Heads Up - Limit - Association (HULA) info

[gonores]

Co-Commissioner JohnShaft and I have been in discussions over the past 24 hours, and we’d like to hear what you guys think of our plans for a Limit Heads-Up league.

- Teams will be made up of 7 players: 1 captain and 6 draft picks. We are currently recruiting long-standing, well-respected posters to captain these teams. The draft will be conducted in the snake format (1st team to pick in the first round picks last in the second round, and vice versa). If we go forward with this, we will start a thread where players can announce their draft eligibility. Given the feedback from the primary thread, I am thinking we can probably get 6 to 8 teams put together.
- Each week, two teams will square off in a series of heads-up matches, not unlike high school tennis matches. Each player will face one player from the opposing team, with the first team to four victories winning the match.
- Games will be played at PokerStars 2-player fixed-limit sit-n-gos. The bad news about this is that there will be escalating blinds, of which I am not a huge fan. The good news is that the rake is only 5% of total cash at stake. More good news is that the two players can decide upon the stakes. This means that a small-bankrolled player can request a $5 match, whereas two high-stakes players can play at a much higher limit, while keeping the structure the same as the $5 SnG.
- Date and time of any game can be set between the two players, as long as the game is held within the week of the match. Results should be reported right after the match, on a designated thread (we can probably hijack the General HE forum for reporting purposes).
- Each team will face each other team in the league once in the regular season. A four-team playoff will immediately follow the regular season (this number can be expanded if we get more teams). Total # of individual victories will be the tie-breaker, with a one-game captain v. captain HU tourney as the second tiebreaker.

I am open to any suggestions, but I would love to get started on this ASAP. Let me know what you guys think.

[BugsBunny]

The problem with using sit-n-go is that you run the risk of someone co-opting the match. First player grabs the table and just before the 2nd player gets in someone else jumps the seat.

If the 2 players are to decide when to play why not also allow them the choice of where and what to play? That way if they choose to play .01/.02 at UB they can - and if they choose to play for higher stakes (at any site of their choosing) they also can.

If, between the 2 of them, they decide that they want to go the sit-n-go route that would be acceptable as well.

[gonores]

I guess I am unfamiliar with the software. Isn't there a way to escape the match if you are the first person sitting and the wrong person sits down opposite you?

D

[JTG51]

Sounds like a pretty good start, I have a few concerns though.

First, I doubt you'll get enough players to fill that many teams. If you do, great, if not, maybe 5 player teams with each match being a race to 3 would work better?

Second, the Stars heads up SnG's could be a problem since as far as I know they can't be reserved.

Third, if it is done via Stars SnG's, I suggest that all the matches be $5 so that no one feels pressured to play higher than they are comfortable with.

[GuyOnTilt]

Games will be played at PokerStars 2-player fixed-limit sit-n-gos. The bad news about this is that there will be escalating blinds, of which I am not a huge fan. The good news is that the rake is only 5% of total cash at stake.

I agree that the escalting blinds are a bad thing. Why not use PokerStars' .02/.04 fixed limit HU tables? There's no rake at these tables either.

GoT

[JohnShaft]

5 player teams might be the way we have to go JTG true. It will all depend on the number of total players we get.

PokerStars .02/.04 (I didn't know about these) or UB's .01/.02 would be options. Both rake free.
Then of course we are taking the money out of it completely. Now that doesn't bother me, as I wouldn't be playing for the money, but what do people think about it turning into another "2+2 table" if we play where money isn't a factor?

Can we trust that everyone will take it seriously?
And as it will be on week after week that is absolutely vital.

[JohnShaft]

Second, the Stars heads up SnG's could be a problem since as far as I know they can't be reserved.

Damn, that would definitely be a major major problem. I know nothing about Stars.

All of the other major options for HU Tourneys have been explored and found wanting. Basically they're all great for NL but Limit, forget about it.

[GuyOnTilt]

Then of course we are taking the money out of it completely. Now that doesn't bother me, as I wouldn't be playing for the money, but what do people think about it turning into another "2+2 table" if we play where money isn't a factor?

Can we trust that everyone will take it seriously?

I thought we were all "buying in" $25??? Did that get nixed? If it was decided that the buy-in's for the headsup matches would replace it, I'd like to speak up against that. Playing rake-free for pennies and settling off the table is much better. If a respected poster is willing to play "Bank", I think all players paying an entry fee and the winning team being paid out at the end of the competition would be better.

Sorry if this has already been decided. If so, I'll go with whatever the organizers decide.

GoT

[JohnShaft]

No GoT I don't disagree I think money is the way to go.
(My "Then we are taking money out if it" meant if we were playing penny tables.)

But Mike brought up a very good point about playing Rake Free on a sites tables then settling "off court".

We would have to be very careful if we were to do it this way. Put it this way, I would feel a little wary about doing this on a site where I have significant bank.

[GuyOnTilt]

We would have to be very careful if we were to do it this way. Put it this way, I would feel a little wary about doing this on a site where I have significant bank.

We wouldn't be settling our balances. I would think that it would be different since we're not playing .02/.04 and settling it 50 times over or something of that nature. We're simply recording who wins the match and keeping team scores. At the end of the game in 5 or 7 weeks or whatever, the #1 team gets the prize pool. To me that seems a lot different than using a .02/.04 table as a rake free 10/20 or something. But maybe I'm being simplistic or naive or something...Would this still be something that could get us banned?

GoT

[JohnShaft]

But maybe I'm being simplistic or naive or something...Would this still be something that could get us banned?

That's the thing. I really don't know.
I think a few of us, me included, were a little naive with the first "settle off court" suggestion, but Mike rightly pointed out how it might be construed by the sites.

I think again he's probably a man with a fairly good opinion on these matters.

Your idea seems valid enough, and a lot less catchable by any sites involved. Would it still see us in the clear? I don't know.

I'll PM Mike and see if he has any opinion on the matter he can help us out with.

[Dylan Wade]

[ QUOTE ]
Can we trust that everyone will take it seriously?
And as it will be on week after week that is absolutely vital.

[/ QUOTE ]


Someone shoot me... I swear to God.

It means nothing. Assuming we're sufficently bankrolled to play the limit you choose, the best HU player should win. If you can't play against a maniac HU, you can't play HU. Period.

In fact, if you aren't playing ultra agressively in a high (escalating) blind HU match, you're playing wrong.

[Dylan Wade]

I have some experience setting up similar 1 vs 1 matches for other games on the internet.

When registering players make sure you find out their TimeZones. It's essential that you try to pair up players in similar time zones. Your whole tourney will get messed up if an Australian cannot arrange on a time to play with a New Yorker. It only takes one match to mess up all the brackets. Also, I'd try to squeeze the minimum time to arange a match (before both players forfiet) closer than 1 week. The problem with giving players a whole week to arange a match is they don't try very hard to arrange a match, and, they start running late. Messing everyone up. 3 days should be sufficent. You MUST have some forfiet rule if they do not arrange a game. If you don't, the whole tourney will fall apart.

[JohnShaft]

Dylan I think you are completely missing the point.

I said, or am saying, nothing about not being able to *beat* a player who doesn't care. In fact a good headsup style is often a very aggressive player and not that short of a maniac.
What I/We are talking about is players playing who basically don't give a [censored]. They aren't that interested so they just play the match and mess about. It has nothing to do with whether they win or lose. But simply to do with the fact that if they don't care they will probably lose and this is supposed to be a *team* event.
I don't want anyone on my team who doesn't give a [censored]. Do you?

Don't read things into my post that weren't there. That's you reading them and has nothing to do with my point, or the same point that others have made.

[BottlesOf]

I think you guys may be underestimating the (insert appropriate word here) of the posters on this forum and the eventual participants in this event.

I really don't think extra money has to be involved. And if there is a chance we would be acting in a manner that could get someone barred from the site, I really don't think there should be other money involved.

This league will consist of people who volunteer a long-term time commitment to play for a team. I think people, especially "those drafted" will try their best. Erratic/crazy/obnoxious play, which has been a problem at the 2+2 table will be less of a problem, IMO, because 1) You won't have stragglers who happened upon the 2+2 site that day coming to the table just to be crazy. Only committed team members will, and 2) In HU play, proper strategy can vary tremendously. Playing hyper-aggressive (what caused some problems before) may be the appropriate tactic against your opponent.

In summation, if the main reason $25 or whatever was going to be awarded to the winner was to maintain the integrity of the game, I think we could just as easily do without it.

[Dylan Wade]

Well, I think that's up to the team leader to choose players who won't flake out. There's not much else you can do.

[Christoferj]

why cant we use a free program ? like gamespy arcade ?
i know they have a tournament lobby, but dont know what you can do in it... if you can set up your own tournaments...