Poker Forum > Live Poker
Cash Tour Development - Finalise Format for DTD
MarkTheShark:
Hey Guys,
Again, an enjoyable Leg 2 of the Cash Tour at Cardiff - and well done to the winners - but again, plenty of feedback, suggestions and observations from the second Leg to dwell on and consider for onward development.
Below i list what was gleaned from Cardiff, and how we envisage we deal with them one by one - we"d then like your thoughts and further comments so that we can look to finalise the format for the Cash Tour Leg 3 at DTD :
Increase of Stack Allowance from £100 to £200
APAT : Players prefer the increased stack allowance, allows more play and in game strategy - no reason to return to £100. Ensure buyins/reloads are multiples of £50 though.
Allow Late Registration?
APAT : Currently not allowed - once tourney starts that is it. Any reason not to do this though? Propose allow Late Regs for first hour of play - closed thereafter
Tokens for unused Reloads
APAT : Must use "tokens" to indicate to players what rebuys players have left that are unused - helps players be aware of what opponents have available to them for decision making, and helps admin to identify who has what left. Specific generic tokens across Cash Tour Legs will help - APAT to provide.
Consider a deadline BEFORE the end of Phase 1 for rebuys to be used, or whether players wish to "stick" with what they have
APAT : We think this should be implemented. 20 minutes before Phase 1 ends, players must use up any remaining reloads or take them out of play and therefore unable to be used later or at final chip count. This means players know exactly where they are in terms of positioning and no player can chop/change decision about whether to use remaining cash or not.
Should Phase 2 players/Winner be determined by simple stack size or profit made
APAT : Strong suggestion that it should be "profit made" rather than simple "stack size" going thru to FT and to determine placings/winners - more admin involved - but gives truer reflection of actual winners - for eg a player sits with £50 and ends up with £250 - player sits with £200 and ends up with £251 - belief is that PLayer A is more deserving of winning or going forward than Player B. We agree with this but in most cases one will lead to another. However, it should be clarified for onward events.
Should the tournaments be incentivised more to attract more support/taken more seriously? Only real incentive for reaching FT is the ability to play for further 2 hours - Champs Fee not really (yet?) sizeable enough to be attractive
APAT : More numbers would make the Champs Fee more attractive - but we will look to award a specially designed prize to Cash Tour winners to mark their achievement - past Season 7 winners will be retrospectively presented with these when they are ready.
Is holding this on the Friday restricting numbers?
APAT : Potentially - it means special effort to get there for this alone, extra night accomodation - chance to "do" £200 before weekend really starts......would it maybe be better starting at (say) 10pm Saturday night - by which time 75% of ME players eliminated - play Phase 1 on Saturday night - complete P1 for 1am (same time as Main Event) - and complete Phase 2 on Sunday - start at midday (1 table of 8 only) - so finished for 2pm - meaning can still play PLO side event as well? May attract more players into it who are "already there" - saves the extra night for players - or just play through on the Saturday night? Could make it a late one though.
For Dusk till Dawn we will look to move the starting time back from 6pm to 9pm to allow more eliminations from the 6-Max to play the Cash Tour - and we will look to trial the above proposed timings for the Cash Tour in Scotland at the APAT Scottish Championships.
Also :
Final Tables (Phase 2) will always start 8 handed - Phase 1 tables may not be - depending on number of runners. However we will look to keep these as close to 8 handed as possible - and with 18 starters, 2 x 9 is more practical than 3 x 6
Straddling - Should this be allowed or not.
Should Tournament or Cash Game Rules be applied
If there are any other material items to add to this, please let me know.
TheSnapper:
--- Quote from: MarkTheShark on August 07, 2013, 10:21:58 AM ---
Should Phase 2 players/Winner be determined by simple stack size or profit made
APAT : Strong suggestion that it should be "profit made" rather than simple "stack size" going thru to FT and to determine placings/winners - more admin involved - but gives truer reflection of actual winners - for eg a player sits with £50 and ends up with £250 - player sits with £200 and ends up with £251 - belief is that PLayer A is more deserving of winning or going forward than Player B. We agree with this but in most cases one will lead to another. However, it should be clarified for onward events.
--- End quote ---
The profit made option is akin to encouraging short-stacking, it may also cause FT to be a little shallower.
If we want this event to offer mass appeal, I suspect bigger stacks at FT will offer more appeal to online and live railers.
Also, it"s a competition to find the best cash game player, the main difference between tourney and cash play is stack depth, why would we dilute that and allow for a short stack "spin it up" strategy.
AMRN:
--- Quote from: TheSnapper on August 07, 2013, 13:45:04 PM ---
Also, it"s a competition to find the best cash game player, the main difference between tourney and cash play is stack depth, why would we dilute that and allow for a short stack "spin it up" strategy.
--- End quote ---
Some might say that this is a legitimate strategy, and just another element of cash poker. Personally I hate it, however it is a very common strategy, and is therefore a fundamental part of the cash game.
TheSnapper:
--- Quote from: AMRN on August 07, 2013, 13:53:58 PM ---
--- Quote from: TheSnapper on August 07, 2013, 13:45:04 PM ---
Also, it"s a competition to find the best cash game player, the main difference between tourney and cash play is stack depth, why would we dilute that and allow for a short stack "spin it up" strategy.
--- End quote ---
Some might say that this is a legitimate strategy, and just another element of cash poker. Personally I hate it, however it is a very common strategy, and is therefore a fundamental part of the cash game.
--- End quote ---
Not sure what legitimate means in this context but whatever, the reality is that shortstacking is the strategy of choice for players who lack the skills to survive in deepstack games. I"m not saying don"t allow this approach to the game, My point is, why provide a format that is advantageous to players who haven"t taken the stabilisers off their bike.
Paulie_D:
Surely (and I don"t play that much cash) the answer is to MAKE everyone take their full buy-ins if they have them available at the end of Session 1.
If they choose not to put it at risk is then an issue for them.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version