<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>(Disclaimer: I am very aware there may be many flaws present in this. If you like it, please respond with ways to improve it. If you don't like it, please don't waste your time or mine with derrogatory comments about how "stupid" I am or for me to "GTFO". THank you.)
Basically, after reading countless threads on this site about what type of a poker player is better, cash or tourney, I thought it would be cool to have a tourney in a structure like this:
People can buy in for whatever amount they want, as small as 5 times the current BB (in a NLHE tourney).
In some cases, the amount of tourney chips may be exactly how much they bought in for. Other instances, especially lower buy-in games, may call for the player to get a certain amount of tourney chips based on their buy-in amount. For example, 10 dollars may equal 100 Tourney Chips...
During the first 5 levels of play, from henceforth called the Crazy Levels, the blinds will raise at least twice as slow as a regular tourney. However, each subsequent level thereafter will follow a normal blind structure.
During the Crazy Levels, players may rebuy or add-on with absolutely no limit (some cases may present a limit). Also, players may join tourney at any point during first 5 levels, up until the last minute of level 5.
After the end of each of the Crazy Levels, the current prizepool will be split into two. The first prizepool will consist of a "cash game" reward. The second will be put into the "Tourney" Prizepool.
Cash Game Reward: Since the structure is very generous and rewards players for their skill more than luck, this reward will be optioned to the top 10 percent* of the tournament field, based on chip counts. These 10 percent will have the option to "Cash out"half of their current chips after each of the Crazy Levels. The cashout will work like the following hypothetical tourney:
NLHE $10 Cash Tourney
- $10 Dollars buys 100 Tourney Chips.
- Blinds start at 10/20.
After end of level 1:
-100 players bought in
-Average of $100 dollars spent by each player.
-Total Prizepool (so far): $10,000
-Cash Game RewardTotal: $5,000
Top 10 players are given the option to cashout half of their chip stack. Here is an example of what the option for the chipleader would be in the hypothetical tourney:
Chip leader: Player 1
-Amount of chips: 10,000
-Cashout 100 chips (up to 5,000) at $10 each
-Total Cashout possible: $500
Players 2-10 will also be given the same option based on their chip count.
Each player will have the five minute break (of course, longer in some cases), between each level, to make their decision. Any decision not made in this time frame will be automatically declined.
If, after the top 10 percent is given the Cash Out Option, there is still a remaining balance in the Cash Game Reward, all remaining money will be transfered to the Tourney prizepool.
Again, this process occurs at the end of each level. Therefore, it may very well be that the first level accumulates the highest Cash Game Reward.
After the Crazy Levels are complete, the tourney simply becomes like any other freezeout.
*(Note: In any instance where the top 10 percent may have more than half the chips in play, the Cash Out Option will only be given to whatever the top percentage of players is owning half the chips in play.)
Now after reading all of this, you may ask: How can this prove what type of player is better? Well, IMO this is a very good solution to this question.
I was very bored today... </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Again....simplify, you think a site will introduce this to the general audience, if players here wont even read all the rules? c'mon
head hurts. pack that g-bong.
I agree it sounds cool, but it is a little complex. Maybe at a homegame or something...
In your hypothetical cash out, the Chip Leader has all the chips (10,000). There was only 10,000 chips in the tourney you were playing.
Why wouldn't people always buy in max?
How would the first portion be no different than a rebuy where the top 10% had the option to cash in some of their enormous chip lead, thus reducing the prize pool, and making everyone want to kill them, and the tournament host?
I agree this is a different concept, and I'm all for such things, but I think that the whole entire thing is a tournament with slightly different rules. I don't really see the cash game dynamic involved because you can't really combine a game where you theoretically are playing your entire life (cash), and a game that is a one shot window (tournament).
I realize we try to make plays in tournaments that we say are positive over the long run, however, we have to have some way to measure our plays, and we use that concept. Tournaments have a very defined end to them, whereas a cash game never really stops (IMO).
Last Post: Jul 14th, 2007, 05:31 AM2 Replies
- 5 Replies
- 13 Replies
Last Post: Jan 14th, 2006, 04:04 PM10 Replies
Last Post: Jun 17th, 2005, 11:08 AM10 Replies