Tourney T5 Starting Stack (1 Viewer)

[emunster18]

Started running a T5 - 2 Table tournament a couple months back. Noticed a ton of change needing to be made in the first handful of levels with a 10/10/7/3 (2,500) starting stack. Are there any pitfalls I should be aware of with building stacks more weighted toward low denom chips? Like 15/13/6/3?

Is it a pain to color up that many chips, or other annoyances with too many chips flying around?

The game is usually 12-18 players.

 

[drdr]

Think it depends on the blind structure you use. But there is also a personal preference element; many out there don't like T5.

If the blind progression is very much gradual at the start I find that my T5s stay relevant for many rounds. Perhaps providing more info on your game will assist.

 

[allforcharity]

15/13/11/2 is also good if you want bigger starting stacks (as long as it is affordable).
Don't keep the lowest denoms in play for too long. I think starting at 10/20, 15/30, 20/40, 30/60, then colour up before 50/100, 75/150, etc.
Easiest colour up is have biggest stack buy all the small denoms and then round up or race for the rest.

 

[BGinGA]

General consensus is that having 12 to 16 chips each of the two lowest denominations in a tournament starting stack is desirable for play efficiency (minimizes change-making while also avoiding excessive counting/re-stacking). 8-10 min and 20 max will work, but far from optimally.

So 15/13/6/3 is fine, so long as T100 chips are used to color-up the T5/T25 chips -- since as a workhorse chip in later blind levels, more T100s will be needed. 15/13/11/2 stacks (using T500s for all color-ups) will also work well.

Typical T5-base blind structure, with avg 41% increases:

L1 10/20
L2 15/30
L3 20/40
break
L4 30/60
L5 40/80
L6 60/120
remove T5 chips
L7 75/150
L8 100/200
L9 150/300
remove T25 chips
L10 200/400
L11 300/600
L12 400/800
break
L13 600 1200
L14 800/1600
L15 1100/2200
remove T100 chips
L16 1500/3000
L17 2000/4000
L18 3000/6000

An 18-player event should finish by L15 (5 hrs plus breaks with 20-min levels, or 3:45 hrs plus breaks with 15-min levels). A 12-player event will end approx. one level sooner.

 

[Santa123]

General consensus is that having 12 to 16 chips each of the two lowest denominations in a tournament starting stack is desirable for play efficiency (minimizes change-making while also avoiding excessive counting/re-stacking). 8-10 min and 20 max will work, but far from optimally.

So 15/13/6/3 is fine, so long as T100 chips are used to color-up the T5/T25 chips -- since as a workhorse chip in later blind levels, more T100s will be needed. 15/13/11/2 stacks (using T500s for all color-ups) will also work well.

Typical T5-base blind structure, with avg 41% increases:

L1 10/20
L2 15/30
L3 20/40
break
L4 30/60
L5 40/80
L6 60/120
remove T5 chips
L7 75/150
L8 100/200
L9 150/300
remove T25 chips
L10 200/400
L11 300/600
L12 400/800
break
L13 600 1200
L14 800/1600
L15 1100/2200
remove T100 chips
L16 1500/3000
L17 2000/4000
L18 3000/6000

An 18-player event should finish by L15 (5 hrs plus breaks with 20-min levels, or 3:45 hrs plus breaks with 15-min levels). A 12-player event will end approx. one level sooner.

I think it is better to get early rid of the T5. Based on your strcuture, I would make the following changes:

L0 5/10
L1 10/20
L2 15/30
L3 20/40
remove T5
L4 25/50
L5 25/75
L6 50/100
remove T5 chips
L7 75/150
L8 100/200
L9 150/300
remove T25 chips

 

[emunster18]

I think it is better to get early rid of the T5. Based on your strcuture, I would make the following changes:

L0 5/10
L1 10/20
L2 15/30
L3 20/40
remove T5
L4 25/50
L5 25/75
L6 50/100
remove T5 chips
L7 75/150
L8 100/200
L9 150/300
remove T25 chips

I like this structure. Last time I ran this, we skipped the 20/40. Here's what it looked like (off the top of my head)

L1 - 5/10 @ 25 mins
L2 - 10/20 @ 25 mins
L3 - 15/30 @ 25 mins
Break - color up T5
L4 - 25/50 @ 20 mins
L5 - 50/100 @ 20 mins
L6 - 75/150 @ 20 mins
Break - color up T25
L7 - 100/200 @ 15 mins
L8 - 200/400 @ 15 mins
L9 - 300/600 @ 15 mins
L10 - 400/800 @ 15 mins
L11 - 500/1000 @ 15 mins

I accelerate the times after the 2nd break. At that point we are down to one table and maybe 6-7 handed. Trying to keep the tournament 3-4 hours to not play all night. Most of the people that come are quite casual players and are ready to wrap the night by then.

 

[emunster18]

I like this structure. Last time I ran this, we skipped the 20/40. Here's what it looked like (off the top of my head)

L1 - 5/10 @ 25 mins
L2 - 10/20 @ 25 mins
L3 - 15/30 @ 25 mins
Break - color up T5
L4 - 25/50 @ 20 mins
L5 - 50/100 @ 20 mins
L6 - 75/150 @ 20 mins
Break - color up T25
L7 - 100/200 @ 15 mins
L8 - 200/400 @ 15 mins
L9 - 300/600 @ 15 mins
L10 - 400/800 @ 15 mins
L11 - 500/1000 @ 15 mins

I accelerate the times after the 2nd break. At that point we are down to one table and maybe 6-7 handed. Trying to keep the tournament 3-4 hours to not play all night. Most of the people that come are quite casual players and are ready to wrap the night by then.

Maybe I'll add that 25/75 level in there. I like the idea of extending the middle portion of the tournament.

 

[BGinGA]

I think it is better to get early rid of the T5. Based on your strcuture, I would make the following changes:

L0 5/10
L1 10/20
L2 15/30
L3 20/40
remove T5
L4 25/50
L5 25/75
L6 50/100
remove T5 chips
L7 75/150
L8 100/200
L9 150/300
remove T25 chips

And now the increases vary widely, ranging from just 20% to 100%. Not a good approach imo.

 

[Santa123]

And now the increases vary widely, ranging from just 20% to 100%. Not a good approach imo.

You are correct. I think it is a tradeoff between smooth increase and not to stick too long with the T5 Chips.

The 100% increase from L0 to L1 can be smoothed by another level 5/15.

 

[BGinGA]

Lol, if you don't want to play with the T5 chips, just start using T25s.

 

[emunster18]

And now the increases vary widely, ranging from just 20% to 100%. Not a good approach imo.

The way I am thinking of the structure is in phases. Each break starts the next phase. A little larger jump in blinds and a change in the length of each level.

How out of the norm are these? If it's a terrible idea, I may adjust accordingly. But the goal is to keep the 2TT under 4 hours.

 

[BGinGA]

The way I am thinking of the structure is in phases. Each break starts the next phase. A little larger jump in blinds and a change in the length of each level.

How out of the norm are these? If it's a terrible idea, I may adjust accordingly. But the goal is to keep the 2TT under 4 hours.

The impact of blind increases on tournament stacks should be uniform across the duration of the event.

For example, there is nothing inherently wrong with using 100% increases (doubling the blinds), so long as it is done uniformly at every single blind level. Same with keeping all of the increases within a narrow range (like 20%-33%, 33%-50%, or 50%-67%), so that the impact of increasing blind pressure remains uniformly constant.

Most home events can use a combination of starting stack size, avg increase rate, and blind level duration to create events that will run between 2.5 and 6 hours. None of the three require major compromise to meet rational time goals.

But it makes no logical sense to randomly select points in the event where the expected increase in blinds pressure should suddenly be extremely different, rather that be either excessively high or very low with comparatively minimal impact.

 

[emunster18]

The impact of blind increases on tournament stacks should be uniform across the duration of the event.

For example, there is nothing inherently wrong with using 100% increases (doubling the blinds), so long as it is done uniformly at every single blind level. Same with keeping all of the increases within a narrow range (like 20%-33%, 33%-50%, or 50%-67%), so that the impact of increasing blind pressure remains uniformly constant.

Most home events can use a combination of starting stack size, avg increase rate, and blind level duration to create events that will run between 2.5 and 6 hours. None of the three require major compromise to meet rational time goals.

But it makes no logical sense to randomly select points in the event where the expected increase in blinds pressure should suddenly be extremely different, rather that be either excessively high or very low with comparatively minimal impact.

Thank you for the commentary here. I don't think my players knew any different over the couple I have run. I'll flatten out the times to 20 mins instead of accelerating. Is the % of level increases the reason people gravitate towards T25 base instead of T5 base?

 

[emunster18]

Thank you for all of the input!

Taking the advice of the group here, this is what I came up with. I like the 20 minute level, just so it doesn't feel like blinds are constantly changing:

Starting Stack - 2500
15/9/6/3 - My inventory would not support 15/13/11/2. Perhaps I need more chips...
20 mins/level

L1 - 10/20
L2 - 15/30
L3 - 25/50
L4 - 40/80
L5 - 60/120
L6 - 100/200 - Color up 5s
L7 - 150/300
L8 - 250/500
L9 - 400/800 - Color up 25s
L10 - 600/1200
L11 - 1000/2000
L12 - 1500/3000

These increases fall in the 50-67% increase range.

18 players - finish @ L11
12 players - finish @ L10

 

[Huskerchipper]

I run T5's and here is what I use when I use a $25 chip (prefer a $20 chip with T5's) and starting stacks of 15/13/6 starting stack of $1,000

 

[DeadheadDave]

Perhaps I need more chips...

You ALWAYS need more chips. When you don't think you need more chips, trust me... you need more chips. They are the coolest part of poker.