Online Poker Forum at Full Tilt Poker

NightPrince · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 9:40 am Post subject: Ridiculous Shootout Programming

I just entered a private tournament which was a proper heads up shootout. However, over half the field didn't play the first match and so when the 2nd match started, some people had 3000 chips and some had 1500 chips. This is, in my opinion, f***ing ridiculous.

The only shootouts I have seen or played in so far have either been SNGs, so worked fine, or players have been removed at the start if there were too many for the shootout to work correctly.

I think this is a huge error on Full Tilt's part - are their programming team so horrendous that they can't make it so that people are removed at the start, or even better, those who get a bye in the first round are automatically issued with the extra chips.

Come on Full Tilt, get it together.

g_420man · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 9:53 am Post subject:

thats messed up cause normaly if H.U. shootouts end up with uneven registered the last one to register is automaticly unregistered at start of tourney. I never played any shootouts before but when i see it registering it says in the lobby that if uneven the last one to register will be unregistered.

NitMagnet · Do Not Trade Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 94

Def a programming error that dates back to the original 4 player HU shootouts. The complaint was that the 2nd match could never be a consistent one because total time elapsed in the first round dictated blind level of the 2nd match. If you won match 1 in three hands and the other match went over an hour, you would start match two at the blind level of the 2nd match. This complaint got swept under the rug and FTP's response was that there was no disadvantage, because you both started with 3,000 chips. I was in a 4 player where the 2nd match started at 250/500 and I won my first match in the first level.

TilterMarkus · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 3:01 pm Post subject:

It's not a programming error, it's actually a choice when setting up the tournament. It's possible whoever set up the tournament didn't specify whether or not they wanted chips to carry forward, though.

As an aside, carry forward is a much fairer way of handling byes according to Chris Ferguson! If you do the math (and he has) it's exactly fair that if you skip round 1 and your opponent didn't he should start round 2 with twice as many chips.

Anyway, we certainly understand not everyone likes that (especially in private tournaments where it's more "for fun") and you can specify when you ask to set up the tournament to not carry chips forward.

I hope that helps, sorry you didn't have a good experience.

NightPrince · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 5:47 pm Post subject:

TilterMarkus · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 8:24 pm Post subject:

Let's look at it from the other direction. Say you aren't given a bye and chips don't carry. You now have to win an extra match which, all things being equal, only happens 50% of the time. So the guy who doesn't get the bye gets to round 3 25% of the time and the guy given the bye gets to round 3 50% of the time. How is that fair?

Just out of curiosity, with the chips carry rule, which do you think is easier: winning one even match and then one match with a 2-1 chip advantage to get to round 3, or winning one single match with a 2-1 chip deficit to get to round 3?

Using back of the napkin math, it looks like both are about 33% to get to round 3, given equal skill. So that falls nicely between 50% (free bye) and 25% (no bye, no chips carry) to get to round 3.

Again, though, it's all academic if you have a strong gut reaction against the chips carrying, and we certainly don't want to force anyone to play something they don't want to play.

I've passed along your (very valid) complaint to the private tournament guys about not being given the option when setting up the tournament, so it shouldn't be a problem moving forward setting it up any way you like.

skeeter1114 · Message Board Junkie Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Posts: 2496

Now, I know there were "byes" given at last year's WSOP HU event. Though I'm not sure about it, I think everyone started the 2nd round with the same amount of chips. While I see the point of the current format being fair, I would argue that if the WSOP doesn't punis those with byes, it may be something Full Tilt should look into, in my opinion.

BOYNAMEDSUE · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 9:09 pm Post subject:

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.

renegades8 · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 9:14 pm Post subject:

I like it the way it is, that's the price you pay for getting a bye in the first round. Having to play an extra opponent is a much bigger disadvantage than having a 2 to 1 chip deficite imo. Also, of course, it's mathematically more fair and seems to make more sense. Atleast the way they have it set up there's an advantage to not playing in the first round since they get a bye, and the player who does have to play in the first round gets double the chips.

renegades8 · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 9:18 pm Post subject:

skeeter1114 · Message Board Junkie Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Posts: 2496

I'm with BNS here. You don't get to choose whether you play the first round or get a bye. It's random. Yes, there are advantages and disadvantages to each, but how fair is it if you play your first hand at a 2:1 deficit? It's not a rebuy where you have the option of buying more chips. Just think of any baseball or basketball tournament. Teams get byes either by their past results or by a random draw. Same goes here. Sometimes, you will get a bye, other times, you won't. But I still think it's unfair for someone to start at a 2:1 disadvantage because of "randomness." IMO, it's different if you get to choose what you want v.s. getting assigned to one area.

Flying_Kiwi · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 10:10 pm Post subject:

I definitely think carry chips over is the fairest way to do it. Going 1:1 vs someone who has got a walk into the 2nd round isn't even at all.

skeeter1114 · Message Board Junkie Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Posts: 2496

Maybe the fairest thing to do is give the round 1 winner a chip advantage, but not 2:1. So if it's at 4500 chips, do something like 2500 to 2000 or something similar. That may be an alternative.
.

Flying_Kiwi · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 10:25 pm Post subject:

Now that's just crazy talk.

renegades8 · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 10:30 pm Post subject:

	Full Tilt Poker is licensed by the Kahnawake Gaming Commission. © Copyright 2004 - 2005 FullTiltPoker.com., All Rights Reserved