Cash Tour - Leg 2 - Cardiff - Tournament Format

[MarkTheShark]

On the back of the First Leg of the Cash Tour, held at Coventry in June, and on the back of feedback given and subsequent APAT Management discussions, there will be a few cosmetic changes to the format and structure to the Second Leg of the Cash Tour, being held this Friday at the G Casino, Cardiff - with the view to a wider set of changes being implemented for the Third Leg at Dusk till Dawn - part of the UKCOAP at the end of August.

The changes being introduced will be used to try them out, gauge the effect of them on the game, for onward consideration

CASH TOUR LEG 2 FORMAT


Phase One:- (9am - Midnight)

The first phase will run over five tables (8 handed max - so 40 max players) for a three hour period. If 40 players is not reached, we will decide on the number of tables and players per table to start - but we will look to keep it "8 max" where possible/sensible to do so.

Players must buy in for £50 + £15 minimum

Players will be able to have three optional rebuys of £50 at any time after play has started - players may elect to take their rebuys immediately - ie sit down with £200. Any/all rebuy(s) must be taken, if required, before the end of Phase 1.

Of the £15 fee, £10 will be a Championship payment, which is collected from all players.

Players will be assigned a table and seat number as in tournament play.

Blinds will be static at 25p / 50p in the first phase.

Players can opt to leave with the cash in front of them. However, once they have exited, they cannot buy back in.

There will be no alternates, late buy ins, or re-entries.

Tables are balanced following exits as a tournament would be.

At the end of the first phase, the leading eight cash stacks are carried forward to the final table.

The game is over for the remaining players and they keep whatever cash is left in front of them.

Straddles will NOT be permitted.

Cards MUST go "on their backs" where there is an All In and a Call. Tournament rules will apply here - not Cash Game rules.

Phase Two:- (12:30 - 2:30am)

The final phase will run over two hours.

The blinds will increase to 50p / £1.

Players will draw for seat position.

Players can again choose to leave the final table at any point with the cash in front of them.

The player who is either the last standing, or has the largest stack left after the two hour phase two period will be the event winner.

The winning player will win the sum of all Championship payments.

Look forward to seeing you all again for Leg 2 of the Cash Tour.

[SirPercival]

Mark/Des

This event was advertised as having the option of 3x£50 top-ups with a buy-in of £50+£5 making it a total buy-in of £205. Des then clarified the situation regarding the Champions fee of £10 making it £215 total (potentially).

The above post changes this to £50+£10 with an additional £50 and a champions fee of £5 = £115 total.

Now whilst I am all in favour of changes to the format, tweeks to the rules on all-ins, straddles etc I"m sure you can agree that above change is fundamental and effects decisions on whether to play the event or not.

Given that it has been advertised for some weeks at a £200(ish) buy-in event I have sought backers for some of my action and made the decision to play the event as well as the main the next day. This also involves travel cost and hotel for 2 nights.

If it was a £100(ish) event I would have made different choices. Possibly not playing the cash event or both. Possibly playing but not selling action etc.

I think to make such a fundamental change 2 days before the event is very unfair.

[Delboy]

I agree completely with Stu on the buy in point.

Also; can you clarify the straddle rule. I assume you mean only UTG straddles allowed, as BB straddles are very rare. Are you saying only one player can straddle per hand?

[s4ooter]

Yea this is all very confusing?!?

I sold a package for Cardiff, on the premise that it was £50+£5 with 3 rebuys and a £10 Championship Fee.

Lets hope thats the case, as £50 x 4 is great!

As for straddles, im sure it means 1 x straddle max, which is fine (but pointless if max stack is only 200bbs!!)

Please clarify and sort out.....

[dwh103]

A few people thought it was too shallow last time - adding straddles will just exacerbate this. Disappointed that this has been added without any real call for it (going by the feedback/suggestion thread), whilst nothing has changed in respect of depth/reloads.

"Leading stacks" presumably refers to largest stacks and not most profitable stacks? If so, still the wrong way around imo.

[s4ooter]

A few people thought it was too shallow last time - adding straddles will just exacerbate this. Disappointed that this has been added without any real call for it (going by the feedback/suggestion thread), whilst nothing has changed in respect of depth/reloads.

"Leading stacks" presumably refers to largest stacks and not most profitable stacks? If so, still the wrong way around imo.

+1

The straddle idea will make the game shallower, and im pretty sure wasnt greatly received in the suggestion thread.  The main problem is the depth of the games, so not sure why we have gone from 2 x £50, to 4 x £50 and then back again....

We may look like we are having a moan, but i know for myself this is my favourite format of all the APAT events, so would love to see it work the right way.

[MintTrav]

I don"t like the concept of allowing players to take more than one buy-in at a time, especially if they lose any chance of buying in again. It takes some of the skill out of the game and makes it just a tournament. The last one was a tournament by another name and this looks like being the same. Make them lose a lot of their chips before they can top up, or at least put a time barrier, before which they can"t top up.

And lose the straddles.

[SirPercival]

Are we likely to get any response on this tonight?

I have a lot to sort out if this stays as it is. With the straddle, the shorter stack, the 4x increase in rake*, I don"t think I will play.

* was £200+£5, now £100+£10

Edit: just read the OP again. The rake has only doubled, not 4x as £5 of the £10 is the champions fee.

[s4ooter]

I don"t like the concept of allowing players to take more than one buy-in at a time, especially if they lose any chance of buying in again. It takes some of the skill out of the game and makes it just a tournament. The last one was a tournament by another name and this looks like being the same. Make them lose a lot of their chips before they can top up, or at least put a time barrier, before which they can"t top up.

And lose the straddles.

Not sure i agree entirely, its a cash game with a bonus prize for winning it outright and in cash games you can buyin for the maximum.
Being able to cover opponents is key to exploit their mistakes and make money.
I think whats key to the format (when looking at progression to FT) is to make it that the top 8 players with % stack increase, as they have performed best.
Those 8 with the most ££ infront could have bought in for more, and those with the most £ profit again could be due to starting deeper.

Although we pay a one off rake fee, and get rake free cash for the evening, the shallow stacks make for a nitfest.  Cash games are meant to be deep (like the beginnings of an mtt) not like a timed sng.

[MintTrav]

I don"t like the concept of allowing players to take more than one buy-in at a time, especially if they lose any chance of buying in again. It takes some of the skill out of the game and makes it just a tournament. The last one was a tournament by another name and this looks like being the same. Make them lose a lot of their chips before they can top up, or at least put a time barrier, before which they can"t top up.

And lose the straddles.

Not sure i agree entirely, its a cash game with a bonus prize for winning it outright and in cash games you can buyin for the maximum.
Being able to cover opponents is key to exploit their mistakes and make money.
I think whats key to the format (when looking at progression to FT) is to make it that the top 8 players with % stack increase, as they have performed best.
Those 8 with the most ££ infront could have bought in for more, and those with the most £ profit again could be due to starting deeper.

Although we pay a one off rake fee, and get rake free cash for the evening, the shallow stacks make for a nitfest.  Cash games are meant to be deep (like the beginnings of an mtt) not like a timed sng.

Yeah, but you"re meant to be able to reload in a cash game. If the maths says call, you call, without any consideration for tournament life, etc. If you lose, you accept that as a percentage loss and just reload. Here, you will be out. If players are allowed to double-stack with no reload, some will do so cos they have thought it through, but I bet some do so just cos they have read that you should always sit with the max in a cash game, without thinking through the consequences in this format. No reloads kinda spoils the game imo.

I can tell you now that I will not be taking the full whack at the start. I think I was the only one not to do so in Coventry. I got involved in a 4-way all-in at one point, that I wanted to be part of as I had numerous outs and huge pot odds. I lost that hand, but I was able to re-enter, whereas the others who lost their chips were eliminated. The possibility of being eliminated in that kind on scenario means that it is no longer a cash game where you call on percentages.

4 x £50 imo, with top-ups only when you lose them all or reach a certain low-point. As a compromise, maybe make each additional £50 available to buy every 45 minutes (or if you lose your chips before that).

[Delboy]

Being able to cover opponents is key to exploit their mistakes and make money.

for you maybe, but not for all.

Cash games are meant to be deep

Says who? Cash games are cash games! People can site down with what they want (within max and min limits)

and as a cash game the winner should always be the person who wins the most cash!


My point is that a cash game is inclusive not exclusive, and should involve as many different strategies as the effective stack sizes and skill levels dictate. That"s what makes them so intriguing and challenging.

I would personally want to be allowed to buy up to 400bigs, and would start with 200, but would be more than happy to have a range at the table from 50 to 400.

[AAroddersAA]

I am not playing Cardiff for obvious reasons but I still love this format and really wouldlike to see it work. I fully intend to play again this season.

To change the format at this late stage seems a bit unfair to some of the players who have planned to play the event based on the info previously given, both formats are fine but the one that was originally advertised is what we should go with imho. Totally agree the game is not deep enough for straddles, don"t see what purpose they would serve here either.

3x£50 top ups is clearly better than one. I cannot see any disadvantages to allowing this from anybodies point of view and it will make the game deeper, so make it more cash game like.

Biggest stacks and not the most profit should go to the final table but everybody should have the option to use all their top ups at the end. We want the final table as deep as possible. That way it WILL be far more of a cash game than a tournament.

[SirPercival]

This should all have been sorted long before now.

The £200 to £100 issue is such a fundamental shift.

Disappointing also not to get any response from anyone in APAT.

[Delboy]

My 2p on why straddles should be allowed:

1) they create action

2) help enable players to make bigger mistakes OOP.

3) they are optional!

[dwh103]

My 2p on why straddles should be allowed:

1) they create action

2) help enable players to make bigger mistakes OOP.

3) they are optional!

Unless by straddling you make effective stacks shallow enough to remove even more options; in a format that encourages being risk-averse due to finite stacks. Could end up playing effective <50BB poker - if I wanted to do that I"d late reg a tournament.

Having said that, point 3 is the most pertinent. I"ll play regardless and adjust, I"d just rather it was as deeper or reloads worked differently.