New Poker Format = Still Sucks

[thechaoz]

IMO this is by far the best structured poker series SBR has ever run. The overall series as well as the tournaments themselves are short enough that forum members can participate without it being a colossal time sink. By going 6 max. we see more hands/hour, and can get involved with a greater % of the hands we are dealt. If people want to play a type of poker that demands more skill, there are plenty of online poker sites and B&M casinos that would be happy to let you play for actual cash. Since we're only playing for points a quick, fun series like this one is imo the way to go.

Great job SBR!

I personally don't care for it at all, I like short-handed poker, but I don't like the lack of starting chips or the series being so short.

I'm just going to get on there for fun, because I missed the first week or two and just start jamming for fun and see if I can get a first place finish.

I'm giving away free chips, if I remember to get on the 11 p.m. at all

Edit: by the way, I completely get what you're saying. The point of SBR poker though is even though we're just playing for points and sometimes prizes in cash, is that in the spirit of the game people actually try to play real poker.

My point is that for somebody like me who has played for so long and does play for real money, this format completely destroys that and I'm just going to go in a jam bot mode ,which is going to frustrate a lot of players that not make it as enjoyable.

So it's a catch 22

[mpaschal34]

I still think it completely sucks also.

Too much gamble and not enough poker.

[thechaoz]

I still think it completely sucks also.

Too much gamble and not enough poker.

It does. The good news is it'll be over soon. A lot of the old school and top-ranking players like yourself and I, try to tell SBR that it was too fast, but they didn't listen and experimented. I'm sure they'll adjust

[JAKEPEAVY21]

I like the fact that the tournies end faster

I could live with the new or old formats but you need to adjust your play accordingly

[funnyb25]

I like the fact that the tournies end faster

I could live with the new or old formats but you need to adjust your play accordingly

Must depend on the day. When I got 2nd and 4th, they lasted over an hour and a half. Just as bad as the old format.

[mpaschal34]

If an hour and a half is bad...why even play? It’s poker, it should take some time.

If you want fast action, go play 3 card poker or Let It Ride in the casino?

[JAKEPEAVY21]

If an hour and a half is bad...why even play? It’s poker, it should take some time.

If you want fast action, go play 3 card poker or Let It Ride in the casino?

I hear you

I'm for sure in favor of deeper stacks for the final but it can be a bit of a grind playing daily tournaments that last close to 2 hours

[ArunSh]

Will reiterate the suggestion I made in the other thread about a future possible format:


Instead of three tourneys per day, twelve tourneys per day - one starting at every hour from say 11 AM EST to 10 PM EST (or something of that sort). Each person can only play one tourney per day still, and each tournament is maximum 10 players (a single sit n go essentially, and 120 people total would be able to play each day which I think would be enough). Each tournament pays out 200 points total (so still 2400 total for the day as it is currently), say Top 3 in each with payout 100-60-40 (just like a regular sit-n-go which pays out Top 3).

I think this format could be interesting for two reasons: one that the wide variety of starting times would make it easier for people to play, compared to having exactly three starting times, none of which might work for some folks. And second, since each tournament would always be a one table tournament, it would be much shorter than a thirty to forty person multi-table tournament (whether the starting stack is 1500 or 1000, certainly shorter than its counterpart with three to four times as many people).

Am curious what others think about this. If they do this type of format with 1500 starting chips, it might appease those who feel like 1000 chips with in a 6 max format doesn't provide enough play while also satisfying those who feel that playing for at least an hour, generally an hour and a half if you get really deep, is too long. Perhaps could satisfy both sides!

[JAKEPEAVY21]

Will reiterate the suggestion I made in the other thread about a future possible format:


Instead of three tourneys per day, twelve tourneys per day - one starting at every hour from say 11 AM EST to 10 PM EST (or something of that sort). Each person can only play one tourney per day still, and each tournament is maximum 10 players (a single sit n go essentially, and 120 people total would be able to play each day which I think would be enough). Each tournament pays out 200 points total (so still 2400 total for the day as it is currently), say Top 3 in each with payout 100-60-40 (just like a regular sit-n-go which pays out Top 3).

I think this format could be interesting for two reasons: one that the wide variety of starting times would make it easier for people to play, compared to having exactly three starting times, none of which might work for some folks. And second, since each tournament would always be a one table tournament, it would be much shorter than a thirty to forty person multi-table tournament (whether the starting stack is 1500 or 1000, certainly shorter than its counterpart with three to four times as many people).

Am curious what others think about this. If they do this type of format with 1500 starting chips, it might appease those who feel like 1000 chips with in a 6 max format doesn't provide enough play while also satisfying those who feel that playing for at least an hour, generally an hour and a half if you get really deep, is too long. Perhaps could satisfy both sides!

I'd be open to it but doubt it will ever happen.

[Gaze73]

The payout structure is so stupid. #5 gets 50% more than #6 but #4 gets only 25% more than #5 then the top 3 get over 60% more each, so the only anomaly is the 4th place where I just finished, it feels like finishing 4th in the olympics.

[ArunSh]

I'd be open to it but doubt it will ever happen.

I would have said no way this would happen a few months ago, but given they did listen to potential suggestions for the current format (whether those changes are good or not - opinions seem to vary greatly!), perhaps they will try something like this in the future!

[JAKEPEAVY21]

I would have said no way this would happen a few months ago, but given they did listen to potential suggestions for the current format (whether those changes are good or not - opinions seem to vary greatly!), perhaps they will try something like this in the future!

seems like too drastic of a change but who knows?

[EmpireMaker]

IMO, New Format SUCKS.

[thechaoz]

Will reiterate the suggestion I made in the other thread about a future possible format:


Instead of three tourneys per day, twelve tourneys per day - one starting at every hour from say 11 AM EST to 10 PM EST (or something of that sort). Each person can only play one tourney per day still, and each tournament is maximum 10 players (a single sit n go essentially, and 120 people total would be able to play each day which I think would be enough). Each tournament pays out 200 points total (so still 2400 total for the day as it is currently), say Top 3 in each with payout 100-60-40 (just like a regular sit-n-go which pays out Top 3).

I think this format could be interesting for two reasons: one that the wide variety of starting times would make it easier for people to play, compared to having exactly three starting times, none of which might work for some folks. And second, since each tournament would always be a one table tournament, it would be much shorter than a thirty to forty person multi-table tournament (whether the starting stack is 1500 or 1000, certainly shorter than its counterpart with three to four times as many people).

Am curious what others think about this. If they do this type of format with 1500 starting chips, it might appease those who feel like 1000 chips with in a 6 max format doesn't provide enough play while also satisfying those who feel that playing for at least an hour, generally an hour and a half if you get really deep, is too long. Perhaps could satisfy both sides!

It's funny seeing this post because I'm playing now and was thinking, "we could still have a great format, just reduce to the players, so have like 5 tourneys a day/30 max.

I think 12 is excessive with the amount of active players, but even 6-8 dailies with 20 max would work too. It would still be good poker with slowly raising blinds and 1500 ish starting stack, allow for play, and not take nearly as long.

[thechaoz]

IMO, New Format SUCKS.

We knew this was coming, but bit our tongues (kind of) and gave it a try.

You're right though, it sucks.

I'm bored and just jamming. Not sure even why I'm trying. Watching NBA at the same time.

[ArunSh]

It's funny seeing this post because I'm playing now and was thinking, "we could still have a great format, just reduce to the players, so have like 5 tourneys a day/30 max.

I think 12 is excessive with the amount of active players, but even 6-8 dailies with 20 max would work too. It would still be good poker with slowly raising blinds and 1500 ish starting stack, allow for play, and not take nearly as long.

Yes, there seem to be two conflicting issues here: the amount of randomness in the tourneys/format vs the amount of time the tournaments take. Most would obviously prefer both of these to be "low". But it feels like with the current number of tourneys per day, that you aren't going to be able to decrease one of these factors without increasing the other.

I personally prefer the new format (and just so there is no confusion that I might be biased about that, I have not done well in this new format, I cashed the first day but have gone 0/8 after that) - I simply like the lower amount of time for the cost of more randomness, at least to the reasonable extent that this format seems to bring.

That said, the idea of increasing the number of tourneys per day while decreasing the number of people who play in each really seems like an idea that might be able to accomplish both things and keep everyone reasonably happy. Whether you go with my suggestion of twelve tourneys per day with maximum 10 per tourney or thechaoz's suggestion of six to eight tourneys per day with maximum 20 per tourney - no question having a lower number of participants will decrease the amount of time people spend overall, assuming roughly the same starting stack/blind structure.

So if not my suggestion, why not say six tourneys per day with maximum 20 players (or 25 if SBR worries that 120 players might shut some folks out - or seven tourneys maximum 20 should be plenty, something to that effect). Again, it really feels like increasing the number of tourneys (naturally keeping the total payout per day the same) while decreasing the number of players in each might be the way to go to decrease the length of the tourneys while keeping them reasonably skill intensive.