Who wants 2+2 heads-up competitions?

[gonores]

I want to play some heads-up matches with you guys...any interest?

Plan #1) 32, 64, or 128 person HU tourney. Arrange with opponent where and when to play (maybe play one round a week). I'm thinking $25 buy-in .5/1 matchs at Party. Each player only stands to lose $25 tops.

Plan #2) Have a 2+2 league. Take the top posters from the forum and have them draft teams of "eligible" players. Maybe make teams of 5 or 7 and face a different team each week in a series of HU matches. Obviously, this would be more capital-intensive for some players. Also, this would obviously need some more fleeshing-out, but you get the jist of it.

I'd be glad to spearhead either effort, but I'd like some feedback first.

Doug

[bunky9590]

I'm game. Though I would prefer heads up NLHE

You would probably have to run it lie the NCAA tourney.
Bracketize and get either 32 or 64 players.

[morgant]

i would be interest in playing, at least in this i won't know if i was the last picked like in kickball /images/graemlins/frown.gif.....

[JohnShaft]

I'd be interested gonores.

[Inthacup]

I'm in.

I was planning on doing a March Madness-style HU tourney next month, but some outside events are preventing me from doing that. Feel free to take that idea and run with it.

Cup

[GuyOnTilt]

I would prefer heads up NLHE.

Count me in as well. Though I would definitely prefer limit hold'em. Also, I think the bracket idea would be better than the captains one.

GoT

[Bob T.]

Sounds fun.

Bob T.

[BigEndian]

Im interested. Playing without progressibe blinds should be different.

I'd suggest keeping the first one pretty small - say 16-24 people. The matches are bound to last a while.

- Jim

[gonores]

Big,

The way it would be set up is 1 round per week. The competitors can set up their own game time.

[brian0729]

I would love to play the part of dead money. My HU game needs work, this sounds like a get place to get an education.

[Tosh]

I'm in. Could do with some heads up practice.

Just as an elimination winner takes all kind of thing, how about this format.

Everyone has $25 and we draw rounds and play $0.5/$1. Next week winners now have $50 and we play $1/$2, then $100 at $2/$4, $200 at $3/$6 and then $400 at $5/$10. This would be a 32 person tournament, obviously add more levels to extend the starting numbers.

Just throwing up ideas. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[AceHigh]

I'm interested if it's limit hold 'em.

I think some kind of round robin or league format would be best. That way everyone would get to play a few times.

[GuyOnTilt]

In a rake-free world, that would be the perfect format.

GoT

[gonores]

Agreed.

Lemme think about it. It looks like this thing as legs. I'm gonna go play some hoops and come up with something in a couple of hours.

Dooug

[Tosh]

Good point about the rake.

Suppose we could do everyone pays $25 to the organiser (someone very trustworthy /images/graemlins/smile.gif ). And we play the games on play money tables. Winner gets the $800 paid to them afterwards.

[GuyOnTilt]

That would work. Party and Party skins rake their play money tables too (pure genius), but we could buy in a couple a couple extra BB's to compensate.

GoT

[JTG51]

Party and Party skins rake their play money tables too...

Are you serious? I saw someone else post that a while back and thought it was a joke. What's the reasoning? Just getting players used to being raked so they don't notice it when they start playing real money?

[Gravy (Gravy Smoothie)]

The other option would be to have everyone play their games on play money tables, and the loser wires their money to the winner.

Count me in, BTW.

[Tosh]

Raking play money seems quite frankly ludicrous. As you say we could compensate by buying in for 30 instead of 25 BBs though.

The advantage of play money I guess is we can more easily set the buy in. If people aren't happy paying $25, we can make it $10/$20/$50 or whatever really.

[GuyOnTilt]

Are you serious? I saw someone else post that a while back and thought it was a joke. What's the reasoning? Just getting players used to being raked so they don't notice it when they start playing real money?

Completely serious. And yes, that would be my guess as to why. Makes sense when you think about it.

GoT

[JohnShaft]

The play money sounds like a great idea, I'm all for it.

UB's play headsup tables are great. Not raked either. (Nor are their 1c/2c)

[GuyOnTilt]

The advantage of play money I guess is we can more easily set the buy in. If people aren't happy paying $25, we can make it $10/$20/$50 or whatever really.

Good point, but it sounds like gonores has already decided that the buy-in's $25. Unless there's a huge outcry to lower it, I don't see why he would. Problem though: How are we going to get an empty play money table on Party and ensure that it stays HU? I don't even know if there are EVER any empty ones..

GoT

[bunky9590]

do it on Ultimate bet.

They don't rake play money and they have heads up 10-20 limit tables.

I have like 3 million in play money and I can pass around the amounts to each person, if need be. Anything to help.

[BugsBunny]

That'll work. Other options: UB .01/.02 Stars .02/.04

[GuyOnTilt]

I have like 3 million in play money and I can pass around the amounts to each person, if need be.

Sweetness. Sounds like we have at least one viable solution. You're the man, bunky!

Now the real issue at hand is, were you really one of those guys who spends hours and hours earning millions in play money???

GoT

[JTG51]

I have like 3 million in play money and I can pass around the amounts to each person, if need be. Anything to help.

LOL, that's extremely generous of you. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[JTG51]

I've got two issues.

First, I don't think it should be winner take all. I think the top four or eight depending on how many play should get paid.

Second, how are we going to transfer the money to the organizer? Party doesn't let you transfer less than $50 and UB doesn't let you transfer at all. I'd much rather do it electronically than send a check. In fact, I'm not sure I'd be willing to do it by check. Does anyone know an easy, free way to transfer the money? I'm pretty sure Paypal charges a fee to receive money, does anyone do it for free?

[bunky9590]

I love ya JTG, but still always the smart @$$.

LOL.

[morgant]

Mr. Shaft, i am with you on the UB suggestion, if it is play money and 2+2 vs. eachother, why not play on the best software on the net(not meant to start a debate just MHO)?

didnt read the rest o da thread when i wrote this, looks like most agreed w/UB

[BugsBunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm game. Though I would prefer heads up NLHE

[/ QUOTE ]

You would /images/graemlins/smile.gif But I suspect that people want practice in their limit game, since they don't usually get to play HU.

[bunky9590]

you have to email Memberservices with the account number and name of person to transfer and they will send it.

My wife has an account and they allowed the transfer to her account, I also transfered to a friend there as well.

You just have to do it through member services.

[JTG51]

OK, I stand corrected. I thought that I read somewhere here that they gave people a hard time about it though. It might be a good idea to make sure they are willing to make a large group of transfers before we commit to anything though.

[BugsBunny]

Stars

[Tosh]

I didn't actually know it was $50 minimum but I still reckon they might letus if we contacted them and asked them to do it for us.

[bunky9590]

Guilty as charged.

Not hours and hours, but played the NLHE games and destroyed people. I had like 10 million and gave away to friends to try the software and now have like 3 million left.

So I'm a freak.

funny part is, the play on the play tables, got me in a freeroll, I took 4th in the freeroll and won a whopping 14.60 in Aug.

Have since turned that 14.60 into..........

$1600.00 as of this afternoon. And they were wondering why I was destrying the play money games. LOL

[bunky9590]

I transfered $10.00 twice on UB.

[JohnShaft]

Bunky's right, UB don't have a problem with that.

In fact you can even transfer it yourself in your account page (not sure if you need a preferred account) and the minimum is a mere dollar.
All you need to do the transfer yourself is the person's UB name and first name.
The Transfer button is between Deposit and Withdraw on my Account page.
I've used it a few times, and it's like instant.

[JTG51]

OK, I stand corrected again, and again, and again. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Sounds like UB is by far the best place to do this.

[GuyOnTilt]

funny part is, the play on the play tables, got me in a freeroll, I took 4th in the freeroll and won a whopping 14.60 in Aug.

Have since turned that 14.60 into..........

$1600.00 as of this afternoon.

Wow, that's seriously impressive! Quite an RoI there. As someone who worked their way up from the micros with next to nothing as well, I appreciate the discipline it takes to do something like that. Keep up the good work!

GoT

[Trix]

nvm, better not

[bunky9590]

Thanks buddy!

Thats my online BR, currently playing 2-4 limit and 25 and 50NLHE.

For live games I have a 6-12 bankroll but take shots into the 10-20 when the games are good

[bunky9590]

DON'T DO THIS!!!!!!
You will get your account banned at UB if you try it.

I know 3 people that have been banned off for chip dumping instead of doing the transfer.

UB is more than happy to do it, just send a simple email.

[JTG51]

That's a very, very bad idea. Don't ever do it. That's a really good way to get your account closed and your money confiscated.

[Mike Haven]

i would warn you very strongly indeed that if you play on play money tables at a site that offers real money games and you later settle up privately, without paying the site real money rake for their services, there is not a shadow of doubt that you will be banned from the site and possibly have any funds you have at the site confiscated

i would assume that most sites have already read this thread and are already working out ways to spend your money

[JTG51]

Wow, thanks for the heads up Mike.

Time for a new plan guys.

[GuyOnTilt]

Thanks for the warning, Mike. Not sure what we'd do without you around here...

Sooooo, anybody got any bright ideas?

GoT

[bunky9590]

[BottlesOf]

I think people would play for pride (and the play/micro money) and just compete for the title/making it to the final four etc.

I don't think it would degenerate into a 2+2 party table pissing contest. Just my 2 cents...

[bunky9590]

Bragging rights rule.

I need to get a high seed for this baby. I'm nasty heads up.

[Tosh]

Thats a very good point. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Mike Haven]

as, basically, you need only a table or two to play your games, depending on your final format, and as i assume most of you use neteller or similar, i would suggest you consider doing a deal with a small site that would hope that some of you would hang around and play some of their ring games (which is where they make their money)

perhaps a site like victoriaspoker which has very few players but reasonable support (imo)

there are a few other reputable small sites around

[Tosh]

Ok 2 ideas. First if we are serious about it we approach a site, stars probably, to host a HU tournament for us. Second we play micro limit tables 0.01/0.02 or whatever and the winner merely gets the honour of winning.

[BugsBunny]

works for me

[gonores]

I like Tosh's idea of escalating limits. What if we did this...carry your balance to the next round. In other words, if you win your first .5/1 HU match after $5 in rake, you play the next round at 1/2 with $45 to start. That gives an advantage to someone who dominates in earlier rounds.

It can't be that hard to keep track of. When a match is over, post the victory and the final hand.

We pay a little more in rake, but then again, it'll keep the game worthwhile.

thoughts?

[JohnShaft]

What if we did this...carry your balance to the next round. In other words, if you win your first .5/1 HU match after $5 in rake, you play the next round at 1/2 with $45 to start. That gives an advantage to someone who dominates in earlier rounds.

I think the only problem gonores is "is this a fair definition of dominate?". (I hope I've understood what you meant.)

Quite simply you could dominate a match, while paying a whole lot of rake, as opposed to someone who was more passive and won it over a longer haul.
Not to mention the fact if you are playing an aggressive player you would pay more rake simply because the pots would be bigger. And as such, you would be penalised.
Anyone who has an aggressive style (or *plays* someone with an aggressive style) would likely lose out.

I don't think people should be rewarded because they paid less rake when it could have very little to do with how well they won their match.

[JohnShaft]

The one thing that needs clarifying, first of all, is are we playing the knockout Tourney, or the league?

I think the Tourney has less chance of people getting bored and giving up.

But the League has the advantage that everyone who is interested would get to play a good number of matches.
Think about it, you get knocked out in the first round (maybe you just played one of the better players) and you're done. Everyone else involved is still playing and having fun, and you're just a spectator.

I'm not sure, because of the above reason, I don't prefer a NFL style league, but where players play one or two matches against everyone in their league only (no Inter Division/Conference games).
We could then have the winners of each Division go through to the 'Playoffs' (maybe with some wildcards) where it plays on to the 'Superbowl'.

If it's needed I'd be willing to help out organise this thing if we go a more complicated route.

[JTG51]

John, I don't have a really strong feeling either way, but I agree that a league might be better. Working this into a team competition would, I think, add a lot of fun.

[Tosh]

When you say team competition do you mean something like this (or am I very much down the wrong lines...)

Say X teams of 3, 5 or 7. Each week players play other team on a best 2 out of 3, 3 out of 5 etc format and winning team gets a point. Everyone team plays every team and winner is obviously team with the most points.

[JTG51]

Yes, something like that is what I had in mind. Many smallish teams instead of two big ones like we have in the SS vs Zoo tourneys.

[JohnShaft]

Yeah I do like the idea JTG because it would make the whole competitions, and your team-mates, results more interesting.

Especially if say, you have 4 team-mates, and it goes down to the last match to decide if your team gets the point that week or the other team does.

It would be sort of like a penalty shoot-out where you are hoping your team gets a lead before you have to step up to the spot. And then you hope you don't bottle it.

Hmmm. I think I like it.

[gonores]

I'd really prefer a league, mostly because of reasons you said. However, there is going to be a bad result on one side or the other. Either it's going to be really capital-intensive for the micro players, or, if we go with play/super-micro stakes, play could get a little wacky.

[JohnShaft]

Either it's going to be really capital-intensive for the micro players, or, if we go with play/super-micro stakes, play could get a little wacky.

That's why I have no real interest in making it capital intensive to the point it puts off *anyone* who is seriously interested in playing.

My headsup experience is pretty limited, but I'll tell you what, I have *never* not tried to win and play my best game. Even for play money.
Maybe that's just me, and due to the fact I like to win, and hate to lose, so much.
But you are right, it hasn't stopped some at the 2+2 table from going nutzoid.

[GuyOnTilt]

This is a sweet idea. I love it!

GoT

[Christoferj]

I know gamespy have texas hold'em and there you acctually can make your own tournaments NL/PT or just limit... you should check taht out ! im in on the tourney or league sounds like a very good idea =)...

and they dont have any rake or anything thats the best 2 cents i can give ya =)

its of course free =)

[chim17]

I think that'd be fun.

I'd love to play, but am a bit worried I wouldn't really be able to afford it. Although 25 total loss would be np.

[Tosh]

As a separate point I think we should have more tournaments in general.

[Christoferj]

totally agree =)

[BugsBunny]

*If* we do go tourney I'd recommend making it a double elimination. A little harder to setup, but not much. If you lose a match you drop into the losers bracket. If you lose again you're done. Finals match the winner of the losers bracket against the winner of the winners bracket. Losers bracket winner has to win 2. Winners bracket winner only needs to win 1.

[eugeneel]

I would really like this, limit heads up is my game.

[The Dude]

Here's my idea for the tournament. Teams of X (must be odd number). Heads up matches vs. another team, and whichever team wins best of X advances to the next round. Random draw brackets.

My preference would be NLHE. For heads-up matches I think you pretty much have to go NL, right?

[JohnShaft]

Here's my idea for the tournament. Teams of X (must be odd number). Heads up matches vs. another team, and whichever team wins best of X advances to the next round. Random draw brackets.

It would be over too quickly like that. We're thinking more along the lines of a league of a half dozen or more teams. This way every team gets the same amount of games, barring playoffs. Your way half of the teams would only get one match.

My preference would be NLHE. For heads-up matches I think you pretty much have to go NL, right?
Actually no. Headsup is a fine form in Limit. Just look at all the old school battles between Bobcards, Erik123, et al.
Limit is the way to go. I think there's only Bunky, and now yourself, who wanted NL.


As for this whole idea, Gonores, Myself, and Mike H. are working on it guys. Give us time to get it all sorted and we should have a viable option.
I think many of the suggestions, using essentially rake avoidance, where perhaps a little dodgy. As such we might have to go a more legit route.

[Schneids]

[Tosh]

If you want some organisational help, I'm happy to lend a hand.