My perspective on the step tournaments -rake-

[bcblack]

I am aware of the rake trap these tournaments can be. I think this is more the case for the single table than the two table ones though. The 2 table ones have structure much like a multi, and here is my view of it.

To advance at each stage you have to beat:
2.16 people
3.14 people
4.12 people

Then to place you have to beat 16 more.

So you have to beat 58 people to place, out of 62 total. So I see it as a 62 man $55 tournament that might even give you some second chances. A normal 62 man tournament would have a prize fund of $3410, but this one is $20k.

So that is my perspective. I am staying away from the 1 table ones because I believe it is much harder to advance so you bounce around much more.

Any thoughts on this?

I wish the 2-table ones were as popular as the one.

[gumpzilla]

The flaw in this reasoning is that the play will be much different from a 60 person multi. In a 60 person multi, if you're crushing early, you get a nice big stack that you can use the rest of the way. In a Step tournament, it doesn't matter how badly you demolish Step 2; you're starting all over again at Step 3. Also, the blinds get reset. So it's really pretty different.

[bcblack]

Yeah they aren't exactly the same, but I view this to be in my favour. I tend to have problems accumulating chips in mtt's, I think I am a little too conservative. I am working on becoming more of an "accumulator" but for now I think I prefer the step format.

[CardSharpCook]

1/5 * 3/10 * 2/5 * 1/5 = 5/1000 = 1/200. Your odds of placing are .5% for each step 2 buy in. (if you are the average player)

[bcblack]

To carry that logic further you could compare it to a 200 man $55 tournament. It would have a 10k prize fund and 1st would be $2700. 11-20 would basically get their money back. If you factor in the recycle levels, not the ones that send you back, only the ones that keep you at your current level, that would increase your chances a great deal. That math gets pretty confusing so I won't even try. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Apathy]

Players with big bankrolls care about $/hr, and that is why you will never see the two-table steps become as popular as the one table ones.

Also the variance is much higher in the two tables step 5's, making direct buyers require a much larger roll.

[adanthar]

The two table Steps have MUCH larger $/hour, mostly due to their MUCH larger ROI, for Step 5 pros and plain old decent players.

(Hint: Blind structure.)

Of course, nobody plays them now...sigh.

[Apathy]

[ QUOTE ]
The two table Steps have MUCH larger $/hour, mostly due to their MUCH larger ROI, for Step 5 pros and plain old decent players.

(Hint: Blind structure.)

Of course, nobody plays them now...sigh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure? I don't think anyone has played enough to really determine this, I was thinking more along the lines of how much longer they take and the fact that you can't get in as many tables while multitabling.

[bcblack]

I would expect the good players/pros to prefer these due to the blind structure. As it is, I am trying to use 2 step 3 entries and haven't gotten a game yet, and I only want to win so many of them.

[adanthar]

100% positive. I've datamined enough and have enough sources to know they're a lot weaker. They also have a ton more play to them - when they run, that is.

Aside from everything else I said, it's a lot easier for *a* fish to school and make the top 4/6/8 out of 20 in an MTT than the top 2/3/4 in an SNG. That leaves at least a couple of dead money players per table at any of them.