What makes structures bad?
So I was procrastinating on a bunch of stuff today and played both freerolls
(Carbon and Juicy) and surprisingly I found I liked one structure while hating the other..... so I was wondering what actually made people consider structures poor and good past just having more or less play??
Granted more or less play is important, but there are other factors imho...
Here are the Juicystakes levels for the FR:
Actual Proposed Cost of one round Rnd1/Rn2...
10/20 SAME 30 NA
15/30 SAME 45 same 1.50
25/50 SAME 75 same 1.66
50/100 (40/80) 120 (2.00)1.60
75/150 (60/120) 180 (1.50)1.50
100/200 (80/160/10) 280 (1.33)1.55
150/300/25 (115/230/15) 465 (2.17)1.66
200/400/40 (150/300/30) 690 (1.41)1.48
(200/400/40) 920 NA 1.33
Note: All levels are 12 mins.
The M value for the 6th level is 300 and then jumps to 675 in level 7.
So what im saying is the cost of a round should never expand 125% in one level jump. I mean the jump to antes usually isnt even accompanied by a blind raise...or at least often isnt.
Here I propose lengthening the structure by one lvl only and show how doing that and manipulating ante size a bit more can normalize the rise in antes a great deal.
I even think we could raise that last level to 240/480/40 to make the jump not even a level longer...in fact I think that would be argueably be smoother for the players...but of course all things being equal longer structures are fundamentally better until a point far beyond this structure...
R1/R2 shows the ratio of every round cost over the preceding one which illustrates the "smoothness" of ante/blind increases throughout the tournament. The parenthetical values are the ratios as they currently are , and the ones with no parentheses are what I would propose.
Anyone think my structure sucks?
Anyone think it really doesnt matter and I have OCD for thinking about these things?