HORSE tourney on FTP

[beset7]

I'm not playing this tourney until the blind levels are longer. It's a lot of fun but I'd rather put $10 on a hand of blackjack [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] I've e-mailed full-tilt.

[greenage]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not playing this tourney until the blind levels are longer. It's a lot of fun but I'd rather put $10 on a hand of blackjack [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] I've e-mailed full-tilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven’t played in the last two and noticed that last Sunday’s only got like 10 entries.

Just finished sending an Email to Perry.

[greenage]

I sent the following Email to Perry Friedman: Hey, I “know” I’m not much of a communicator.

Hello Perry,

I am poster greenage at “The 2+2 Forums”. The following is a post made by poster FeliciaLee "Re: HORSE Tourney on FullTilt".

YES, the structure is TOO fast. Right now FTP has got us over a barrel, offering the only HORSE game in town.

But they promise to pay attention to our complaints, since we are supposedly "beta testing" their software.

Let your voice be heard! Write to Perry at: friedman@xenon.stanford.edu

If enough of us complain (this includes the bloggers, RGP and WPT fan club) then they will change things.

Felicia

I agree completely and have stopped playing in the tournament after three entries. My name on Full Tilt is turnabout.

I you'all slow down the structure, I will play again.

This was his response:

[ QUOTE ]
Have you played a lot of limit tournaments? The structure is the same as
for all limit tourneys. It may appear fast, but I think few people have a
good reference point. You should take a look at the duration of the
tourney for the number of players and see how that compares to other
similar size tournaments.

Perry

[/ QUOTE ]

This was my response, however lame. I really don’t know how to analyze a tournament structure, FTP just feels too fast. If someone can come up with a better rebuttal, please DO SO and send him an Email at: friedman@xenon.stanford.edu

Hello Perry,

Thank you for the quick response.

Have you played a lot of limit tournaments?

Most of my experience is with single table "Sit & Go" tournaments.

You should take a look at the duration of the
tourney for the number of players and see how that compares to other
similar size tournaments.


Well, this private tournament has varied quite a bit in the number of
players. Last Sunday I think it was only ten players. When it was first
announced on "2 + 2", it was something in the neighborhood of fifty to
seventy.

For reference I checked two table limit tournaments at PokerStars (I think a
worst case scenario).

Both FTP and PS have ten minute level durations.

FTP Level 1 (Holdem) stakes at 30/60

PS Level 1 (Holdem) stakes at 20/40



FTP Level 2 (Omaha/8) stakes at 40/80

PS Level 2 (Omaha/8) stakes at 30/60



FTP Level 4 (7 Stud) stakes at 60/120, ante 10

PS Level 4 (7 Stud) stakes 75/150, ante 15



FTP Level 5 (7 Stud/8) stakes at 80/160, ante 15

PS Level 5 (7 Stud/8) stakes at 100/200, ante 15

Now, even a math phobic such as myself can see that the PokerStars two table
tournaments catch up to (and surpass) FTP pretty quickly. But, FTP does
start off faster.

Next I looked at a PokerStars limit Holdem satellite MTT tournament.

Level durations were 15 minutes.

Level 1: stakes at 20/40 - 0 minutes (FTP at 30/60, 40/80 after 10 minutes)

Level 2: stakes at 30/60 - 15 minutes (FTP at 50/100 at 20 minutes)

I could probably do some more research, but it does seem that FTP slows down
after a while. But those first twenty minutes or so are killer.

Regards,

greenage from 2 + 2

[beset7]

Good e-mails greenage.

How many chips do they start with in the HORSE tourney again? I can't remember now. All MTTs at stars are 1500. Isn't 1000 or something at FTP? It just seems so dang fast. You loose a couple pots during level 1 or 2 and it's wait for a hand with some equity and get all your chips in and cross your fingers. I'd rather play craps.

[greenage]

[ QUOTE ]
Good e-mails greenage.

How many chips do they start with in the HORSE tourney again? I can't remember now. All MTTs at stars are 1500. Isn't 1000 or something at FTP? It just seems so dang fast. You loose a couple pots during level 1 or 2 and it's wait for a hand with some equity and get all your chips in and cross your fingers. I'd rather play craps.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugg, I knew I was forgetting something. The HORSE tourney starts at 1500 chips. I probably should have taken more time to put together a response. Oh well, either they’re motivated to look at the structure or they aren’t.

It’s kind of sad because HORSE is fun to play but the fast start to the tournament takes the fun out of it. I’d rather play craps as well. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[schubes]

The structure hasn't bothered me much, but I saw the posts about it - so a few weeks ago I was playing a Razz game with Perry, and asked if it could be slowed down. He gave me pretty much the same response you got, but in a much more defensive tone (e.g. anyone who's ever played a limit tourney wouldn't think it was too fast). Unfortunately, I don't think he will consider slowing it down.

I do think he has a point about how long it ends up lasting. I got a few hours of play on each one I entered, how about you?

[greenage]

[ QUOTE ]
I do think he has a point about how long it ends up lasting. I got a few hours of play on each one I entered, how about you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never made it to the final table and have no opinion about how long it lasts, that's not my concern. My concern is with how "fast" it starts.

I am not the right person to be analyzing a tourney structure, but here's another shot at it.

PokerStars (PS) $10 + $1 MTT (Limit Omaha/8) versus Full Tilt (FTP) $10 + $1 MTT (HORSE)

FTP Starting Chips = 1500
PS Starting Chips = 1500

FTP Minutes/Level = 10
PS Minutes/Level = 15

FTP Max. Players per/Table = 8
PS Max. Players per/Table = 10

In FTP "cost per hand", bring-ins are not even factored in for the ante games.

Minute 0: FTP game = Holdem
FTP Stakes = 30/60, cost per hand = (30 + 15)/8 = 5.6
PS Stakes = 20/40, cost per hand = (20 + 10)/10 = 3

Minute 10: FTP game = Omaha/8
FTP Stakes = 40/80, cost per hand = (40 + 20)/8 = 7.5
PS Stakes = 20/40, cost per hand = (20 + 10)/10 = 3

Minute 15: FTP game = Omaha/8
FTP Stakes = 40/80, cost per hand = (40 + 20)/8 = 7.5
PS Stakes = 30/60, cost per hand = (30 + 15)/10 = 4.5

Minute 20: FTP game = Razz (ante = 10)
FTP Stakes = 50/100, cost per hand = 10
PS Stakes = 30/60, cost per hand = (30 + 15)/10 = 4.5

Minute 30: FTP game = 7 Stud (ante = 10)
FTP Stakes = 60/120, cost per hand = 10
PS Stakes = 50/100, cost per hand = (50 + 25)/10 = 7.5

Minute 40: FTP game = 7 Stud/8 (ante = 15)
FTP Stakes = 80/160, cost per hand = 15
PS Stakes = 50/100, cost per hand = (50 + 25)/10 = 7.5

Minute 45: FTP game = 7 Stud/8 (ante = 15)
FTP Stakes = 80/160, cost per hand = 15
PS Stakes = 100/200, cost per hand = (100 + 50)/10 = 15

Minute 50: FTP game = Holdem
FTP Stakes = 100/200, cost per hand = (100 + 50)/8 = 18.75
PS Stakes = 100/200, cost per hand = (100 + 50)/10 = 15

Minute 60: FTP game = Omaha/8
FTP Stakes = 120/240, cost per hand = (120 + 60)/8 = 22.5
PS Stakes = 150/300, cost per hand = (150 + 75)/10 = 22.5

Since my concern is with the start of the tourney, I'll stop here. As you can see, the "cost per hand" does not become equitable until the 45 minute mark.

Also, until the 45 minute mark, the stakes are "always" higher.

Some may like this structure, but I do not.

greenage

EDIT: I think I just found my first mistake. It looks like Limit Omaha/8 tourneys have a max. of 9 players per/table, which makes the "cost per hand" more.

[beset7]

[ QUOTE ]
The structure hasn't bothered me much, but I saw the posts about it - so a few weeks ago I was playing a Razz game with Perry, and asked if it could be slowed down. He gave me pretty much the same response you got, but in a much more defensive tone (e.g. anyone who's ever played a limit tourney wouldn't think it was too fast). Unfortunately, I don't think he will consider slowing it down.

I do think he has a point about how long it ends up lasting. I got a few hours of play on each one I entered, how about you?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the start that sucks. I like greenage's next post I think it outlines it pretty darn well.

I wonder if Perry knows that all the people complaining about the structure are high-volume online poker players (i.e. high rake generators). I've played in 100s of limit tourneys and i think the structure is bad. Kind of a wierd assertion for him to make.

I know they are marketing themselves more to the "As Seen On TV" crowd so maybe appeasing a bunch of multi-tabling sharks isn't high on the priority list (no text hand histories, intentional pokertracker NON-support, lousy bonus clearing, etc etc). I like playing rotation games and I MIGHT play again but with such a fast starting structure i'm not motivated to keep any money on FTP just for that. Once they debut fixed-limit cash HORSE games I am all over it.

[Andy B]

I am of the opinion that the structure is too fast, but I also think the structure is too fast in every tournament I've ever played in. This includes several events with $200 buy-ins, and a couple of NLHE events with buy-ins of $500 and $1000. These were live events, and the $200 events had 40 minute rounds (or shorter), and I think the larger buy-in events had 50 minute rounds. This just too short, especially for $25 or more in juice. The FTP HORSE tournament is ridiculous. I played in it the first week and was short-stacked by the time we got to a game I have any idea how to play.

And by the way, greenage, you are a HORSE's ass.

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[FeliciaLee]

Well, then, I think we should cancel this tourney. It's obvious that FTP couldn't care less if they have our business or not, Perry is very defensive and unyielding, and they are not using us as "beta testers" at all.

Thanks for all of your work and research on this, Green.

Felicia [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]