Cash Tour - Cardiff

[SirPercival]

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.

Someone also asked if we could "run it twice"

[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.

Someone also asked if we could "run it twice"

Another feature that I"d love to see in Cash Tour. 

Keep them coming...

[Delboy]

OK, in reply to Des.


1)  As stated previously, 200BBs is a good starting maximum for this. Saying that I would buy-in for 250 if allowed

2)  Sure, why not, it is optimum strategy after all.

3)  Don"t Care, but its a friendly game, and I think showing should be encouraged. We don"t want people to fall out over a perceived slow roll!

4)  Yeah, sweetens the deal nicely.

"run it twice", - adds excitement to the table I guess, but potentially keeps smaller stacks on the table for longer. so no!

[SirPercival]

With regard the £5 to the winner we had in Coventry I"m not a fan. The winner has the most cash anyway so would rather be playing for something else. A medal?

If it was a significant amount then it would change the dynamic more, particularly toward the end, but I"m not sure the £90 was enough to test this properly.

[dwh103]

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.

1 - I understand the need for it to be accessible (don"t really disagree with you Adam) but it definitely needs to retain some depth. Even with everyone taking reloads, an open to £2, couple of calls. Rodders squeezes to £12. I can"t continue with 66 despite a 200BB stack. The game can quickly become nitty and there are limited opportunities for creativity as preserving stack is an important factor. Maybe 100BB stacks, with more reloads behind would be better? I"m really quite undecided on format, clearly.

2 - Mostly against, it"ll only make the game shallower.

3 - Not bothered

4 - £5 per player (or 10% of the initial buy-in) seemed to be enough. A full buy in reward for the winner, without being too much to make for some ridiculous strategy adjustments. Maybe if a significant number of players this could be split for top 2/3?

Massively against running it twice. Instinctively feels like this could be abused in some way.

The other suggestion I have is a three tier format. Perhaps 90 mins at 25/25, 90 mins at 25/50 (larger stakes to assist shorties catching up) and then the final at 50/1. (Edit: I"m turning this more and more into a tournament!)

Finally, final table to be set by profit, not largest stacks. The latter definitely goes towards making it inaccessible to someone wishing to fire one bullet.

[Delboy]

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?

Just seen this question.

I would be in favour of allowing only one straddle plus the opportunity to straddle the button (Mississippi)

[Delboy]

1 - I understand the need for it to be accessible (don"t really disagree with you Adam) but it definitely needs to retain some depth. Even with everyone taking reloads, an open to £2, couple of calls. Rodders squeezes to £12. I can"t continue with 66 despite a 200BB stack. The game can quickly become nitty and there are limited opportunities for creativity as preserving stack is an important factor. Maybe 100BB stacks, with more reloads behind would be better? I"m really quite undecided on format, clearly.

Easy shove IMO. Rodders is full of it

[dwh103]

1 - I understand the need for it to be accessible (don"t really disagree with you Adam) but it definitely needs to retain some depth. Even with everyone taking reloads, an open to £2, couple of calls. Rodders squeezes to £12. I can"t continue with 66 despite a 200BB stack. The game can quickly become nitty and there are limited opportunities for creativity as preserving stack is an important factor. Maybe 100BB stacks, with more reloads behind would be better? I"m really quite undecided on format, clearly.

Easy shove IMO. Rodders is full of it

Probably right. Anyway, I"ve dusted off bigger stacks with worse holdings than that!

[MintTrav]

Des" questions:

1) Definitely don"t limit it to £100, but why have a limit at all? I felt that some of my decisions at Coventry were compromised by not being able to reload, which is not usually the case in a cash game. There is no danger of someone buying the game if you limit each reload to £50, but don"t limit the number of reloads.

2) Not a fan of straddles. The pots will probably get too big for the stacks (and the players" wallets?). Definitely no straddles if the stacks are limited, but probably not in any case.

3) I would prefer not to show the cards.

4) No. The extra small prize for the winner is pointless. They already have most of the cash.

[SirPercival]

John raises a very good point about the reloads. If they are restricted in that you can only reload if bust then that changes everything. Most players in Coventry took their optional reload before the first hand was dealt.

[CW86]

4) No. The extra small prize for the winner is pointless. They already have most of the cash.

Strongly disagree with this. For the format to work as a concept there has no be some incentive to push on to get first otherwise its just like a regular cash game with more severe buyin restrictions. Def in favor for some added value to winner...(although i dnt think it should be a medal event)

[s4ooter]

Deffo needs to be deeper. Really like Daves idea of 3 different stakes to force play a little more and help thevsmallervstacks get action

Also table should be 8 handed at most, so if 18 again, think 3 x 6 handed would suit the format and discourage nitty play

[dwh103]

Also table should be 8 handed at most, so if 18 again, think 3 x 6 handed would suit the format and discourage nitty play

+1

[Des]

Also table should be 8 handed at most, so if 18 again, think 3 x 6 handed would suit the format and discourage nitty play

+1

I think we need to keep the practicalities of dealer numbers in mind here.  We will want to push the number of players to this tour, but there will rarely be enough dealers to justify six handed tables.

[hi_am_chris]

How about halfway through the final table (if it"s 9) we lose the 3 shortest stacks and play to the conclusion 6 handed?