| |
BGonline.org Forums
About Cash Play tournament format
Posted By: Eric Guedj
Date: Monday, 12 April 2010, at 3:32 p.m.
Hello all,
I was hoping that at some point, the Cash Play format would raise some sort of discussions on the forum, and as it happened, it did, which is a good thing.
There are obvisouly some flaws in the format as described, but none that couldn't be adressed in a proper way.
So I will try to answer below to most (if not all) the questions raised by contributors which I will try to name each time I refer to their post (If I haven't sometimes, please forgive!).
Regarding new strategies, I agree with Bob Koca (UBK), who wrote:
"Especially in later rounds there will be situations where on e player has only a few points left. Those games are significantly different from a regular money game."
Indeed, when a player only has a few points left (short stack, in poker language), he and his opponent will have decisions based on this specific situations, which surely will affect Take Points, Doubling Windows, etc. I see this as a good thing, for I suspect there could be an entire new theoretical approach to be developed.
Further, UBK comments the preamble to the format: "…less experienced players has better chance to go further in the competition", with a (somewhat ironical) comment: UbK: "Not sure exactly what this is saying. Surely there will be more players (of all levels) surviving the first few rounds. Is it saying that there is a better chance for a poor player to win the tournament? I would like to see the reasoning for that. If true I see it as a negative rather than a positive."
Actually, this is saying exactly what Bob understood: A less experienced player, as any other player, WILL have a better chance to survive Day 1. And NO, it does not say that a poor player has a better chance to win the tournament. (And I understand why UBK would have seen this, if true, as a negative! :) )
JACOBY RULE: Why "Ugh", Bob? Isn't it a very standard rule in money games? I can't recall this rule having ever been contested, but I'd be happy to debate on this, if there is anything really wrong with Jacoby, while I can't blame purists to be against it, in principle.
I should add here that I don't see how "it combines with table stakes in strange ways", UBK can you explain?
REBUY/ADD-ONS section: Obviously, this rule, as it is written, doesn't make it clear enough, and there is some adjustments there to be made.
But first, I should clear some points: UBK wrote: "(…) you should be thinking of this tournament as having about a 720 (start) plus 360 + 360 (probably two rebuys, possibly more, maybe just one) + 720 add on = 2160 Euros entry fee plus registration".
This calculation is anything but correct: True, the option for unlimited rebuys gives an edge to "deep pocket" players, as rightly observed by Chiva Taffazoli. If true, this comment applies to ANY multiple rebuy tournament (in Backgammon or poker).
And I suppose a possible amendment to make this fairer could be : 1) Lower both entry fee and rebuy/add-on price, or 2) Limit rebuy to just the one.
In any case, please note the Add-On price is also € 360 (not 720), so the total price for an average 1 Buy-in + 1 Rebuy + 1 Add-on would equate to € 1440, and this DOES include registration fees!
That's why I believe the comment from UBK on this matter who estimates € 2160 as an average entry is slightly misleading.(although €1440 is not cheap either)
On the same subject, Daniel Murphy estimates that a player would automatically rebuy twice, (under current rules) just because he can do so. I fail to see why this strategy should always be EV+ (or generate positive equity)? From my own modest experience in poker rebuy tournaments, rebuying is an option one should choose to exert carefully and in a well timed manner. Certainly not automatically.
Besides, the crucial difference is that a larger stack in No-Limit Poker grants a very real and substantial edge to his owner. This is not true in Backgammon (even in CashPlay), because one cannot go "All-in".
In other words, I don't believe players would automatically rebuy when they can, but I would again happily debate on this delicate point.
As a conclusion to the latter, I will quote UBK again: "Suppose I have 5000 chips and the next to last game of round 4 is starting. After this game I will have my last chance for the rebuy. Having that opportunity has some equity and losing a single point is far less worse than it would normally be."
This is very rightly observed, and is an undisputed truth: you may have an arbitrage decision to make sometimes if you are just at the 5000 chips limit.
Should I lose a point so I can rebuy next?
First, anyone facing this could probably have re-bought a few games before, when his stack was already lower than 5000 chips…
Next, I don't see the prejudice for anyone: If one player wants to LOSE chips so he may REBUY chips (a 'Kafkaian' situation familiar to poker players), so be it: Surely his opponent will not complain for being offered chips without playing!
CLOCKS SETTINGS: There was a lot of comments on this, and I will start with those from Bob Koca again (Bob, I take the chance here to thank you for having studied this format with your customary precision and adequacy, spotting the most obvious flaws and more!):
Bob says that "2.5mn/game +12second delay (…) is a more lax time control than 25 minutes to play a 10 point match"
I am not sure what Bob has based this assumption on, as the benchmark I've used is "A Match to N points lasts about N games". Hence, 2.5 minutes per game would, on the average, equate 2.5 mn per point in a classic match…
But agreeably, it is a lot of bank time, and clocks issues shouldn't affect too many players (but I guess that is a good thing, isn't it?). The history with tournaments in France reveals that players prefer to have a lot of time on the clock. "If a player exhausts his reserve time (runs out of time), he/she loses his entire stack to his opponent."
On the Penalty procedure for players running-out of time, the rule I've proposed is widely unpopular, which comes as a surprise, because the "sudden-death rule" is standard in normal tournaments and is still in use in ABT tournaments, if I'm not mistaken. (See http://www.bkgm.com/tournaments/US-Backgammon-Clock-2007.html#ending_a_game)
Bob Koca wrote: "That is completely unreasonable" (Oops!), and proposed an alternative of good sense: "Instead one should lose the possible value of those games. For example with a cube on 2 with contact lose 6 points. If the cube is not turned lose 1. For the games not yet started lose 1 point each."
This same sudden-death rule (if you lose on time, you lose the match) is also generally the one that applies in European tournaments.
So I wonder: Why should this rule be enforced in regular match-play format, and not in CashPlay?
The current World Champion Mochy also expressed criticism towards the sudden-death rule, which he thought was "too expensive".
His point was that in normal match-play format, a player who loses on time and the match still has some equity in Consolation and Last Chance. I will object here that Consolation MUST be progressive, otherwise it's a major equity loss for players who lose in the Main on Day 1 or Day 2, and progressivity means very little equity when you are unlucky to lose on first or second round. (For example, in a classic Progressive consolation, a player who lost on first round would have to play 7 or 8 matches to enter the money – typically, his equity at this stage would not exceed 5% of his original buy-in, which explains why so many players just don't show-up in Consolations…and incidentally this is the reason why I think Consolation/Last Chance is a stupid system – Second Chance is much better, as the Danes experienced in Copenhagen last weekend)
But this being said, I agree that it's a bit hard to be out of the tournament if you lose on time, and I do like Bob Koca's proposal for a more gradual punishment, costing points but not the entire stack.
This rule will therefore be amended after a wider consultation.
To finish with the issues that may occur because of Clock, I will also comment on UBK's spotting a "time management strategy" when a player has interest to lose on time rather than complete the current game (presumably a gin for his opponent).
"Suppose there are 3 games left at a level and a player is down to 1 chips worth. He knows he will want to rebuy if he loses. Suppose he has less than 5 minutes left on his clock and opponent reaches a gin position. Rather than just lose it is advantageous for him to just sit there and forfeit on time. That way after he rebuys as he plans to he will have 5 minutes reserve instead of less than 5. Am I correct that the rule as written indeed makes that a time management strategy?"
The answer, Bob, is yes: the rule, as written, makes that a time management strategy, which I believe is a) impossible to avoid if you consider giving extra time (any amount) to a player who has ran out of time b) not a problem in any case for the opponent, who would cash the last chips of the players, and just wait for his rebuy…
GAME PER GAME STAGE Again, the comment I read make me think I did not write this rule in the best English (please forgive a frenchy…) so it's understood for what it's meant for.
Therefore I should try and explain it in further depth: The key to this rule is that only 8 players are in the money, so the procedure should be careful on the "artificial delayed elimination" when only 9 players remain. "When the number of player closes to 8" really means (and should be written as) "when exactly 9 players remain".
I go with UBK's idea that if 2 players happen to be eliminated on the same game when 9 players are left, they should split the 8th price.
But... I disagree with his comment: "Could using a lot of that time to see what happens elsewhere be worth it?" Well, one can easily figure that when there are only 10 or 9 players, you'd rather lose a lot of your bank time, waiting for players to bust just before you do, so you can jump the money wall alive!
PAIRINGS: I was surprised this did not raise more comments;
Only Chiva Taffazoli questioned the chosen method for Pairings:
"Not sure if biggest stack vs. smallest stack is a good thing."
My answer here would be….neither am I!
Pairing method presents indeed a tricky choice, and at first I though larger stack could play second largest, etc. But this would make it increasingly difficult for smaller stacks to survive, for once a small stack would swallow another (small stack), he would have to just wait until the end of the Level, losing a chance to win more chips. So this option didn't look right.
An alternative could be the following: 1)Split the field in two halves, the 50% bigger stacks (field A), and the 50% smaller (field B). 2)Pair larger stack of field A with larger of Field B, and so on.
This would address the trouble of the big stack, having to play the smallest. (But still, someone would have to play against the smallest!)
This question remains open then, and I will gladly collect further ideas on this question here, to come-up with the most popular (and fairer) Pairing system.
In conclusion (to this very long post!) I will keep posting here on the evolution of the CashPlay format, until the final publication on the site www.rivieracup.com
for those who would want to be more involved with the maturation of this format, there is also a FaceBook group (RivieraCup.com) where updates about the event will be posted as they come. Feel free to join!
Thanks to everyone for your contribution, with a special mention to Bob Koca.
Eric Guedj
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.