Home Tourney Setup

jtnt1096 · #1 12-23-2004, 04:48 PM

We are planning a 3-table NL tourney in a couple weeks. Instead of constantly moving players around, we are thinking about playing each table down to the final 3. The final 9 remaining (3 from each table) will then make up the final table.

Does anyone see any problems with using this format?

Stew · #2 12-23-2004, 04:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
We are planning a 3-table NL tourney in a couple weeks. Instead of constantly moving players around, we are thinking about playing each table down to the final 3. The final 9 remaining (3 from each table) will then make up the final table.

Does anyone see any problems with using this format?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not just make it a three table shootout. Each person has to win their single table tourney...then you go to one table with 3 people who all have the same amount of chips to battle it out for first, second and third all three getting paid.

obeythekitten · #3 12-23-2004, 05:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why not just make it a three table shootout. Each person has to win their single table tourney...then you go to one table with 3 people who all have the same amount of chips to battle it out for first, second and third all three getting paid.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think it goes without saying, but the players getting knocked out first may not want to wait as long as its going to take to whittle a tournament down like that. personally, i think you should have at least 5 or 6 tables worth of action to justify a shootout

Stew · #4 12-23-2004, 05:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why not just make it a three table shootout. Each person has to win their single table tourney...then you go to one table with 3 people who all have the same amount of chips to battle it out for first, second and third all three getting paid.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think it goes without saying, but the players getting knocked out first may not want to wait as long as its going to take to whittle a tournament down like that. personally, i think you should have at least 5 or 6 tables worth of action to justify a shootout

[/ QUOTE ]

the players getting knocked out first go home, they don't have to wait for anything.

TimDugan · #5 12-24-2004, 01:05 PM

We've done this before. It's a nice way to change up the game a little bit. Best think to do though is to have a set blind structure for both rounds before the game starts. When we did it, everyone at the final table kept all of the chips from the tables they had won, but as long as everyone starts with the same number it doesn't really matter.

LooseAggressive · #6 12-24-2004, 02:17 PM

This is a fun set up. I've played one of these before and it was enjoyable, however, it is imperative to make sure that there are an even number of people for each table. When the tables combine table 1 might have had 3000 extra chips to bring where table 3 might have not giving table 3 an unfair advantage. Just a thought!

jtnt1096 · #7 12-24-2004, 04:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This is a fun set up. I've played one of these before and it was enjoyable, however, it is imperative to make sure that there are an even number of people for each table. When the tables combine table 1 might have had 3000 extra chips to bring where table 3 might have not giving table 3 an unfair advantage. Just a thought!

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats a great point that I didn't consider. Yes, things will have to be even at each table. Thanks.

TimDugan · #8 12-27-2004, 05:09 AM

You don't need to have the same number of people, just be sure each table has the same number of chips. Basically, if you had 17 people, you could set up 2 tables of 9, and split up one set of chips among the 8 players of the table that's shorthanded. It doesn't matter if they all start out with more chips than the players at the other tables since they're only playing against each other, and not the people at the other table. It only matters that the players at the final table have the same starting chip counts.

smoore · #9 12-27-2004, 01:07 PM

I would suggest putting an extra buy-in worth of chips on the short table, but no one gets to play with them. The winner of that table brings those chips to the next table. Advantageous for the short table but if you have a random seating assignment then it's just luck of the draw.

gmunny · #10 12-27-2004, 03:30 PM

Hey JRNT,
After hosting a few 3 table tourneys and trying both the top 3 goes to final table and the table balancing approach. In the top 3 format, the tables finished at different times. We had a 1.5 hour delay from when the first table finished versus when the last table finished. Also, since they were still playing, the blinds continued to rise (every 20 minutes), so when the final table was set, the players who finished earlier where not used to playing at the higher blind level. Since we had a rebuy and addon period, we didn't worry about keeping the player (chip) count even on all tables to start.

As a player, I liked the top 3 goes to the final table because it is similar to playing a SNG. Also, with this method you don't have to worry about people slow playing to get to the final table or spend time moving people around. As the tourney director, I think I will probably use the other format (table balancing/colapsing), as it keeps the tourney moving and the total completion time lower. People complained about either format, so do what you want to do.
Have fun!
G$