TEARS in My Eyes By Shane Smith, Guest Columnist

Note: Through Nov. 18, Tom McEvoy is hosting one of his favorite tournaments, Tom McEvoy's Poker Spectacular at Hollywood Park Casino, where he hopes to meet you in the winner's circle.

Several years ago I met a cowboy-type poker player who was prominent on the tournament circuit. Of course, he wasn't a gun-toting cowboy – Tex Morgan was toting a computer loaded with poker data meticulously gathered from decades of experience. Ready to retire from his day job, the tall toothpick from Washington told me that he was developing a computer program targeted at helping tournament players.

In 1999 he hit the bull's-eye with Tex's TEARS software, a scientific database program designed to help tournament directors provide structures that give players "more bang for their buck," as one player described it, by increasing the betting limits more gradually than in the past. TEARS has been widely accepted by tournament players and enthusiastically adopted by such noted venues as the prestigious Tournament of Champions, the huge Orleans Open, the Reno Hilton's popular Pot of Gold and World Poker Challenge, the venerable Peppermill tournaments, and the granddaddy of them all, the World Series of Poker.

Noting the impressive track record of TEARS, I was surprised when I read a recent post on rec.gambling.poker that criticized the program. Written by a well-known, high-stakes tournament player who prefers the traditional structure, the message described TEARS as "a gimmick" and "a solution in search of a problem." Oops! I wondered, what's going on here? So, I met with Morgan in October to seek his help in clarifying any confusion that the RGP post may have caused the poker public.

"Most problems with any system are people problems, not system problems. The same goes for TEARS," Morgan explained. "I have an advisory board made up of knowledgeable, reasonable, and responsible people with years of tournament poker experience who assist me with the TEARS program. A few people who do not possess all of these qualifications have brought unfounded criticism to TEARS." The members of Morgan's board of advisors are Vince Burgio, Brad Daugherty, Jack Fox, Phil Hellmuth, Mike Sexton, and Max Stern.

"As a member of the TEARS board of directors, I may be biased, and I know that there is no tournament structure that will suit every player," Burgio told me. "Even though Tex's TEARS was a big improvement over the old double-double structure, it still needed a little tinkering in the beginning. Now, Tex has 'tinkered' it to the point that most players who give it a chance favor it over the rest." (For Sexton's comments on TEARS, read his Oct. 26 Card Player column.)

One of the RGP poster's criticisms was that the final-table play during one of the limit hold'em tournaments at the 2001 WSOP was too short. "Before that final table began," Morgan declared, "I advised the tournament director as to what to do to prevent the problem, but he declined the suggested modification because he didn't understand it completely. However, when I advised him to make changes on two or three subsequent tournaments, he made the necessary adjustments and things worked out just fine."

In all tournaments, the length of playing time is controlled by the length of the levels, which is controlled by the tournament director. History has repeated itself several times over the years at final tables, where people didn't have enough chips to play, thus relegating the outcome to somewhat of a crapshoot. In other words, this problem is not unique to Tex's TEARS. Thankfully, Morgan and his board of directors now have developed a solution that is designed to eradicate the "short final table" syndrome; it's a "warning system" that tells the tournament director when the average chip count is too low for adequate play. "Essentially, you stay at the same level until the number of players decreases to the point where the average chip count is adequate for the game being played – and we can do it for any type of poker game, limit or no-limit, high game or split game," Morgan explained.

Mike Gainey, Reno Hilton cardroom manager, and David Lamb, tournament director, pioneered TEARS at the Pot of Gold in June 2000, and have been using it ever since. "They were the first to give me a chance to prove that this system would work," Morgan said. "The original problem with tournament structures was that the average increases in the blinds and ante were too high. I did the research and programming work, and gave cardrooms the tools to work with." Morgan added that he does not charge anyone anything for the TEARS program – it is his "gift" to the poker world.

Matt Savage, tournament director at Lucky Chances Casino in the San Francisco Bay area, is particularly thankful for Tex's "gift." Savage was the first to implement the TEARS program in California cardrooms, and has used it more than any other tournament director. "Our players and management alike prefer TEARS because it works great for everybody," Savage told me. "We'll be using it for our Gold Rush event in November because it is the most successful and resilient tournament structure program available."

Steve Badger wrote this reply to an RGP message that a TEARS critic posted last April: "TEARS is terrific because people go broke choosing hands they want to play, rather than in the big blind when the limits double. (The poster's) complaint has nothing really to do with TEARS, but with the fact that 620 players played. You have to bust one player every 90 seconds. You just have to decide how you want to do it – by giving players time to play a few hands, or by crapshooting up the blinds."

In addition to designing a way to give entrants more play at the final table, another improvement that Morgan has made since the 2001 WSOP is a TEARS tool that can predict the number of dealer "downs" during a tournament, even at each level. This information is especially useful to tournament directors. The RGP poster also commented about the early rounds of play in TEARS tournaments: "The dealers have to make change on virtually every bet … thus slowing down the action to a crawl." To this Morgan replied, "The TEARS advisory board has revised the program to address the chip-change problem at the lower levels to make it easy on dealers and players alike. TEARS is an evolving system. When people make suggestions, the board of directors and I respond to them every single time."

This gets me to why the RGP post disturbed me – and Tex Morgan, and many other people in the poker world. "It bothered me because I thought that folks weren't getting the facts, and were just making empty complaints without constructive suggestions," Morgan said. "I want what's good for poker, no matter what the stakes." To further clarify any confusion about the TEARS program, I spoke with several knowledgeable people at the Pot of Gold tournament in October, including David Lamb, who directed the incredibly successful supersatellites at the 2001 WSOP. In his role as tournament director, Lamb has implemented Tex's TEARS progam at the Tournament of Champions, the World Poker Challenge, the Peppermill tournaments, and the Pot of Gold events, and will be using it at the upcoming Eldorado Casino's Eldorado Poker Classic, and the Hilton's Christmas Classic and World Poker Challenge in Reno.

"At the World Poker Industry Conference this year, I stated that the TEARS structures afford the most comprehensive, flexible formats to date," Lamb stated. "Understand that many good poker people have put forth hours of time and effort to improve structures, payouts, and rules on behalf of the poker industry, and they all should be commended. Tex's TEARS is the first to address the mathematical inconsistencies that existed, and the first to attempt to quantify solutions. I am convinced that TEARS is the way of the future. It is easily adaptable to the benefit of players and tournament operators alike. It isn't the only useable system, but it is the modern-day best."

I also spoke with several "regulars" on the $100-$300 buy-in tournament circuit (as I am), one of whom reflected the general opinion of the group when he said, "The vast majority of tournaments have buy-ins of $100 or less, and the people who play these events are recreational players. The TEARS structure gives us true value for our buy-in by increasing the skill factor and decreasing the luck factor so that novices and experienced players alike can improve their tournament game for a modest investment. The proliferation of small tournaments has allowed players to gain invaluable experience and move up to bigger buy-in events – and consequently build those big prize pools that the 'professional experts' so cherish. Therefore, I think that the naysayers should give great credit to Tex Morgan and his advisors for improving the world of tournaments." Or, as a noted tournament player seated next to me in the $100 buy-in Omaha high-low event we were playing stated, "TEARS? What's not to like?"

In his response to the RGP poster's original complaint last April, Barry Shulman wrote, "The general concept of changing tradition by having shorter levels with gradual increases is terrific. The problem has been in the implementation." Chuck Humphrey of the TOC replied to the April post by saying, "Tex Morgan already has written a second program to adjust the blind levels at the final table. If management wants a four-hour final table, they just have to tell Tex and he will tell them what blind level to roll back to." And "Foldem," a regular poster on RGP, concluded, "I don't get it. If the blinds double every round, as in the old system, isn't the final table a crapshoot anyway? I'm no great tourney player, but I like TEARS precisely because it places more importance on good play in the middle part of the tournament and allows me more time at the table for my money. I don't have to double up every level to maintain my stack; I just have to keep a steady pace. Getting no hands for a level or maybe even two isn't necessarily fatal."

"Anyone is entitled to an opinion," Morgan added in closing. "But, if a person doesn't have the facts, and if his criticism is not constructive, his comments can come across as being outlandish. People sometimes form opinions that are based more on emotion than facts. The problem arises when these folks carry some weight among others who don't have all the information and base their own decisions on what the influential person says. Actually, I thank (the RGP poster) for giving me the opportunity to clear up any misunderstanding about TEARS."

And I thank my friend and publishing partner Tom McEvoy for allowing me this ink space. Given TEARS' extra bang for the buck – and just a wee bit o' luck – I hope to meet you in the winner's circle one day soon.

Editor's note: Shane Smith is the author of Poker Tournament Tips From the Pros, Omaha Hi-Lo Poker, and Low-Limit Casino Poker, all of which are available through Card Player. Smith invites your E-mail comments at [email protected].