what do you think of this structure?

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Also, I think the players at the three player table would have an advantage, all other things being equal, although I could be wrong about that.


[/ QUOTE ]

For the players at the 3 table the blinds wouldn't come around as fast so it would be a big advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

They pay 2/3 the blinds (per hand), but they should only win 2/3 as many pots, so shouldn't that even out?

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Also, I think the players at the three player table would have an advantage, all other things being equal, although I could be wrong about that.


[/ QUOTE ]


For the players at the 3 table the blinds wouldn't come around as fast so it would be a big advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

They pay 2/3 the blinds (per hand), but they should only win 2/3 as many pots, so shouldn't that even out?

[/ QUOTE ]


No, because its not how many pots you win, its how much money (or chips in this case) you win. With two potential opponents to contest a pot, there are likly to be bigger pots. With twice as much money held by your opponents compared to the one opponent tables, there is more money to be won at your table.

So actually at least 4 reasons I think the 3 person tables would have an advantage over the two person tables-- Blinds less frequent, more room to be selective about the cards you play, potentially bigger pots, more money to be won.

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Also, I think the players at the three player table would have an advantage, all other things being equal, although I could be wrong about that.


[/ QUOTE ]


For the players at the 3 table the blinds wouldn't come around as fast so it would be a big advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

They pay 2/3 the blinds (per hand), but they should only win 2/3 as many pots, so shouldn't that even out?

[/ QUOTE ]


No, because its not how many pots you win, its how much money (or chips in this case) you win. With two potential opponents to contest a pot, there are likly to be bigger pots. With twice as much money held by your opponents compared to the one opponent tables, there is more money to be won at your table.

So actually at least 4 reasons I think the 3 person tables would have an advantage over the two person tables-- Blinds less frequent, more room to be selective about the cards you play, potentially bigger pots, more money to be won.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be the case at any tournament when the number of players is not the same at each table. I'm sure it's a bigger difference between 2 and 3 than between 9 and 10.

What if at the end of each level, one player would be moved form the three person table to another table? This should reduce the advantage since a player would only play three handed for a short time.