Amateur Poker Association & Tour
Poker Forum => Live Poker => Topic started by: MarkTheShark on August 07, 2013, 10:21:58 AM
-
Hey Guys,
Again, an enjoyable Leg 2 of the Cash Tour at Cardiff - and well done to the winners - but again, plenty of feedback, suggestions and observations from the second Leg to dwell on and consider for onward development.
Below i list what was gleaned from Cardiff, and how we envisage we deal with them one by one - we"d then like your thoughts and further comments so that we can look to finalise the format for the Cash Tour Leg 3 at DTD :
Increase of Stack Allowance from £100 to £200
APAT : Players prefer the increased stack allowance, allows more play and in game strategy - no reason to return to £100. Ensure buyins/reloads are multiples of £50 though.
Allow Late Registration?
APAT : Currently not allowed - once tourney starts that is it. Any reason not to do this though? Propose allow Late Regs for first hour of play - closed thereafter
Tokens for unused Reloads
APAT : Must use "tokens" to indicate to players what rebuys players have left that are unused - helps players be aware of what opponents have available to them for decision making, and helps admin to identify who has what left. Specific generic tokens across Cash Tour Legs will help - APAT to provide.
Consider a deadline BEFORE the end of Phase 1 for rebuys to be used, or whether players wish to "stick" with what they have
APAT : We think this should be implemented. 20 minutes before Phase 1 ends, players must use up any remaining reloads or take them out of play and therefore unable to be used later or at final chip count. This means players know exactly where they are in terms of positioning and no player can chop/change decision about whether to use remaining cash or not.
Should Phase 2 players/Winner be determined by simple stack size or profit made
APAT : Strong suggestion that it should be "profit made" rather than simple "stack size" going thru to FT and to determine placings/winners - more admin involved - but gives truer reflection of actual winners - for eg a player sits with £50 and ends up with £250 - player sits with £200 and ends up with £251 - belief is that PLayer A is more deserving of winning or going forward than Player B. We agree with this but in most cases one will lead to another. However, it should be clarified for onward events.
Should the tournaments be incentivised more to attract more support/taken more seriously? Only real incentive for reaching FT is the ability to play for further 2 hours - Champs Fee not really (yet?) sizeable enough to be attractive
APAT : More numbers would make the Champs Fee more attractive - but we will look to award a specially designed prize to Cash Tour winners to mark their achievement - past Season 7 winners will be retrospectively presented with these when they are ready.
Is holding this on the Friday restricting numbers?
APAT : Potentially - it means special effort to get there for this alone, extra night accomodation - chance to "do" £200 before weekend really starts......would it maybe be better starting at (say) 10pm Saturday night - by which time 75% of ME players eliminated - play Phase 1 on Saturday night - complete P1 for 1am (same time as Main Event) - and complete Phase 2 on Sunday - start at midday (1 table of 8 only) - so finished for 2pm - meaning can still play PLO side event as well? May attract more players into it who are "already there" - saves the extra night for players - or just play through on the Saturday night? Could make it a late one though.
For Dusk till Dawn we will look to move the starting time back from 6pm to 9pm to allow more eliminations from the 6-Max to play the Cash Tour - and we will look to trial the above proposed timings for the Cash Tour in Scotland at the APAT Scottish Championships.
Also :
Final Tables (Phase 2) will always start 8 handed - Phase 1 tables may not be - depending on number of runners. However we will look to keep these as close to 8 handed as possible - and with 18 starters, 2 x 9 is more practical than 3 x 6
Straddling - Should this be allowed or not.
Should Tournament or Cash Game Rules be applied
If there are any other material items to add to this, please let me know.
-
Should Phase 2 players/Winner be determined by simple stack size or profit made
APAT : Strong suggestion that it should be "profit made" rather than simple "stack size" going thru to FT and to determine placings/winners - more admin involved - but gives truer reflection of actual winners - for eg a player sits with £50 and ends up with £250 - player sits with £200 and ends up with £251 - belief is that PLayer A is more deserving of winning or going forward than Player B. We agree with this but in most cases one will lead to another. However, it should be clarified for onward events.
The profit made option is akin to encouraging short-stacking, it may also cause FT to be a little shallower.
If we want this event to offer mass appeal, I suspect bigger stacks at FT will offer more appeal to online and live railers.
Also, it"s a competition to find the best cash game player, the main difference between tourney and cash play is stack depth, why would we dilute that and allow for a short stack "spin it up" strategy.
-
Also, it"s a competition to find the best cash game player, the main difference between tourney and cash play is stack depth, why would we dilute that and allow for a short stack "spin it up" strategy.
Some might say that this is a legitimate strategy, and just another element of cash poker. Personally I hate it, however it is a very common strategy, and is therefore a fundamental part of the cash game.
-
Also, it"s a competition to find the best cash game player, the main difference between tourney and cash play is stack depth, why would we dilute that and allow for a short stack "spin it up" strategy.
Some might say that this is a legitimate strategy, and just another element of cash poker. Personally I hate it, however it is a very common strategy, and is therefore a fundamental part of the cash game.
Not sure what legitimate means in this context but whatever, the reality is that shortstacking is the strategy of choice for players who lack the skills to survive in deepstack games. I"m not saying don"t allow this approach to the game, My point is, why provide a format that is advantageous to players who haven"t taken the stabilisers off their bike.
-
Surely (and I don"t play that much cash) the answer is to MAKE everyone take their full buy-ins if they have them available at the end of Session 1.
If they choose not to put it at risk is then an issue for them.
-
Agree with Brendan that it should be stack size over profit to determine the final.
Generally,this seems a really clever concept and I hope to play one of these soon
-
Surely (and I don"t play that much cash) the answer is to MAKE everyone take their full buy-ins if they have them available at the end of Session 1.
If they choose not to put it at risk is then an issue for them.
The problem with this is that someone who has no intention of putting their 3rd and 4th buy-in at risk may qualify for the final table then choose not to play it so as not to risk the money. This then prevents someone else getting to the final who would have played it and would have risked the cash. Less money of the final table isn"t good.
-
Surely (and I don"t play that much cash) the answer is to MAKE everyone take their full buy-ins if they have them available at the end of Session 1.
If they choose not to put it at risk is then an issue for them.
The problem with this is that someone who has no intention of putting their 3rd and 4th buy-in at risk may qualify for the final table then choose not to play it so as not to risk the money. This then prevents someone else getting to the final who would have played it and would have risked the cash. Less money of the final table isn"t good.
:"( lets not talk about this
-
Hey Guys,
Again, an enjoyable Leg 2 of the Cash Tour at Cardiff - and well done to the winners - but again, plenty of feedback, suggestions and observations from the second Leg to dwell on and consider for onward development.
Well done to you too Mark, never an easy job trying to keep a bunch of poker players happy.
Increase of Stack Allowance from £100 to £200
Much better at £200 and people buying in for £50, £100 and £200 made it feel much more like a cash game.
Allow Late Registration?
Consider a deadline BEFORE the end of Phase 1 for rebuys to be used, or whether players wish to "stick" with what they have
I think we are in danger of over complicating this.
Why not just have a "reload" period of 2 hours during which time people can join if they want as well. So the final 1 hour of the first period, everyone knows where they stand with respect the other stacks.
This still allows for someone to shortstack should they want to and allows people (locals) to join in the game after they have asked "What"s this then".
Tokens for unused Reloads
Yes. The introduction of the reload chips was really good, but please pick a colour that isnt the same as a £5 cash chip.
Should Phase 2 players/Winner be determined by simple stack size or profit made
Most definatly by stack size. As per the reason given above but also "cos it will tilt Dan even more ;)
Should the tournaments be incentivised more to attract more support/taken more seriously? Only real incentive for reaching FT is the ability to play for further 2 hours - Champs Fee not really (yet?) sizeable enough to be attractive
Not sure this is an issue. Those that played it took it seriously. More would have played if they could have bought in late. Attracting more players needs the casino to get behind it before the event. If we had 40 players - other than added value, I cant see what APAT could offer that would be more attractive than £2000+ and a £400 bonus.
Is holding this on the Friday restricting numbers?
Moving it to the Saturday is a bad move IMO. Particularly as ranking points are at stake.
Is it fair to be denied the opportunity to play the cash tour because you are doing well in the main event?
Holding it on the Friday is not the reason the numbers are low.
Straddling - Should this be allowed or not.
No - would make the game shallower which is not good IMO
Should Tournament or Cash Game Rules be applied
Don"t care as long as we know what they are and are applied consistently
If there are any other material items to add to this, please let me know.
Running it twice? - which I am against as you could easily get a situation where "mates" reduce variance between them. it also slows the game down.
-
I think it can be made easier for all involved.
Buyin is anything from £50-£200 with the remaining handed out in lammers of £50 increments that have to be on the tables at all times. This allows everyone a chance to see what everyone else is playing with.
We want to make it a cash game, that has the tournament aspect that if you lose £200 worth of chips you are eliminated.
As for late reg etc i think its fine to a point, as long as it doesnt disrupt the flow of the game. Players should be allowed to buyin (like a normal cash game) but we dont want to see more than 9 players on a table (8 is preferred).
Like the rule that with "x" time left the clock is paused and all lammers are then either paid for, or removed from the table and full ££ counts given thus allowing everyone to know what needs to be done to progress.
As for the night, i am quite happy for it on the Friday, means i can play cash on the Saturday too :)
-
For Dusk till Dawn we will look to move the starting time back from 6pm to 9pm to allow more eliminations from the 6-Max to play the Cash Tour - and we will look to trial the above proposed timings for the Cash Tour in Scotland at the APAT Scottish Championships.
Does this mean ill be able to play now?
Will Team Game be done by 9pm, and if not can i not just late reg (if introduced)
-
For Dusk till Dawn we will look to move the starting time back from 6pm to 9pm to allow more eliminations from the 6-Max to play the Cash Tour - and we will look to trial the above proposed timings for the Cash Tour in Scotland at the APAT Scottish Championships.
Does this mean ill be able to play now?
Will Team Game be done by 9pm, and if not can i not just late reg (if introduced)
The team game will not be done before midnight I would not have thought. I have never known one that has been.
-
For Dusk till Dawn we will look to move the starting time back from 6pm to 9pm to allow more eliminations from the 6-Max to play the Cash Tour - and we will look to trial the above proposed timings for the Cash Tour in Scotland at the APAT Scottish Championships.
Does this mean ill be able to play now?
Will Team Game be done by 9pm, and if not can i not just late reg (if introduced)
The team game will not be done before midnight I would not have thought. I have never known one that has been.
True, i suppose its bad news for us if the team game is done by then!!
-
Increase Stack to £200 : thats good.
£50 buy in/rebuys/addons : thats ok.
Late Registration : one hour seems good.
Tokens for unused rebuys : a must.
Deadline : 20 mins before end of phase and then last 3/5 hands.
Phase 2 players : Im torn, I want the most money on the table but believe that the biggest profit shows the better (luckier) player, hows about the top profitable stacks either use remaining re buys or forfeit final table?
Incentive : its like the best idea.......ever! :)
Friday start : A great idea to start saturday at 9 and play final table on the sunday, its going to generate a lot more players and the final table an audience, and not miss the plo.
Making day 2 of the main event will soften the blow of missing the cash.
Straddle : no thank you.
Its a tournament : tournament rules
-
Buy In
£200 buy in worked well imo.
Late reg
Nothing against 30 mins, maybe an hour late reg, as long as a bunch of mates don"t end up at the same table.
Tokens
- Tokens/lammers for sure. I think it would be easiest if everyone buys in for £50+reg+champs fee, then any reloads before play starts to be done at the table. Saves messing around with different stacks and relying on tournament staff to make notes. £50 in chips plus 3 lammers can be ready and waiting at the table.
Deadline for rebuys
I don"t think there should be a deadline, anything that potentially forces players to add-on is a negative because...
Profit or stack size
If it"s to be truly open to all then people should be allowed to take a shot with a single buy-in, so I"m more in the profit bracket. You decide the best cash player by profit, not the size of their stack. However, whilst I think this should definitely be the criteria for qualifying for the final table, it might be a bit weird to have a winner with £500 and 2nd having £600. Profit to qualify, stack size to win, does consistency matter?
Incentives & timing
So far, numbers have restricted the success of the format imo. Moving it to Saturday would be a massive boost - no need for an extra nights hotel and the timings mentioned sound perfect - so much dead time of a Sunday morning to be filled and 1am isn"t really too late. Awesome idea.
Other
As it"s deeper, no opinion on straddles. And as long as the rules are clearly stated then either - I"d slightly fall down on the side of tournament rules though.
-
Buy In
£200 buy in worked well imo.
Late reg
Nothing against 30 mins, maybe an hour late reg, as long as a bunch of mates don"t end up at the same table.
Tokens
- Tokens/lammers for sure. I think it would be easiest if everyone buys in for £50+reg+champs fee, then any reloads before play starts to be done at the table. Saves messing around with different stacks and relying on tournament staff to make notes. £50 in chips plus 3 lammers can be ready and waiting at the table.
Deadline for rebuys
I don"t think there should be a deadline, anything that potentially forces players to add-on is a negative because...
Profit or stack size
If it"s to be truly open to all then people should be allowed to take a shot with a single buy-in, so I"m more in the profit bracket. You decide the best cash player by profit, not the size of their stack. However, whilst I think this should definitely be the criteria for qualifying for the final table, it might be a bit weird to have a winner with £500 and 2nd having £600. Profit to qualify, stack size to win, does consistency matter?
Incentives & timing
So far, numbers have restricted the success of the format imo. Moving it to Saturday would be a massive boost - no need for an extra nights hotel and the timings mentioned sound perfect - so much dead time of a Sunday morning to be filled and 1am isn"t really too late. Awesome idea.
Other
As it"s deeper, no opinion on straddles. And as long as the rules are clearly stated then either - I"d slightly fall down on the side of tournament rules though.
This would be perfect I reckon.
-
Profit to qualify, stack size to win, does consistency matter?
I reckon that"s the perfect halfway meet between those in the opposing camps of profit vs stack size.
Top 8 profit makers get to final table. Biggest stack at final wins.
This allows those with shorter bankrolls to play and compete, but then takes away all the worries about what everyone"s buy in was whilst playing the final.
-
Tokens
- Tokens/lammers for sure. I think it would be easiest if everyone buys in for £50+reg+champs fee, then any reloads before play starts to be done at the table. Saves messing around with different stacks and relying on tournament staff to make notes. £50 in chips plus 3 lammers can be ready and waiting at the table.
^^^^^^very much this
-
This allows those with shorter bankrolls to play and compete, but then takes away all the worries about what everyone"s buy in was whilst playing the final.
So why remove "all the worries about what everyone"s buy in was" at final table but allow that uncertainty to complicate end of phase 1 play?
-
great feedback and comments so far guys - thank you - please keep them coming.
I especially like use of the phrase "awesome idea"...... 8)
-
How about...
Phase 1 - 25/50 - 1.5 hrs - late entry and tops-up allowed
Break - 10 minutes - remaining top-up can be taken now
Phase 2 - 25/50 - 1.5 hrs - no further entries or top-ups
Break - 20 minutes - chip counts and Final table set (with largest 8 stacks)
Phase 3 - 50/£1 - 2 hours
-
Would prefer it on the Friday.
Biggest stack not profit for me.
Late entries good.
Everything else seems fine to me.
-
This could be long, but I hope not... (note, these are just my opinions)
I think we need to know what APAT are aiming for with the Cash Championships. Is it a timed tournament, or a rake free cash game with a bonus at the end of the allotted time? This is confusing to most people. As it stands it feels somewhere in the middle without a distinct identity.
The structure currently is that each player can sit with anything between £50 and £200. Once you have lost £200 you are out of the game. If you sit with less than £200 then you can top up anything to £200 at any time you wish. You can "cashout" at any time and forfeit your £10 Championship Fee. In Cardiff, we saw a mixture of strategies. Some people bought in for £200. Some bought in for £100 and rebought once for the same amount if/when they lost their money. Some bought in for £50 and reloaded if/when they lost their money. The aim of "Phase 1" is to be one of the 8 largest stacks to make it to the final table, where on offer for the player with the highest stack after an additional time period was the "Championship Fee" prize pool of £180.
This does not work as it stands.
This is an innovative idea and APAT are surely planning on growing this. However, as it stands currently, people are not going to be interested in playing bar the same few every time. Again, this is my opinion, but some changes need to be made. We need to look at the following:
1) Target Audience.
APAT players are amateurs. Most people are looking for a cheap, deepstacked game that lasts longer than they would get on a Saturday night down the casino/at home. To them, £82.50 is a nice tournament that comes round once a month and can be seen as a "shot". Yes, some of us have bigger bankrolls/nicer paying jobs, but the players that are playing APATs are not the players that are willing/can afford to drop £215 on a 5hr game. It is not value for money.
2) Competition.
We play these events on a Friday night in the host casino. The host casino generally has their own regular tournament on and 1-2 small stakes cash games. We want these players, surely? At £215 we are not going to get them, it is just too much and again not value for money. Most regular APAT players who travel for the weekend use Friday night to socialise as well - given the choice between this game and their only night out, the night out will always win.
At the moment, as an APAT player looking in I see the lineup of the Cash Championships on one side, then I see the locals cash game on the other side and I know where I want to be - hint, it isn"t at the same table as Mr Murray, Mr Williams, Mr Webber and Mr Stacey et al!
You may notice I keep referring to the cost of the game as £215. I fully expect that people will say "well, you can buy in for less" but my own experience in Cardiff shows that you can, but to be fair if you don"t buy in for £215 you don"t have a shot at winning. In effect, the deeper pockets win currently and this is a turn off to people who don"t have the bankroll to play.
My suggestion to this would be to play as a shootout. Play Phase 1 as it currently stands with the 8 most profitable stacks offered the opportunity to go through to the final table, where each player must sit down with the minimum of £100 and can have up to £250 of their own money. If a player was to have >£250 at the end of Phase 1, then they get to "bank" some of this. Highest stack wins at the end of the allotted time. If any of the top 8 wish to cash out at the end of Phase 1, then 9th/10th etc get offered to take their place.
-
I like the last sentence the most!! :)
-
The only other thing I"d suggest is that instead of the Champions prize going to the champion - it"s staggered more like a SNG payout. Perhaps pay the same number of places as there are tables, maybe capping it at top 3?
Could open up some interesting dynamics and give some middle of the road players something extra to aim at? As Mr Murray has pointed out in the past, the winner already has the most money.
-
The only other thing I"d suggest is that instead of the Champions prize going to the champion - it"s staggered more like a SNG payout. Perhaps pay the same number of places as there are tables, maybe capping it at top 3?
Could open up some interesting dynamics and give some middle of the road players something extra to aim at? As Mr Murray has pointed out in the past, the winner already has the most money.
Great idea. Would make the last part of the Final more interesting IMO.
-
The only other thing I"d suggest is that instead of the Champions prize going to the champion - it"s staggered more like a SNG payout. Perhaps pay the same number of places as there are tables, maybe capping it at top 3?
Could open up some interesting dynamics and give some middle of the road players something extra to aim at? As Mr Murray has pointed out in the past, the winner already has the most money.
Great idea. Would make the last part of the Final more interesting IMO.
I strongly disagree. This idea only works with a greater number of runners, at the moment i think graduating a payout is pointless, the money jumps will not be sufficient to encourage action, if anything it will discourage it.....this idea can only work when the tournament gets 40plus runners imo
-
The only other thing I"d suggest is that instead of the Champions prize going to the champion - it"s staggered more like a SNG payout. Perhaps pay the same number of places as there are tables, maybe capping it at top 3?
Could open up some interesting dynamics and give some middle of the road players something extra to aim at? As Mr Murray has pointed out in the past, the winner already has the most money.
Great idea. Would make the last part of the Final more interesting IMO.
I strongly disagree. This idea only works with a greater number of runners, at the moment i think graduating a payout is pointless, the money jumps will not be sufficient to encourage action, if anything it will discourage it.....this idea can only work when the tournament gets 40plus runners imo
What jumps would you consider sufficient? Can obviously tweak rules regarding runners and payouts, so say 10 runners per place paid, up to top 3 on standard SNG payouts gives a split as such:
10 players - £100
20 players - £135-£65
30 players - £150-£90-£60
40 players - £200-£120-£80
I"d go a bit further and equalise the jumps a bit (so 150-100-50 for 30 runners), but £60ish feels like a reasonable minimum pay jump to me.
As for action, the single payment doesn"t help this in any way. The guy in 2nd may have exceptional value to make -cEV call, but the flip side is true for the player in 1st who should then be avoiding all confrontations if vulnerable. It"s like a weird reverse ICM spot, or something.
The more players that have an incentive to create action, the more action there will likely be.
-
The only other thing I"d suggest is that instead of the Champions prize going to the champion - it"s staggered more like a SNG payout. Perhaps pay the same number of places as there are tables, maybe capping it at top 3?
Could open up some interesting dynamics and give some middle of the road players something extra to aim at? As Mr Murray has pointed out in the past, the winner already has the most money.
Great idea. Would make the last part of the Final more interesting IMO.
I strongly disagree. This idea only works with a greater number of runners, at the moment i think graduating a payout is pointless, the money jumps will not be sufficient to encourage action, if anything it will discourage it.....this idea can only work when the tournament gets 40plus runners imo
What jumps would you consider sufficient? Can obviously tweak rules regarding runners and payouts, so say 10 runners per place paid, up to top 3 on standard SNG payouts gives a split as such:
10 players - £100
20 players - £135-£65
30 players - £150-£90-£60
40 players - £200-£120-£80
I"d go a bit further and equalise the jumps a bit (so 150-100-50 for 30 runners), but £60ish feels like a reasonable minimum pay jump to me.
As for action, the single payment doesn"t help this in any way. The guy in 2nd may have exceptional value to make -cEV call, but the flip side is true for the player in 1st who should then be avoiding all confrontations if vulnerable. It"s like a weird reverse ICM spot, or something.
The more players that have an incentive to create action, the more action there will likely be.
Having given this quite a lot of thought i think im inclined to change my mind and agree with u. If there is enough money to make a 60-100 jump then i think it could work.
-
Cant say i have ever had to worry about these problems ;)
-
Wherever this lands, given the fact that plenty of DTD REGS may be interested on the day and places may open up due to the 6 max, can I suggest a copy of the terms / rules be on the table on the day.
-
Thanks to everyone for their input, comments and suggestions.
I think the time is right now for us to dwell a pause on the "talking" and for us to put together an adjusted format, based on the original method, subsequent changes and further received input and publish it for review, in anticipation of the UKCOAP.
Please remember guys that we cannot please everyone or implement every suggestion made - but as i think we all now have a much better "feel" for the event, the updated product should be much more like it and make for a better event at Dusk till Dawn and beyond.
And yes Ace on the River - i will run off copies of the format for DTD so anyone who looks to join in the event can get a full idea of what they are buying into before they commit.