Optimizing Tournament Structures

any players have been complaining about tournament structures at the World Series and at other big tournaments. The basic complaint is that structures start too slowly and end too quickly. There are three basic structures that can be used for tournaments. (I will define structure as the level at which the antes and/or blinds start and their rate of increase.) We can divide structures into combinations of three basic types: slow, medium, and fast. In a limit tournament, a simple measure of speed is the number of big bets the average player has. Tex Morgan, the originator of the TEARS* system, measures structures by cost per round. (This is the R in TEARS.) It is the cost of sitting at the table without playing a hand for as many hands as there are players at the table (eight hands in stud and nine or 10 in hold'em.) A fast structure is one in which an average player has enough chips to play three to six rounds. A medium structure is one in which a player has approximately eight to 10 rounds. A slow structure is one in which a player has 15 or more rounds.

The fast structures create more gambling. Or, as players like to say, "They make it a crapshoot." They eliminate players in a hurry. Medium structures tend to balance gambling with skill. Slow structures emphasize skill and patience, and players tend to last a lot longer.

(What follows is a recommendation for improving tournament structures. It is in no way intended to be critical of the Binions or the Horseshoe tournament staff. They are all to be congratulated for continuing the great WSOP tradition, and for trying to satisfy a heterogeneous and temperamental group of players.) In response to complaints, the Horseshoe also started to change the structure toward the direction most players seem to prefer – fast to slow – by shortening the time of the early levels and lengthening the time at later levels.

Without going into details of specific tournaments, players generally start with 40 big bets, or in the no-limit tournaments, enough chips to play 50 rounds. At the final table, the average player often has around five big bets or less than 10 rounds. This means that the initial portion of a tournament is set up with a slow, skillful structure. (This is the time when virtually nothing is at stake, except the right to continue.) Then at the final table, with hundreds of thousands of dollars at stake, the structure is extremely fast, "a crapshoot." The average player has barely enough chips to play one hand to the end. Much of the skill in poker revolves around play on the river, bluffing, check-raising, making good laydowns, and betting for value. This is all completely eliminated when one of the players is all in before the last card is dealt, and this is often the case at the final table.

Is there a reason why this structure of very slow to very fast is chosen? The most common answer is that the slow start gives everyone, even the worst, wildest players, a chance to play for a while. The rapid finish is then needed to get the tournament over with in a reasonable length of time. It also benefits weaker players, in that much of the skill is removed from play at the final table.

My conversations with players have led me to believe that this type of structure is extremely unpopular. Nobody, weak or strong, likes spending hours struggling, only to end up out of the money. Everyone wants the final result to be determined by skillful play and not by "rolling the dice."

I strongly recommend adopting the reverse structure: fast then slow. This has many advantages for both the players and the casino. The most obvious of these are:

o Most players are eliminated fairly quickly.

o This allows eliminated players to play in side games and satellites (good for the players and the casino).

o This gives players time to play in the casino (good for the casino and fun for the players).

o This allows time for social pursuits, such as dinners and shows. (Significant others would appreciate this, but do poker junkies really care?)

o More players can avoid the sickening experience of playing for 12 or more hours to get nothing back. Many of those to whom this happens are too exhausted or discouraged to return the next day.

o More players will enter the next day's tournament for the above reasons, and many of those eliminated early will often play in satellites.

o Poker revenues are increased (more side games and more satellites, fewer dealers needed during late shifts).

o Casino revenues are increased. Players have more time to gamble.

o Last and most important is the fact that the final result will be more dependent on skill and less on luck.

There's a number of ways to create a fast then slow structure.

1. Start the antes and/or blinds higher.

2. Shorten the early time periods and lengthen the later ones. My recommendation is to begin with four 30-minute levels, then three 40-minute levels, and then finish the first day with 60-minute levels. At the final table, each level would last 90 minutes. (As noted above, the Horseshoe staff has already made some changes in this direction.)

3. Start the final table at a limit that gives the average player at least 15 big bets or 15 to 20 rounds. It is not mandatory to start the final table at the same level that was being played at the end of the previous day. The final table can always be started at a lower level.

4. The structure for the final table should include all logical levels and extended time periods at each level.

5. Eliminate some levels early in the tournament and/or add in additional levels later in the tournament. For example, the early increase would be from $100-$200 to $200-$400; midtournament, from $1,000-$2,000 to $1,500-$3,000, then to $2,000-$4,000; late in the tournament, from $10,000-$20,000 to $12,000-$24,000 to $15,000-$30,000 to $20,000-$40,000.

I strongly recommend a combination of No. 1 through No. 4. The main objection to No. 5 is that it produces some huge escalations from round to round, making it harder to play sensibly.

* The TEARS system eliminates some of the huge escalations from round to round that are often found in tournaments. Tex Morgan states that criticism of his TEARS system is unjustified, in that it can be used to provide whatever type of structure the organizers want. He has designed it to assist the tournament staff by providing a relatively easy way to set a structure to achieve whatever blend of speed, skill, and luck they want.

Structure Questionnaire

Following is a questionnaire intended for use by tournament directors in determining tournament structure.

Assume a tournament that starts with 150 to 350 players. Play will take place over two days – one full day and one half-day. The final two or three tables will finish in the money. The final table will consist of eight or nine players.

1. How many hours should it take to eliminate half the players?

2. How many hours should it take until everyone left is in the money?

3. How many tables should return for the second day (1 or 2)?

4. How many rounds should players have at the opening level?

5. How many big bets (limit) should players have at the opening level?

6. How many rounds should a player with average chips have at the final table?

7. How many big bets (limit) should a player with average chips have at the final table?

8. Which of the following structures do you prefer?

a. Slow changing to fast as the tournament progresses (the current structure)

b. Medium throughout

c. Fast changing to slow as the tournament progresses (my recommendation)