| Author |
Message |
skeeter1114
Voice of Reason
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 3956
|
 Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 11:39 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| So when there's 10 teams in a basketball tournament, the team who had to play an extra game should automatically get a 20-0 lead because they played an extra game? Same thing here. That's the way things happen. Is it truly fair? No. But, either un-register the extras or even things out in the 2nd round. Byes have been part of tournaments forever, and almost never has the team getting a bye been put at a disadvantage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Flying_Kiwi
Bird of Mystery
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 8194
Location: Eating an apple on the golf course in the sunshine
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Your analogy doesn't really work because a sports tournament is different to a shoot-out poker tournament. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IABoomer
Moderator
Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 7265
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 11:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Flying_Kiwi wrote: |
| Your analogy doesn't really work because a sports tournament is different to a shoot-out poker tournament. |
True, in an athletic tournament a team may actually suffer an injury or become worn out by playing a 1st round game. Unless you're a raging tilt-monkey who goes on tilt by beating people, I don't see how you'll be at a disadvantage if you win a round 1 game and therefore deserve a premium going into round two against an opponent with a bye.
I'd vote for even stacks each round. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
renegades8
Forum Fish
Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 4445
Location: from negative to positive
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 12:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I guess in a mathematical stand-point it all evens out regardless of how you do it, but the way they have it now probably is better for short-term variance, whereas the variance is greater when you sometimes have a huge disadvantage and sometimes have a huge advantage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NightPrince
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 1168
Location: United Kingdom
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BOYNAMEDSUE wrote: |
I agree with the extra chips being about the same advantage as a first round bye, but who gets the bye and who doesn't get it is random. You do not need the differing chip stacks because players will accept that sometimes they get a bye and sometimes they don't.
I hate to go against the site, but the players are right here, imo.
Praise be to Full Tilt. |
Thank you BNS, sense has been spoken.
TilterMarkus, thank you for passing on my comments to the private tournament team, but I do think Full Tilt should look into the whole area more closely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TilterMarkus
Site Admin
Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 246
Location: Full Tilt Poker
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree if you played the exact same tournament a million times and it had free byes it would all even out and be fair. We were just talking about the confines of one tournament.
Anyway, we definitely know that many (maybe most) players would rather just get free byes, which is why we can set heads-up tournament up with that option.
We're currently avoiding all issues related to this in public heads-up tournaments by making sure they only start with an even power of 2, so there are no byes and no chip imbalances when the chips carry. It's obviously perfectly fair, but it's not so great when a bunch of people get unregistered because we got 400 players and had to unregister down to 256.
So, we are working on new ways of dealing with that, and so far the favorite looks like making a "Round 0" where anyone who doesn't get the "bye" (or in this case, start at Round 1) gets refunded half their buyin. So basically it's a quick one round qualifier into the (perfectly balanced) main event. What do people think about that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
skeeter1114
Voice of Reason
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 3956
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TilterMarkus wrote: |
So, we are working on new ways of dealing with that, and so far the favorite looks like making a "Round 0" where anyone who doesn't get the "bye" (or in this case, start at Round 1) gets refunded half their buyin. So basically it's a quick one round qualifier into the (perfectly balanced) main event. What do people think about that? |
Sounds like a good idea. Also seems very fair to all those involved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
skeeter1114
Voice of Reason
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 3956
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Flying_Kiwi wrote: |
| Your analogy doesn't really work because a sports tournament is different to a shoot-out poker tournament. |
I disagree here Kiwi. The point of my argument is not comparing a sporting event to a Heads-up Shoot-out poker tournament. What I am trying to compare is the tournament setup of each (AKA: The brackets). What I'm saying is that in no other tournament setup does a team that receives a "bye" get put into a disadvantage when they play their first game. And when I talk about this, I'm not talking about those who earn a bye based on their past performances. I'm looking at say a High School or maybe a Little League baseball tournament, where it is a draw that determines who receives a bye. All teams are elgible, and to play in the tournament, they must agree to the rules, which I'm sure clearly states that a particular team may or may not receive a bye. Seems to have worked for many years now, not sure why it couldn't work here.
Of course there are always going to be those angry that they didn't get the advantage. However, that's the way it goes sometimes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NightPrince
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 1168
Location: United Kingdom
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TilterMarkus wrote: |
| So, we are working on new ways of dealing with that, and so far the favorite looks like making a "Round 0" where anyone who doesn't get the "bye" (or in this case, start at Round 1) gets refunded half their buyin. So basically it's a quick one round qualifier into the (perfectly balanced) main event. What do people think about that? |
I'm probably just being dense, but I don't really understand this concept. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
renegades8
Forum Fish
Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 4445
Location: from negative to positive
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NightPrince wrote: |
| TilterMarkus wrote: |
| So, we are working on new ways of dealing with that, and so far the favorite looks like making a "Round 0" where anyone who doesn't get the "bye" (or in this case, start at Round 1) gets refunded half their buyin. So basically it's a quick one round qualifier into the (perfectly balanced) main event. What do people think about that? |
I'm probably just being dense, but I don't really understand this concept. |
I'm pretty sure that they would just make it so that instead of players getting byes and ending up with a chip disadvantage, they'd have somewhat of a satellite into the actual tournament for half of the buy-in, where the winner would win an entry into the actual tournament. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NightPrince
Message Board Junkie
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 1168
Location: United Kingdom
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| renegades8 wrote: |
| NightPrince wrote: |
| TilterMarkus wrote: |
| So, we are working on new ways of dealing with that, and so far the favorite looks like making a "Round 0" where anyone who doesn't get the "bye" (or in this case, start at Round 1) gets refunded half their buyin. So basically it's a quick one round qualifier into the (perfectly balanced) main event. What do people think about that? |
I'm probably just being dense, but I don't really understand this concept. |
I'm pretty sure that they would just make it so that instead of players getting byes and ending up with a chip disadvantage, they'd have somewhat of a satellite into the actual tournament for half of the buy-in, where the winner would win an entry into the actual tournament. |
Okay I guess that would make sense. Sounds like a good idea, (though will no doubt slow down the start of tournaments somewhat?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BBCOACH44
Full Tilt Coach
Joined: 24 Oct 2006
Posts: 7326
Location: IN THE BATTING CAGE W/ DA ROOKIES
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| skeeter1114 wrote: |
| So when there's 10 teams in a basketball tournament, the team who had to play an extra game should automatically get a 20-0 lead because they played an extra game? Same thing here. That's the way things happen. Is it truly fair? No. But, either un-register the extras or even things out in the 2nd round. Byes have been part of tournaments forever, and almost never has the team getting a bye been put at a disadvantage. |
I will take those extra runs.... 
Perhaps this needs a little tweeking, and there will always be opinions.
I do know that the players voicing these opinions about this issue
do have alot of respect in our Forum. Tilters/FT should review
this issue....IMO....  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pete D
Pistol Pete
Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 1683
Location: California
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BOYNAMEDSUE wrote: |
| I agree with the extra chips being about the same advantage as a first round bye, but who gets the bye and who doesn't get it is random. You do not need the differing chip stacks because players will accept that sometimes they get a bye and sometimes they don't. |
I highly doubt some players would quietly accept the variance (say, not getting a bye in 6 straight tourneys), but it's probably a moot point because of the Round 0 idea for 1/2 the buy-in, which seems like a very logical, non-controversial idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kazor
Royal Flush
Joined: 04 Feb 2007
Posts: 866
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like the 1/2 buyin to move up try. IMO it should always be equal chips when playing. You cant say over time it all equals out because that is based upon equal buy-ins also and preference and skill level.
I really like the HU shootouts, they are great. I am hoping the MTT shootouts 9 max get changed to top 3 advancing like other sites have. It really should be an option and would be very popular. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
etothemc2
Banned
Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Posts: 486
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Come on people...
Player 1 (Round 1 winner, starts with 3k)
Probability of advancing to round 3 (2/3 [number of chips in play] * 1/2 [probability of making it to round 2] = 1/3)
Player 2 (Round 1 BYE, starts with 1.5k)
Probability of advancing to round 3 (1/3 [number of chips in play] * 1 [probability of making it to round 2] = 1/3)
Someone can make it look pretty if they want but the odds are same for everyone. Leave the structure alone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
