Update on the Des Moines pool scene

TheMadScientist

Justin Richardson
Silver Member
I know how you did it Mikey. It wasn't right. If your table went for 6 blind levels, that would make my table play about 3 extra games. That's good for my chip count if I'm winning but not if I'm losing.
 

mikeyfrost

Socially Aware
Silver Member
Yeah but you can also make the same case on why would people keep playing at my table when they cant win as many chips. If you have 4 people at your table you only have to win 1 our of every 4 games to stay even, if I have 3 people I have to win 1 out of every 3 games to stay even, so why keep playing if you were us. Thats why it didnt make sense to us...thats like penalizing a table potentially if someone has a hot stick.

My new solution is going to be simple because I'm basing the tables on total chip counts. That will solve this issue. If there are 120 chips total at one table, there better be a 120 chips total at the other table or something really close. That way both tables can play down to 3 and there is no chip advantage overall gained or lost. If there are an uneven amount of shortstacks that doesnt matter when you do it this way. Each starting table should have about the same amount of chips. No way in hell am I blowing my stack off again or pumping someone else up because another table is splitting all their games.

Would it be fair if 1 table has 5 people at it and they all are winning 1 out of every 5 games so they are staying pretty even. Meanwhile on the other table someone is hot and eliminates the whole table. Is that fair to u? Sure isnt fair to me.
 

Mike B.

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Would it be fair if 1 table has 5 people at it and they all are winning 1 out of every 5 games so they are staying pretty even. Meanwhile on the other table someone is hot and eliminates the whole table. Is that fair to u? Sure isnt fair to me.

That is the nature of the beast though, or luck of the draw.

The more I think about it, the Total chip count on the table is not as important. The important thing is that for every game you win, you are getting paid the same as the other tables. So, if there are three tables with 6, 6, and 6 players, each win is worth 5 chips. Let's say someone gets hot, or two players are cold, and two players are eliminated from one table. Now there are 6, 6 and 4 players. So now, if someone wins a game on table 3, it is only worth 3 chips and if someone wins on the other two tables it is worth 5 chips. Not fair at all. The total chips at the table has nothing to do with how many chips you win per game, only the antes influence that.

Maybe I am missing something here, and that is quite possible since I have never played in a ring game tournament...
 

mikeyfrost

Socially Aware
Silver Member
That is the nature of the beast though, or luck of the draw.

The more I think about it, the Total chip count on the table is not as important. The important thing is that for every game you win, you are getting paid the same as the other tables. So, if there are three tables with 6, 6, and 6 players, each win is worth 5 chips. Let's say someone gets hot, or two players are cold, and two players are eliminated from one table. Now there are 6, 6 and 4 players. So now, if someone wins a game on table 3, it is only worth 3 chips and if someone wins on the other two tables it is worth 5 chips. Not fair at all. The total chips at the table has nothing to do with how many chips you win per game, only the antes influence that.

Maybe I am missing something here, and that is quite possible since I have never played in a ring game tournament...

You got it for the most part, that's why I was frustrated because people wanted us to keep playing and we had more risk than the other table. The reason though that total chip count matters is because once you combine the last table you want everyone to have a fair shot. It's not so fair if say you have 240 total chips in play, well what if to keep the numbers even you have 180 chips in play at one table and 60 chips left in play at another table, just because we are trying to keep the people balanced out. Well once you get to your final 6 people still playing you have 3 guys with 60 chips total and 3 guys with 180 chips total...the 3 guys from the table with more chips probably start with a nice chip advantage. Totally random only works in the beginning. After that the table changes have to make sense.
 

Mike B.

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I've only played in a few poker tournaments, but isn't this the same scenario as a multi table tournament? As players are eliminated the tables are balanced, and isn't that done randomly?
 

mikeyfrost

Socially Aware
Silver Member
I've only played in a few poker tournaments, but isn't this the same scenario as a multi table tournament? As players are eliminated the tables are balanced, and isn't that done randomly?

In a poker tourney you only get moved after your table is closed. Tables are closed by tournament officials. You then automatically go to the first available open seat at a non closed table. Only random seat in a poker tourney is your first seat. Thats the way they do it in person.

Obviously some tables are going to be a bit tougher than other tables in a ring game. Maintaining a balance is important to the overall enjoyment of the tourney. For some odd reason people don't wanna keep the A players separate from the rest of the group. I'm all about that.
 

crawfish

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
In a poker tourney you only get moved after your table is closed. Tables are closed by tournament officials. You then automatically go to the first available open seat at a non closed table. Only random seat in a poker tourney is your first seat. Thats the way they do it in person.

Obviously some tables are going to be a bit tougher than other tables in a ring game. Maintaining a balance is important to the overall enjoyment of the tourney. For some odd reason people don't wanna keep the A players separate from the rest of the group. I'm all about that.
Mikey, will you let "C" players in? Just in case I'm back in there soon.
 

ykndoit

UnRegistered Abuser
Silver Member
You need to keep the tables even(same amount of players at each table within one). All being done at a random draw.

Any other way you try to even out the tables, you would be favoring someone.

I am planning on coming on the 27th to donate barring that the wifey don't have other "plans" for me.
 

mikeyfrost

Socially Aware
Silver Member
OK I gotta say if you didn't play you shouldnt tell me what I gotta do. Thats all. I'm up for suggestions and improvements but not in the mood to be dictated to.
 

ykndoit

UnRegistered Abuser
Silver Member
OK I gotta say if you didn't play you shouldnt tell me what I gotta do. Thats all. I'm up for suggestions and improvements but not in the mood to be dictated to.

you don't need to be "in the mood" to make sense....

If you try to even the tables by chips, your favoring the people who don't have as many(killing the hot stick). If your putting all the a's and b's on seperate tables AND giving the b players extra chips, your favoring the b players. If your waiting for another table to get to a certain amount of people but still keeping the anties increasing due to time, you are favoring the faster players.

I will rephrase my statement for Mr. Sensitive.....

In order of fairness, you "SHOULD" /"MIGHT WANNA CONSIDER"/ "ALSO THINK ABOUT" keeping the tables with the same number of people with a random draw.
 

Mike B.

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
OK I gotta say if you didn't play you shouldnt tell me what I gotta do. Thats all. I'm up for suggestions and improvements but not in the mood to be dictated to.

I didn't see a smiley or "LOL" after this, but I hope you're not serious. Not too long ago you were asking for opinions on how it should be ran...just because someone didn't play in the last one doesn't mean they can't have ideas/thoughts for the next one.
 

mikeyfrost

Socially Aware
Silver Member
I've got a vision for this game...I've played in them before, I've seen them run very well and I'm just trying to emulate the good things I've seen. I can already foresee the situation that will occur when it gets down to the last 6 people and someone has a 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 chip advantage on the next closest guy. That shouldnt be able to happen. If you're just worried about keeping the tables even, how do you decide which player has to leave their current table? At what point do you not worry about it? If someone has 4 chips left on a 4 chip ante but that table has 5 people, do you move them over to the table with 3 people for 1 game? Does it make more sense to let the table with 3 wait until the next table change, and let the other table play down to 3. The right mix of this could have the tables so unbalanced it's not fair to anyone.

I've gotta think about the flow of the chips and come up with something that makes better sense that is easily explainable. There's more to it than making sure the ante and amount you can win is the same on each table at any given moment.
 

jingle

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I know I didn't play last week Frost, but here is my 2 cents anyway. I'm sure there are flaws with this idea too, but why not eliminate the movement of players altogether? Break up the initial (random) table assignments into small enough groups they are manageable and have each table play down to 1 person who will qualify for the final table. This way everyone at the "final table" should start with roughly the same number of chips. The one flaw I see with this is there would be more luck-of-the-draw with the initial random table assignment. But, you bust that table and make it to the final table and you should be fairly evenly stacked with everyone else there. :wink:
 

mikeyfrost

Socially Aware
Silver Member
I know I didn't play last week Frost, but here is my 2 cents anyway. I'm sure there are flaws with this idea too, but why not eliminate the movement of players altogether? Break up the initial (random) table assignments into small enough groups they are manageable and have each table play down to 1 person who will qualify for the final table. This way everyone at the "final table" should start with roughly the same number of chips. The one flaw I see with this is there would be more luck-of-the-draw with the initial random table assignment. But, you bust that table and make it to the final table and you should be fairly evenly stacked with everyone else there. :wink:

Jason you are getting there...thats a great idea...I dont think the layout of Big Dogs will lend itself to that but I do like it. The key for me is to minimize the difference in chips for the latter rounds and table changes. Good idea, I kinda want to incorporate this into our way of moving tables and stuff. Will think about this more for sure.
 

chefjeff

If not now...
Silver Member
Why don't you just have the security boys come over and shark the leading player on each table? That would even things out, wouldn't it?

Jeff Livingston
 

mikeyfrost

Socially Aware
Silver Member
Why don't you just have the security boys come over and shark the leading player on each table? That would even things out, wouldn't it?

Jeff Livingston

LOL I know right,you should come and shark them while they are checking IDs. Everytime they go to check one you can ask a question, say random dates of birth, or just slap the IDs on the floor until you get banned. That would be some funny stuff. You'd be a legend forever.
 

TheMadScientist

Justin Richardson
Silver Member
I wasn't refering to the stoppage of play when you were waiting for a player from my table. My post was about the hourly breaks where the middle table always stopped first. It made for about 20 minutes of extra play for my table in total. This was good for my only because I was winning. There should be a timer that goes off so it is random which table plays a little longer each break.
 

SnapdaNine

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
What's up fellas? I will be in town this weekend, my daughter and son both have the softball/baseball state tourneys in Des Moines, but I don't know if I'll be able to stop by. With any luck I'll see you boys soon......:smile:
 

mikeyfrost

Socially Aware
Silver Member
I wasn't refering to the stoppage of play when you were waiting for a player from my table. My post was about the hourly breaks where the middle table always stopped first. It made for about 20 minutes of extra play for my table in total. This was good for my only because I was winning. There should be a timer that goes off so it is random which table plays a little longer each break.

Sorry my table was so cognizant of the time. My table got racks done a lot quicker than the other tables anyways. If we stop at the agreed upon time and it takes everyone else 5 or so minutes to catch up who's fault is that. We can get a timer though for the next one, I prolly have one in my kitchen somewhere.
 
Top