Tourney What is your tournament preference? (1 Viewer)

[WhiteMamba1646]

So i'm curious to see what other people here like. Me personally having only played T5/T25/T100 and out of those 3 i prefer T100 for a few reasons.

1) it requires a lot less chips to be put into play so the chip sets can be smaller and ultimately costs less money to make one.
2) you don't need to chip up right at the first break if you do rebuys so less headache to the tourney director or whoever is running the tournament
3) i think it just look's cooler haha.

Curious to see what the majority here like. I'm going to guess T25 but i could be wrong. let me know

 

[pltrgyst]

With standard denom chips, I prefer STTs using T5/25/100/500s, simply because you never have to use 1K chips and deal with that annoying 2x step from 500s.

 

[Coyote]

I dislike tournaments (I think it's very bad poker especially at higher levels) and believe they 're only good for education and recruitment purposes.
So, very low buy-in tournaments (from 20E to 40E maximum).
So, why not combine a chip set for both tournament AND micro-cash stakes, at no game security risk.
So, either T1-based with the denoms representing dimes, or T5-based (or T10-based), with the denoms representing cents.

 

[upNdown]

I dislike tournaments (I think it's very bad poker especially at higher levels) and believe they 're only good for education and recruitment purposes.

Dead to me

 

[upNdown]

I'm torn between T25 and T100 - T25 was the standard when I started playing tournaments, so that will always seem right to me. But T100 with big blind ante seems to be the standard now, and I like that just fine too.
As a host? I dunno, tournaments are a pain in the ass to host; I'm not sure a couple of minor chip issues make much of a difference with that.

 

[Coyote]

I'm torn between T25 and T100 - T25 was the standard when I started playing tournaments, so that will always seem right to me. But T100 with big blind ante seems to be the standard now, and I like that just fine too.
As a host? I dunno, tournaments are a pain in the ass to host; I'm not sure a couple of minor chip issues make much of a difference with that.

And why on Earth should T100-based be any better than T10-based?

 

[TheBigTater]

T25 because it's pretty much the standard for flipaments. Most people are exposed to that format so it makes it more comfortable for most rec players.

 

[upNdown]

And why on Earth should T100-based be any better than T10-based?

I agree - that's kind of my point. The structure is what matters, not the chip denominations.

 

[JustinInMN]

I am firmly on team T500 now.

1) Build stacks as efficiently as T25 (4/8/8/6 is the new 8/8/4/7 or 6/12/12/5 is the new 12/12/5/6)
2) The first color up removes still leaves about 80% of chips in play, instead of 60% (It also helps that this is quicker because the first color up is also the one with the most remaining players.)

T25 is my second choice for sure, followed by T5, and T1.

T100 we really haven't settled on "standard" breakdowns yet, and they seem to be so heavy in T100 chips that you might be removing half the chips from play or more at the first color up, which I still find somewhat jarring. But I think this will get better as it becomes more common.

I dislike tournaments (I think it's very bad poker especially at higher levels) and believe they 're only good for education and recruitment purposes.

But I do agree with @Coyote , tournament strategy is so survival focused it's narrower than cash strategy.

 

[WhiteMamba1646]

love to see the different opinion's in here. and i agree, i would rather host cash games rather than tournament's cuz its less shit i have to deal with while hosting. but i like T10,000 starting stack's for rebuy tournaments starting at 100/100. since our game is filled with a million rebuys and everyone add on's at the end of the rebuy period the starting stack's at break are well above 100bb lol. so it seems to work out. and the reason for hosting tournaments before cash games for me is we only play dealer's choice at my house so its a chance for some of the holdem players to join in on the fun without feeling they are coming over and donating cuz they don't know the games.

 

[Jake14mw]

T5 because the chip denominations are cheaper!

 

[WhiteMamba1646]

T5 because the chip denominations are cheaper!

that's a good point when building a set from a casino. you can make a lot of good tourney set's from Jack's or Horseshoe relatively cheaper. we use a T5 set on our Tuesday tournaments and have been even before i joined here. It's super easy and if the starting stacks are 2000 for $20, its really easy if you want to chop in the end cuz the 100 represent $1 and the 500 represent $5.

 

[Coyote]

that's a good point when building a set from a casino. you can make a lot of good tourney set's from Jack's or Horseshoe relatively cheaper. we use a T5 set on our Tuesday tournaments and have been even before i joined here. It's super easy and if the starting stacks are 2000 for $20, its really easy if you want to chop in the end cuz the 100 represent $1 and the 500 represent $5.

That was the favourite structure of our maid's gardener for years

 

[BGinGA]

There is already a thread on this exact topic, if you're interested in finding it. Lots of good discussion within. Pretty recent, too -- within the last year or so.

 

[JustinInMN]

There is already a thread on this exact topic, if you're interested in finding it. Lots of good discussion within. Pretty recent, too -- within the last year or so.

Iirc, I had to vote "other" in that thread because they didn't put t500 down .

 

[JustinInMN]

Here's the recent thread @AnteAndy started.

https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/t-base-preference-for-tournaments.64499/

 

[CrazyEddie]

T.05 !!!

https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/one-more-try-640-hhr-set-available.72994/#post-1479953

 

[Tallguy]

I dislike tournaments (I think it's very bad poker especially at higher levels) and believe they 're only good for education and recruitment purposes.
So, very low buy-in tournaments (from 20E to 40E maximum).
So, why not combine a chip set for both tournament AND micro-cash stakes, at no game security risk.
So, either T1-based with the denoms representing dimes, or T5-based (or T10-based), with the denoms representing cents.

One of the strangest takes on tourneys I’ve heard. Tournaments are the best. Much more strategy involved.

 

[JeepologyOffroad]

that's a good point when building a set from a casino. you can make a lot of good tourney set's from Jack's or Horseshoe relatively cheaper. we use a T5 set on our Tuesday tournaments and have been even before i joined here. It's super easy and if the starting stacks are 2000 for $20, its really easy if you want to chop in the end cuz the 100 represent $1 and the 500 represent $5.

Just recently bought 2 T5 base sets. Good to know

 

[Frode789]

I dislike tournaments (I think it's very bad poker especially at higher levels) and believe they 're only good for education and recruitment purposes.

Not sure if trolling or if serious.

Sure people can prefer one or the other, but saying tournaments is only good for "education or recruitment" is pretty laughable. Both can produce great poker.
Saying the two are different experiences and requires highlighting on various skillsets is more accurate.

In a nutshell, each and every cash game hand is independent of the ones preceding and following it. In tournaments, everything is related to each other (format, blinds increasing, antes, stacks, payouts etc).
Yes, cash has more focus on playing optimally and if you are a great cash player playing vs a few amateurs, even if you lose a cooler hand vs one of them, you can reload and over time you will earn back (and more) of the money due to making the optimal decisions again and again while the amateurs will have serious leaks over time even if they win some pots here and there.
And yes, cash generally provides a larger focus on postflop decisions, especially during the later parts of a tournament with many all-ins.

But a lot of strategy and other elements involved that you don't have to worry about in a cash game as well. ChipEV vs $EV considerations, complications created by vastly differing stack sizes, both for you and your opponents throughout the course of the tournament, and adjustments by the state of the tournament format in itself. (increasing blinds and antes etc), forcing you to adjust your strategy many times.
You play cash games in sprints (cash a huge pot and then leave when you feel like it) but a MTT tourney is a marathon, especially with fields of thousands of players. A great cash player doesn't necessarily automatically translate to a great tournament player, and vice versa.

 

[Tallguy]

Not sure if trolling or if serious.

Sure people can prefer one or the other, but saying tournaments is only good for "education or recruitment" is pretty laughable. Both can produce great poker.
Saying the two are different experiences and requires highlighting on various skillsets is more accurate.

In a nutshell, each and every cash game hand is independent of the ones preceding and following it. In tournaments, everything is related to each other (format, blinds increasing, antes, stacks, payouts etc).
Yes, cash has more focus on playing optimally and if you are a great cash player playing vs a few amateurs, even if you lose a cooler hand vs one of them, you can reload and over time you will earn back (and more) of the money due to making the optimal decisions again and again while the amateurs will have serious leaks over time even if they win some pots here and there.
And yes, cash generally provides a larger focus on postflop decisions, especially during the later parts of a tournament with many all-ins.

But a lot of strategy and other elements involved that you don't have to worry about in a cash game as well. ChipEV vs $EV considerations, complications created by vastly differing stack sizes, both for you and your opponents throughout the course of the tournament, and adjustments by the state of the tournament format in itself. (increasing blinds and antes etc), forcing you to adjust your strategy many times.
You play cash games in sprints (cash a huge pot and then leave when you feel like it) but a MTT tourney is a marathon, especially with fields of thousands of players. A great cash player doesn't necessarily automatically translate to a great tournament player, and vice versa.

Exactly

 

[TM7zzzz]

T25 because you want to see some greens on the felt !

 

[RiverKingCali]

We like to do T100 starting base. Never been a fan of T25 chips. Players start with 16000 in chips using only T100, T500, and T1000 (10/10/10). Any re-buys and add-ons will use the T5000 chips. Once T100 chips are changed out, we just have 3 denoms to use again (T500, T1000, and T5000)

 

[Organista1]

T100 fan here especially for big tourneys for obvious reasons. Single table I like seen them pretty $25s on the felt but they’re only good for a couple levels. Then I have friends that begin to chip lead and want to count out their big blind with $25s when blinds are $200 - $400 and that’s when we need to chip up

 

[JustinInMN]

But a lot of strategy and other elements involved that you don't have to worry about in a cash game as well. ChipEV vs $EV considerations, complications created by vastly differing stack sizes, both for you and your opponents throughout the course of the tournament, and adjustments by the state of the tournament format in itself. (increasing blinds and antes etc), forcing you to adjust your strategy many times.

Yes, but all of these adjustments essentially boil down to "play tighter until the structure forces you." I don't consider that broadening of strategy, compared to cash games, this is a narrowing of strategy.

This is still a skill and the better tournament players will get the money, though their variance (especially in big fields) is higher. Skilled tournament players also are better at avoiding hopless short stack situations and are smart enough to take the worst of it just to avoid longer odds. But most profit in tournaments comes from safer, uninteresting play.

In cash there are several paths to profit. One guy can be twice as loose as another and both show profit. You can make more plays in cash from which you must refrain in tournaments. You can go for value in thinner spots whereas you have to give away many cards in tournament in the name of safe play.

And by design Tournaments eliminate players, cash does not have this effect, that alone makes it a better social experience, imo.

I will still play tournaments, I will still host them on occasion, but if we are having a conversation about which strategy bucket is deeper, it's cash by a long shot.

 

[JeepologyOffroad]

Yes, but all of these adjustments essentially boil down to "play tighter until the structure forces you." I don't consider that broadening of strategy, compared to cash games, this is a narrowing of strategy.

This is still a skill and the better tournament players will get the money, though their variance (especially in big fields) is higher. Skilled tournament players also are better at avoiding hopless short stack situations and are smart enough to take the worst of it just to avoid longer odds. But most profit in tournaments comes from safer, uninteresting play.

In cash there are several paths to profit. One guy can be twice as loose as another and both show profit. You can make more plays in cash from which you must refrain in tournaments. You can go for value in thinner spots whereas you have to give away many cards in tournament in the name of safe play.

And by design Tournaments eliminate players, cash does not have this effect, that alone makes it a better social experience, imo.

I will still play tournaments, I will still host them on occasion, but if we are having a conversation about which strategy bucket is deeper, it's cash by a long shot.

 

[upNdown]

but if we are having a conversation about which strategy bucket is deeper, it's cash by a long shot.

DIS
A
GREE

 

[upNdown]

DIS
A
GREE

Every single bit of skill or strategy that could be involved in a cash game hand can be involved in a tournament hand.
On the other hand . . .

 

[JustinInMN]

Every single bit of skill or strategy that could be involved in a cash game hand can be involved in a tournament hand.
On the other hand . . .

But broader strategy is punished in tournaments because the ultimate penalty of elimination forces cautious play.

 

[JustinInMN]

Let me put it this way. If one player is winning 150k a year grinding cash games over 10 years and one binks one 7 figure tournament payout and not much else in that time frame, which should I consider a more difficult feat? Which am I more likely to attribute to variance? Which one took more passive lines? Which one had to consider four street strategy more frequently? (Assuming we are talking hold'em.)