Blinds on a bell curve (2 Viewers)

[JackJack]

This morning I responded to a post about a home game, which got me to thinking about my game coming up this weekend. Here are some quick notes:

1. 12 players + 6 buybacks expected
2. Mostly non-poker players (monthly work poker night). They try hard but are not studied.
3. Want to encourage buybacks
4. Camaraderie is paramount
5. Buybacks are unlimited
6. Tournament structure
7. Target length 3.5 hours

Through the lens of wanting a fun night for coworkers that aren’t grinders, but do care, and wanting to provide maximum logical opportunity to buyback, I wonder if anyone had used levels on a curve previously? Sample leveling:

1 = 15m
2 = 17m
3 = 19m
4 = 21m
5 = 23m
6 = 25m
7 = 23m
8 = 21m
9 = 19m
10 = 17m
11 = 15m (anticipated ending level)
12 = 13m

Thoughts:
1. This would maximize the point in the tourney where a buy back would be viable, and likely. Nearly no one will go broke prior to L3
2. Folks will not typically buyback when blinds exceed 33% of buyback stack, so let it linger under that threshold. Nearly no one would buyback after L8 (BB = 40% starting stack)
3. Blinds are plenty long on the back half, so as not to dictate play at the end.

Has anyone considered this? What’s the good and bad with the concept?

 

[JackJack]

Something like this for the visual folks

 

[fishandchips]

I've run simulations on different tourney structures, tweaking the algorithms to match experience at our weekly game, and then using it to create a home tourney structure that will run for the time I want. Freezeouts have less variance than re-buys as you'd expect.

Not sure how I would tweak the parameters to go from poker players to non-poker players.

If you can program excel macros you are welcome to have a play with my simulator. Put in your assumptions about re-buys and see what difference it makes.

 

[JackJack]

I've run simulations on different tourney structures, tweaking the algorithms to match experience at our weekly game, and then using it to create a home tourney structure that will run for the time I want. Freezeouts have less variance than re-buys as you'd expect.

Not sure how I would tweak the parameters to go from poker players to non-poker players.

If you can program excel macros you are welcome to have a play with my simulator. Put in your assumptions about re-buys and see what difference it makes.

Did any of your simulations use varying level durations? Or were the level durations constant?

I’m trying to determine if it good or bad to use varying level durations. When folks have 150BB’s then make the levels 15 minutes, when they have 30BB’s then use 20 minutes, etc. this maximizes the amount of time the game is in the ‘sweet spot’ of creating action, not being extremely short stacked, and still incentive to rebuy.

 

[fishandchips]

My players liked longer levels for the deep stack portion, so it was typically 30min x3levels followed by 20min levels. And I never really looked at rebuys because our gang liked freezeouts. So I just used it to make sure eg it was a 5hour structure if that's what I wanted.

 

[Machine]

I feel like I keep seeing this reoccurring theme, especially for tournament and league play.

People want to make the game better, through making changes to a game that has stood the test of time.

This has already been solved: Give players two more cards, make them play two and only two out of their hands, call it PLO

Spoiler: Note

The real problem isn't the way tournament is structured, its with the nature of the game. CHANGE THE GAME!

 

[JackJack]

Get offI feel like I keep seeing this reoccurring theme, especially for tournament and league play.

People want to make the game better, through making changes to a game that has stood the test of time.

This has already been solved: Give players two more cards, make them play two and only two out of their hands, call it PLO

Spoiler: Note

The real problem isn't the way tournament is structured, its with the nature of the game. CHANGE THE GAME!

In a competitive setting I agree that changes should not happen. This is not a competitive setting.

Your take is similar to saying 6 year olds shouldn’t be allowed to play tee ball at the local YMCA. It is about having fun, building skills, and developing an enjoyment of the game within those newbies. When I played in the WSOP I didn’t ask them to change the blind structures ha

If your take is that you tried it and it stunk then please share. If your take is that it would likely fail for a variety of reasons please share.

It seemed unnecessary to go Gran Torino

 

[ekricket]

This is not a competitive setting.

Why are you talking about buybacks and money then if it’s all for fun?

 

[JackJack]

Why are you talking about buybacks and money then if it’s all for fun?

There is money at stake, but the guys aren’t walking through the door with a for profit mindset. They are walking in the door thinking “this is cheaper than taking my family to a movie”, “It’s a way to have fun with coworkers and build relationships that will help me in the future”, or “$40 and I get away from the kids, food is included and I might win a couple hundred bucks? Sign me up”.

 

[ekricket]

There is money at stake, but the guys aren’t walking through the door with a for profit mindset. They are walking in the door thinking “this is cheaper than taking my family to a movie”, “It’s a way to have fun with coworkers and build relationships that will help me in the future”, or “$40 and I get away from the kids, food is included and I might win a couple hundred bucks? Sign me up”.

Yeah that’s definitely different than 100% of the poker games out there

 

[Machine]

In a competitive setting I agree that changes should not happen. This is not a competitive setting.

I think poker is always a competitive setting, its very nature is a zero-sum game by definition.

Your take is similar to saying 6 year olds shouldn’t be allowed to play tee ball at the local YMCA.

I didn't realize 6 y/o's showed up with a bank roll and hit up the bookies... (hopefully I don't have to break this down to show how your analogy is off)

Seriously, you should be able to find a better analogy that supports your apologetics, I'll wait for you to come up with something.

If your take is that you tried it and it stunk then please share. If your take is that it would likely fail for a variety of reasons please share.

I don't think I'm arguing from ignorance here, and again time tested shows plenty of reason(s) of why/how adjustments have failed. We could move the goal and discuss how GTO has ruined the game. I would argue letting the newbies beat each to death with pool noodles would be all the fun, aka leaving the game as it has been.

It seemed unnecessary to go Gran Torino

unnecessary maybe, but I've always been somewhere between a raw sport's car and a refined luxury ride. I love the context here too, thanks for comparing me to such a class act as Client, made my day, I'm going to go have another cup of coffee on the local establishment and maybe socialize while being nitty.

 

[ekricket]

One person tanking for a minute blows this up. If you were going from 10 minute blinds to 45+ minute blinds it might make a difference.

Your proposal is plus or minus two hands per level. Who cares?

You may as well make it based on #of orbits:number of players left or something. More players means more dealing and other things that eat time. More time per round when more players and less time when less players seems more intuitive.

 

[Mojo1312]

Blinds are 40% of the starting stack by level 8 indicatess either an aggressive blind structure or starting stacks of 80 big blinds or less.

I’m trying to determine if it good or bad to use varying level durations. When folks have 150BB’s then make the levels 15 minutes, when they have 30BB’s then use 20 minutes, etc. this maximizes the amount of time the game is in the ‘sweet spot’ of creating action, not being extremely short stacked, and still incentive to rebuy.

Based on the information provided and not really knowing how you define the term sweet spot in the above examples, I would just go with the following time lengths:

18 minutes for levels 1-4 , 24 minutes for levels 5 thru 7 and 18 minutes thereafter.

Folks will not typically buyback when blinds exceed 33% of buyback stack, so let it linger under that threshold. Nearly no one would buyback after L8 (BB = 40% starting stack)

Sometimes I feel like people posting here have no better use of their time. (Including myself)