Poker Forum > General Discussion
WCOAP 2015 - Cash Tournament Feedback
Paulie_D:
--- Quote ---
I did have one reservation about the format played at WCOAP. I really did not understand the utility of an arbitrary pause of the clock in the last ten minutes, followed by a count of the stacks, followed by five more hands. I understand that this gave people an idea of what they were aiming for in order to make the final table, but it gave a 20-minute pause in the action and I think it actually removed the flow of the game. Also, I don"t understand why the clock was paused instead of run down to zero and THEN count (if absolutely necessary) and then play the last five hands.
--- End quote ---
This is, as I recall, something the casino put in..not APAT.
They have specific reasons for doing so...and they did it during the WCOAP Main event too.
IrishTom:
--- Quote from: Paulie_D on April 16, 2015, 10:46:05 AM ---
--- Quote ---
I did have one reservation about the format played at WCOAP. I really did not understand the utility of an arbitrary pause of the clock in the last ten minutes, followed by a count of the stacks, followed by five more hands. I understand that this gave people an idea of what they were aiming for in order to make the final table, but it gave a 20-minute pause in the action and I think it actually removed the flow of the game. Also, I don"t understand why the clock was paused instead of run down to zero and THEN count (if absolutely necessary) and then play the last five hands.
--- End quote ---
This is, as I recall, something the casino put in..not APAT.
They have specific reasons for doing so...and they did it during the WCOAP Main event too.
--- End quote ---
As far as I"m aware guys this IS something APAT put in - when they devised the "cash tournament" initially - but Des or Leigh will be best placed to advise on this as I wasn"t around in those days.
However, even if it was instigated in the early days by 1 or more casinos, it most certainly was something I instigated in the events I"ve run since coming to APAT - including recent WCOAP.
Saying that I don"t think "the origins" really matter now - it is something that happens now.
Reading Gareth"s comments about his reservations, my view is that players want/need to know what they are aiming for, and because we have multiple tables, the way we achieve that is to decide "at a specific time" to do a chip count and then let the game play to complation after that - when players are then aware of what they need to aim for to qualify for the Final Table.
Of course, the "Top 8/10" stacks that we call out at this point can change in either direction - ie either up or down - so the "stop clock for last 5 hands" is a guide only at that given time. Of course we could also play out the full 3 hours, then do a count, then play the last 5 hands - but I don"t see that being any different to what we do now except have 10 mins or so more playing time - and of course we could do it "earlier" than last 5 hands - then that could/would be too early and counter-productive (ie stacks could have changed soooo much that you really have no idea of what you are aiming for)?
I would add that Des devised this concept (and developed with Leigh etc I believe), and at a guess I think it came from a "tournament perspective" to give tournament players an opportunity to experience "cash" - and I"m sure they"ll correct me if wrong by maybe Des and Leigh are more "tournament" players than cash players - where I would consider myself foremost a cash player and therefore any "changes" I"ve implemented since picking up on this are probably from a more "cash" perspective - therefore I believe it started out more with a "tournament" feel to it, but has moved more towards a "cash" feel to it.
Again thanks for all the feedback, we are listening and will continue to do so.
GGUK2008:
Very interesting, Tom. As long as there"s consistency over a series of these events I think there"s little room for complaint.
edit: And it was certainly a fun format!
Des:
This was my baby, not sure that anyone else fed into the initial proposition in too much detail - but it was clear that the idea would need to evolve over time. That said, happy to add my thoughts on a couple of areas that were discussed above that I continue to have an opinion on.
1) Event duration.
For me this is best ran as a one day event. I think momentum and information is important in this format, so to have a 24 or 48 hour delay between your qualifying, and the final, is an odd one for me.
2) End of the qualifying session.
Personally, I preferred when there wasn"t a chipcount or final x number of hands. For me, it"s about the players needing to maintain an awareness of where they are in the game across the final hour - by understanding the average stack sizes and how they compared. The imperfect information and session 1 deadline would encourage the fight or flight behaviour that was evident when we first ran this in the WCOAP. Now it seems a little too easy to decide.
3) Top ups.
It"s an APAT event, so personally I would limit top ups to 2 or 3 times the buy in. Otherwise an unlucky hand or two can wipe out a well planned strategy. And we don"t necessarily want lucky players winning this event, we want players who have best adapted to the format.
That aside, the objective of this event is to introduce tournament players (70% of all players) to cash. The fact that they"re playing with cash chips (so real value), fixed antes, the occasional straddle and the fact that they can stand up at any point and walk away with the money in front of them is more than enough to achieve this objective. I don"t think we need to allow unlimited reloads also. If anything, this will frighten some tournament players from giving the format a try.
4) Last longer.
I would award 100% of the last longer fees to the winner. A high percentage of players in this format will walk away with money - certainly far more than in a tournament (although some of those may walk away with less than they entered with). For me, we shouldn"t incentivise anyone to finish second.
Those points aside, I"ve been really pleased with the success of the format. Those who"ve played it, tend to strongly like it and offer opinions on how to improve it (always a good sign).
I thought John was a great winner at Aspers. Generally I wouldn"t like his mouthy approach in a normal APAT, but it seemed to be a useful tool in this event, and he won more by skill than luck. Particularly liked turning over the four in the hand against Sean that ultimately won him the bracelet. It was great theatre...and next year we just have to stream this event.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version