Jimulacrum
Full House
I used to feel how Anthony feels about fast tourney structures.
I kinda still feel that way. Having deeper stacks, even for 30 minutes at the start of a tourney, gives a skilled player—especially a cash player—a better overall chance to win or cash. It's not a massive difference, but it's a difference nonetheless, like a cash game with a $250 max versus one with a $200 max. And I just prefer it. I enjoy deep-stacked poker better than shove-or-fold donkaments.
But maybe winning poker isn't all about structuring every game to maximize your advantage in every conceivable way. Gasp! This goes against the very fabric of what it means to be a serious poker player. Or does it?
Look at the rest of the casino. Most casino games really don't offer a ton of edge to the house (i.e., the winningest player, and it behooves you to think of it this way), and those are typically its most successful games. They draw gamblers by droves, some of whom even believe the games are fair or can be won through some kind of system. The near-fairness of the games creates this illusion. It also prevents gambling mathematicians from branding the games sucker bets.
What I'm saying with regard to poker is that you gotta let the format grant some benefits to the weaker players. I prefer longer, deeper-stacked formats myself, but do you know who else does? Basically all the skilled players who understand this conversation. The more a recurring cash or tourney format favors skill, the faster it'll turn into a shark pond, and that's not good for anyone.
Casinos, of course, may make luck-emphasizing changes to their poker games for other reasons (mainly to cut costs), and you have every right to advocate for what you want. My point is only that it's not necessarily the pure evil you seem to believe it is. If the 20K ends up increasing the field size by 25%, for example, and it's mostly weaker players, has the change truly hurt you?
I kinda still feel that way. Having deeper stacks, even for 30 minutes at the start of a tourney, gives a skilled player—especially a cash player—a better overall chance to win or cash. It's not a massive difference, but it's a difference nonetheless, like a cash game with a $250 max versus one with a $200 max. And I just prefer it. I enjoy deep-stacked poker better than shove-or-fold donkaments.
But maybe winning poker isn't all about structuring every game to maximize your advantage in every conceivable way. Gasp! This goes against the very fabric of what it means to be a serious poker player. Or does it?
Look at the rest of the casino. Most casino games really don't offer a ton of edge to the house (i.e., the winningest player, and it behooves you to think of it this way), and those are typically its most successful games. They draw gamblers by droves, some of whom even believe the games are fair or can be won through some kind of system. The near-fairness of the games creates this illusion. It also prevents gambling mathematicians from branding the games sucker bets.
What I'm saying with regard to poker is that you gotta let the format grant some benefits to the weaker players. I prefer longer, deeper-stacked formats myself, but do you know who else does? Basically all the skilled players who understand this conversation. The more a recurring cash or tourney format favors skill, the faster it'll turn into a shark pond, and that's not good for anyone.
Casinos, of course, may make luck-emphasizing changes to their poker games for other reasons (mainly to cut costs), and you have every right to advocate for what you want. My point is only that it's not necessarily the pure evil you seem to believe it is. If the 20K ends up increasing the field size by 25%, for example, and it's mostly weaker players, has the change truly hurt you?
UTG+1
