It is essential that poker tournaments develop standard, sensible structures. What is a sensible structure for a tournament? Finding a sensible structure is not as easy as it sounds. For the purposes of this discussion, I will define a slow structure as one in which the average stack can last more than 200 hands without playing a hand before it goes broke. A normal structure is one in which it can last 100 to 200 hands. A fast structure is one in which it can last fewer than 100 hands. A superfast or crapshoot structure is one in which it can last 25 or fewer hands.
The structure for the final event of the World Series of Poker is considered by many players to be ideal. Even though it has worked smoothly for this long event (four-five days) with lots of players, more than 500, my own belief is that it is flawed for several reasons. Like most other structures, it starts off too slow and finishes too fast. If you don't believe this – just review the big hands played in the final confrontations over the years. (Stu won with 5-2 and Doyle with 10-2 twice. These hands make Chris' A-9 seem like a monster.) Why should some of the early days last 12 or more hours and the final table be over in five? It is also a confusing structure to present on TV. Spectators are becoming conditioned to seeing no-limit hold'em played with two blinds. Suddenly, in the middle of the tournament, the rules change and there are now antes and blinds.
Historically, tournaments have lasted one day, a modified one day (the final table on the second day,) two, three, four, and occasionally five days. Some games are played with antes and some with blinds. Tournaments have used antes, blinds, and sometimes a combination of both antes and blinds. Clearly, structures have to be faster for shorter tournaments.
Historically, they have been designed to start slowly. This makes some sense for longer tournaments with high entry fees, but no sense whatsoever for shorter events. (The World Series of Poker originated this type of structure for its events when they were the only events on the tournament calendar. The organizers assumed that since players were traveling thousands of miles to play in these annual events, it wasn't right to create a structure that eliminated lots of players too quickly.) A structure designed to ensure that most of the field will last a long time in the few tournaments played each year isn't required. There is currently a plethora of tournaments all over the world. If there ever was a need for slow starts, it has been eliminated. And since the extremely slow starts, which were considered desirable in the past, were combined with extremely fast finishes, those playing under these structures were often frustrated. Nothing is worse than starting off with enough chips to last 500 hands without playing a hand, and then 14 hours later arriving at the final table with an average stack and being able to last twice around the table.
Tournaments have been at par (for a $500 buy-in, you get $500 in chips), and they have been in multiples (for a $500 buy-in, you get $2,500 in chips). There are tournaments with rebuys and add-ons, and there are tournaments in which the ratio of chips given per dollar changes during this period (your first rebuy of $100 gets you $200 in chips; your second, $500; your third, $1,000; and so on). I think there are a few important reasons why tournaments should always be dollar for dollar. First, players can feel confident that the prize money is correct when the chips in play and money distributed tally exactly. It becomes an act of faith when there is no way to determine what the relationship is between the chips in play and the prize pool. I am confident that tournament employees are accurate and honest, and that all appropriate moneys find their way into the prize pool, but it is nice to have a simple way to audit this. The second important reason for having all chips at par is to remove the potential for a player to pocket some chips in one tournament and produce them in the next. I am confident that players are honest, but why tempt some wayward soul by letting him buy chips in one tournament that are worth substantially more in another one. A third reason for having chips at par is becoming more important as the media coverage of poker increases. Why complicate an announcer's job by forcing him to explain why there is $400,000 in chips in play, but only $200,000 in prize money.
My own opinion is that rebuy events are fun. Players are attracted by the low buy-ins and have a chance for a huge payday with a small initial investment. These events enable players to gamble it up in the early stages to try to accumulate lots of chips. But since rebuy events give an advantage to the players with larger bankrolls, they should not be included in any overall performance awards, and victories in them are somewhat tainted. All rebuys should be at par: A dollar in cash purchases a dollar in chips. Anything else tilts the playing field too heavily in favor of the players with deep pockets.
A sensible structure is one that ensures that players will have enough chips to play rationally at all stages of the tournament. In general, this requires that players with an average stack be able to last about 100 hands (10 to 12 rounds at a full table) without playing a hand before they go broke. More chips than this slows the tournament down too much and fewer makes it too random. A sample blind structure is shown below:
$10-$20 $100-$200 $1,000-$2,000
$15-$30 $150-$300 $1,500-$3,000
$20-$40 $200-$400 $2,000-$4,000
$30-$60 $300-$600 Etc.
$40-$80 $400-$800
$60-$120 $600-$1,200
$80-$160 $800-$1,600
The buy-in determines the starting level. For example, a $500 buy-in tournament would start with blinds of $15-$30, enough for slightly more than 10 rounds, or $20-$40, enough for slightly fewer than 10 rounds. Obviously, the higher blinds would be chosen for a shorter tournament.
Howard Lederer has stated that sensible tournament structures can be encapsulated in four words: "Hour limits, no doubles." I agree with the second part of that statement; unfortunately, time constraints make the first part unworkable in shorter tournaments. The length of time for each round would also depend on the length of time allotted for the tournament. For one-day tournaments, rounds – especially the early rounds – could be as short as 20 minutes. I also suggest that using structures that require players to play longer than 12 hours is detrimental to poker. These marathon tournaments become tests of stamina, not of poker skills. They also make it difficult to play in tournaments and have a life. For these short tournaments, the $80-$160 round could be skipped.
Any tournament having its final table on a separate day should start that day off with the blinds at a level at which the average stack can last 10 rounds, and increase them hourly. For example, if there is $400,000 in chips at an eight-player final table, the blinds should start at $1,500-$3,000. I have seen too many tournaments that started at noon and didn't get down to the final table until 3 a.m. have the final table the next day last less than three hours – which is the wrong structure.
Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations
1. Structures that combine slow starts and fast finishes are the worst.
2. Structures in which chips aren't worth their face value can create problems.
3. Structures must be consistent. If you start off with a small blind and a big blind, finish with a small blind and a big blind. Don't change things in the middle by adding antes.
4. Players should never play more than 12 hours in one day.
5. If the final table is played on a separate day, the average stack must have enough chips to play rational poker.