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.

[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.

[astroglide]

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

[SheridanCat]

[ QUOTE ]
So, bad idea or good?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bad. Who will determine what the best hand is? You mean the hand that would win right at that moment? What if the hand that is currently behind has so many outs he's a favorite to win?

It makes no sense, would be generally unfair, promote collusion and confusion to the point of chaos.

If you want more skill and less luck, restructure the tournament to have larger starting stacks and longer rounds. That's how it's generally done. The WPT does it this way, I believe.

Regards,

T

[Army Eye]

Horrible idea. And there is very rarely any shortage of pros making final tables anyway so I don't see how there is any problem that needs to be fixed. The WSOP main event being an obvious exception with its 5,000+ players

[cadillac1234]

Isn't the real point of NL to play strong enough over time to increase your chip stack while avoiding situations that risk complete ruin?

The variance is what makes it interesting and it's what keeps poker going. Take away the variance and you've got a chess match.

Why not make freeze out limit hold'em the ME and take the high variance all-in push out of the equation?