Home Game Technical Analysis - Feedback Needed
Objective: Derive a formula to determine the best tournament to play in based on the following factors: buy in, rake, starting chips, blinds, no. of players, no. of places paid.
I don't think this topic has been discussed before, so I thought I would see if any forum members have ever considered this type of analysis when deciding which home games to play in. A lot of work has been done before on structuring tournaments blind levels and starting chips (Zithal seems to be an expert on this), but has anyone derived a formula when you are deciding on which home game, tournament, etc. to play in that takes into account the buy-in, the rake, the amount of starting chips and the blind levels, no of players. We will assume no rebuys or add ons to keep things simple for now. For example, say you are considering entering a tournament that has the following structure:
Buy in of $200 + $40 rake, 50 players, 5 spots paid
Starting chips of 5,000, with the following blind structure (20 min levels)
25/50 (M = 67)
50/100 (M = 33)
100/200 (M = 17)
200/400 (M= 8.0)
400/800 (M = 4)
500/1000 (M = 3)
Tournament Factor (TF) = [((Total M/ No. of levels)Â x ((buyin - rake) x no. of players)/1000] / (1/no. of places paid) - with the aim to find tournaments with the highest TF
This tournament would have a TF of 1,100.
By deducting the rake from the tournament fee, I think this would give no raked tournaments an advantage as the overall TF would be increased. This formula could be adjusted based on the number of levels you think are relevant. Dividing by the no of places paid is to basically gross up the overall formula to increase the TF where more places are paid. Obviously the deepstack tournaments with low buy-ins would give you the most bang for your buck but then you would also need to consider the total prize money at stake which would also be a deciding factor in determining which tournament to play in. Any ideas on this subject? I guess the goal would be to find a way to compare the different tournament options out there based on the typical variables that each tournament offers. This formula is definitely just a starting point to get the discussion going and is meant as an example only. There are probably lots of errors imbedded in it but I want to see if a formula could be created that everyone might benefit from. Your thoughts please....
PokerJAH
I don't think this topic has been discussed before, so I thought I would see if any forum members have ever considered this type of analysis when deciding which home games to play in. A lot of work has been done before on structuring tournaments blind levels and starting chips (Zithal seems to be an expert on this), but has anyone derived a formula when you are deciding on which home game, tournament, etc. to play in that takes into account the buy-in, the rake, the amount of starting chips and the blind levels, no of players. We will assume no rebuys or add ons to keep things simple for now. For example, say you are considering entering a tournament that has the following structure:
Buy in of $200 + $40 rake, 50 players, 5 spots paid
Starting chips of 5,000, with the following blind structure (20 min levels)
25/50 (M = 67)
50/100 (M = 33)
100/200 (M = 17)
200/400 (M= 8.0)
400/800 (M = 4)
500/1000 (M = 3)
Tournament Factor (TF) = [((Total M/ No. of levels)Â x ((buyin - rake) x no. of players)/1000] / (1/no. of places paid) - with the aim to find tournaments with the highest TF
This tournament would have a TF of 1,100.
By deducting the rake from the tournament fee, I think this would give no raked tournaments an advantage as the overall TF would be increased. This formula could be adjusted based on the number of levels you think are relevant. Dividing by the no of places paid is to basically gross up the overall formula to increase the TF where more places are paid. Obviously the deepstack tournaments with low buy-ins would give you the most bang for your buck but then you would also need to consider the total prize money at stake which would also be a deciding factor in determining which tournament to play in. Any ideas on this subject? I guess the goal would be to find a way to compare the different tournament options out there based on the typical variables that each tournament offers. This formula is definitely just a starting point to get the discussion going and is meant as an example only. There are probably lots of errors imbedded in it but I want to see if a formula could be created that everyone might benefit from. Your thoughts please....
PokerJAH
Comments
/g2
/g2
IMO, there really isn't enough of a supply to demand this type of analysis. Also, driving distance is probably a really important factor for many players which narrows down even further the games they could go to.
/g2
If one's objective is to make money, one of the most important factors is your relative skill level compared to the other players. Â While you can find out from good organizers about the buy-in, blinds, rake, number of expected players and prizes, you will probably not be able to gauge your relative skill level until after you have bought in. Â I play in mostly rake-free live tournaments, but I found a raked tournament where most of the players are worse than me, so I will continue to play in that tournament even though the organizers are clueless in how to run and structure a good tournament.
The best tournaments would have the following factors:
1) You find out that you are the best player, or at least half the players are worse than you. Â For example at the WSOP, the professionals know that they will have a high +EV due to all the dead money from the fish, donkeys, birds and elephants (but no monkey allowed!).
2) The lower the rake, the better. Â A few tournaments may even throw in bonus money so the rake is negative.
3) You get a lot of poker play with a high starting stack and slow blind schedule.
4) The location, date and time fits with your schedule.
5) You like the people in that tournament. For example, when I see the K-W regulars or Milton Rocks in the player list, I realize that it may be -EV for me to buy in, :fish: but I will at least have fun or learn from these sharks (no man-flirting intended).
Legal Disclaimer: Any similarity to man-flirting in my posts are completely coincidental. They do not necessarily reflect the views of Christina Aguillera.
For the record, Compuease does look like his avatar. Kind of.