Tournament idea

[rusty JEDI]

Ive seen this mentioned before, but im interested in trying it. We need 10 players and then we get a private single table tournament so stars is out of the question. Then we have someone not in the tourny draw pairs thus making 5 teams of 2. Now the pairs are told in private to each other so you only know who your partner is and that is it.

Each pair hooks up on IM and it is a "collusion tournament." You could declare a winner 2 ways. 1 being best combined score, so 2nd and 3rd would beat 1st and 5th. Or the other way to declare a winning team is whoever comes 1st, then they are the winning team. In this case if you come 1st and 10th your team still wins.

Teams could become obvious quickly just by the methods they are using, but it could be fun even if we knew who the pairs were.

Another option is if it is at 9 handed stars we could make 3 teams of 3.

Anybody interested?

rJ

[DrPublo]

If the scoring system is the latter (1st place wins, even if the partner gets 10th) then the best strategy will be for one partner to dump all his chips to the other, so that the partner has a significant stack advantage. Of course, this will force all other teams to do the same, and your goal of a "team" tourney will really just turn into a 5 way tournament with stacks twice as deep.

Does anyone disagree that this will be the outcome of that scoring system?

The only way to really pull off what you're suggesting is to go by team score (1st = 10 pts, 2nd = 9 pts, etc; highest team point total wins). Then it wouldn't be as obvious what the teams are, since you might not notice the two players that never get involved (really, in the course of a SnG, do you get involved with EVERY other player at the table? Not likely).

An interesting idea, although I'm not really sure if it has any value beyond novelty value.

The Doc

[t_perkin]

I don't think you need a scoring system. Just do it for the prize money.

I suggested this a while back - most people just thought it was a dumb idea, but I would certainly like to try it. It might be dumb, but it might also throw up some interesting situations.
It may well end up as a chip dump at the end of the tournament. I think the game most suited to it would be 08 ring. Party still do private ring tables?


Otherwise I think it would have to be a Stars private tournament - I don't want to risk getting kicked off some website for collusion, and this is the only place that we would be safe from this.

Tim

[rusty JEDI]

It really is just for novelty.

I am not so sure your proposed strategy is the best. Remember that the partners are talking through IM so they get to share all the information they want while hands are going on. If 4 teams do an automatic chip dump to 1 player. The two with starter stacks and now only half of everyone else's stacks at least have the advantage of running people off hands. Or taking 2 hands up against 1.

And we would definetly mention our plan to the site first, because i definetly do not want my account flagged for collusion.

rJ

[LetsRock]

Why would you want to practice cheating?

[Al_Capone_Junior]

I would do it, in principle at least. If it's a completely private affair it would probably not be problematic. However, security measures are (or at least should be) in place at sites so that the tactics likely to be used in this sort of thing might alert security and get all nine or ten of us flagged. If these issues were addressed, I'd do it. Also, I think this might be more fun in a limit hold'em format than no limit.

Really a random drawing of the pairs might not be necessary.

al

[tolbiny]

[Al_Capone_Junior]

There's always some value in playing different forms of poker beyond just novelty value. It forces you to think in different terms and ultimately expands your horizons. For instance, there is little direct value in a casino by understanding how to play baseball, follow the queen, guts, between the cheex, or any other crazy ass home game that one might dream up. But ultimately, every time you play a new or different form of poker, you can apply poker theory and learn something from it, thus honing your instincts.

Also, stuff like this can be just plain FUN! I don't play in 2+2 events because I think I have a high EV, I play in them for fun, and to practice playing against the best players. Thus, these things are quite valuable in the long run.

al

[tolbiny]

i can see two reasons for playing this way,
1. for the fun of playing a new situaton and learning to adapt to a more difficult strategey.
2. (less so) playing in a game like this could help you to identify cheaters in regular games.

Anyway, count me in.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

O-8 would be fun doing this too. Limit of course. This wouldn't be well suited to no limit.

al

[t_perkin]

Yes O8 (limit of course) would be better than Holdem I think.

The issues surrounding taking both the high and low, or taking both between you etc. would I think make things more interesting. Plus these sorts of tactics are more rock solid when playing O8 as play is with the nut hand so much more often.

I reckon O8 ring game, where the combined winnings of each team are split between them would be the best format.

I don't think we will find enough O8 players who would be willing to play though. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

I am still up for holdem though, and I think Limit is probably better than NL. (prevents chip dumping to quite the same level, and brings whole new meaning to the check raise)

Tim