|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 12/1/2008 3:55:31 PM PACIFIC |
 Can someone help with this 1?, h82lose, 1. Dec 2003 06:25 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Was in a home NL HoldEm tourney this past Sat. We had 15 people total. $250 buy-in, $1,000 chips Optional rebuy for $50 2 tables, one with 8 and one with 7. we were told we would go to 1 table when 8 people left. Here is the problem. The table of 7 went to 3 real quick (leaving 11 total players) The host had the table of 3 stop playing until our table went to 5. This took approx 45 minutes. I argued that we should have sent 2 people from our table to that one, making 1 table of 5 and 1 table of 6. He told me there was no advantage to anyone by them not playing for 45 minutes. I dont have any hard stats that could prove him wrong, but im sure there was some advantage to them not playing for 45 minutes. For one, the blinds that go around. I hope I explained this clearly. Does anyone here have any stats that show they did have an advantage by not playing? Every casino ive been in that has tourneys always break down tables, to ensure no dead time. Thanks in advance H82lose | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Can someone help with this 1?, ReMMy, 1. Dec 2003 08:10 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I play 2 table 18 person SnG's at PokerStars, everytime one table has 2 players more than the other, they move one person from the big table to the small. Sitting out one table is ridiculous, if I play a tourney, I want to see as many hands as I possibly can to maximize my edge over other players, otherwise the blinds get bigger and it becomes more of a crapshoot... You should suggest a different format next time, Good times, ReMMy | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Can someone help with this 1?, h82lose, 1. Dec 2003 08:16 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| thanks ReMMy. I totally agree. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Can someone help with this 1?, Wren, 1. Dec 2003 15:21 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Sitting the smaller table out there was absolutely unfair. Here are some of the examples illustrating how doing this can provide unfair advantages and/or disadvantages to a subset of the players: - As a general rule, all players at the short table obtain an advantage. This is because they are all guaranteed to outlast at least the "must-bust" subset of players from the larger table (in your case, 3 players) - Very small stacks at the short table obtain an incredible advantage. Take the extreme case of a player with 1 chip. He would almost certainly be eliminated within a round or two if the table kept on playing. However, he is now guaranteed to beat the must-bust players, and, depending on the prize structure & blinds when the tables merge together, might actually have a shot at moneying. - A solid players with a very large stack on the small table might actually have a disadvantage, because he is not able to take advantage of his situation and pick at the others. As a result, once the tables merge, he will not be as much of a "powerhouse". Again - unfair. There are more examples, but hopefully these are sufficient to provide some illumination for your illogical host. PS - How do I get in on this game???? :D on 1. Dec 2003 06:25 h82lose wrote: > Was in a home NL HoldEm tourney this past Sat. > > We had 15 people total. $250 buy-in, $1,000 chips > > Optional rebuy for $50 > > 2 tables, one with 8 and one with 7. > > we were told we would go to 1 table when 8 people left. > > Here is the problem. > > The table of 7 went to 3 real quick (leaving 11 total players) > > The host had the table of 3 stop playing until our table went to 5. > > This took approx 45 minutes. > > I argued that we should have sent 2 people from our table to that one, making 1 > table of 5 and 1 table of 6. > > He told me there was no advantage to anyone by them not playing for 45 > minutes. > > I dont have any hard stats that could prove him wrong, but im sure there was > some advantage to them not playing for 45 minutes. For one, the blinds that go > around. > > I hope I explained this clearly. Does anyone here have any stats that show they > did have an advantage by not playing? > > Every casino ive been in that has tourneys always break down tables, to ensure > no dead time. > > Thanks in advance > > H82lose | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Can someone help with this 1?, h82lose, 2. Dec 2003 09:23 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Wren, It was in the NH/Northeast Ma/Maine area. If your in that area, let me know and Ill drop a line next time we play. Thanks for the advice. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Can someone help with this 1?, Blazman, 2. Dec 2003 10:06 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| That is totally insane. If you really want to make it right you have to make both tables go hand for hand. 45 minutes has to be about 1/3 of the time in a 2 table tourney. It's unfair all the way around. I'm in CT let me know when you have the tournament again i'd love to play. I suck, you'll be able to take my money.. poker @ sherpabusiness.com | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network |
|