APAt Has lost it

[cottlad]

imho antes are absolutely needed for these.  6 hrs play for a $10/200man tourney is quite ridonkulous.  

[H-Man81]

...

Don"t get me wrong, I"m not an advocate of short stack crapshoots. I an all in favour of having enough chips to play with. It is just my opinion that a starting stack of 250 BBs isn"t necessary... 3000 chips (150 BBs) would be plenty.

By comparison... The live national champs start with 10k chips and 25/50 blinds - 150 BBs - and appx 20 hands/level... I think most agree this an excellent structure; the regionals 3k chips - 60 BBs - appx 15 hands/level... still very playable.

Playing good poker isn"t all about waiting for big hands.

I 100% agree with my namesake here.  3000 chips would be more than enough for the good players to rise above the fish.  There would still be plenty of play with the starting stacks reduced.  I fully support larger stacks/larger blind levels for irregular/big tournaments, but do we really need this level of play for tournaments that are now held twice fortnightly?

[APAT]

I tend to agree that we need to revisit the structure of these events.  The only difference with the PokerStars structure is the removal of antes and unfortunately we do not have an option to put them back in.  However, adding an additional 1.5 to 2 hours per event does not bring value from where I am sitting.  I think we need to revert back to a 4.5 to 5 hour event through reducing the starting stack or reducing the clock.  Adjusting the starting stacks would be my choice.  The APAT event would still offer far more play than any other $10 event currently out there, and retain the enjoyment factor.

[kinboshi]

Of course, increasing the buy-in to $20 might also make the tournaments better value.

Twice I"ve cashed in these - unfortunately for me, not in the top spots (as I haven"t played well enough).  So 4 hours of poker, and I"m $10 or $20 up (whatever it was).  It covered my buy-in but hardly covered the 4 hours investment.  Fortunately, I also play a tournament or two on PokerStars at the same time - and last night I managed to cash in the one I was playing.  So my 4 hours were slightly more productive.

Des, would trying a starting stack of 4,000 chips make sense?  Seeing what that does to the tournament?  I guess the buy-in is going to remain at $10?

Oh, and I really want to make the top three in one of these.  The medals look like fantastic card protectors!

[RioRodent]

... you end up with a 6 hour tournament where the winner only gets $500 - $600.
...

It also depends on your perspective on whether the word "only" belongs in that statement.

$500 - $600 for 6 hours work, so around £40 - £50 per hour.

Based on a 35 hour week, as a wage that would put you on an annual income of around £75k to £90k a year.

The majority of everybody I know would be more than happy with that kind of level.

So last night"s winner is on £75+ p.a. playing poker? You think it is possible for someone to win one $10 / 200 runner MTT every day?
...

My point was that £40 to £50 per hour seems pretty good from my point of view. Whether that"s for a days work or a years work is irrelevant.

The point is, it is not $40 - $50 per hour at all. I doubt many people, especially amateurs, will get in the money in much over 15% of their MTTs and pobably win, at best, 1% or 2%... that $600 for winning an APAT online chanpionships has to be spread over many more hours that the 6 on the night.

As for the antes: you have to bear in mind that I"m a convert to the cause for antes, so I"m essentially trying to restate the argument that persuaded me (ie I might get it a bit wrong - so don"t be too harsh if it doesn"t entirely "work").

But I think it means that towards the latter stages of the tournament, because there are the extra chips available from the antes this means that people will be more inclined to bet and try to get them rather than passively sit back and wait for their big hands. I think there was more to it than that - but I think the gist was it creates more action and less people trying to fold their way to the money which can unbalance the structure as well as making it last longer.

Irrespective of how antes affect the balance of the structure (and the strategy of playing it), all other things being equal, they will shorten the tournament.

Add antes, shorten the tournament by an hour or so... increase the buy-in back to $20... and in my opinion you then have a Good Value, Well Structured tournament.

.... However, adding an additional 1.5 to 2 hours per event does not bring value from where I am sitting.

You must be sitting somewhere near me!!  

I think we need to revert back to a 4.5 to 5 hour event through reducing the starting stack or reducing the clock.  Adjusting the starting stacks would be my choice.  The APAT event would still offer far more play than any other $10 event currently out there, and retain the enjoyment factor.

3000 chips gets my vote!

Of course, increasing the buy-in to $20 might also make the tournaments better value.

As does this!!


How about a trial... Why not reduce the chips for the upcoming two online satellites to 3000. See how long they last, bearing in mind they will be over when down to 15-20 players, and consider any feedback from them before making any decisions about the online championship series.

[APAT]

It is too late to amend the online sats and they are non comparative with the online series anyway.  

[duncthehat]

As an official losing tournement player according to the databases, I guess the longer the tournament lasts for,  the less money I am going to lose overall!!!

Anyone else for 50000 chips?

[linziwan]

Anyone else for 50000 chips?

Don"t think this many chips would help increase the standard of play or the length of the tournament.  With all the new players coming into APAT we have to expect a wide variation in the standard of play.  Its true a lot of people seem to know nothing about "risk reward" or "pot odds" and it can be very frustrating when you get a bad beat (no names mentioned Sir Percival in tonights on-line Sat... you should know better   ), but that is the nature of poker, when your good hand holds you think what a donk and thanks for the call.  Inexperienced players seem to be all in preflop no matter how many starting chips we seem to start with.... 

To win tournaments you need a lot of skill and luck, and pray the donk doesn"t luck their way into the big win... but it does happen... but for how long.... sooner or later their luck will turn and they will start losing the money they have won. 

APAT is set up for the "Amateur" player, $10 are well in the range of all amateurs.

Antes would have been nice but as Des said "not possible with Blue Sq".  Also most new players would never have played in a tournament with Antes.... should we be putting them at a disadvantage just because they are not as experienced.    

I have spent 9 hours in an on-line tournament on PartyPoker so it is something that is to be expected but with work next day I agree that this is a little long on a Thursday so cutting the starting stack by 1000 chips may be the answer, but as a total poker hoare who justs loves to play going back to the 50000 is starting to look even better.....

but I"d probably still be out in three hands against somebody who feels the absolute need to push all his chips preflop when I have either AA or KK sighhhhh...  

[coprey]

I agree that this online deepstack isnt really working as it should. As this tournament lasts for 5 hours or more, good players are taking bigger risks early on to define their tournament. They are reluctant to invest 4 hours with no return and the buyin is meaningless to many.
I vote for 3000 chips and a 12 min clock.

[Swinebag]

I agree that this online deepstack isnt really working as it should. As this tournament lasts for 5 hours or more, good players are taking bigger risks early on to define their tournament. They are reluctant to invest 4 hours with no return and the buyin is meaningless to many.
I vote for 3000 chips and a 12 min clock.

make that 2 votes

[lukybugur]

I"d vote for 4,000 chips and a 12 minute clock. I think this would be deepstack enough (APAT's selling point) to ensure a midnight-ish conclusion for 200 players. As Online Events become more popular though, cap the number of seats to 250 for this structure and reduce the starting stacks as / if APAT increase the seats available - 350 players, 3,500 chips, 12 min blinds and so on if it still qualifies as deepstack.

C"mon all the mathematicians amongst you, help us make an informed choice on a value for money deepstack structure by providing us with an easy to calculate formula to include

deepstack/startingstack/startingbigblind(50)/maximumseats/blindtime(mins)

"deepstack" should be determined by formula and have acceptable minimum and maximum values with "startingbigblind" being the only constant.

[kinboshi]

Arnold Snyder"s Poker Tournament Formula is probably of help here.

The definition of "deepstack" is open to interpretation though. Maybe a tournament with a score of 5 or "better" using Snyder"s formula could be considered "deepstack" (or whatever other arbitrary figure is deemed suitable).

[lukybugur]

Arnold Snyder"s Poker Tournament Formula is probably of help here.

The definition of "deepstack" is open to interpretation though. Maybe a tournament with a score of 5 or "better" using Snyder"s formula could be considered "deepstack" (or whatever other arbitrary figure is deemed suitable).

Nice work Kin. Right, who"s got this book ... ?

[kinboshi]

I have.

[kinboshi]

Snyder"s formula works out the "patience factor" - and the higher the patience factor, the more "play" there is.  From this, a skill level is created.  The figures below are for online tournaments (live is slightly different).

Chips    Minutes          Pateince Factor      Skill Level

5,000    15                 17.42                   6
4,000    15                 15.19                   6
3,000    15                 12.79                   6

5,000    12                 12.68                   6
4,000    12                 11.15                   5
3,000    12                 09.38                   4

5,000    10                 09.84                   4
4,000    10                 08.59                   4
3,000    10                 07.24                   3

(these are probably slightly out, as I haven"t checked the exact structure on BlueSQ - when I do, I will amend).