Online tournaments -- how long?

In a thread on RGP (which Google hasn't picked up yet), Badger writes,


"...how long should online tournaments last?


The main Pokerstars tournaments last about 3 hours. To me, that is an awful long online session....Pokerstars aims to soon be playing real-money tournaments with hundreds of

people...


But how much play can and should there be in an online tournament...


[Given a] $20 tournament with 500 people, how long should that last?"


I consult with PokerStars, and it seems we're in uncharted territory. How long would you be willing to play in a $20 buy-in tournament? How about a $100 buy-in? The basic dilemma is this: If the tournament is too short, many people will (rightfully) argue and complain that the quick escalation of betting limits turns the whole tournament into a crapshoot. If the tournament is too long, it's basically wasting people's time for not all that much money -- if one has an EV of one buy-in in a $20 tournament and the tournament lasts three hours, that's the equivalent of a good player playing 2-4 or 3-6 for the same period of time.


Thoughts? Tournament players, this is your chance to send a message to PokerStars before they open for real money.

I don't see any problem with $20 tournamets that last 3 hours. Most people (me included) don't play online tournaments to make money. I could care less how much I make. It's the experience which I am interested.


That said, there should be some kind of notation for how long the particular format I'm going to play is expected to last. If it's going to take about 1 hour to win, I want to know. If it's going to take 4 hours to win, I want to know.


- Andrew

It should last as long as a B+M tourny of the same specs lats. Why should online be any different?

For one thing, online poker deals way more hands per hour. PokerStars is pretty fast, although I haven't clocked it myself. An equivalent amount of time to b&m would actually mean around twice as many hands dealt.

The speed of online poker would obviously make its tournaments go faster than similar B&M tournaments. I think the key is to give the people who play for fun/experience enough play for their money while still having a blind structure that allows for solid poker at the end.


I don't have enough tournament experience to recommend a good blind structure, but I will say that I hate tournaments that start off with blinds so small that 6-8 people are seeing every flop without care, then when it gets down to 3 tables the blinds are so big you have to win almost every hand you play. It becomes total luck at the end and I think it's a real turnoff to players who invested their time to make it that far.


If it were my site, I would offer a variety of tournaments, different games, number of entrants, buy-ins, payouts, and blind structures until I figured out which worked the best.


Overall, I'd guess about an hour or two would be the most attractive tournament time for most people. If it's a tournament with a large field of entrants, then maybe they could spread it over a couple of days, similar to PokerPages' rounds 1,2, and 3 setup.


PG

Since more than twice as many hands appear to be dealt in online poker than B&M, the tournaments need not be as lengthy IMO. I'd be happy with tournament structures resulting in 60-90 minutes for $20, 2-3 hours for $40, 3-4 hours for $60...(all assuming no rebuys).

I think that the most time an online tournament should last is 4 hours, with a maximum of 150-200 players. I think for a 1 table satellite, you could offer a structure that would last about 2 hours, and if this was too slow for some, offer an alternative faster structure that would last about an hour.The key concept is the amount of play when it really matters.

Terrence, I think you answered your own question by saying that there are twice as many hands dealt online. This would equate to online tournaments lasting half as long as their B&M equivalent.

I've played on pokerstars and my only gripe about the structure is that there is not enough play later in the tournament.I've been 1 of the chip leaders in the tournament and still felt pressured by the blind/ante structure,where just 1 normal 3x BB raise would take over a third of my stack. At the moment, on every site, the final stages become a lottery where you choose a hand and pray. There's just no room to make good laydowns. I think, for real money, no matter what the buy in, there should be more play in the latter stages of the tournament.

I also agree with someone else on this thread about playing online tournaments to learn and develop. This is only possible if the structure has enough play to favour skilful players. The faster the structure, the more it favours getting lucky.

These comments concern pot and no limit holdem.

im playing POKERSTARS tounys 2 or more a day tyey do go fast over in about 2 hrs with 100 to 150 players . i beleive when they go live they need to have longer rouds . as most posters seem to say it does become a coplete crap shoot at the end .the big stacks dominate .and are able to raise at will with nothing IMO . I BELEIVE US AS PLAYERS CAN LET THE POWERS THAT BE KNOW WHAT WE WANT . ITS UP TO US . i beleive p s is on the right track lets give them some input as to our thoughts on this issue .

These are all valid comments, at least they promte debate. But now you need to send your comment to the site.


Regards,


Mark