Making Tournaments Better Tests Of Skill

[DesertCat]

While it looks like the final table this year will be more competitive and exciting than last years, it's made me think about how to make tournaments a better test of skill.

Specifically, I'd like to propose a rule change to reduce the danger of strong players getting knocked out while being ahead in a hand, even when they made all the correct decisions. You less wordy types call them "bad beats". People making good plays losing to people making bad plays, punished by the gods of chance.

Surely luck is integral part of what makes poker great, so why do I care? I'd like to see more "name pros" at final tables, while still providing amateurs enough chances that some make it to the final tables as well. I believe that fan adoption of favorite players will drive increased popularity of Poker, and fans want to see more consistent results from their favorite players.

There is a fairly obvious way to tweak the rules to reduce variance for good players without affecting play dramatically. It will help the more skilled players, while still keeping the tournament as whole governed by the laws of chance.

My proposal is to always allow the best hand (the hand that is currently ahead) in an all-in situation the choice of "running it twice". It's a common practise done by mutual agreement at many NL ring games that reduces variance. This rule would allow players skilled at getting it all in with the best hand, to avoid being crippled when drawn out on by inferior players.

One side-effect is it will make it more difficult to eliminate shorter stacks. I haven't been able to calculate how severe the effect will be, but clearly tournaments will take longer. Blinds might be forced to rise more quickly to compensate. There will be a bigger "cockroach effect" where some bad players continuiously get in with the worst of it, but repeatably outdraw to stay alive.

Ironically, I think bad players would like this rule. It's almost better than rebuy tournaments, in that the bad player has a safety net against being knocked out quickly by their own bad play, but they don't have to pay extra for it.

So, bad idea or good?

[TeeEffDee]

Bah, make it best of 7.

[sirdeej2]

Instead of making the tournament take even longer than it does right now....how about the ME changes to pot limit??? That would make it a truer test of skill with some actual post flop play. Sorry if this was mentioned...didnt read.

[Rekwob]

why not just let them play tiddlywinks?

[Quad_Damage]

I think Harrah's should put up $500 million and just split it up between all the participants. Screw the tournament.

[Firefly]

[ QUOTE ]
why not just let them play tiddlywinks?

[/ QUOTE ]

[MaxPower]

Why are people so obsessed with making tournaments better tests of skill?

The survival of ring games is due to the fact that the less skilled players frequently win. The same is true for tournaments. If most tournaments were won by the most skilled players, they would quickly die off.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]

The survival of ring games is due to the fact that the less skilled players frequently win. The same is true for tournaments. If most tournaments were won by the most skilled players, they would quickly die off.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your first point, ring games need a great deal of chance to keep weaker players playing. But I'm not so sure about your second, if I wasn't clear I'm not talking about small tournaments, just top tournaments. Big events like the WSOP and WPT are going to get a lot of entries either way. And audiences want recognizable heroes. We want to increase audience size, don't we?

Would anyone care about the Tour De France if Lance Armstrong got knocked out the first day three years in a row and every year it was won by someone who just started cycling a month ago? We want to establish that poker involves skill, and having repeat winners and final table participants helps establish that.

[capone0]

Other than the WSOP Main Event, which touraments fit your bill. Most of the WPT titles are held by big time poker players. Most final tables for WPT events are filled by big time poker players. You want to fix the problem, make the main event cost 30K to get in. That removes much of the field. Sites would send 1/3rd less entrants or maybe even less.

The tournament this year:

Erik Seidel
Arieh
Cloutier
Greenstein
Todd Brunson
Chan
Ivey
Brunson
Chiu

I know that's not domination but in the short list of pros, they won 9 events out of the 37.

In the WPT, only a couple of no-namers won titles this year. Yes it's less than years past but there are more amatuers then in years past. Pros don't need help, and this system is pretty silly.

[astroglide]

if you were forced to use both your hole cards there would be much less one-card straight/flush suckouts