Tourney idea: want feedback/thoughts

[Handsumm]

I recently had an idea for a $100 buy-in 10 Ball Ring Game.

The format would be this....
32 player field (or possibly 64 players)
1st round would be 8 groups of 4 players. Each player has 10 $1 chips. The 5 ball would be worth $1 and the 10 would be worth $2. Players would draw high ball for break. Each early pocketed money ball would be spotted. No push outs. No intentional safeties, etc (like a regular ring game). Winner of first round would be last man standing (having $40 in chips obviously).

2nd round
with 8 players remaining, there would be two groups of four with each player starting with $20 in chips. Again, the values would be $1 on the 5 and $2 on the ten.

Finals Head-to-head with each player starting with $40 in chips.
$2 on the 5 and $5 on the ten.

Payouts (based on 32 man field)

1st - $1200
2nd- $800
3rd-8th- $200

What do you guys think?

 

[Handsumm]

Nobody? at all?

 

[Drew]

Sounds like a good tournament...I'd play. Filling 32 spots could be tricky though.

 

[Handsumm]

Sounds like a good tournament...I'd play. Filling 32 spots could be tricky though.

I believe I could get 32 players around this area (Vancouver/Portland) and a lot of guys would come done from Seattle.

 

[mailman]

I believe I could get 32 players around this area (Vancouver/Portland) and a lot of guys would come done from Seattle.

Vancouver, WA is an excellent, centrally-located spot to draw hotshots from Eugene, OR, all the way up to Vancouver, BC, if the payouts and tournament conditions make the travel (2-6 hours) and overnight stay worthwhile. There is nothing wrong with your concept, except that maybe some kind of scaled adjustment can be made on the payouts for 3rd-8th places. Also, you might consider advancing 2 players from each group of 4 to expand tournament play a bit -- this might also entice more players, as they may feel they have a better chance of advancement.

Heck -- JUST DO IT! Even if you don't fill all 32 positions, you can make adjustments and, at least, get this off the ground. You will be able to use the first tournament to get feedback from the participants, iron out the bugs and make a FAR BETTER 2nd tournament in the future. Sounds to me like you could run these about every 3 months.

Best of luck to you!

 

[Drew]

Vancouver, WA is an excellent, centrally-located spot to draw hotshots from Eugene, OR, all the way up to Vancouver, BC, if the payouts and tournament conditions make the travel (2-6 hours) and overnight stay worthwhile. There is nothing wrong with your concept, except that maybe some kind of scaled adjustment can be made on the payouts for 3rd-8th places. Also, you might consider advancing 2 players from each group of 4 to expand tournament play a bit -- this might also entice more players, as they may feel they have a better chance of advancement.

Heck -- JUST DO IT! Even if you don't fill all 32 positions, you can make adjustments and, at least, get this off the ground. You will be able to use the first tournament to get feedback from the participants, iron out the bugs and make a FAR BETTER 2nd tournament in the future. Sounds to me like you could run these about every 3 months.

Best of luck to you!

In his format, there are basically only 4 different placings. 1st, 2nd, 3rd-8th tie for 3rd, and 9th-32nd tie for 9th, . Unless you have the eliminated players play for different positions after they're already out of the main action.

 

[arsenius]

Hmmm, my original reaction was that it would take a long time, but I misread your post, thinking you would start with $40 in chips (where did I get that number?!).

My new reaction is that it might be a little short. How do you gain chips? I've played two types of ring games. 1.)Everyone pays on every ball (5 ball net worth $7, 10 ball net worth $14) and also where only the missing player pays (5 is worth $1, 10 worth $2).

With 8 men, it is very conceiveable that you would never get a shot in the first scenario. If you were at the end of the rotation paying on every ball, that is $3 per game, that's only 3.3 games. With good players the 2nd player could possibly not shoot before the 8th man was out of the tourney. I'd be mighty pissed losing $100 without getting close to shooting.

I think you still might have some issues to sort out with regards to time. I've seen the ring game videos from the DCC and they have to cut it short quite often, which is irritating.

Sounds really neat though. I like the idea of the chips, maybe it can steal some of poker's popularity.

 

[Bigtruck]

Texas Ring Games....

We have been doing a $100 buy in 10 ball ring game the Friday night before our monthly 9 Ball Tournament. We have been playing up to 6 players a table. We issue $1,000 in poker chips for your entry and play for chips until that last man has all the chip. Texas Hold'em style. It's a blast! Tour Director and major influence to my event Lewis Jones of the Fast Eddies 9 Ball Tour does a $200. ring game before his 9 Ball events. Same format.

Best Wishes with your event!

Ray

 

[arsenius]

We have been doing a $100 buy in 10 ball ring game the Friday night before our monthly 9 Ball Tournament. We have been playing up to 6 players a table. We issue $1,000 in poker chips for your entry and play for chips until that last man has all the chip. Texas Hold'em style. It's a blast! Tour Director and major influence to my event Lewis Jones of the Fast Eddies 9 Ball Tour does a $200. ring game before his 9 Ball events. Same format.

Best Wishes with your event!

Ray

I don't understand. When you say "texas holdem style" are you just talking about the ending, or the actual betting? Is it a fixed forced bet, or can they bet whatever they want? "I've got $200 that says I get out from here"?

 

[Snapshot9]

Well ....

Getting 32 at $100 will be hard. Usually only fairly good players play ring games, and a good player getting in front an idiot would get mad since this idiot might sell out the table, and the player would never get up again.

8 players is too many in a ring game. 6 is the most on a bar table. Have heard of 8 on a big table, but 3-4 on them didn't like it. Personally, I think 5-6 players on a bar table is the best game.

I think I would start smaller than 32 players. You could try one with 8 players, 2 groups of 4, with the top 2 advancing for a final group of 4.

Shooters, here in Wichita, has a standing offer for a 'Last Man Standing'
tournament with 4-8 players anytime. They have 3 modes, $20, $50, or
$100 entry, and payout accordingly. The guy working tournaments usually keeps score (just draws a spreadsheet type form). They pay 1st and 2nd usually. For example, a $100 entry with 6 players would pay like $450 and $150.

They had one a few months ago with $200 entry, 8 players, that paid well.

Your concept is good, but 32 players will be hard to get at $100 per.

 

[Handsumm]

I don't understand. When you say "texas holdem style" are you just talking about the ending, or the actual betting? Is it a fixed forced bet, or can they bet whatever they want? "I've got $200 that says I get out from here"?

No, it's Texas Hold 'Em style, because you would have to post blinds and would have to go "All In" when you get down to the felt.

 

[Handsumm]

Hmmm, my original reaction was that it would take a long time, but I misread your post, thinking you would start with $40 in chips (where did I get that number?!).

My new reaction is that it might be a little short. How do you gain chips? I've played two types of ring games. 1.)Everyone pays on every ball (5 ball net worth $7, 10 ball net worth $14) and also where only the missing player pays (5 is worth $1, 10 worth $2).

With 8 men, it is very conceiveable that you would never get a shot in the first scenario. If you were at the end of the rotation paying on every ball, that is $3 per game, that's only 3.3 games. With good players the 2nd player could possibly not shoot before the 8th man was out of the tourney. I'd be mighty pissed losing $100 without getting close to shooting.

I think you still might have some issues to sort out with regards to time. I've seen the ring game videos from the DCC and they have to cut it short quite often, which is irritating.

Sounds really neat though. I like the idea of the chips, maybe it can steal some of poker's popularity.

I said 8 groups of 4 players. I am sure that everyone would get a shot at the table. I could give them more chips though. Maybe $20 in chips would be better, if the values are 5=$1 and 10=$2.

 

[mailman]

In his format, there are basically only 4 different placings. 1st, 2nd, 3rd-8th tie for 3rd, and 9th-32nd tie for 9th, . Unless you have the eliminated players play for different positions after they're already out of the main action.

Yeah, yer right! Thanks for pointing this out -- I was still (idiotically) thinking in terms of double-elim. And if he advanced TWO per round, as I suggested, then the payout would be 1st, 2nd, tie for 3rd (3rd-4th) and tie for 5th (5th-8th) -- not a heck of a lot different. Lessee now, using the "Rule of 78s" as a guide for breaking down multiple payouts, it might look like this (and from here, preferred adjustments can be made):

1st -- $711.11
2nd -- $622.22
3rd -- $488.88
4th -- $488.88
5th -- $222.22
6th -- $222.22
7th -- $222.22
8th -- $222.22

Of course, this adds up to $3199.97, but close enough for "Gummit" work. Now, if you use the 40-30-20-10 method, you get:

1st -- $1280
2nd -- $960
3rd -- $320
4th -- $320
5th -- $80
6th -- $80
7th -- $80
8th -- $80

Just ruminating -- I really think he should advance TWO per 4-man group instead of just one.

 

[mailman]

I said 8 groups of 4 players. I am sure that everyone would get a shot at the table. I could give them more chips though. Maybe $20 in chips would be better, if the values are 5=$1 and 10=$2.

Most of the ring game players I have run into here in the PacNW really dislike games with more than 5 players and much prefer 3-4 players. I think your 4-man groups are EXACTLY right!

Most of these guys don't really care how much they play for, except maybe, the more the better. Me, I don't have deep pockets, so I have had to figure out a method to cut my losses if I'm not doing well. At the same time, I have to risk enough to give myself a chance to stay in if it so happens that I'm in good stroke and position.

I have found that, if I take the sum of the money balls (e.g., $1 on the 5 plus $2 on the 9 = $3), multiply by 7 (7 x $3 = $21), and round up to the next $5 ($21 rounded up = $25), this is what I need to set aside and risk in a $1 - $2 ring game. If it's $3 -$5, then $8 x 7 = $56, so $60 is my risk capital for this particular ring game.

I figure that, if I can't at least get just ONE 5-ball in 7 games (gets me 1 or 2 more games), I don't belong there. With this in mind, I say, give each of the players $30 in chips (assuming the 5 = $1 and the 10 = $2) for each round of play and go on with your Texas Hold'em idea in each round.

Also, I really believe you should advance TWO from each 4-man group per round. Sure, this will expand/increase the number of rounds played, but now, each round can be ended (shortened) as soon as two are still standing and two ae out. For a $100 buy-in and possibly a long trip, a guy needs to feel he has a real skill-based opportunity to advance, and not just get nailed by some player's luck or a poor rotational position in the first round.

 

[StevenPWaldon]

I think the concept is great. It might need refining, such as the suggestions that more than one person advance from the earlier stages of the groups... similar to how the WPC acts.

I can't see it initially finding a following as a local tournament sort of a thing, but I can see it as a small regional event.

The advantages I see are pretty good. I think it would inject some enthusiasm from players -- it would retain the tournament regulars who just plain enjoy tournaments (and cashing in). It might also regain the people who got burnt out from the tournament scene -- either by reigniting their passion and chance for cashing in, or by adding an element of fun (yes, I said fun) to the game. Most 9-ball tournaments are routine and almost like work. Ring games are more social, there's more of an element of making pressure shots, and making overly tough/aggressive/showmanship shots.

If there were something like that in the Manhattan area, I'd play even with all the world beaters here. Some people think it's both fun and a privilege to play with pro-caliber players, so the chance to play with several of them might just be more fun? Who knows. I'd jump at the chance. Maybe not at $100 entry if I just wanted to have fun, but if it were an occassional thing I don't see why not.

Bottom line: Love the idea.