I've been playing in live poker tournaments for quite a few years now and the vast majority of these have been pub or club games. These tournaments are run by amateurs who typically also play in the tournament they are directing. The individuals who run these games are generally volunteers who get no reward for the hours of work that they put into running these events and should be applauded for their efforts. However, having said that, I've been to quite a few tournaments that have been poorly run and some of them have been totally shambolic.
What follows is a list of some of the worst examples of bad organisation in tournaments I've seen over the years. If anyone wants to ensure that they run an event that puts people off ever wanting to play there again, they should use this list as a guide. Implement as many of these suggestion as possible and you can pretty much guarantee that no-one will want to return to your poker tournament any time soon.
How not to run a poker tournament:
1. Don't provide any information. Anything that prospective players want to know before handing over their money should be kept secret. Information about the game structure (the starting stacks and blinds), whether or not there are re-buys or add-ons, how many places get paid, how much, if any, comes out of the prize-pool; all this should be on a need to know basis and let's face it, the players don't need to know. It helps if you yourself don't know all the details because you're making it up as you go along. But even if you have it all worked out, keep it to yourself if you can.
2. Keep them guessing about the start time. Advertise a start time for your tournament but actually start at a different time, preferably earlier than advertised. Or advertise conflicting start times. One of the best examples I've seen of this was at a bar where they had two blackboards outside advertising their tournament, each showing a different time. Another way to go is to start much later than advertised because you are waiting for more players or you can't find some vital piece of equipment or because you just don't care. If you are running a regular event you should try to start late consistently.
3. Change the structure at the last minute. If you do give out information about the game, you should change it just before the start, but after everyone has paid their entry fees. Decide to make your freeze-out tournament a re-buy or if it's a re-buy tournament, change the re-buy cost or the number of re-buys allowed. Or if your mate turns up late, change the cut off time for registration and let them play. With this one, it helps if you vary it from week to week; be strict about the cut off one week and then relax the rules the next week. Keep them guessing.
4. Treat the players like naughty children. Start the tournament off by making a little speech where you berate the players for their shortcomings. Pick on some aspect of the rules that you think has been neglected in past games and give everyone a piece of your mind about it. Be as blunt as you like when you do this; you know they deserve it. This is particularly effective when you have a lot of new players who weren't even at the last game. They won't be at the next one either.
5. Don't have written rules or procedures. Apart from following the general principal of 'keeping them guessing', this is also useful if anyone challenges a ruling you make: if there are no rules to refer to, there's no dispute. The rule is what you say it is. This is a great way of keeping players off balance. You can change your rulings from tournament to tournament and there's nothing anyone can do. The look on their faces when you make a ruling that is the opposite of what you said last week; priceless.
6. Obscure the tournament clock. Most venues have tournament software that displays important information on a big screen. This should be obscured as much as possible. Try to situate the screen in a place that makes it visible to as few players as possible. Failing that, spend as much time as you can fiddling with the data entry screen so players can't see the clock. You can do this before the game starts and during breaks. It may be a relatively minor irritant, but every little helps. Another thing you could try; if you're using a TV screen, switch the tournament clock over to the computer screen so you can watch your favourite sporting event on the main screen. And turn the volume up, just for fun.
7. Avoid transparency during the chip-up. When it comes time to change up players' chips, the messier the better. Do it as quickly as possible to maximise the possibility of errors and don't let players see what's going on. You should throw a player's chips into a container first and then give out the replacement chips. That way, no-one can question your accuracy because there's no way of checking it. If you have more than one person performing the chip-up they should work on separate stacks but preferably on the same table to maximise the confusion. And don't forget the golden rule; if you are playing in the tournament you should always chip-up your own stack.
8. Have no set procedure for moving players. If you have to move a player to a new table, be as vague as possible. Just make it up as you go along. Ideally, don't even specify who has to move. Just say 'I need one player from table two over here', and let them work it out. And if you do have a set procedure and someone is reluctant to move, let them be and pick someone else. Also, when someone comes to a new table, don't use the tournament rule where they play straight away: use the cash game rule and force them to sit out several hands if they are seated in the blinds. Moving players should never be a fair and impartial process; ideally it should be at the whim of the tournament director and put the players who are moved at a disadvantage.
9. Be a bad loser. If you are playing in a tournament that you are also running, your attitude towards the other players should be a reflection of how well your game is going. If you start losing, let everyone know that you are unhappy. Start telling people off for various minor infractions and try to make the atmosphere as unpleasant as possible. Choose a player at your table (preferably someone who is taking your chips but not someone who will stand up to you) and start picking on them. Be rude. Argue. Throw your weight around. If you are eliminated, do not, under any circumstances shake any-ones hand when you leave the table. Use the spare time that you now have to continue berating players for their poor behaviour. After all, who do they think they are?
10. Waste players' time. Time is precious in a poker tournament. You should try and use up as much of that time as you can moving players, setting up tables chipping up and so on, but without stopping the clock. Let it run. I've only seen this once but it's a particularly inspired example of time wasting: have a dealer run the final table and then decide that you need to chip up during the game. But don't get someone else to do the chip up. Have the dealer stop dealing and perform the chip up while the clock runs on. Brilliant!
11. Change the pay-outs. Most tournament management software works out the payouts and displays them on the screen. But when that's not the case, there's a potential to create confusion by keeping the information close to your chest. If you must let players know what the prizes are, scrawl them on a scrap of paper and pass it around the tables. Do this just once. If they can't remember, that's their problem. The 'bubble boy' ploy is also a good one. When you reach the point where the next player out will put the rest in the money, change the payouts and pay the player on the bubble a prize, reducing some of the other payouts. But only do this if the player on the bubble is a friend or relation or club-mate of yours. Otherwise, stick to the advertised prizes.
12. Speed it up at the end. You don't want your tournament to run too long when there are only a few players left, especially if you've been knocked out, so speed it up. You can create a structure where the blinds suddenly start increasing massively towards the end, or you could just reduce the blind interval. Hell, make them 5 minutes long if you have to. Turn it into a craps shoot. Don't worry about the fact that these players have been working for hours to get to the big payout at the end, just roll the dice and see who comes out the winner. Then you can go home and get some rest.
13. Have no dealer. When it gets down to the final table or the last few players some tournament directors will start dealing for the remaining players, or get a volunteer to do the dealing. You should avoid this. Let them keep dealing for themselves, even when it comes down to heads-up play. So it slows things down. So what? They're going to get paid. You're not.
14. Let the game run late. If you're running a tournament that is played on a weekday evening, this is an ideal chance to make people stay out later than they'd like. Structure the game so that it runs well past midnight to cause the maximum inconvenience. Failing this, at least have it run after the bar closes so that players are pressured into pushing the action or making a deal. A good way to achieve the late finish is to fail to accommodate a larger than usual number of players by changing the blind structure. Just let it run as usual and to hell with the complaints.
15. Blame the players. If the game does run late due to your inadequate planning you should blame the players for this. Stand over them and tell them that they should stop wasting time or that it's time they started pushing all-in instead of just calling. Tell them that they'll have to split the cash if they don't hurry up. In particular, make sure that they are aware that it's all their fault that the tournament is running late and that it has nothing to do with the way that you structured it. Of course, if you happen to still be playing in the game, you can always try to persuade the bar manager to stay open a bit later so you can finish.
Hopefully this is a useful guide for the best way not to run a poker tournament. If you follow these simple rules it should be easy to irritate, annoy and alienate the people who come to your tournament. If you consistently follow this guide you can be sure that people will go out of their way to avoid playing in your game and word will spread quickly that it is the last place that anyone would want to play. Good luck.
Friday, 27 April 2018
Monday, 22 January 2018
Poker Holiday
I'm back at work now after the summer break. It was a pretty relaxing three week holiday with my wife and I just hanging around in Auckland and enjoying the summer. At the start I decided that I'd try to play at least three sessions of poker each week, even though most of my regular live games were not being played during the break. As it happens, I was able to achieve this, so in between other holiday activities I got to play a fair bit of poker:
Tuesday 19th Dec, Ye Olde Bailey pub, $30 tournament.
This was actually two days before the start of my holiday but as my regular Wednesday night game had finished for the year my wife and I went to check out this evening tournament. As it happens, several of the Wednesday night regulars were also at this game, as well as a couple of others that we knew. After late entries they had five full tables. These were oval tables that sat on bar leaners and the players sat around them on bar stools. My wife and I both got about halfway through the field before being eliminated, which was probably just as well as I had to go to work the next day. 16/39.
Friday 22nd Dec, Onehunga Workingmen's Club, $30 tournament.
This was the final game for the year at the Workies and included the prize-giving. I put on my bright red island shirt for this game but couldn't find my reindeer antlers so we had to stop off at the $2 shop to get another pair, along with some flashing Santa earrings for my wife. I received a $200 prize for coming first in the final Ten Week Challenge but came nowhere in the over-all yearly points. As for the game, I finished 11th out of 20 players.
Sunday 24th Dec, PokerStars, US$11 tournament.
I couldn't find my favourite 888 tournament on Christmas eve so I entered this one on PokerStars. Two hours into the tournament, with about 50 BBs I got dealt Aces. Player1 raised, I re-raised, he went all-in and I called. He showed pocket Kings, a King hit the flop and I lost most of my stack. A few hands later, with 12BBs I was dealt KQs. Player1 min-raised and I pushed all-in. He called with pocket Kings. I hit a Queen on the flop but that's it. 106/548.
Tuesday 26th Dec, Mangere Cosmopolitan Club, $50 deep stack tournament.
Instead of joining the crowds at the Boxing Day sales my wife and I went to this game in Mangere. These guys love re-buys so I was surprised to find they were running a freeze-out tournament. But the starting stack was 100,000 with the blinds at 100/200 so there was plenty of scope for loose play with a 500 BB stack. Sure enough, I lost most of my chips to a donkey who called my initial raise with Q5 when I had JJ. He then went on to call my substantial bets with nothing but Queen high until he finally hit the Queen on the river. 26/31.
Thursday 28th Dec, PokerStars US$11 tournament.
Another PokerStars tournament. These games are on at 10.30 am. The one I usually play on 888Poker
is on at 12.30 pm. But for some reason the 888Poker games weren't on during the holiday period so I played PokerStars instead. In this one I lost my stack bit by bit and only managed to last for an hour. 309/442.
Saturday 30th Dec, Sky City Casino ring game, $180 buy-in.
I took the bus into town to play in this game, which started at about 6 pm. I checked out the timetable for the return trip and it turns out there are a couple of late buses going my way, with the last of these at about 2 am. This is very convenient if I happen to end up playing late on any of these trips when I don't have the car. As for the game, there was an awful lot of limp-calling and I ended up doing okay. I called it a night after about 5 1/2 hours and got home not long after midnight. $197 profit.
Monday 1st Jan, Mangere Cossie, $30 re-buy and add-on tournament.
New Years' Day and another deep stack tournament at Mangere. After nearly 5 hours play my wife and I both found ourselves in the money. When we were down to just 3 players the chip leader, Aroha, suggested a deal, but I declined. I was aiming for the 1st prize of $400. My wife was eliminated in 3rd place and Aroha and I ended up with similar stack sizes. Not long after that we were both all-in. I had the better hand pre-flop but she hit and I didn't. I got $200 for 2nd place. 2/22.
Wednesday 3rd Jan, Sky City ring game, $180 buy-in.
The character of the table was different this time, with much more pre-flop raising and very little limp-calling. Two players in particular were quite aggressive before the flop. I wasn't getting good cards and decided to push the action a bit, losing $50 in an ill-conceived bluff attempt. After that I was still card dead and short-stacked as well, making for a slow night. After 4 hours I decided to quit while I still had some chips. $115 loss.
Saturday 6th Jan, Mangere Cossie, $30 tournament.
I was told that MCC planned on running two games a week this year. A $30 freeze-out on Saturdays and a $10 unlimited re-buy and add-on tournament on Sundays. My wife and I went to check out the first of the Saturday games. Along with a handful of others from other clubs we were becoming regulars at these holiday season games. Deep starting stack, very loose play, steep blind structure. 14/30.
Tuesday 9th Jan, F Bar, $20 unlimited re-buy and add-on tournament.
This one had a strange structure. It was $20 for a 20k starting stack, with an additional 5k 'earlybird' bonus. There were unlimited $10 re-buys for 20k before the first break. Then there was a $20 add-on for a stack of 160k! And also bonus chips for bar purchases. It was basically an all-in-fest for the first hour or so with players re-buying multiple times. I just waited it out, made my add-on at the break and started playing after that. In the first hand after the break I picked up pocket Aces against a player with a monster stack. He flopped a set of threes and I made a very bad call, refusing to believe that he'd outdrawn me, and was eliminated. 13/15.
Friday 12th Jan, PokerStars US$11 tournament, 888Poker US$3 Sit 'n' Gos.
Another early finish in a PokerStars tournament, lasting for just an hour. I lost half my stack after flopping two pair with 34s and failing to stop a chaser from hitting his flush. Then I spent the rest of the time trying to stay alive with a short stack. After that I tried a few single table tournaments on 888Poker, but came out behind. 338/510. 5/9, 2/9, 7/9, 5/9.
Saturday 13th Jan, Sky City ring game, $180 buy-in.
Went home after about 1 hour of play and making bad decisions in two hands. First up, I raised with KJs and got 1 caller. The flop was Q x x, he checked, I bet, he called. The turn was another blank and we both checked. He checked the A on the river so I bet at it and he called with his Q 5, taking about $56 from me. In the second hand I had ATs and raised in position, getting 2 callers. The flop was T T J and we all checked. The turn was a K. I bet at it and got one caller. When the caller checked the river K, I foolishly bet again and got called by the player with K x. I was only ever getting called by a better hand. Another $60 thrown away. Total loss $143.
Sunday 14th Jan, 888Poker, US$12 tournament.
My last game before going back to work, back on 888. I started real slow, hardly getting any playable cards, but towards the middle things changed and I chipped up a bit. Then I went into a decline again and spent a lot of time nursing a short stack. After a couple of hours I was approaching the bubble but had only 7 BBs left. I was desperately hoping for a hand I could go all-in with. I was dealt the following hands: 94, 64, 64, 62s, 92s, T3, 63, Q6, J6, Q3, 43. By the time I was dealt J3 I had less than 4BBs so shoved and lost to pocket sixes. I finished 5 places from the bubble. 20/110.
That was my summer holiday. Now that everyone is drifting back into town I guess some of the regular games will re-start. So I look forward to playing some more poker.
Tuesday 19th Dec, Ye Olde Bailey pub, $30 tournament.
This was actually two days before the start of my holiday but as my regular Wednesday night game had finished for the year my wife and I went to check out this evening tournament. As it happens, several of the Wednesday night regulars were also at this game, as well as a couple of others that we knew. After late entries they had five full tables. These were oval tables that sat on bar leaners and the players sat around them on bar stools. My wife and I both got about halfway through the field before being eliminated, which was probably just as well as I had to go to work the next day. 16/39.
Friday 22nd Dec, Onehunga Workingmen's Club, $30 tournament.
This was the final game for the year at the Workies and included the prize-giving. I put on my bright red island shirt for this game but couldn't find my reindeer antlers so we had to stop off at the $2 shop to get another pair, along with some flashing Santa earrings for my wife. I received a $200 prize for coming first in the final Ten Week Challenge but came nowhere in the over-all yearly points. As for the game, I finished 11th out of 20 players.
Sunday 24th Dec, PokerStars, US$11 tournament.
I couldn't find my favourite 888 tournament on Christmas eve so I entered this one on PokerStars. Two hours into the tournament, with about 50 BBs I got dealt Aces. Player1 raised, I re-raised, he went all-in and I called. He showed pocket Kings, a King hit the flop and I lost most of my stack. A few hands later, with 12BBs I was dealt KQs. Player1 min-raised and I pushed all-in. He called with pocket Kings. I hit a Queen on the flop but that's it. 106/548.
Tuesday 26th Dec, Mangere Cosmopolitan Club, $50 deep stack tournament.
Instead of joining the crowds at the Boxing Day sales my wife and I went to this game in Mangere. These guys love re-buys so I was surprised to find they were running a freeze-out tournament. But the starting stack was 100,000 with the blinds at 100/200 so there was plenty of scope for loose play with a 500 BB stack. Sure enough, I lost most of my chips to a donkey who called my initial raise with Q5 when I had JJ. He then went on to call my substantial bets with nothing but Queen high until he finally hit the Queen on the river. 26/31.
Thursday 28th Dec, PokerStars US$11 tournament.
Another PokerStars tournament. These games are on at 10.30 am. The one I usually play on 888Poker
is on at 12.30 pm. But for some reason the 888Poker games weren't on during the holiday period so I played PokerStars instead. In this one I lost my stack bit by bit and only managed to last for an hour. 309/442.
Saturday 30th Dec, Sky City Casino ring game, $180 buy-in.
I took the bus into town to play in this game, which started at about 6 pm. I checked out the timetable for the return trip and it turns out there are a couple of late buses going my way, with the last of these at about 2 am. This is very convenient if I happen to end up playing late on any of these trips when I don't have the car. As for the game, there was an awful lot of limp-calling and I ended up doing okay. I called it a night after about 5 1/2 hours and got home not long after midnight. $197 profit.
Monday 1st Jan, Mangere Cossie, $30 re-buy and add-on tournament.
New Years' Day and another deep stack tournament at Mangere. After nearly 5 hours play my wife and I both found ourselves in the money. When we were down to just 3 players the chip leader, Aroha, suggested a deal, but I declined. I was aiming for the 1st prize of $400. My wife was eliminated in 3rd place and Aroha and I ended up with similar stack sizes. Not long after that we were both all-in. I had the better hand pre-flop but she hit and I didn't. I got $200 for 2nd place. 2/22.
Wednesday 3rd Jan, Sky City ring game, $180 buy-in.
The character of the table was different this time, with much more pre-flop raising and very little limp-calling. Two players in particular were quite aggressive before the flop. I wasn't getting good cards and decided to push the action a bit, losing $50 in an ill-conceived bluff attempt. After that I was still card dead and short-stacked as well, making for a slow night. After 4 hours I decided to quit while I still had some chips. $115 loss.
Saturday 6th Jan, Mangere Cossie, $30 tournament.
I was told that MCC planned on running two games a week this year. A $30 freeze-out on Saturdays and a $10 unlimited re-buy and add-on tournament on Sundays. My wife and I went to check out the first of the Saturday games. Along with a handful of others from other clubs we were becoming regulars at these holiday season games. Deep starting stack, very loose play, steep blind structure. 14/30.
Tuesday 9th Jan, F Bar, $20 unlimited re-buy and add-on tournament.
This one had a strange structure. It was $20 for a 20k starting stack, with an additional 5k 'earlybird' bonus. There were unlimited $10 re-buys for 20k before the first break. Then there was a $20 add-on for a stack of 160k! And also bonus chips for bar purchases. It was basically an all-in-fest for the first hour or so with players re-buying multiple times. I just waited it out, made my add-on at the break and started playing after that. In the first hand after the break I picked up pocket Aces against a player with a monster stack. He flopped a set of threes and I made a very bad call, refusing to believe that he'd outdrawn me, and was eliminated. 13/15.
Friday 12th Jan, PokerStars US$11 tournament, 888Poker US$3 Sit 'n' Gos.
Another early finish in a PokerStars tournament, lasting for just an hour. I lost half my stack after flopping two pair with 34s and failing to stop a chaser from hitting his flush. Then I spent the rest of the time trying to stay alive with a short stack. After that I tried a few single table tournaments on 888Poker, but came out behind. 338/510. 5/9, 2/9, 7/9, 5/9.
Saturday 13th Jan, Sky City ring game, $180 buy-in.
Went home after about 1 hour of play and making bad decisions in two hands. First up, I raised with KJs and got 1 caller. The flop was Q x x, he checked, I bet, he called. The turn was another blank and we both checked. He checked the A on the river so I bet at it and he called with his Q 5, taking about $56 from me. In the second hand I had ATs and raised in position, getting 2 callers. The flop was T T J and we all checked. The turn was a K. I bet at it and got one caller. When the caller checked the river K, I foolishly bet again and got called by the player with K x. I was only ever getting called by a better hand. Another $60 thrown away. Total loss $143.
Sunday 14th Jan, 888Poker, US$12 tournament.
My last game before going back to work, back on 888. I started real slow, hardly getting any playable cards, but towards the middle things changed and I chipped up a bit. Then I went into a decline again and spent a lot of time nursing a short stack. After a couple of hours I was approaching the bubble but had only 7 BBs left. I was desperately hoping for a hand I could go all-in with. I was dealt the following hands: 94, 64, 64, 62s, 92s, T3, 63, Q6, J6, Q3, 43. By the time I was dealt J3 I had less than 4BBs so shoved and lost to pocket sixes. I finished 5 places from the bubble. 20/110.
That was my summer holiday. Now that everyone is drifting back into town I guess some of the regular games will re-start. So I look forward to playing some more poker.
Thursday, 4 January 2018
The New Year
I'm in the middle of a three week holiday and the weather in Auckland has been pretty good so far. But a storm hit yesterday and it's raining and blowing a gale outside. So this is as good a time as any to look back at last year's poker results and consider how things might shape up in the coming year.
I hit a couple of milestones in 2017. The first of these was when I had my biggest ever payout in a poker game. In late May I split first and second prize in the Clubs NZ Friday tournament and came away with a $580 profit. I also went deep in the main Saturday/Sunday tournament, coming 17th out of 172 players. So it was a pretty successful long weekend. The second high point came when my bankroll reached a level that allowed me to play in the Sky City Casino $1/$3 ring game. I'd been hoping to reach this level for a while and it finally came to pass in August of 2017. Another pleasing aspect of the last year is the fact that I was able to reboot the Wednesday night rebuy tournament at the Landmark Bar. When it became obvious that no-one was going to step up to run this game I took it over. It had a bit of a slow start but eventually it was running well and hitting the $500 prizepool level through most of the year.
The same success didn't come to the 50/50 Deep Stack Tournament, a monthly game I was running at the Onehunga Workingmen's Club. Although it started out okay, at least getting enough players for two tables, it went into a bit of a decline in the second half of the year. In the last two games of the year I only had enough players for a single table, which is pretty disappointing. I'm going to have my work cut out for me this year to keep this game going. Another aspect of the end of 2017 that was not so good was my performance in online Sit and Go's. I decided to give this game type another shot for the Spring season (September to November) and once again failed to get any traction. My ongoing struggle to work out a successful Sit and Go strategy continues.
Playing in the Sky City ring games and reviving the Landmark game are two of the goals that I set myself at the start of last year ('2017', 13/02/17) so I can tick those two off the list. The other goal that I've been able to at least partly achieve is the promotion of the 50/50 game. Although I wasn't able to build it up as I'd hoped, at least I was able to keep it going all year, which is something. I guess promotion of this game is an ongoing project for the coming year.
A couple of the goals that I set myself at the beginning of the year actually changed part way through 2017. I originally intended to try out all the available local live tournaments in my search for the optimal game, and to then aim at playing four poker games each week. But I ultimately came to the conclusion that this was just too much poker and it was time to give other aspects of my life a little more time. So I abandoned the optimal game search and just stuck to the three games per week that I'd been playing. I think this was a sensible move and I plan to continue with this level of play in the coming year.
The one goal for 2017 that I failed to complete was to read 'Harrington on Hold'em Volume 2'. When I realised that I was approaching a bankroll level that would allow me to play at Sky City I thought I'd better read up on ring game strategy. So I bought both volumes of 'Harrington on Cash Games' and read them instead, leaving me no time to read Volume 2 of the tournament guide. That goal is now moved forward into 2018.
As for my overall results for last year, they've been pretty good. The category that I call 'other live tournaments' covers the tournaments that I play during the year that are not part of my regular schedule. This was my most profitable game type for the year, showing a massive 123% Return on Investment (ROI). However, this was due mostly to the single big win that I had in May, and is not representative of the rest of my results, which show a more modest return. Of these, my best results came from the OWMC Friday nighters, with a ROI of 36% and Sky City ring games, with a ROI of 27%. It should be noted however that the results from Sky City are from just three games played towards the end of the year. I also had positive results for the Landmark game and the 50/50 game.
There were two game types that showed negative results for the year. The first of these was online Sit and Go tournaments. I played these at the $3 level for three months and racked up an 11% loss. That was a failed experiment. The second loss came from online tournaments, which I played through the other nine months of the year. My ROI for these games was -24%. On the face of it this a bad result but I'm not actually too concerned. I did so well in this game type during the summer season that I decided to move up a level in terms of buy-in. I played two seasons at this new level before trying my hand at Sit and Go's in the spring. As a result, I've only actually played eight online tournaments at the new level; the jury's still out on this one. I'll have to play more games of this type before I can get an accurate indication of my progress.
I'm very happy with my overall results for the past year, showing a 24% ROI for all game types. I also added a new stat to my Poker Summary for 2017. I went back over the last five years' results and worked out an average ROI. It turns out that my average for the last five years has been 24%. That's a great result and I'm very keen to at least maintain that rate of return, and preferably improve on it.
That brings me to my Poker Plan for the coming year. I know that I will be continuing to play 3 poker games each week, but I'm not at all sure what those games will be. I'm no longer running the Wednesday night tournament and have decided that it's no longer an optimal game, so will be playing it less often this year. My wife is also reconsidering whether she'll continue playing in the Friday night game. If she decides to give up playing that game, then so will I, as I've really only be playing there because she likes (or liked) it. I've heard that the Mangere Cosmopolitan Club have now started playing a $30 freeze-out tournament on Saturday afternoon, so that may be an option. I'll also continue to run the monthly 50/50 Tournament and I will be putting a big effort into increasing the number of participants.
The other live game that I'm looking at playing during 2018 is the Sky City $1/$3 ring game. My bankroll plan allows me to buy in to these games for $180 (60 big blinds) and I decided that if I lost the equivalent of 3 buy-ins ($540) then I would give it up. I've now played seven cash game sessions and am hovering below the break-even point. I figure that as long as I'm still in the red I'll just play one session per month. If I start making a decent profit then I'll play once every three weeks and if I end up doing very well then I'll start playing fortnightly. But for now, once I emerge from the holiday period, it looks like a monthly trip up to Sky City Casino. I'll either be playing these games on Wednesday night or Saturday night; that's yet to be determined.
I'm intending to play two live games and one online game every week this year. During the holidays I've been playing in a Pokerstars tournament that starts at 10.30 am, but that will only be available to me on the weekends once I go back to work. There doesn't seem to be anything available at the right buy-in level and a convenient time on 888Poker so I guess I'm playing Pokerstars for the next year. Neither site seems to have evening tournaments at the right level, so Wednesday night (my traditional poker night) could prove to be a problem. In short, I know how often I want to play this year, but where and when I'll be playing are yet to be determined.
Towards the end of last year I decided that I need to set some short to medium term poker goals for myself. The idea is to have a set of goals that should be achievable in a matter of months and then, when I reach one goal, I can add another to the list. The five goals I have listed so far are as follows:
I hit a couple of milestones in 2017. The first of these was when I had my biggest ever payout in a poker game. In late May I split first and second prize in the Clubs NZ Friday tournament and came away with a $580 profit. I also went deep in the main Saturday/Sunday tournament, coming 17th out of 172 players. So it was a pretty successful long weekend. The second high point came when my bankroll reached a level that allowed me to play in the Sky City Casino $1/$3 ring game. I'd been hoping to reach this level for a while and it finally came to pass in August of 2017. Another pleasing aspect of the last year is the fact that I was able to reboot the Wednesday night rebuy tournament at the Landmark Bar. When it became obvious that no-one was going to step up to run this game I took it over. It had a bit of a slow start but eventually it was running well and hitting the $500 prizepool level through most of the year.
The same success didn't come to the 50/50 Deep Stack Tournament, a monthly game I was running at the Onehunga Workingmen's Club. Although it started out okay, at least getting enough players for two tables, it went into a bit of a decline in the second half of the year. In the last two games of the year I only had enough players for a single table, which is pretty disappointing. I'm going to have my work cut out for me this year to keep this game going. Another aspect of the end of 2017 that was not so good was my performance in online Sit and Go's. I decided to give this game type another shot for the Spring season (September to November) and once again failed to get any traction. My ongoing struggle to work out a successful Sit and Go strategy continues.
Playing in the Sky City ring games and reviving the Landmark game are two of the goals that I set myself at the start of last year ('2017', 13/02/17) so I can tick those two off the list. The other goal that I've been able to at least partly achieve is the promotion of the 50/50 game. Although I wasn't able to build it up as I'd hoped, at least I was able to keep it going all year, which is something. I guess promotion of this game is an ongoing project for the coming year.
A couple of the goals that I set myself at the beginning of the year actually changed part way through 2017. I originally intended to try out all the available local live tournaments in my search for the optimal game, and to then aim at playing four poker games each week. But I ultimately came to the conclusion that this was just too much poker and it was time to give other aspects of my life a little more time. So I abandoned the optimal game search and just stuck to the three games per week that I'd been playing. I think this was a sensible move and I plan to continue with this level of play in the coming year.
The one goal for 2017 that I failed to complete was to read 'Harrington on Hold'em Volume 2'. When I realised that I was approaching a bankroll level that would allow me to play at Sky City I thought I'd better read up on ring game strategy. So I bought both volumes of 'Harrington on Cash Games' and read them instead, leaving me no time to read Volume 2 of the tournament guide. That goal is now moved forward into 2018.
As for my overall results for last year, they've been pretty good. The category that I call 'other live tournaments' covers the tournaments that I play during the year that are not part of my regular schedule. This was my most profitable game type for the year, showing a massive 123% Return on Investment (ROI). However, this was due mostly to the single big win that I had in May, and is not representative of the rest of my results, which show a more modest return. Of these, my best results came from the OWMC Friday nighters, with a ROI of 36% and Sky City ring games, with a ROI of 27%. It should be noted however that the results from Sky City are from just three games played towards the end of the year. I also had positive results for the Landmark game and the 50/50 game.
There were two game types that showed negative results for the year. The first of these was online Sit and Go tournaments. I played these at the $3 level for three months and racked up an 11% loss. That was a failed experiment. The second loss came from online tournaments, which I played through the other nine months of the year. My ROI for these games was -24%. On the face of it this a bad result but I'm not actually too concerned. I did so well in this game type during the summer season that I decided to move up a level in terms of buy-in. I played two seasons at this new level before trying my hand at Sit and Go's in the spring. As a result, I've only actually played eight online tournaments at the new level; the jury's still out on this one. I'll have to play more games of this type before I can get an accurate indication of my progress.
I'm very happy with my overall results for the past year, showing a 24% ROI for all game types. I also added a new stat to my Poker Summary for 2017. I went back over the last five years' results and worked out an average ROI. It turns out that my average for the last five years has been 24%. That's a great result and I'm very keen to at least maintain that rate of return, and preferably improve on it.
That brings me to my Poker Plan for the coming year. I know that I will be continuing to play 3 poker games each week, but I'm not at all sure what those games will be. I'm no longer running the Wednesday night tournament and have decided that it's no longer an optimal game, so will be playing it less often this year. My wife is also reconsidering whether she'll continue playing in the Friday night game. If she decides to give up playing that game, then so will I, as I've really only be playing there because she likes (or liked) it. I've heard that the Mangere Cosmopolitan Club have now started playing a $30 freeze-out tournament on Saturday afternoon, so that may be an option. I'll also continue to run the monthly 50/50 Tournament and I will be putting a big effort into increasing the number of participants.
The other live game that I'm looking at playing during 2018 is the Sky City $1/$3 ring game. My bankroll plan allows me to buy in to these games for $180 (60 big blinds) and I decided that if I lost the equivalent of 3 buy-ins ($540) then I would give it up. I've now played seven cash game sessions and am hovering below the break-even point. I figure that as long as I'm still in the red I'll just play one session per month. If I start making a decent profit then I'll play once every three weeks and if I end up doing very well then I'll start playing fortnightly. But for now, once I emerge from the holiday period, it looks like a monthly trip up to Sky City Casino. I'll either be playing these games on Wednesday night or Saturday night; that's yet to be determined.
I'm intending to play two live games and one online game every week this year. During the holidays I've been playing in a Pokerstars tournament that starts at 10.30 am, but that will only be available to me on the weekends once I go back to work. There doesn't seem to be anything available at the right buy-in level and a convenient time on 888Poker so I guess I'm playing Pokerstars for the next year. Neither site seems to have evening tournaments at the right level, so Wednesday night (my traditional poker night) could prove to be a problem. In short, I know how often I want to play this year, but where and when I'll be playing are yet to be determined.
Towards the end of last year I decided that I need to set some short to medium term poker goals for myself. The idea is to have a set of goals that should be achievable in a matter of months and then, when I reach one goal, I can add another to the list. The five goals I have listed so far are as follows:
- Play in at least 3 Sky City cashies over the holidays.
- Make a profit in the Sky cashies equivalent to 3 buy-ins ($540).
- Read 'Harrington on Hold'em, Volume 2.
- Play in at least 10 weekly live tournaments other than the OWMC Friday night games.
- Win an online tournament.
I'm already 2/3 of the way towards completing the first goal and I should be able to tick it off next Saturday. I'm also currently re-reading the first Harrington book and will be getting a copy of Volume 2 in a few weeks. As far as the online tournament and Sky cashie results go; that depends on me playing well enough to achieve those goals. The fifth goal is more problematic. Whether this will be easy to achieve or not depends a great deal on what my weekly schedule ends up looking like. And that is yet to be revealed.
Meanwhile, the holiday period has given me a chance to play a few different games, and I've been keeping up my average of 3 games per week. I was up at the casino on Wednesday night (card dead for 2 hours, short stacked and no big hands for 2 more) and it looks like my wife and I are off to Mangere Cossie tomorrow. And so it goes. New year, same game.
Thursday, 21 December 2017
The High Hand
Most of the live poker tournaments I play in also incorporate a highest hand competition. You pay an extra $5 at the start and the person who hits the highest hand by a certain time wins the prize-pool. The cut-off time is usually at the end of the first or second break and the hand has to go to showdown to qualify.
I never enter these competitions for two reasons. First off, it's purely a matter of chance who wins it, and I'm not much of a gambler (obviously, I don't consider playing poker to be gambling). If I want to take a punt, I'll buy a raffle ticket or maybe take a bet on the horses. Secondly, and more importantly, entering the high hand competition changes the way you play. The pay-out is usually pretty good, often equaling third prize in the tournament or better, so players tend to chase that high hand relentlessly. That means a lot of calling with long shots and entering a lot more pots than usual. In other words, if you play in the high hand comp it turns you into a donkey.
The high hand comp was introduced to my regular Friday night tournament a couple of years ago and since then the game has got even looser than it already was. And it was already ridiculously loose. People just chase, chase, chase if they have even the smallest chance of hitting that big two-outer. This is actually good for me as I'm more likely to be paid off if I'm in a hand with one of these chasers. But of course it also means that there are a lot of people in each hand, which makes it very difficult to protect a good starting hand.
I occasionally play ring games at the Auckland Casino and I see that they have introduced something similar. They now have a Royal Flush Jackpot which goes up a little at a time. The first time I saw it running it was at $4,000. The last time I was there it was up to $12,000. That's a massive incentive to become a chaser. The way it works is, you have to flop a royal flush to win. So any two suited broadway cards suddenly become very desirable. Anyone with Jack Ten, King Ten, or Queen Jack suited is going to play, even if they have to call a big raise. But even though you are automatically in the jackpot if you play in this game, I just play the way I always do. I'm there to play poker, not to gamble on a massive long shot.
I've always considered that not playing in the high hand competition gives me an edge over those that do. Playing in a tournament a couple of weeks ago, I saw a concrete example of how advantageous this could be. During the early stages of the game the person who was running the HH comp made it clear to everyone else at the table that I was one of only two people who were not participating in the High Hand. Later on, I got involved in a hand where this paid off nicely.
I raised with A K and got the usual assortment of callers. The flop came J J 8, I put in a decent-sized bet and got called again by a couple of players. The turn was another Jack. By this stage I was getting worried that my Ace was no good and someone had a pocket pair, but I figured that I should keep the pressure on, so I bet again. This time I got one caller, Helen, a regular from the Friday game. Now I was really worried that I was behind, and was praying for an Ace or King on the river. The river was another Jack. This was actually the best possible card for me; I had the stone cold nuts.
Now I had something to consider. I knew that Helen was in the HH comp and more importantly, she knew that I wasn't. So she knew that even if I had an Ace, she still had quad Jacks, which was likely to be the winning hand for the day. The HH winner stood to collect $150. So I figured that she was likely to call a substantial bet with the second-best hand. I put in a decent-sized bet, she thought for a minute and said, "I'm going to be a [expletive deleted] and call because I know you're not in the high hand." She showed down pocket sixes; she later collected her $150 and I collected a much bigger pot than I otherwise would have.
There was a lot of talk around the table after this hand and some people thought that Helen might have called an all-in bet. She said that she probably wouldn't have but I guess I'll never know for sure. In retrospect, I probably could have got more from her than I did, but I still made a tidy sum on that hand. Helen was eliminated from the tournament a little later but I went on to cash. But it was only 6th place and I barely got my money back. But I have no regrets. I was eliminated after going all-in and being called by someone with a dominated hand. Then they hit their three-outer on the river and I was left with no chips and a minimum cash. If it had gone the other way, I would have been on track to make one of the top spots, all worth a lot more than $150.
My approach to the game is still the same. I'm not there to show down a higher hand than everyone else. I'm not there to gamble. I'm there to play poker.
I never enter these competitions for two reasons. First off, it's purely a matter of chance who wins it, and I'm not much of a gambler (obviously, I don't consider playing poker to be gambling). If I want to take a punt, I'll buy a raffle ticket or maybe take a bet on the horses. Secondly, and more importantly, entering the high hand competition changes the way you play. The pay-out is usually pretty good, often equaling third prize in the tournament or better, so players tend to chase that high hand relentlessly. That means a lot of calling with long shots and entering a lot more pots than usual. In other words, if you play in the high hand comp it turns you into a donkey.
The high hand comp was introduced to my regular Friday night tournament a couple of years ago and since then the game has got even looser than it already was. And it was already ridiculously loose. People just chase, chase, chase if they have even the smallest chance of hitting that big two-outer. This is actually good for me as I'm more likely to be paid off if I'm in a hand with one of these chasers. But of course it also means that there are a lot of people in each hand, which makes it very difficult to protect a good starting hand.
I occasionally play ring games at the Auckland Casino and I see that they have introduced something similar. They now have a Royal Flush Jackpot which goes up a little at a time. The first time I saw it running it was at $4,000. The last time I was there it was up to $12,000. That's a massive incentive to become a chaser. The way it works is, you have to flop a royal flush to win. So any two suited broadway cards suddenly become very desirable. Anyone with Jack Ten, King Ten, or Queen Jack suited is going to play, even if they have to call a big raise. But even though you are automatically in the jackpot if you play in this game, I just play the way I always do. I'm there to play poker, not to gamble on a massive long shot.
I've always considered that not playing in the high hand competition gives me an edge over those that do. Playing in a tournament a couple of weeks ago, I saw a concrete example of how advantageous this could be. During the early stages of the game the person who was running the HH comp made it clear to everyone else at the table that I was one of only two people who were not participating in the High Hand. Later on, I got involved in a hand where this paid off nicely.
I raised with A K and got the usual assortment of callers. The flop came J J 8, I put in a decent-sized bet and got called again by a couple of players. The turn was another Jack. By this stage I was getting worried that my Ace was no good and someone had a pocket pair, but I figured that I should keep the pressure on, so I bet again. This time I got one caller, Helen, a regular from the Friday game. Now I was really worried that I was behind, and was praying for an Ace or King on the river. The river was another Jack. This was actually the best possible card for me; I had the stone cold nuts.
Now I had something to consider. I knew that Helen was in the HH comp and more importantly, she knew that I wasn't. So she knew that even if I had an Ace, she still had quad Jacks, which was likely to be the winning hand for the day. The HH winner stood to collect $150. So I figured that she was likely to call a substantial bet with the second-best hand. I put in a decent-sized bet, she thought for a minute and said, "I'm going to be a [expletive deleted] and call because I know you're not in the high hand." She showed down pocket sixes; she later collected her $150 and I collected a much bigger pot than I otherwise would have.
There was a lot of talk around the table after this hand and some people thought that Helen might have called an all-in bet. She said that she probably wouldn't have but I guess I'll never know for sure. In retrospect, I probably could have got more from her than I did, but I still made a tidy sum on that hand. Helen was eliminated from the tournament a little later but I went on to cash. But it was only 6th place and I barely got my money back. But I have no regrets. I was eliminated after going all-in and being called by someone with a dominated hand. Then they hit their three-outer on the river and I was left with no chips and a minimum cash. If it had gone the other way, I would have been on track to make one of the top spots, all worth a lot more than $150.
My approach to the game is still the same. I'm not there to show down a higher hand than everyone else. I'm not there to gamble. I'm there to play poker.
Sunday, 22 October 2017
Tournament Director, Part 2
I'm pretty sure that it was the National Pub Poker League (NPPL) that originally introduced Texas Hold'em tournaments to the New Zealand pub and club scene. The NPPL is an Australian organisation that bought poker tournaments here maybe 20 years ago and is still going strong. As a result, the NPPL rules and procedures are what most tournament players are used to in this country.
A few years ago, when I ran my first poker tournament I decided that I needed to have a written set of rules that I could refer to if necessary. I first went to the NPPL website to see what their rules were but I found them to be somewhat basic and not really what I was looking for. After a quick google search I soon discovered the Tournament Director's Association (TDA) rules, which were much more detailed and comprehensive. I thought the TDA rules were much better so I adopted them and have been using them ever since.
Well, to be more precise, I've been using most of the TDA rules. The thing is, there are a number of areas where the TDA and the NPPL do not agree, and the vast majority of players are so used to the NPPL way of doing things that they find it hard to change. In the two tournaments that I currently run (the weekly Turbo at the Landmark Bar and the monthly deep stack tourney at the Onehunga Workies) I've been working towards changing the rules, with varying degrees of success.
Changing the 'forced check rule' was simplest. The NPPL procedure when someone bets out of turn is that the offending player is then not allowed to bet and can only call or check. So this is effectively an instantly applied penalty. The TDA approach is less severe. There is no instant penalty and the player who bet out of turn has to go through with their declared bet, provided that the action hasn't changed. A penalty is only applied in the case of repeated offences by the same player. I've been able to introduce this rule in both the tournaments that I run with a minimum of fuss.
Another change that I've been able to introduce is the procedure for moving a player to another table. I now move the player in the 'under the gun' position to the other table and they get dealt in immediately, regardless of the position they come into, even if that means paying the big blind or being the dealer. The procedure that is used in other local tournaments is that the player behind the dealer moves and they go on to the new table in whatever position is available. If they come into the blinds the procedure is a bit confused. In most cases the moving player is required to sit out several hands until the button passes. This is actually the rule for cash games and is not really a fair way to do things in tournaments.
Breaking tables is another area that is a bit confused in local tournaments. There tends to be no set procedure and most of the time the tournament director moves the players by saying something like 'I need two at this table and three at that table', and players then make their own choice of table. Although the games that I run are not actually big enough for me to worry about this procedure at the moment, if I did have a three table game then I would use the TDA rule. This involves randomly assigning new positions to the players. This is pretty simple using a random card draw. That way, everything is not only fair, but is seen to be fair.
Part of the problem with moving players in most tournaments I attend is that organisers usually have only as many seats as are necessary at each table. I've found that it works out better if you have a full number of seats at each table, regardless of the number of seated players. That way, I have vacant seats that I can move players into with a minimum of disruption. Players are used to tidying seats away when they get knocked out, so I just have to be alert and make sure that the seats are moved back into place.
According to another NPPL rule, if three or more players get moved to a new table there is a re-draw for dealer position. According to the TDA rules, players just take on whatever responsibilities their new seat carries, regardless of the number of players that move. I'm still a bit ambiguous about which way I should go on this one. It seems to be an entrenched idea among local players that if three or more move you re-establish for dealer. But it seems kind of arbitrary to me. Either you should re-establish every time or not, rather than creating an artificial line at a certain number of players. On balance, I think I will be just keeping it simple and sticking with the TDA, if and when this issue comes up.
The trickiest area I've had to deal with is the chip-up. The standard local procedure is pretty simple: chips are always rounded up. So if changing up 100 chips to 500s, anyone with 4x100 chips gets a 500, and even a player with a single 100 chip also gets a 500. On the other hand the TDA rule is different and somewhat complicated. The chip-up involves a 'chip race'. This is where the left-over chips are pooled and changed up and the TD deals out cards to determine which player gets the extras.
I don't like either of these chip-up procedures. Using the NPPL method, some-one with one 100 chip gets 500, and some-one with 4x100 also gets 500. That's not very fair. On the other hand, the TDA system is worse; depending on the luck of the draw, some-one with one 100 chip could get a 500 while the player with 4x100 could get nothing. So I've gone with a compromise procedure. In my Wednesday night game I simply round up or down. So 100 or 200 gets nothing and 300 or 400 gets a 500 chip. It seems to me to be the simplest and fairest way to do things.
When I introduced this rounding up and down process to my Wednesday night tournament there were initially a few murmurings about losing chips but overall it went okay. People got used to it. However, I haven't yet introduced it to the monthly game I run at Onehunga. This is because the main game at Onehunga is the weekly Friday-nighter which is run by the poker organiser at that club, and he uses the NPPL rounding up system. So I am likely to meet up with more resistance if I try to change the colour-up procedure at my game.
Nevertheless, assuming I'm still getting enough players coming to my Onehunga game, I intend to change the chip-up procedure starting next year. I'm sure there will be some objections but in the end, it's my game and my goal is to run it in the fairest and most transparent way possible. Once I introduce that change I will have got rid of the worst anomalies created by the traditional NPPL procedures and be pretty much running according to the TDA rules (apart from the chip-up). It's not that the NPPL rules are all that bad, it's just that I need a proper written set of rules to fall back on if required, and the TDA rules provide that. My main aim when running tournaments has always been to ensure that they are run in a fair and consistent way and I think that the procedures I'm working on adopting will achieve that.
A few years ago, when I ran my first poker tournament I decided that I needed to have a written set of rules that I could refer to if necessary. I first went to the NPPL website to see what their rules were but I found them to be somewhat basic and not really what I was looking for. After a quick google search I soon discovered the Tournament Director's Association (TDA) rules, which were much more detailed and comprehensive. I thought the TDA rules were much better so I adopted them and have been using them ever since.
Well, to be more precise, I've been using most of the TDA rules. The thing is, there are a number of areas where the TDA and the NPPL do not agree, and the vast majority of players are so used to the NPPL way of doing things that they find it hard to change. In the two tournaments that I currently run (the weekly Turbo at the Landmark Bar and the monthly deep stack tourney at the Onehunga Workies) I've been working towards changing the rules, with varying degrees of success.
Changing the 'forced check rule' was simplest. The NPPL procedure when someone bets out of turn is that the offending player is then not allowed to bet and can only call or check. So this is effectively an instantly applied penalty. The TDA approach is less severe. There is no instant penalty and the player who bet out of turn has to go through with their declared bet, provided that the action hasn't changed. A penalty is only applied in the case of repeated offences by the same player. I've been able to introduce this rule in both the tournaments that I run with a minimum of fuss.
Another change that I've been able to introduce is the procedure for moving a player to another table. I now move the player in the 'under the gun' position to the other table and they get dealt in immediately, regardless of the position they come into, even if that means paying the big blind or being the dealer. The procedure that is used in other local tournaments is that the player behind the dealer moves and they go on to the new table in whatever position is available. If they come into the blinds the procedure is a bit confused. In most cases the moving player is required to sit out several hands until the button passes. This is actually the rule for cash games and is not really a fair way to do things in tournaments.
Breaking tables is another area that is a bit confused in local tournaments. There tends to be no set procedure and most of the time the tournament director moves the players by saying something like 'I need two at this table and three at that table', and players then make their own choice of table. Although the games that I run are not actually big enough for me to worry about this procedure at the moment, if I did have a three table game then I would use the TDA rule. This involves randomly assigning new positions to the players. This is pretty simple using a random card draw. That way, everything is not only fair, but is seen to be fair.
Part of the problem with moving players in most tournaments I attend is that organisers usually have only as many seats as are necessary at each table. I've found that it works out better if you have a full number of seats at each table, regardless of the number of seated players. That way, I have vacant seats that I can move players into with a minimum of disruption. Players are used to tidying seats away when they get knocked out, so I just have to be alert and make sure that the seats are moved back into place.
According to another NPPL rule, if three or more players get moved to a new table there is a re-draw for dealer position. According to the TDA rules, players just take on whatever responsibilities their new seat carries, regardless of the number of players that move. I'm still a bit ambiguous about which way I should go on this one. It seems to be an entrenched idea among local players that if three or more move you re-establish for dealer. But it seems kind of arbitrary to me. Either you should re-establish every time or not, rather than creating an artificial line at a certain number of players. On balance, I think I will be just keeping it simple and sticking with the TDA, if and when this issue comes up.
The trickiest area I've had to deal with is the chip-up. The standard local procedure is pretty simple: chips are always rounded up. So if changing up 100 chips to 500s, anyone with 4x100 chips gets a 500, and even a player with a single 100 chip also gets a 500. On the other hand the TDA rule is different and somewhat complicated. The chip-up involves a 'chip race'. This is where the left-over chips are pooled and changed up and the TD deals out cards to determine which player gets the extras.
I don't like either of these chip-up procedures. Using the NPPL method, some-one with one 100 chip gets 500, and some-one with 4x100 also gets 500. That's not very fair. On the other hand, the TDA system is worse; depending on the luck of the draw, some-one with one 100 chip could get a 500 while the player with 4x100 could get nothing. So I've gone with a compromise procedure. In my Wednesday night game I simply round up or down. So 100 or 200 gets nothing and 300 or 400 gets a 500 chip. It seems to me to be the simplest and fairest way to do things.
When I introduced this rounding up and down process to my Wednesday night tournament there were initially a few murmurings about losing chips but overall it went okay. People got used to it. However, I haven't yet introduced it to the monthly game I run at Onehunga. This is because the main game at Onehunga is the weekly Friday-nighter which is run by the poker organiser at that club, and he uses the NPPL rounding up system. So I am likely to meet up with more resistance if I try to change the colour-up procedure at my game.
Nevertheless, assuming I'm still getting enough players coming to my Onehunga game, I intend to change the chip-up procedure starting next year. I'm sure there will be some objections but in the end, it's my game and my goal is to run it in the fairest and most transparent way possible. Once I introduce that change I will have got rid of the worst anomalies created by the traditional NPPL procedures and be pretty much running according to the TDA rules (apart from the chip-up). It's not that the NPPL rules are all that bad, it's just that I need a proper written set of rules to fall back on if required, and the TDA rules provide that. My main aim when running tournaments has always been to ensure that they are run in a fair and consistent way and I think that the procedures I'm working on adopting will achieve that.
Tuesday, 19 September 2017
Sky City Cashie
Auckland's Sky City Casino plays two types of no-limit Texas Hold'em ring game (cash game). They spread a $1/$3 game and a $2/$5 game. Both are standard ring games with a maximum buy-in of 100 big blinds but the $3 game has a time limit: players have 15 seconds to act before their cards are mucked. I've been hoping to have a go at the lower buy-in game for a while now and a couple of months ago my poker bankroll finally reached a level where I could afford to buy in to this game for 60 big blinds ($180). I decided that I would allow myself three buy-ins and then pull the plug if I hadn't made any progress.
I've always maintained that I prefer to play in ring games but the fact is most of my experience in this game type comes from home games that are usually played as spread limit. I have played in no-limit games at the casino from time to time, but with mixed results. So I figured I'd better get myself some lessons on no-limit ring games first. I checked out some recommendations for books on the subject and settled on 'Harrington on Cash Games ( Volume 1). I'd just finished reading Harrington's first volume on tournaments and had found it to be quite useful, so was hoping that this book would be equally illuminating.
I had a couple of false starts with the casino games because it turns out that, although the 'Poker Zone' opens at 5 pm weekdays and at midday on weekends, the $3 games don't actually start until about 7 pm. So, having read half a cash game primer, I headed up to the casino about a month ago to give it a try. My wife came along as well and she wandered off to play the slots while I went upstairs to the poker room and bought myself in for my 60 big blinds.
I was surprised to find that play in this game was very loose and quite passive. I'd heard a little about this game from some tournament players who'd tried it and the impression I'd got was that there were some serious players in this game. This certainly wasn't the case when I was up there. There was an awful lot of pre-flop limping and post-flop calling going on and not much raising. The one exception was a player to my left who was mostly folding and very occasionally 3-betting a pre-flop raiser. The raiser invariably folded, so I never got to see what sort of hands this guy was re-raising with. Apart from that it was pretty much a call-fest and some of the winning hands that got shown down were pretty weak.
Despite all this I wasn't getting many playable hands and ended up steadily losing chips. My biggest loss came when I had two pair against a higher two pair. I ended up having to reload and by the time my wife came upstairs to see how I was doing I'd lost my original buy-in and decided it was time to call it a night.
I wasn't too worried about this poor start and continued reading Harrington. I soon realised that this book is aimed at people playing in medium stakes games against reasonably tough opposition. What's more, the main focus of the book is correct strategy for playing in deep stacked games where players have 100 big blinds or more. Neither of these assumptions are true for the Sky City cashies. The standard of play is generally pretty poor and only some of the players have deep stacks. And it also occurred to me that even if everyone had 100 BBs in front of them, my starting stack was only 60 BBs, making for a medium-sized effective stack. Despite all this I still found the general principals set out in Harrington's book to be useful and continued to study it.
My second trip to the Poker Zone was about three weeks ago, on a Saturday night. As before, play was pretty loose. There seemed to be an epidemic of limp-calling at this table. The player to my right was limping in a lot and seemed to call every time that he got raised pre-flop. Players were coming and going on a regular basis, with some losing their stacks then reloading and returning to the table. I was doing okay for a while and my stack got up to about $400. I'd already decided that this was the most I wanted sitting on the table so I was going to cash out and take a break. But then my stack dropped down a little, so I carried on playing.
I noticed that the '15 seconds to act' rule was being observed fairly loosely. I couldn't see any time-keeping apparatus that the dealers might be using. As far as I could tell, if a dealer decided that you were taking too long to act then they would start a 5 second count-down. The only time that this affected me was in a hand where I was facing a bet on the river with just one pair in my hand. Then I thought that I might have hit a straight as the dealer started counting down. I quickly called to avoid my cards being mucked, only to realise that I had no straight. Oops.
My stack was down to about $300 when I hit the hand that ended my night. I had A K in early position, put in a big raise and got 3 callers. The flop came K 8 9 and I bet about 3/4 of the pot with my top pair, top kicker and got one caller. By the time the hand was over I was all-in with my pair of Kings and the other player turned over 8 9 for two pair. This was an idiot move on my part. The call of my big bet on the flop should have been setting off all sorts of alarm bells but I ignored them. Once more I fell into the trap of refusing to believe that my big hand could get outdrawn. If I'd done this in a tournament I might have lost as much as $60. But this was a cashie, so I gave away $300. That's the difference between tournies and cashies. The funny thing is, on reviewing some chapters of the Harrington book I found a sample hand that was almost exactly the same. The point of the example was, 'don't overvalue one pair hands in no-limit ring games'. Oh well.
So I've got one buy-in left. I intend to try again in a couple of weeks. Despite my poor showing so far, I'm moderately confident of doing better next time. Thinking about these games, I can see that the general standard of play is pretty low. And it's not really deep stack poker. I've come to the conclusion that the best way to approach these games is to play straightforward A B C poker; tight and aggressive and not too fancy. I'm still going to read Harrington Volume 2, but when I go back up to Sky City I think it will be a case of sticking to the basics. And I'll bring some money for the roulette table, just in case I lose my buy-in again.
I've always maintained that I prefer to play in ring games but the fact is most of my experience in this game type comes from home games that are usually played as spread limit. I have played in no-limit games at the casino from time to time, but with mixed results. So I figured I'd better get myself some lessons on no-limit ring games first. I checked out some recommendations for books on the subject and settled on 'Harrington on Cash Games ( Volume 1). I'd just finished reading Harrington's first volume on tournaments and had found it to be quite useful, so was hoping that this book would be equally illuminating.
I had a couple of false starts with the casino games because it turns out that, although the 'Poker Zone' opens at 5 pm weekdays and at midday on weekends, the $3 games don't actually start until about 7 pm. So, having read half a cash game primer, I headed up to the casino about a month ago to give it a try. My wife came along as well and she wandered off to play the slots while I went upstairs to the poker room and bought myself in for my 60 big blinds.
I was surprised to find that play in this game was very loose and quite passive. I'd heard a little about this game from some tournament players who'd tried it and the impression I'd got was that there were some serious players in this game. This certainly wasn't the case when I was up there. There was an awful lot of pre-flop limping and post-flop calling going on and not much raising. The one exception was a player to my left who was mostly folding and very occasionally 3-betting a pre-flop raiser. The raiser invariably folded, so I never got to see what sort of hands this guy was re-raising with. Apart from that it was pretty much a call-fest and some of the winning hands that got shown down were pretty weak.
Despite all this I wasn't getting many playable hands and ended up steadily losing chips. My biggest loss came when I had two pair against a higher two pair. I ended up having to reload and by the time my wife came upstairs to see how I was doing I'd lost my original buy-in and decided it was time to call it a night.
I wasn't too worried about this poor start and continued reading Harrington. I soon realised that this book is aimed at people playing in medium stakes games against reasonably tough opposition. What's more, the main focus of the book is correct strategy for playing in deep stacked games where players have 100 big blinds or more. Neither of these assumptions are true for the Sky City cashies. The standard of play is generally pretty poor and only some of the players have deep stacks. And it also occurred to me that even if everyone had 100 BBs in front of them, my starting stack was only 60 BBs, making for a medium-sized effective stack. Despite all this I still found the general principals set out in Harrington's book to be useful and continued to study it.My second trip to the Poker Zone was about three weeks ago, on a Saturday night. As before, play was pretty loose. There seemed to be an epidemic of limp-calling at this table. The player to my right was limping in a lot and seemed to call every time that he got raised pre-flop. Players were coming and going on a regular basis, with some losing their stacks then reloading and returning to the table. I was doing okay for a while and my stack got up to about $400. I'd already decided that this was the most I wanted sitting on the table so I was going to cash out and take a break. But then my stack dropped down a little, so I carried on playing.
I noticed that the '15 seconds to act' rule was being observed fairly loosely. I couldn't see any time-keeping apparatus that the dealers might be using. As far as I could tell, if a dealer decided that you were taking too long to act then they would start a 5 second count-down. The only time that this affected me was in a hand where I was facing a bet on the river with just one pair in my hand. Then I thought that I might have hit a straight as the dealer started counting down. I quickly called to avoid my cards being mucked, only to realise that I had no straight. Oops.
My stack was down to about $300 when I hit the hand that ended my night. I had A K in early position, put in a big raise and got 3 callers. The flop came K 8 9 and I bet about 3/4 of the pot with my top pair, top kicker and got one caller. By the time the hand was over I was all-in with my pair of Kings and the other player turned over 8 9 for two pair. This was an idiot move on my part. The call of my big bet on the flop should have been setting off all sorts of alarm bells but I ignored them. Once more I fell into the trap of refusing to believe that my big hand could get outdrawn. If I'd done this in a tournament I might have lost as much as $60. But this was a cashie, so I gave away $300. That's the difference between tournies and cashies. The funny thing is, on reviewing some chapters of the Harrington book I found a sample hand that was almost exactly the same. The point of the example was, 'don't overvalue one pair hands in no-limit ring games'. Oh well.
So I've got one buy-in left. I intend to try again in a couple of weeks. Despite my poor showing so far, I'm moderately confident of doing better next time. Thinking about these games, I can see that the general standard of play is pretty low. And it's not really deep stack poker. I've come to the conclusion that the best way to approach these games is to play straightforward A B C poker; tight and aggressive and not too fancy. I'm still going to read Harrington Volume 2, but when I go back up to Sky City I think it will be a case of sticking to the basics. And I'll bring some money for the roulette table, just in case I lose my buy-in again.
Friday, 4 August 2017
Tournament Director, Part 1
I've been playing every Wednesday night in the Landmark Bar re-buy tournament for about three years now and for the last five months I've also been running the game. This came about because Dan, the original game organizer, decided to quit last year and nobody else stepped up to take over. I like this game and didn't want to see it fold so when there was no sign of it re-starting by the end of February this year I went up to the Landmark, talked to the management, and volunteered to run it myself.
I'd run a couple of tournaments previously at my old club and had a pretty good idea of how to go about running this game. The hotel has all the essential equipment: a couple of rather tatty but still usable 8-player poker tables (leftovers from the National Pub Poker League), a couple of cases of tournament chips, some packs of cards, cut cards and dealer buttons. As for the tournament blinds timer, Dan originally used an app on his phone for this, then he changed to using a tournament timer that was in the shape of a dealer button. He passed this on to me but I found that the battery connection wasn't good; sometimes it worked okay and sometimes it didn't. So in the end I bought a cheap kitchen timer and have been using that ever since.
When I took it over, this was a turbo-style re-buy tournament. For a buy-in of $20 players got a chip stack of 4,000. The blinds started at 25/50 and then went to 50/100, 100/200, 200/400, 300/600, 400/800, 500/1k, 1k/2k. 2k/4k... Late entries were allowed for the first hour of play (7 pm to 8 pm) with a maximum of 18 players. Players could re-buy if they lost all their chips, getting a stack of 2,500 for $20. Re-buys were allowed until the prize-pool reached $500 (the maximum allowed for this type of game under New Zealand's gaming laws). With a maximum prize-pool the prizes were $250, $150, $60 and $40 with a couple of bar vouchers provided by the hotel management for 5th and 6th places. We usually got two full tables and a maximum prize-pool, with the tournament ending around 10.30 pm.
There were a couple of things that I wanted to change when I took over. I never liked the short re-buy stack and as a result it was my policy to never re-buy. So I changed the re-buy stack to 4,000, the same as the buy-in. I also changed the blind intervals. Originally, the first two blind levels lasted for 25 minutes, followed by a break. Then they went to 15 minute blinds with a break after every 4th level. I've never been a fan of variable blind intervals in a tournament so, after making a few calculations, I changed the blind intervals to 17 minutes all the way through, with a 10 minute break after every 3rd level. Apart from making it more consistent this also worked well for the timing of the chip-ups on each break.
My first game was in mid March and only 7 players turned up. I had advertised the game on Eventfinda, an event listing website, and the hotel had listed the game on their 'upcoming events' blackboard. I'd been in touch with Dan and got contact details for some of the regulars, but he only had a few available. The second week was also a small field and it wasn't looking too good for a reboot of this game. But over the next few weeks the number of players grew and pretty soon I was paying out the $500 maximum. The 'old hands' finally got the word that the Landmark game was back and I started getting a few new regular players. Even Dan turned up for most of the games.
It took a while but I eventually got into the routine of setting up the tables and chips, taking down names, announcing new blind levels and so on. I had to work out some basic procedures for moving players from one to two tables and for seating new players, but now that's all pretty straightforward. Now I don't really get a break when everyone else does, because I have to do the chip up. It also means I can't just go home when I'm eliminated. I have to stay to the end and pay out the prizes, and I also do the dealing for the final four players if I'm not still in the game. On the plus side, I get to use some of the bar vouchers for myself, so I get a couple of free beers for my trouble.
When I started out I received some files which included a fairly basic set of tournament rules. But I dropped those and adopted the Tournament Directors Association Rules for my game. Applying the rules in a typically loose pub game can be a bit of a challenge. On the one hand, this is not the World Series Main Event, but on the other hand, you've got to make sure the game is played in a fair and consistent way. With so many different players with varying amounts of live poker experience you find yourself having to pull people up over really basic stuff like string betting, keeping cards on the table, talking about a hand, rabbit hunting and so on. I try not to intrude too much into the general flow of the game but I'm coming to the conclusion that I've been a little too relaxed and things are getting a bit too loose. So I think I'll be cracking down a bit more on etiquette breaches over the next few weeks, just to bring things back into line.
As far as juggling the roles of player and Tournament Director goes, it's a challenge. I always keep the same seat, close to the chip case, because I'm constantly getting up to buy in and seat new players or organize re-buys, especially in the first hour. I'm also acutely aware that, as a TD who is also a player, I have to be seen to be fair and impartial. In particular, I'm careful to ensure that the chip-up process is open and transparent for all players to observe if they wish. Despite the constant interruptions I don't think my game has suffered significantly. I'm definitely less able to concentrate on the game in the first hour or so, but if I make it through to the second period it's not so bad. I've had a few cashes over the last few months and I'm definitely ahead overall. My change to the re-buy stack size also means I can sometimes re-buy if I need to, which I think improves my chances of cashing.
Apart from the two changes mentioned earlier I've kept the game pretty much the same as it was in previous years. But I had to make another change a few weeks ago. The original procedure was to set out 8 stacks of chips on both tables and have players deal to all the stacks and have all stacks pay the blinds in turn. New players were then seated at one of these stacks at random. I thought this system was a little unfair, because new players would get varying stack sizes depending on which table they were seated at and at which position. It was also a headache for me to keep track of the 'dead stacks' especially when I had enough players to make two tables. So a couple of weeks ago I changed to an 'earlybird' system. There are no stacks on the tables; when players register they get a starting stack to play with. If they register after the game starts they get a shorter stack of 3,800. This system is much easier to administer and it seems to have encouraged some of the habitual late-comers to turn up on time. So I'll be continuing to run the stacks this way.
I'm pretty happy that I've been able to rescue the Landmark game, even if it does mean having to run the game as well as play. Despite a shaky start the game is now going well. There are 4 or 5 regulars who turn up every week as well as a larger pool of semi-regulars and quite a few casual players who turn up from time to time. I'll definitely keep on as a TD/player for the rest of the year. After that, probably not. It's my intention to try and find someone else to take over the reins next year. The thing is, I have no interest in being a Tournament Director. I took on the role because it was the only way I could see of keeping a good, profitable poker game going. But I just want to play, not run the game. So for the rest of the year, I'm TD for the Landmark Poker Tournament. Next year it becomes somebody else's problem.
I'd run a couple of tournaments previously at my old club and had a pretty good idea of how to go about running this game. The hotel has all the essential equipment: a couple of rather tatty but still usable 8-player poker tables (leftovers from the National Pub Poker League), a couple of cases of tournament chips, some packs of cards, cut cards and dealer buttons. As for the tournament blinds timer, Dan originally used an app on his phone for this, then he changed to using a tournament timer that was in the shape of a dealer button. He passed this on to me but I found that the battery connection wasn't good; sometimes it worked okay and sometimes it didn't. So in the end I bought a cheap kitchen timer and have been using that ever since.
When I took it over, this was a turbo-style re-buy tournament. For a buy-in of $20 players got a chip stack of 4,000. The blinds started at 25/50 and then went to 50/100, 100/200, 200/400, 300/600, 400/800, 500/1k, 1k/2k. 2k/4k... Late entries were allowed for the first hour of play (7 pm to 8 pm) with a maximum of 18 players. Players could re-buy if they lost all their chips, getting a stack of 2,500 for $20. Re-buys were allowed until the prize-pool reached $500 (the maximum allowed for this type of game under New Zealand's gaming laws). With a maximum prize-pool the prizes were $250, $150, $60 and $40 with a couple of bar vouchers provided by the hotel management for 5th and 6th places. We usually got two full tables and a maximum prize-pool, with the tournament ending around 10.30 pm.
There were a couple of things that I wanted to change when I took over. I never liked the short re-buy stack and as a result it was my policy to never re-buy. So I changed the re-buy stack to 4,000, the same as the buy-in. I also changed the blind intervals. Originally, the first two blind levels lasted for 25 minutes, followed by a break. Then they went to 15 minute blinds with a break after every 4th level. I've never been a fan of variable blind intervals in a tournament so, after making a few calculations, I changed the blind intervals to 17 minutes all the way through, with a 10 minute break after every 3rd level. Apart from making it more consistent this also worked well for the timing of the chip-ups on each break.
My first game was in mid March and only 7 players turned up. I had advertised the game on Eventfinda, an event listing website, and the hotel had listed the game on their 'upcoming events' blackboard. I'd been in touch with Dan and got contact details for some of the regulars, but he only had a few available. The second week was also a small field and it wasn't looking too good for a reboot of this game. But over the next few weeks the number of players grew and pretty soon I was paying out the $500 maximum. The 'old hands' finally got the word that the Landmark game was back and I started getting a few new regular players. Even Dan turned up for most of the games.
It took a while but I eventually got into the routine of setting up the tables and chips, taking down names, announcing new blind levels and so on. I had to work out some basic procedures for moving players from one to two tables and for seating new players, but now that's all pretty straightforward. Now I don't really get a break when everyone else does, because I have to do the chip up. It also means I can't just go home when I'm eliminated. I have to stay to the end and pay out the prizes, and I also do the dealing for the final four players if I'm not still in the game. On the plus side, I get to use some of the bar vouchers for myself, so I get a couple of free beers for my trouble.
When I started out I received some files which included a fairly basic set of tournament rules. But I dropped those and adopted the Tournament Directors Association Rules for my game. Applying the rules in a typically loose pub game can be a bit of a challenge. On the one hand, this is not the World Series Main Event, but on the other hand, you've got to make sure the game is played in a fair and consistent way. With so many different players with varying amounts of live poker experience you find yourself having to pull people up over really basic stuff like string betting, keeping cards on the table, talking about a hand, rabbit hunting and so on. I try not to intrude too much into the general flow of the game but I'm coming to the conclusion that I've been a little too relaxed and things are getting a bit too loose. So I think I'll be cracking down a bit more on etiquette breaches over the next few weeks, just to bring things back into line.
As far as juggling the roles of player and Tournament Director goes, it's a challenge. I always keep the same seat, close to the chip case, because I'm constantly getting up to buy in and seat new players or organize re-buys, especially in the first hour. I'm also acutely aware that, as a TD who is also a player, I have to be seen to be fair and impartial. In particular, I'm careful to ensure that the chip-up process is open and transparent for all players to observe if they wish. Despite the constant interruptions I don't think my game has suffered significantly. I'm definitely less able to concentrate on the game in the first hour or so, but if I make it through to the second period it's not so bad. I've had a few cashes over the last few months and I'm definitely ahead overall. My change to the re-buy stack size also means I can sometimes re-buy if I need to, which I think improves my chances of cashing.
Apart from the two changes mentioned earlier I've kept the game pretty much the same as it was in previous years. But I had to make another change a few weeks ago. The original procedure was to set out 8 stacks of chips on both tables and have players deal to all the stacks and have all stacks pay the blinds in turn. New players were then seated at one of these stacks at random. I thought this system was a little unfair, because new players would get varying stack sizes depending on which table they were seated at and at which position. It was also a headache for me to keep track of the 'dead stacks' especially when I had enough players to make two tables. So a couple of weeks ago I changed to an 'earlybird' system. There are no stacks on the tables; when players register they get a starting stack to play with. If they register after the game starts they get a shorter stack of 3,800. This system is much easier to administer and it seems to have encouraged some of the habitual late-comers to turn up on time. So I'll be continuing to run the stacks this way.
I'm pretty happy that I've been able to rescue the Landmark game, even if it does mean having to run the game as well as play. Despite a shaky start the game is now going well. There are 4 or 5 regulars who turn up every week as well as a larger pool of semi-regulars and quite a few casual players who turn up from time to time. I'll definitely keep on as a TD/player for the rest of the year. After that, probably not. It's my intention to try and find someone else to take over the reins next year. The thing is, I have no interest in being a Tournament Director. I took on the role because it was the only way I could see of keeping a good, profitable poker game going. But I just want to play, not run the game. So for the rest of the year, I'm TD for the Landmark Poker Tournament. Next year it becomes somebody else's problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)