"t increase blinds for Final two hours.

[SirPercival]

I agree with Adam. Between 100 and 200 BBs is the perfect starting level, should lead to deeper stacks at the final table.

Although TBH, I fail to see the need for a FT with no medals to play for. Why not just have a 5 hour Cash game, and the three biggest winners get the points/ bonus money?  




EDIT: p.s. what were the tweeks suggested please?

Even although the blinds were .25/.50 the game played more like .50/1

You could make the blinds .05/.10 I think the PFR and 3bet sizes would just be less in proportion.

100BB is not deep for a cash game.

I sort of agree with the final table comment, I struggled to see the point in this and it was very different to the DTD game (which I didnt play but did watch) where there was a lot more money involved and a Bracelet for the winner. I do however think this would be better tested with a field more than 18 and deeper stacks.

I don"t know all the tweeks suggested but there was a lot of talk by the players at the time and I know some spoke to Mark and Des.

[Delboy]

100BB is not deep for a cash game.

I know but, the exciting thing about this concept, for me, is that as play continues, stacks get deeper and players have to adjust their play in ways they are not used to in tournaments. If you start with >200BBs there is a minimum amount of adjustment to make.

Even although the blinds were .25/.50 the game played more like .50/1

I"m assuming that people opened the betting with larger bets than you would expect at .25/.50? if so, why is that a problem?
You/ They can play how you/ they want. Cash game play is about adjusting to different opponents and taking their money. if their opening is too high try something other than 3betting x3 their bet, surely. or let them grab their .75 winnings, and play the next hand.



I have a further question: Are you able to bring a small extra stack of "tipping chips" t the table in additon to your starting stack?

[Des]

Some really good feedback came from the event in Coventry and I"m very keen to use this thread to make this format as strong as possible, so that we can start to promote in a much bigger way, when it"s right.

Feedback included:-

1) Players believe it would be more attractive if the minimum sit down could be £50  but the max £200 - or a £100/£200 split - as per DTD. This so that they could "apply proper cash strategies" to the game play - in essence pressure bets more without feeling "limited" to the £100 cap.

2) Players asked if straddles were allowed. They weren"t in Coventry, but I like the thought of cash game specific features like this.  What do you guys think?  If applied, what rules would you have around them?

3) Unclear whether cash rules should apply or tournament rules for when there is all in and a call. Should cards go on their backs (as in tournies) or do players not have to reveal hole cards when all in (as in cash games).

4) In Brighton each player contributed a payment that ended up being won by the eventual Champion.  So £10 per player could see the winner walking away with an additional £400.  Yes / No?

Let"s open the debate on these and your other ideas here.  This is our format and you guys have a unique opportunity to implement some of your thinking into it, so have a real think and let us know how you"d like to see Cash Tour develop.