WPT Final Table Structure... not a Fan (Long)
Howard Lederer
news:7220404a.03090...@posting.google.com...
> I just got into my room after watching the final table of the Ladies
> event on the WPT, and I must once again say I'm not a fan of the final
> table structure that has been decided upon.
> At the outset there appears to be ample play, but in my opinion the
> limits go up in a very awkard manner. Actually, I think the level
> increases are cockameme to say the least. Let's first have a look at
> the official final table structure for WPT final tables, and then look
> at what I propose as a much better alternative:
The structure you have issue with is mine. Though, Thursday's structure was
definitely not mine. Last year there were a number of WPT tournaments that
had tragically flawed structures. I started talking to Steve Lipscomb about
what I thought would make a good structure for the final six and he gave me
his input on the TV specific factors that I should consider. I was
motivated by my belief that a good structure would lead to better play at
the final table and would result in a better show. My fear has been that if
we make all the final tables a crap shoot with blinds that start out too
high, all the play will happen before the flop. People at home will only
find hands like "Two fives raise, AT moves in, two fives call, now lets see
who wins the race," interesting for so long. I could see the public getting
bored with all-in races after just a few seasons. The truly interesting
play on the WPT has been after the flop, and that kind action will never get
old.
I told Steve that I felt like the WPT could convince each WPT stop to adopt
a uniform structure for the TV taping, and the players would go along
because it would be insurance against truly rancid structures. When trying
to think about a structure, I had many factors to consider. Steve needed it
to end in no more than 6 hours of real time (which translates to about 4.5
hours of play time). The crowd at WPT finals can't come and go like they do
at other final tables, so I have noticed that after about 4 hours they get
antsy or start to leave. Empty seats and no crowd energy don't make for
good TV. If we want poker to be an exciting spectator sport, making people
stay in their seat for 8 hours will not get that done. Finally, I would say
that if you polled the players they would like to have good play at the
start and get it done in about six hours. Steve's issues are for two
reasons. #1: The cameramen, especially the hand held operators, get
extremely fatigued after about 4 hours and by union rules his costs rise
sharply after six hours as his crew goes into overtime. #2: If the play
goes over 4.5 hours of play time, Steve finds it very difficult to "tell the
full story" after cutting the show down to 2 hours. He is forced to leave
critical hands out of the broadcast which ends up confusing the home
audience.
Well, how do you start with good play but get it over in about 4.5 hours? I
knew that we had to do away with levels over 1 hour. If you used two hour
levels for example, you would have to start too high to make sure to end it
in only three levels. Sadly, we saw this at the WPT finals. With two hour
levels, the final table started very fast, and we were down to heads-up in
about 1.5 hours. I picked a starting level of at least 50 big blinds for
the average stack and submitted this structure to Steve:
Structure Sheet for WPT Final Tables
Blinds
Antes
Level 1
1000-2000
200
Level 2
1500-3000
300
Level 3
2000-4000
500
Level 4
3000-6000
500
Level 5
4000-8000
1000
Level 6
6000-12,000
1000
Level 7
8000-16,000
2000
Level 8
12,000-24,000
3000
Level 9
15,000-30,000
4000
Level 10
20,000-40,000
5000
Level 11
30,000-60,000
5000
1 hour levels starting at the level that equals at least
50 big blinds for an average stack.
Formula:
Total Tournament Chips/6 = Average Stack
Average Stack/50 > Big Blind of the Starting Level
You will notice this compares quite closely with your structure below.
>
> Compare that to a structure that IMO gives more play and continuity:
>
> Level Blinds Antes
> 1 1000-2000 200
> 2 1500-3000 300
> 3 2000-4000 400
> 4 3000-6000 500
> 5 4000-8000 1000
> 6 6000-12000 1500
> 7 10000-20000 2000
> 8 15000-30000 300
> 9 20000-40000 4000
> 10 30000-60000 5000
> 11 40000-80000 10000
> 12 60000-12000 15000
> 13 100000-200000 20000
The WPT adopted this first structure in Paris this summer. Sadly, after
seeing this structure in play in Paris, I realized that it needed to be sped
up. Paris went about eight hours. Everyone was relieved when it finally
ended. The combination of passive play, no air conditioning, and two minute
breaks that lasted fifteen minutes was torture. Seats were empty, and by
the time it got heads-up, the crowd just wanted it to end. I felt like we
needed to speed up the structure by about 33%. I did not want to give up
the 50 big blind rule, as I think some of the most interesting play occurs
during the first hour. Also, the difference between first and sixth is very
large, so giving a lot of play early seems appropriate given the high
stakes. If the heads-up play becomes a bit of a crap shoot, so be it, at
least each player has locked-up a big prize. I then came up with the
structure that was used Wednesday.
Structure Sheet for WPT Final Tables
Blinds
Antes
Level 1
1000-2000
300
Level 2
1500-3000
400
Level 3
2500-5000
500
Level 4
4000-8000
1000
Level 5
6000-12000
1500
Level 6
10,000-20,000
2000
Level 7
15,000-30,000
3000
Level 8
25,000-50,000
5000
Level 9
40,000-80,000
10,000
Level 10
60,000-120,000
15,000
Level 11
100,000-200,000
20,000
1 hour levels starting at the level that equals at least
50 big blinds for an average stack.
Formula:
Total Tournament Chips/6 = Average Stack
Average Stack/50 > Big Blind of the Starting Level
AFTER the third level of the day, any level that STARTS heads-up
will last for only 30 minutes.
Is this structure perfect? No. But it did work on Wednesday. First of
all, as we all know, the Bike's structure was way too fast. They ended day
two at 6000-12,000 blinds. If my structure had not been in place, we would
have been treated to a move-in fest from the opening bell. Average stack
was 257,500. With 6000-12,000 blinds, the play would have been ridiculous.
Instead they started at 2500-5000 and the early play was really interesting.
There was a mistake when interpreting my structure sheet. The TD seemed to
think that the starting level should have been 4000-8000. The players
complained, and they compromised by giving the players about 30 minutes at
2500-5000. If my formula had been properly used, the players would have
gotten a full hour at 2500-5000. The way I set the structure up, final
tables should almost all last at least 3 hours but most should end by about
the 4.5 hour mark. Wednesday worked like clockwork. If Mel had not hit his
Jack on the river, TJ and Paul would have been heads-up at about the 2:45
minute mark. This would have led to a finish in about 3 to 3.5 hours- on
the early side of perfect. As it turned out, Mel won the hand and then went
on to an improbable come-from-behind victory. The table took about 4 hours
of play, which translated to about 5:15 of real time. I did get the sense
that the crowd could not have taken too much more without becoming restless.
I would like to hear from RGPers that were there on this issue.
> Ok I understand that there are time constraints obviously, but in
> the same token I think we owe the players involved (as well as the
> fans) a championship environment rather than a televised super
> satellite? In fairness, the ladies event I witnessed was switched
> from one hour levels to 30 minute levels which may have skewed my
> impression slightly. That switch came AFTER the first level in which
> there was little action. Obviously that midway switch could cause
> serious damage to a preset strategy. As poker players though, we have
> to be prepared for the various structures/envoroments we encounter.
I did speak to Steve on Friday about the Ladies night structure. He wanted
to emphasize that he had no intention of changing the structure as it now
exists, but given the fact that Thursday's event was a free-roll exhibition,
he felt justified in changing the structure on the fly to get it finished.
Apparently, play slowed down quite a bit after it got heads-up and it took
60,000-120,000 blinds to finish an event that had only 1.5 million chips in
play!
> I guess the question I'm really asking is: who decided that this was
> the best structure for WPT final tables? Was it voted on (if so I
> never got my slip)? Or did the network decide that this structure
> made the most sense? I'm just curious as to where they looked for
> input on the subject really, as I think the players at large should
> have some say. Were any players polled at all?
I did discuss this structure with a number of players. I am open to all
input. If you or anyone has a better way to address all the factors I have
discussed here, I would be truly interested in hearing it. No single
structure will make all sides of this issue happy. But, I felt that If I
didn't do something about final table structures, we would be left with some
of the same completely broken and inconsistent structures that we had last
year. I felt like it was worth putting my ass on the line for this issue.
> I doubt it, because I think if a large group of tournament players
> WERE polled they would not have voted for the structure that has been
> decided upon. It's just doesn't seem logical to me.
You may not agree with my logic, but I hope you now see how I arrived at my
structure. Maybe this thread will start a dialog that will get the players
heard on big buy-in tournament structure issues. We simply should never
have to fade a structure like he had at the Bike again.
Howard Lederer
Howard Lederer
document. Obviously the formatting did not translate well. I will hand
type them here. The Paris structure went as follows:
Level 1 1000-2000 200 ante
Level 2 1500-3000 300
Level 3 2000-4000 500
Level 4 3000-6000 500
Level 5 4000-8000 1000
Level 6 6000-12,000 1000
Level 7 8000-16,000 2000
Level 8 12,000-24,000 3000
Level 9 15,000-30,000 4000
Level 10 20,000-40,000 5000
Level 11 30,000-60,000 5000
The Bike structure was this:
Level 1 1000-2000 300
Level 2 1500-3000 400
Level 3 2500-5000 500
Level 4 4000-8000 1000
Level 5 6000-12,000 1500
Phil R
>The WPT adopted this first structure in Paris this summer. Sadly, after
seeing this structure in play in Paris, I realized that it needed to be
sped
up. Paris went about eight hours. Everyone was relieved when it finally
ended. The combination of passive play, no air conditioning, and two
minute
breaks that lasted fifteen minutes was torture. Seats were empty, and by
the time it got heads-up, the crowd just wanted it to end......
Your assessment of the Paris final table was spot on.
I noticed that one of the two 'ice buckets' were near your feet. I didn't
seem to get much temperature difference where I was sitting, but YOU could
have removed your socks and dipped your toes in! ...*lol*...
I remember talking to you during a break (or afterwards, I can't remember
which) and you told me you had written down every hand and every bet of
the Final Table.
Were you doing this as part of your 'structure' research?
If not, why were you doing it?
If this is an impertinent question, then I apologise, and in this case
obviously wouldn't expect an answer.
Warmest
Phil
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
AlwaysAware
>I told Steve that I felt like the WPT could convince each WPT stop to adopt
>a uniform structure for the TV taping, and the players would go along
>because it would be insurance against truly rancid structures.
And hopefully this will remain an option and not mandatory. I have always
liked Foxwoods Structures. While the WPT has been good for poker awareness, I
would hate to see it dictate more than it already does, unless of course the
WPT and not the players are putting up the entry fees.
Perhaps some of the structures at some of the venues are bad, let's deal with
them on a case by case basis, instead of putting all WPT final events in a
cookie cutter.
As for the length and fitting into a nice filtered package for airing on TV or
accomodating live viewers perhaps we should play "Florida" style. X number of
hands and the one with the most chips wins. Just kidding of course, but do we
change a tournament to accomodate a camera crew and spectators? Or, do we
change a tournament because their structure was atrocious to begin with? Fiddle
with the "lost souls" but leave my backyard alone :-)
Am I the only little guy that loved their local bi-yearly tournament and gets
their back up when faced with the reality that I can't wear clothing with any
writing, I have no choice on showing my cards or having my image or likeness
used at anytime anywhere and now a perfectly good structure is endangered of
being dictated. And being dictated to a structure that those traveling the WPT
circuit will be initmately familar with and used to playing before they hit my
backyard?
Oh sure for the good of poker we all must make sacrifices, but I am not looking
forward to those "sacrifices" becoming mandatory in a 'big brother" way of
thinking.
Course maybe I should read the post that started this and not just the reply
from someone I respect.
Joan
Rick Nebiolo
I work at the Bike but not in tournaments. Until your post I didn't
realize the final table structure was rolled back but agree it had to
be given what the blind levels would have been. No Limit pre flop
"move in fests" would lose appeal very quickly.
>Wednesday worked like clockwork. If Mel had not hit his
>Jack on the river, TJ and Paul would have been heads-up at about the 2:45
>minute mark. This would have led to a finish in about 3 to 3.5 hours- on
>the early side of perfect. As it turned out, Mel won the hand and then went
>on to an improbable come-from-behind victory. The table took about 4 hours
>of play, which translated to about 5:15 of real time. I did get the sense
>that the crowd could not have taken too much more without becoming restless.
>I would like to hear from RGPers that were there on this issue.
We found the pace about right and the excrement level very high
throughout the evening. However, we got there during a break when it
was already five handed (we were sitting in the end of the row behind
you to your left). Getting there a bit late may have made the sit
easier.
The ladies exhibition tournament the following night slowed down due
to seemingly frequent/endless breaks and excessively careful play head
up. The crowd did seem to get bored near the end - we did and weren't
the previous night or earlier in the evening.
>I did discuss this structure with a number of players. I am open to all
>input. If you or anyone has a better way to address all the factors I have
>discussed here, I would be truly interested in hearing it. No single
>structure will make all sides of this issue happy. But, I felt that If I
>didn't do something about final table structures, we would be left with some
>of the same completely broken and inconsistent structures that we had last
>year. I felt like it was worth putting my ass on the line for this issue.
This may have been answered in the various threads but have structures
ever been rolled back or adjusted before at the final table of a big
event? The idea of adjusting structures at the final table (or final
six) of big events (or any event for that matter) to correlate to
average stack size and the other stated factors seems like an idea
whose time has come.
>You may not agree with my logic, but I hope you now see how I arrived at my
>structure. Maybe this thread will start a dialog that will get the players
>heard on big buy-in tournament structure issues. We simply should never
>have to fade a structure like he had at the Bike again.
Do you think casinos hosting events will work with you (or a committee
of top players) for molding the entire event structure? By "event
structure" I mean all three or four days of the final event.
Regards,
Rick
Albert Soran
> We found the pace about right and the excrement level very high
> throughout the evening.
Sounds shitty.
Rick Nebiolo
wrote:
>On Sep 6 2003 9:01AM, Rick Nebiolo wrote:
>
>> We found the pace about right and the excrement level very high
>> throughout the evening.
>
>Sounds shitty.
LOL! I should proof AFTER using the spell checker!
~ Rick
Daniel Negreanu
The crowd at WPT finals can't come and go like they do
> at other final tables, so I have noticed that after about 4 hours they get
> antsy or start to leave. Empty seats and no crowd energy don't make for
> good TV. If we want poker to be an exciting spectator sport, making people
> stay in their seat for 8 hours will not get that done.
Well some are paid anyway and they could always use cheering footage
from previous hands etc. That doesn't seem like it should be too much
of a concern but I could be wrong.
Steve finds it very difficult to "tell the
> full story" after cutting the show down to 2 hours. He is forced to leave
> critical hands out of the broadcast which ends up confusing the home
> audience.
That's a real concern and probably the best reason to get things
over with in a 4.5 hour time frame.
>
> The WPT adopted this first structure in Paris this summer. Sadly, after
> seeing this structure in play in Paris, I realized that it needed to be sped
> up. Paris went about eight hours. Everyone was relieved when it finally
> ended. The combination of passive play, no air conditioning, and two minute
> breaks that lasted fifteen minutes was torture.
There was another key factor that affected play at this final table.
With 7 players remaining the blinds stopped going up for good, we
actually played 1500-3000 for approximately five hours. The blinds
should have continued to escalate and then revert back to the
appropriate level for the taping. That is how it works now correct?
I did not want to give up
> the 50 big blind rule, as I think some of the most interesting play occurs
> during the first hour.
I agree with the first hour being the most exciting. Unfortunately,
because it only lasts the one hour and then we have significant jumps,
it allows players to succeed using a very simple strategy until the
blinds are raised. I looked at the structure and was certain that
Evelyn Ng would have an excellent chance of winning the ladies event
if she played conservative in the first hour and avoid ANY difficult
post flop decisions.
This would have led to a finish in about 3 to 3.5 hours- on
> the early side of perfect.
Thanks for the explanation. Based on the information you provided I
understand the reasoning behind the fast structure. It seems a little
unfortunate, but I think it is better than the alternative I guess.
> Apparently, play slowed down quite a bit after it got heads-up and it took
> 60,000-120,000 blinds to finish an event that had only 1.5 million chips in
> play!
I wouldn't say that was true at all. The first hour there was maybe
5 flops total! Once heads up, it was all in or all out. It may have
appeared slow because Evelyn who started will 20% of the chips got the
best of it in the early going, and then the tables turned once again.
>
> You may not agree with my logic, but I hope you now see how I arrived at my
> structure. Maybe this thread will start a dialog that will get the players
> heard on big buy-in tournament structure issues. We simply should never
> have to fade a structure like he had at the Bike again.
It makes sense. I wasn't aware of the strict guidlines the WPT had
as far as time was concerned.
Daniel Negreanu
www.fullcontactpoker.com
RTN4
wrote:
> The table took about 4 hours
>of play, which translated to about 5:15 of real time. I did get the sense
>that the crowd could not have taken too much more without becoming restless.
>I would like to hear from RGPers that were there on this issue.
Two points:
1. I sat through the entire event. The final table didn't start on
time, and from what I heard later there was an entire room full of
people back in the tournament area waiting around (through a lottery
of sorts) to get a seat. A lot of people were shut out, and when some
finally did get in they were already tired from the late start and
having to wait.
Being able to take rest room breaks when they had TV time outs was the
only reason I stayed. I was able to get someone to save my seat
(otherwise they would fill your empty seat with someone on the waiting
list) while I stretched my legs and splashed some cold water on my
face. Otherwise I never would have bothered sticking around.
I thought the play was slow and boring in the beginning. It just took
too long to get going. It took too long to bust the first player.
Personally, I would much rather see a couple of players bust out
rather quickly and then watch three or four big stacks battle it out
with enough time to make the play interesting without, like you said,
having to stack off every hand and watch a close race. But this
isn't that big of a deal.
To me, the play was the most interesting when it was three-handed,
after Mel spiked the Jack to stay in the game.
2. Lowering the blinds to 2500-5000, in my opinion, is wholly unfair
to the big stacks. This gives the smaller, average stacks, a chance
to crawl back into the game. Others will probably disagree. I know
I would be a little miffed if I came in with 700,000 in chips and then
got to see the blinds reduced instead of being raised. At 6000-12000
and a 1000 ante, (with the blinds about to go up in 30 minutes) you've
got the stacks with 200,000 or less on the ropes, but by lowering the
blinds and antes a lot of your edge has been relinquished just for the
sake of television. If I was one of the short stacks, like Chip Jett
and Mel Judah, I would be thrilled at this revelation. I was amazed
how long the short stacks lasted. I've never seen Chip Jett play so
tightly. I thought he played his short stack quite well, as did Mel.
The revised structure gave them a chance they didn't really deserve.
When you've been playing poker for two days with a certain structure
and then to have that structure ratcheted back, well this is something
that doesn't sit very well with me. The short stacks had lots of time
to try and make a comeback, and one of them, Mel Judah, eventually
did. I'm not saying he still couldn't have won, but how would he have
fared had the blinds started at 6000-12,000 and soon to be
10,000-20,000? They certainly couldn't have waited around as long as
they did. They would have had to make their moves a lot sooner, and
this is to the advantage of the big stacks. A situation that the big
stacks earned the right to be in.
It seems that the players are giving up an awful lot for the sake of
being on television. They get no added money, or anything else in the
way of compensation except for a seat in to the 25k tourney at the
Bellagio, and the money for that might even come from the prize pool
as far as I know. At the very least the final table should get a free
buy-in to the next or any other WPT event of their choosing. There
are many options like this that should be considered. And this should
be at the expense of the production company or its advertisers, and
not come out of the pockets of the players--like everything else does
nowadays.
All of these considerations that you had to muddle through for the
sake of an interesting and cost effective television production come
at the expense of those who collectively put up 5k of their "own"
money. What do we, the players, get in return? Face time on TV? The
"promise" of future added money, or an influx of dead money into
tournaments? Perhaps we're to be content with all of the new players
that are being attracted to the game. New players who I have failed
to recognize in higher limit sections of Southern California. But
none of this really interests me. When I'm playing for 250k (or more)
I want a structure with as much skill and fairness as possible, and I
could care less about someone's television problems.
That being said, the reality of the situation is that these WPT events
are being televised and we have to deal with that, so with this in
mind I'm pleased with the structure you came up with. You are right
about one thing. As a spectator I couldn't have sat there much
longer. It's a good thing it ended when it did.
In the final analysis my opinion is this: I would rather see a little
bit faster play in the beginning and slower play toward the end. How
you would go about doing that is another question entirely.
One last thing: They should have chipped up a lot sooner than they
did. Shoving out five stacks of chips to bet $100,000 was a bit
awkward and time consuming. They could have introduced the 5000 chips
into the game a little bit at a time and never had to slow down the
action.
Howard Lederer
so I filled in. The WPT numbers all the hands, and keeps track of all the
betting. That way, when they choose a hand to use in the show, they have a
written record of all the action. It allows the announcers to report the
hand accurately, and Steve put up the correct graphics.
Howard Lederer
"Phil R" <anon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3f59e6b1$0$23202$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
Howard Lederer
in a 400 player event that has a great structure on the way down to 6
handed, and then a decent structure after that, as opposed to a 100 players
event with a great structure all the way. If we monkey with 13 final table
structures a year, but hundreds of other events a year are 50-300% bigger, I
would consider that a more than fair trade-off. I assume the day-in and
day-out action in Foxwoods is much bigger then a year ago.
As I understand it, the option of whether to use the structure for the final
6 is not optional. Last year's final at Foxwoods, ended at the 3000-6000
level with 890,000 in chips. The play started fast and then I caught a rush
to end it with little back and forth with Layne. With a different line-up
and some short stacks surviving some all-ins, it could have gone to the
10,000-20,000 level. I think with the 90 minute levels, it might have taken
over 8 hours of play time to finish, which would have translated to over ten
hours of real time. Nobody would have liked that.
Howard Lederer
"AlwaysAware" <alway...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030906132644...@mb-m15.aol.com...
Howard Lederer
"Rick Nebiolo" <ricknebiolo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2u9klvku2phc9976i...@4ax.com...
> This may have been answered in the various threads but have structures
> ever been rolled back or adjusted before at the final table of a big
> event? The idea of adjusting structures at the final table (or final
> six) of big events (or any event for that matter) to correlate to
> average stack size and the other stated factors seems like an idea
> whose time has come.
>
making the levels at the final table longer. But, last year on the WPT,
there were a few events that were obviously too high. They were rolled back
to accommodate the taping. The problem I had with that was it was too
arbitrary. I don't agree with changing the structure after the event
starts. Part of my motivation in setting this structure was that the final
table structure would be published before the tournament started. That way
anyone who didn't like it could not enter, but there would not be any
disputes later on. Of course, with the misinterpretation of the structure
at the Bike, there was some creative structure changing anyway.
> Do you think casinos hosting events will work with you (or a committee
> of top players) for molding the entire event structure? By "event
> structure" I mean all three or four days of the final event.
Some already have. I do think that players should have more input were
structures are concerned.
Howard Lederer
Howard Lederer
"Daniel Negreanu" <kidp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7220404a.03090...@posting.google.com...
> With 7 players remaining the blinds stopped going up for good, we
> actually played 1500-3000 for approximately five hours. The blinds
> should have continued to escalate and then revert back to the
> appropriate level for the taping. That is how it works now correct?
Freezing the levels was Bruno's idea. I'm sorry it ended up hurting you.
At this point, the WPT has almost no control over the structure prior to the
final 6. The tour has suggested that each event submit their structure to
the tour, and I have offered to look at it. I am not looking to make every
structure the same at each stop, diversity can be a good thing. But, I
would look for glaring problems and talk it over with them. If the Bike had
done that, I would predict that the structure there would have been much
better. Just adding 2 levels each day, while starting a little earlier
would have made a huge difference. Other than the events where I helped
craft the structures, I haven't seen any yet.
>
> It makes sense. I wasn't aware of the strict guidlines the WPT had
> as far as time was concerned.
Thanks for listening, I think that if the players get together on the issue
of structures we can make a difference.
Howard Lederer
Howard Lederer
"RTN4" <RT...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:crmklv4rhiumdacjl...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 04:31:02 -0700, "Howard Lederer" <hled...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> 1. I sat through the entire event. The final table didn't start on
> time, and from what I heard later there was an entire room full of
> people back in the tournament area waiting around (through a lottery
> of sorts) to get a seat. A lot of people were shut out, and when some
> finally did get in they were already tired from the late start and
> having to wait.
Starting on time would help.
> I thought the play was slow and boring in the beginning. It just took
> too long to get going. It took too long to bust the first player.
> Personally, I would much rather see a couple of players bust out
> rather quickly and then watch three or four big stacks battle it out
> with enough time to make the play interesting without, like you said,
> having to stack off every hand and watch a close race. But this
> isn't that big of a deal.
The early play was boring to watch live. But it will make for the best TV.
> To me, the play was the most interesting when it was three-handed,
> after Mel spiked the Jack to stay in the game.
I think the idea is to make sure the crowd isn't asleep when the cards start
to get turned over and the races for all the money happen.
>
> 2. Lowering the blinds to 2500-5000, in my opinion, is wholly unfair
> to the big stacks. This gives the smaller, average stacks, a chance
> to crawl back into the game. Others will probably disagree. I know
> I would be a little miffed if I came in with 700,000 in chips and then
> got to see the blinds reduced instead of being raised.
It was fair because it was the posted structure before the tourney started.
Second, I would disagree with your basic premise. While the other players
at the table were playing to move up, Paul was able to chip away at their
stacks without risking large portions of his chips. In a situation like
this, Paul would have loved for the blinds to never rise. He might have
been unbeatable in that scenario.
> It seems that the players are giving up an awful lot for the sake of
> being on television. They get no added money, or anything else in the
> way of compensation except for a seat in to the 25k tourney at the
> Bellagio, and the money for that might even come from the prize pool
> as far as I know. At the very least the final table should get a free
> buy-in to the next or any other WPT event of their choosing. There
> are many options like this that should be considered. And this should
> be at the expense of the production company or its advertisers, and
> not come out of the pockets of the players--like everything else does
> nowadays.
This is not a player compensation issue for me here. I just wanted to help
craft a structure that would make for the best TV. Whether players deserve
compensation, and how that should happen is a separate matter.
>
> That being said, the reality of the situation is that these WPT events
> are being televised and we have to deal with that, so with this in
> mind I'm pleased with the structure you came up with. You are right
> about one thing. As a spectator I couldn't have sat there much
> longer. It's a good thing it ended when it did.
I'm glad to hear that.
>
> In the final analysis my opinion is this: I would rather see a little
> bit faster play in the beginning and slower play toward the end. How
> you would go about doing that is another question entirely.
If you get started with a bang and then slow things down, you run the risk
of a very long night. You need some way to be sure it will end given a
moderate window- say 1.5 hours. If we are ever to go with some live
coverage this will be a big issue.
>
> One last thing: They should have chipped up a lot sooner than they
> did. Shoving out five stacks of chips to bet $100,000 was a bit
> awkward and time consuming. They could have introduced the 5000 chips
> into the game a little bit at a time and never had to slow down the
> action.
They didn't have 5000 chips. The big cash game that took over the high
section for the few days of the WPT event was using the tournament 5000
chips as markers. What they finally did, was bring the tournament $5 chips
and use them as 5000 chips. Watching three handed betting with 1.5 million
in chips in play, where the biggest chip on the table was 1000, was torture.
It also significantly slowed the game down.
Howard Lederer
Phil R
> Chris Ferguson is the WPT statistician. He did not make the trip to Paris
> so I filled in. The WPT numbers all the hands, and keeps track of all the
> betting. That way, when they choose a hand to use in the show, they have a
> written record of all the action. It allows the announcers to report the
> hand accurately, and Steve put up the correct graphics.
Thanks for taking the time to answer.
Rick Nebiolo
Good post.
<snip>
>In the final analysis my opinion is this: I would rather see a little
>bit faster play in the beginning and slower play toward the end. How
>you would go about doing that is another question entirely.
Change this to "a lot faster play in the beginning and somewhat slower
play during the middle to late middle and a lot slower toward the
end" and I'd agree 100%. But I'd go for this type of change in just
about any tournament. The first round or two in most is a snooze fest
(many players don't even bother to show up for the first round) and
the limits always seem way too high just when it matters most.
>One last thing: They should have chipped up a lot sooner than they
>did. Shoving out five stacks of chips to bet $100,000 was a bit
>awkward and time consuming. They could have introduced the 5000 chips
>into the game a little bit at a time and never had to slow down the
>action.
I wondered about this too. Maybe they wanted to add some sort of
drama for the TV audience.
~ Rick
d'Amphoux
> Chris Ferguson is the WPT statistician. He did not make the trip to Paris
> so I filled in. The WPT numbers all the hands, and keeps track of all the
> betting. That way, when they choose a hand to use in the show, they have a
> written record of all the action. It allows the announcers to report the
> hand accurately, and Steve put up the correct graphics.
>
Howard,
In the past, you have pointed out a couple action discrepancies from
what is broadcast versus what really transpired, and at least once or
twice I've seen some chip fluctuations at the table without knowing
the action behind it. Nothing major, but enough to know that there
had to be some good play in there. For those folks that care enough
about it, it would be great if the hand histories were posted
somewhere. If Chris is documenting it all, I'd even volunteer the
webspace, programming weenies and ongoing effort to get it done and
keep it going.
Heck, in Baseball you can find out how many times a pitcher adjusts
himself.
Cheers,
Michel "Mike" d'Amphoux
----
bust-...@hush.spam.com
gotta love the ladies, they're much easier to lay down if you have to
.------.
|Q_ .------.
|( \|Q . |
| \ | / \ |
| \|(_,_) |
`---| I Q|
`------'
Douglas Paterson
> Wednesday worked like clockwork. If Mel had not hit his
> Jack on the river, TJ and Paul would have been heads-up at about the 2:45
> minute mark. This would have led to a finish in about 3 to 3.5 hours- on
> the early side of perfect. As it turned out, Mel won the hand and then
went
> on to an improbable come-from-behind victory. The table took about 4
hours
> of play, which translated to about 5:15 of real time. I did get the sense
> that the crowd could not have taken too much more without becoming
restless.
> I would like to hear from RGPers that were there on this issue.
>
I'm one of those RGPers....
The timing "worked" for me; then again, I came to watch. It was my first
time for such an event (televised final table), so I had no expectations. I
knew actual table time would be more than the two hours minus commercials,
commentary, etc., that make it into the final show, but no idea by how much.
The associate producers (?) did a fair job of taking care of those of us
waiting to get in. Everyone drew a number, they called for batches of
people in tens or so to wait outside the taping area, first come/first
served. In the mean time, we could watch via closed circuit (evidently the
same feed that was on the monitors in front of the audience). I watched
from the other room from the start; I got in right as Chip Jett finished
4th. I wasn't watching the time, but I think it was around 2 hours or so
from that point.
Bottom line, I had a great time and no regrets on the timing. I may not
represent the "average" audience member, though, since I really didn't care
how long it took, I intended to watch until the end. In that regard, I'm
*glad* others felt differently--otherwise I never would have gotten in!
--
Doug
"Where am I to go/Now that I've gone too far?" -- Golden Earring, "Twilight
Zone"
(my email is spam-proofed; read the address and make the appropriate change
to contact me)
Douglas Paterson
news:crmklv4rhiumdacjl...@4ax.com...
>
> One last thing: They should have chipped up a lot sooner than they
> did. Shoving out five stacks of chips to bet $100,000 was a bit
> awkward and time consuming. They could have introduced the 5000 chips
> into the game a little bit at a time and never had to slow down the
> action.
At one point they announced the reason for that was that the $5K chips were
all in play at a big cash game. That surprised me, since I assumed the
tournament chips were "fake" chips--i.e., solely for tournament use. I'd
think there could be an issue (more to the point, the *possibility* of an
issue) with real chips from a tournament pool going "missing" from the
tournament table and showing up in someone's hand at the cashier. No, I
don't think anyone who plays seriously enough for the serious money involved
at the final table is a thief or would risk the consequences for a measly
$5K chip or two... but this is exactly the sort of thing that casinos are
notoriously paranoid about.
Since then, I've assumed the chips active in the cash game were precisely
the reason they weren't used--they presumably know whenever $5K chips are
taken out of the cage, and if it's only for tournament play, then they're
"uncashable." But I don't really know. I think Howard Lederer posted
elsewhere that they used $5 as $5K chips....
Steve Bortnyck
I have been reading with interest some of your points about the plus and
minuses of formats. I was wondering if you had considered a floating blind
structure?
You seem to like the 50 times blind structure to start with, how about if
you just extended it to different levels? Or change the 50 to something
else if you like? You could reset the blinds based on the number of people
left versus chips, or perhaps the chip median/chip mean for example.
The reason I am asking, is that you want to have play from the opponents
that is interesting to the viewer right? That is the number one concern of
the TV producers. Secondly, you want to be fair to the players. Thirdly
you want to keep an audience in their seats.
With a floating structure, the play would proceed at the pace you like, no
matter how the game went. And time could also be introduced. It could be
an either/or format. If the play proceeds too slowly, the blinds go up
faster. If players are being eliminated, blinds could go up slower perhaps?
just a thought,
steve