On Sunday I wrote about the growing concern among players about the pace of the blind structures on Day 2. What began as an observation about final tables lasting only half as long as 2006 has turned into a significant conversation. A forum thread I began has spawned multiple replies, and several professionals have weighed in on the subject.
After making the final table in the $1,000 rebuy event, Shane “Shaniac” Schleger offered, “Yes, these levels have been missed. It's absurd, really, to eliminate them, and it's noticeable how crapshoot-y the late stages of these tournaments are.”
While I was not sure exactly how the limit events matched up, professional players Bryan Devonshire and Jordan Morgan made the final table of the $1,500 Omaha 8/OB event. “The double stacks minus levels is very annoying - especially in the limit events. You're pretty much stuck there for five hours period and then when you get to where it matters the chips aren't there. When I finished the O8 event there were 16 big bets in play - playing for a bracelet,” stated Devonshire.
Morgan agreed with Devonshire, adding, “On the O8 final table, we were eight-handed to start and there were a total of 69 bets in play.”
Allen Kessler pointed out more problems with the limit events on his blog. “The issue that needs to be addressed is the accelerated limit event pace than begins on day 2 which eliminates a lot of play and throws a huge luck element into these events… Even though they give you 10,000 chips to start the structure gets ridiculous in day 2. With an average chip stack of 30,000 we were playing 1500-3000 with a 300 ante… Now as they near the final table the average chip stack is 200k. 180 players x 10000 chips divided by 9 and guess what they are playing? 10000/20000 with a 2000 ante and 5000 bring in. This is an outrage. How do you run a championship event where no one can play more than 2 hands at any point of the last several rounds?”
One observer seemed to think that the reason the $5,000 NL event finished so quickly (48 hands) was because of “how frequently two people picked up big hands against each other.” This would make sense; Nick Binger had tens versus aces, Schulman had nines versus aces, and we saw James Mackey win a few race situations.
However, Morgan disagrees with the “big hands” line of thinking. “The structure this year is worse than it has been. Yes, ALL the final tables taking half the time to finish does mean something. It's not variance for every tournament to end in half or 1/3rd the hands, it's NO or little play.”
I have to agree with Morgan, as we saw several unusual moves at the $5,000 NL hodlem final table. In one spot Schulman made a standard blind-stealing raise with J9 and was pot committed when Binger shoved with AJ. We later saw Schulman shove from the big blind with A5 when Mackey raised from the small blind with A10. Those are not situations the usually patient and disciplined Schulman would find himself in had the structure not resembled a turbo sit-and-go.
We can speculate all we want, but the meticulous number-crunching of respected tournament reporter BJ Nemeth adds an objectivity to what players are sensing. Nemeth dispels some myths about the problems with the structure:
- The speed of a final table (whether measured by time or number of hands) is a symptom of a problem, not proof of one.
- The average starting stack at the final table will always be the same no matter how long it takes to reach it, so the relationship to the blinds is always different.
The real problem has nothing to do with the final table, and everything to do with an accelerated blind structure that goes into effect during Day 2.
Nemeth points out that it’s fairly easy to compare each level in 2007 with 2006—since you start with twice as many chips, simply divide each blind level in half to see how they measure up.
For instance, in 2007 players started the $5,000 No Limit Holdem event with 10,000 chips and a beginning level of 25-50. Last year’s event also started at 25-50, but with only 5,000 chips. In essence, there’s no difference than starting with 5,000 and blinds at 12.5-25; there is twice as much “play” in the opening level. This trend continues for most of Day 1.
The breakdown really occurs in Day 2 play. From level 13 on, the blinds quickly catch up and even outpace where they were in 2006. Play and structure are actually two different "variables." In truth, 2007 features more “play," but but the structure is much faster.
Nemeth summarizes that, “In just seven levels (mostly on Day Two), the blinds go from 50% of last year to 100% of last year. That's a steep acceleration curve that seasoned tournament players aren't used to. Statistically, that will increase the chip swings and the rate of bustouts during that period of acceleration.”
To be fair, Harrah’s stepped up to the plate by offering players what they were asking for: double chip stacks and more play. However, the unintended consequence of offering more play in the opening levels has accelerated the structure when it counts the most.
I do not believe that the WSOP will be able to address this issue on the sweeping scale that it would take to make Day 2 players happy. However, an immediate change can be made to give a little more play by extending the blind levels an additional 30 minutes once a certain number of players remain in the field. When the final four tables remain everyone’s play begins to slow down as they take extra time to mull over their decisions.
At the very least, Nemeth and I agree that, “Everyone from the Players' Advisory Council on down should lobby for 90-minute levels at the final table.”
