How does the Monday 100 compare to Fri 50/50 at the Fitz

BigDragon

Thinking of going for the first time. Just wondering what it was like in standard etc.

Cheers

DeVore

For your first game I'd go to the 50/50 simply because it allows you one c0ck up before you get booted out.

Both games are some of the best poker you'll get in there or around town imho.
The 100 game is a hard game, the big players are usually there and there is less banter and more serious play. They are better players then most too and have no problem banging in their chips if they think you are scared or unsure.

The 50/50 is bigger at about 70 people last time (afaik) and the 100 game has about 50. One thing I dont like about either is that even if you come 5th you only get your money back(afaik, I came 5th in the 100 game and kinda felt hard done by that night).
Imho thats fairly harsh as there is little skill difference that can be pointed to once you get that far into the final table. Its the difference between being dealt a few hands you can play and not.

DeV.

Hitman Actual

I'd say the standard is a bit higher in the Monday 100, but not by a hell of a lot. If you're used to playing in the 20euro crap-shoots, then you should notice the improved play straight away... plus there's much less in the way of bad beat frustration!

I reckon the biggest difference in the two games is how you intend to treat the single buy-in/top-up on Friday. You can either gamble a lot more with your first buy-in, or you can stick to solid play and build up your stack by a couple of thousand, and then use the top-up to have 6-7K after the break. If you only have around 3K after the break, you'll soon be under pressure to double-up. The strategy should be to try and have a minimum of 6K after the break.

I also agree with DeVore on the final table pay-out. The blinds are usually too big compared to stack size, and the players who make it into the top three are the ones who get lucky, rather than the ones who play the best game. But that seems to be the norm in most of the regular tournaments...

Hectorjelly

lenny_leonard wrote:

I also agree with DeVore on the final table pay-out. The blinds are usually too big compared to stack size, and the players who make it into the top three are the ones who get lucky, rather than the ones who play the best game. But that seems to be the norm in most of the regular tournaments...

Its unlikely that consistantly the people who get to the final three are lucky rather than good

Hectorjelly

DeVore wrote:

The 50/50 is bigger at about 70 people last time (afaik) and the 100 game has about 50. One thing I dont like about either is that even if you come 5th you only get your money back(afaik, I came 5th in the 100 game and kinda felt hard done by that night).
Imho thats fairly harsh as there is little skill difference that can be pointed to once you get that far into the final table. Its the difference between being dealt a few hands you can play and not.

I think its the opposite, i think you only get to actually play poker once it gets shorthanded and the stakes are massive (ie the prize jump between places is worthwhile). If the blinds are too big then it is a race to get good hands, but provided they're not too big you can have a really great game. Last night it took us over an hour (maybe longer) to get from 5 players to 2. You could train a robot to play well at a full table, not shorthanded.

Hitman Actual

Hectorjelly wrote:

Its unlikely that consistantly the people who get to the final three are lucky rather than good

OK, point taken... Joe O'Neill, Derry, Vivian, are good examples.

Regarding the blind/stack size at the final table, maybe this has improved because the number of players has doubled in the last few months?? Before that, the numbers were often below thirty, giving less chips in play. With those low numbers, it wasn't uncommon for most players to be relatively short-stacked at the final table (I remember finals with blinds of 1K-2K, and the biggest stacks around 25K,which is fairly low).

Hectorjelly

lenny_leonard wrote:

e (I remember finals with blinds of 1K-2K, and the biggest stacks around 25K,which is fairly low).

That is very low, very little poker is played with stack sizes that size.

DeVore

Hectorjelly wrote:

Its unlikely that consistantly the people who get to the final three are lucky rather than good

Thats not what he (or I, by proxy) were saying though...

When I play my goal is to get myself into the lottery with as many tickets (chips) as possible. But on many occasions its just that, a lottery. Now I've been at a good few final tables this year and yes, you see the same faces again and again. I could pick 15 people and I'd be fairly sure that half the final table will be made up of them. Thats a reflection of good poker play.

However I wouldnt like to pick the top three from just 9, which goes to show that it really is a lottery.

There last week was a good example. I got to the final table with just 4,500 but Anto got there with 78,000, well over half the tournies chips iirc. Now Anto did the right thing, absolutely bugger all but I got lucky twice and drew the game with him.
Am I more skillful because I "psychically" performed the two handed shove just when I was about to flop a flush or a house?

Basically...
Getting to final table (especially regularly) => skill
Scoring top place => jamminess > skill.

DeV.

Hectorjelly

DeVore wrote:

There last week was a good example. I got to the final table with just 4,500 but Anto got there with 78,000, well over half the tournies chips iirc. Now Anto did the right thing, absolutely bugger all but I got lucky twice and drew the game with him.
Am I more skillful because I "psychically" performed the two handed shove just when I was about to flop a flush or a house?

Basically...
Getting to final table (especially regularly) => skill
Scoring top place => jamminess > skill.

DeV.

You havent given any reasons as to why you think this is the case. Once it gets shorthanded you are forced into many more marginal decisions, up until this point simply playing tight is most of the battle, and more decisions means more chances for good players to use their edge.

I know from my results at final tables that skill plays a significent edge. My early results at final tables go something like this: 1, 5, 9, 8, 2, etc etc
Whereas recently its 1, 1, 9, 1, 2, 1. Because I am much better than I used to be once I get into that situation. Playing thousands of single table tournaments really improves your final table game.

Note that if the blinds are too big, or the players are around the same skill level, then luck will be the most important factor.

DapperGent

Hectorjelly wrote:

Note that if the blinds are too big, or the players are around the same skill level, then luck will be the most important factor.

I think what Dev is saying is that the blinds at most of the Fitz final tables are big enough to breach that luck > skill barrier. Personally I would agree with him.

I don't think he would disagree on your point that with reasonable blind levels the players with the edge will achieve higher placings more frequently.

Hectorjelly

DapperGent wrote:

I think what Dev is saying is that the blinds at most of the Fitz final tables are big enough to breach that luck > skill barrier. Personally I would agree with him.

I don't think he would disagree on your point that with reasonable blind levels the players with the edge will achieve higher placings more frequently.

Ive only been to one final table at the Fitz recently, so I dont really have any idea if the blinds get too big or not.

DapperGent

In the €100 and €50 + €50 the blinds aren't quite as harsh but they still bite too early and too hard to my mind. I think they still skew the final table a little too much towards luck.

In the €20 rebuy they are nothing less than amusing.

DeVore

DapperGent wrote:

I think what Dev is saying is that the blinds at most of the Fitz final tables are big enough to breach that luck > skill barrier. Personally I would agree with him.

I don't think he would disagree on your point that with reasonable blind levels the players with the edge will achieve higher placings more frequently.

Yeah thats pretty much it Dapper.

HJ, you say yourself that you are forced into more marginal hands as the blinds go skyward... in which case you are casting yourself on the mercy of more and more 52/48 positions and I dont care if you are Devilfish himself, if you win two of those in a row you are statistically "lucky".

Also, you are forced to make decisions like "all in or fold" with many hands. Hands where you might have limped or raised before must be played more/less aggressively.

Of course I agree that if the blinds arent dictating the play then the better players will emerge (just as they have throughout the earlier part of the tournie, final table is not *that* different to any other table).

My main point is that I've rarely played in a tournie where the blinds werent dictating play by the time final table came around and hence it became who could win the most coin tosses in a row.

Ironically the SA freezeout game in the Fitz had the best blinds at the final table and we all had enough chips to have some play too. The problem of course is that without the blinds rising at least somewhat, the tournie can go on for ages!


DeV.

Hectorjelly

DeVore wrote:

My main point is that I've rarely played in a tournie where the blinds werent dictating play by the time final table came around and hence it became who could win the most coin tosses in a row.

I think you may be exaggerating the effect the rising blinds have, but if not, you should definitly try playing online. The multi table tournaments with 15 minute blind levels on VC have a good blind structure, and as long as you get to the final table with an average stack a good player has a good chance of getting to the final three.

DeVore

How does a good player deal with a not so good player who is all in on any ace preflop on the final table... wait for a strong ace to dominate him? take a shot with JJ hoping he has one overcard and one under... (I would but even then the odds arent greatly in your favour...)

Such a player is saying "I dont want to play poker, I'd rather be playing roulette" but they force you to go to the roulette table or sit and hope for cards you can play strongly preflop.

My golden rule at final table is that unless I'm button or a blind, I wont call or raise without a hand that I might conceivable make a stand on. The blinds are too big at that stage to risk limping in, they'll savage your stack if you leak like that.

I'd welcome the views of our resident dealers who see far more of them then all of us! Most that I've played at have boiled down to a game of "chicken" rather then poker. The number of flops being minimal and an entire level of blinds could go by and you might see one flop during it.

DeV.

Hectorjelly

DeVore wrote:

How does a good player deal with a not so good player who is all in on any ace preflop on the final table... wait for a strong ace to dominate him? take a shot with JJ hoping he has one overcard and one under... (I would but even then the odds arent greatly in your favour...)

Such a player is saying "I dont want to play poker, I'd rather be playing roulette" but they force you to go to the roulette table or sit and hope for cards you can play strongly preflop.

My golden rule at final table is that unless I'm button or a blind, I wont call or raise without a hand that I might conceivable make a stand on. The blinds are too big at that stage to risk limping in, they'll savage your stack if you leak like that.

I'd welcome the views of our resident dealers who see far more of them then all of us! Most that I've played at have boiled down to a game of "chicken" rather then poker. The number of flops being minimal and an entire level of blinds could go by and you might see one flop during it.

DeV.

Not much of an answer, but It all depends. You have to take risks, and if a someone goes all in with what you consider to be A9 or less (ie one overcard) then you are making a major mistake by folding. The odds are really in your favour, especially considering the dead money in the pot. You simply cant pass up opportunites that are this much positive EV.

How you play is determined mainly by your stack size. If you have a fairly decent stack then you CAN limp in, but not often, not from Early position, and you have to limp reraise from time to time to cover your tracks.

Hitman Actual

It seems that my reply way back (about the top three players being lucky) seems to have started something, so here's my view.

I think everyone will agree that high blinds/low average stack size make the results at a final table geared more towards hitting cards and/or winning marginal all-ins than being able to consistently make the correct decision. Calling with JJ against A9 may be correct (JJ is 3/1 favourite approx?), but it might be the only decision you get to make.

With deeper money and smaller blinds, the better players will be around a lot longer to make the right decisions, and will deservedly make it to the top three (usually!). But the final tables (in my experience) just allow for "all-in....all-in...".

I agree that stack size is important to your play, but the high blind/low stack scenario forces your play, while with deeper money you can control your own play.

As for JJ against (someone who will raise all-in with) A9, it's an easy call with low stacks, but take, for example, the early stages of the end-of-month Fitz 250 game. If someone put you in for all your stack here (low blinds, big stacks), would you still call... not a chance.

Hectorjelly

lenny_leonard wrote:

As for JJ against (someone who will raise all-in with) A9, it's an easy call with low stacks, but take, for example, the early stages of the end-of-month Fitz 250 game. If someone put you in for all your stack here (low blinds, big stacks), would you still call... not a chance.

You would fold a 72% favourite?

Davey Devil

Why take the risk?? He's gonna spike an ace 28% of the time. In my opinion there is no point risking your whole stack early in a tourney unless you have the nuts, in which case it isn't a risk. Later on when you need to accumulate, sure go for it. You can't win a tournament in the first hour.

Hitman Actual

Hectorjelly wrote:

You would fold a 72% favourite?

Are you mad! Not what I'm saying... Unless you've got a very good read on a player to the contrary, your JJ would be behind here. I'm talking early in the 250 tournament, blinds of 25/50, stack sizes of 5000. Decent players as well... an all-in pre-flop here is KK or AA, assuming that the hand has been played in such a way that someone has gone all-in.

Hectorjelly

Davey Devil wrote:

Why take the risk?? He's gonna spike an ace 28% of the time. In my opinion there is no point risking your whole stack early in a tourney unless you have the nuts, in which case it isn't a risk. Later on when you need to accumulate, sure go for it. You can't win a tournament in the first hour.

Well first of all, we're talking specifically about the final table. Secondly, it doesnt matter if its the first hand or the last hand of a tournament, but a 72% chance is too big to pass up. You are giving up a tonne of equity by folding, and there is no way that you can make up all that equity no matter how good you are after the fact. I think people forget that blind stealing and its ilk is a zero sum game.

DeVore

I reraised 5 people with JJ's as big blind on the first hand of the big game a while ago and eventually ended up starting with 12,000 rather then 5K when someone took a fit of the stupids (ok a BIGGER fit of the stupids) with 99 on an 8-high flop but I digress and anecdotal evidence isnt worth the paper its written on

If I thought he had A9 I'd have all my chips in like a shot! If I knew it was AQ I'd consider my stack size and how comfortable I am on the table. Taking a 50/50 willingly is to me the same as standing there shouting "I'm not as good a player as you and 50/50 is about as good as I can hope to get". If I think I'm a better player then most of the table at that time I'll put down tens (Careca may remember me showing 10s to a modest raise of his to much oooohs and aaaahs from the table... I dont know what they were on about, it was an underhand insult to the rest of the table in my book! I was saying "Hey Careca, no need for us to go to war, I'm pretty sure you are raising with something like AJ or better, I can find easier targets in the fish we currently find ourselves surrounded by!" ))

My point is that even if you have big pair over a smaller pair EVERY TIME YOU GO ALL IN ON THE FINAL TABLE then you are about 80% ahead (1:4.5 I think neh?).

If you do that 5 times (which you are going to HAVE to do and probably MORE then that). You are still likely to lose one of them on average!
So, how skilled a player do you have to be to bring your brilliance to bear on the proceedings...

Yes the good players will do better then the bad ones at final table, no argument, because they pick their moments better and steal at better times etc, but the quantity of luck is a good deal larger at final table then anywhere else, imho.
The number of players who, at that stage, are willing to just gamble is very large. There is little skill in check raising someone who would have called if you put it all in regardless!

Over 100 final tables I'd expect a good player to do twice as well as a mediocre player, but not more then that. The signal of skill is just drowned out by the noise of willingness to gamble or by people forced to take actions against their will because "its now or never" etc etc...

DeV.

Hectorjelly

lenny_leonard wrote:

Are you mad! Not what I'm saying... Unless you've got a very good read on a player to the contrary, your JJ would be behind here. I'm talking early in the 250 tournament, blinds of 25/50, stack sizes of 5000. Decent players as well... an all-in pre-flop here is KK or AA, assuming that the hand has been played in such a way that someone has gone all-in.

I was talking about a situation in which you knew your opponent had A9, apologies I thought you were too.

Hectorjelly

DeVore wrote:

My point is that even if you have big pair over a smaller pair EVERY TIME YOU GO ALL IN ON THE FINAL TABLE then you are about 80% ahead (1:4.5 I think neh?).

If you do that 5 times (which you are going to HAVE to do and probably MORE then that). You are still likely to lose one of them on average!
So, how skilled a player do you have to be to bring your brilliance to bear on the proceedings...


Over 100 final tables I'd expect a good player to do twice as well as a mediocre player, but not more then that. The signal of skill is just drowned out by the noise of willingness to gamble or by people forced to take actions against their will because "its now or never" etc etc...

DeV.

If you go all in and are called 5 times by a lower pocket pair, assuming you dont lose the first one, You will have a monster stack, that can easily take a shorter stack doubling up against you. One of the great things about doubling up is that you can then take a coinflip without the risk of going broke.

A good player has about twice the equity of an average player for an entire tournament, so a good player doing twice as well at the final table would indicate that the luck/skill factor is the same at the final table as at any other.

BrendanB

Couple of (somewhat conflicting) ramblings to note, though this whole thread seems to have wandered just a little multi-topic.

Firstly, the blind structure on the final table was slightly modified a few weeks back to extend the later blind levels (from 8-15 I think, otherwise 1-2) to twenty minutes from fifteen, which doesn't sound like much, but does make a noticeable difference in the amount of play.

Secondly, I accept the argument that there still isn't much play on the final table at the moment, at least in the sense of occasionally seeing some flops. I don't buy what is I'm sure a highly experienced critique of the final table from Hectorjelly, I think the skill level decreases rather than increases at the end. I'm not sure what games you're talking about a robotic ring game survival strategy being successful, but it sure as hell isn't the big freezeouts.
With blinds eating a real chunk of everyones stack even unraised flops are crucial to your survival, and that generally means who gets lucky and hits their flop, not really how well they play it. To me, too much on the final table is decided by pure raise and fold preflop. I don't really see the skill in winning allin pair vs two overcards situation that seems to decide a huge amount. Apart from being quite one dimensional, it's god awful bleeding boring to deal. We spend more of our time shuffling. Do us a favour and turn over your cards - your table image means feck all, and it keeps me entertained. Back to what I was saying.

While people like Joe, Vivian and Derry do do well, only Joe has recently been making top threes, and while that's partly due to the fact he's damn good shorthanded, it also has a lot to do with the fact he always seems to start the final table with a monster stack. Neither Vivian nor Derry, while often getting paid, feature in the big money that often, despite often being head and shoulders over many of their opponents.

Even the last 270 game became 10K-20K madness when still 5 handed, which was made even more confusing when I started thinking of the 5K chips as 1K ones at 5am, anyway, beside the point.

Having said all this, I'm not sure whether there is a huge amount to do to change the situation. There are real practical considerations, and not just from a house point of view. The finishing time for the tournaments is getting later and later, the final table rarely kicks off before half one on an anyways big night, and myself or Marq are regularly in till well after three when dealing. While that's grand for us (or me at least, who hasn't seen midday in a very long time), for most punters it's not ok to stay in a casino until 4 in the morning with work the next day unless they are likely to win a large amount of money. Yes, there's an argument for kicking off the tournament earlier (and the games are getting closer to punctuality), but even then, you're looking at 7 hours poker and more. I think the core problem is that if you are a regular tournament player (say more than once a week) then you can't afford to be spending any longer than is the case already on any given night.
I'd appreciate peoples views on this though - is there a cutoff in total length that needs to be there - or would you be willing to do an extra long stint when you do make a final table.

A possible solution would be to steepen the early increases and add it on at the end, though this would be punishing the rest of the field for the benefit of those who do make a final table. The most practical solution is the one that's used already - deals. Accepting that when the blinds get too high it's a lottery slightly weighted to the big stacks, flatten out the structure based somewhat on the stack size and call it a night.

To be honest a lot of this comes back to stacking the money in the top few positions - personally I think there's more skill in getting through 50 players to be in the last five with a decent amount (almost certainly serious multiples of what you started with) than getting through 2 more to get a load more money. In the 270 game with the deal made at 3 players meant there was close on a 5K jump from 4th to 3rd.

On the unrelated JJ A9 controversy, I think the point is uncertainty. If someone throws it all in with something you think could well be one overcard you have to ask where the value is in the call. Even players who raise A9 will also raise both AK and pocket queens. So you are at best 70-30, more likely 50-50 and quite possibly in a big hole. The fact that they would be willing to do it with half a hand doesn't mean they don't have one this time. I'd throw away the jacks if I could afford it at all, regardless of whether I have the bet covered or not.

Brendan.

Lafortezza

BrendanB wrote:

To me, too much on the final table is decided by pure raise and fold preflop. I don't really see the skill in winning allin pair vs two overcards situation that seems to decide a huge amount. Apart from being quite one dimensional,

Personally I think its a different type of skill, admittedly there's less post-flop play (if any), but those marginal judgement and player reading decisions become a huge amount more important.In the €250 game there was a guy raising every 2nd hand, he had a good table image so everyone was quite fearful of calling him. That was until his cards accidently flipped over after *another* mid-position 4xBB raise. Nobody had called him and when he mucked his cards they caught on the table to reveal J9 suited. Everyone immediately raised eyebrow and you could see people thinking "He's been raising on crap like *that*??!"
So while post flop play and maths/odds and so on goes out the window, judgement, bluffing, limp-reraising, trapping etc all goes up a level. A different kind of poker.

BrendanB wrote:

Yes, there's an argument for kicking off the tournament earlier (and the games are getting closer to punctuality), but even then, you're looking at 7 hours poker and more. I think the core problem is that if you are a regular tournament player (say more than once a week) then you can't afford to be spending any longer than is the case already on any given night. I'd appreciate peoples views on this though - is there a cutoff in total length that needs to be there - or would you be willing to do an extra long stint when you do make a final table.

I think tournaments should start much much earlier. 8pm start might see bigger tournaments finish by 2am, which is reasonable if you're up at 7.30 for work the next morning.

BrendanB wrote:

A possible solution would be to steepen the early increases and add it on at the end,

Hell no! I'd hate to see the €100 and €50+€50 become like the €20 Weds/Sunday game, which has gone to the dogs in my opinion.

BrendanB wrote:

The most practical solution is the one that's used already - deals. Accepting that when the blinds get too high it's a lottery slightly weighted to the big stacks, flatten out the structure based somewhat on the stack size and call it a night.

Its a pity that more skillful short-handed and heads-up play doesn't happen at final tables in the fitz. Nearly every tournament results in an 'all-in 52%-48%' fest at the final table, and the blinds force deals to be made because players are just waiting for any Ace or hopefully any big pair to be a favourite in the inevitable all-in.

Culchie

Guys,

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here, I have to say, I think some of you fellahs are maybe becoming a little 'institutionalised' with your thinking.

There is a consistent theme throughout many of your posts on different threads running down the low stake tournamnets and the 'newbie' syndrome.
The unpredictable play seems to be messing with your heads, as does the 'All-In' or' Fold' play at final tables.

I like LaFotezza view on this, it is part of poker, a challenge to overcome, it's not against any rules, it's only against your own 'comfort zone' of the way you think poker should be played......Over a period of time "The Cream should rise to the top shouldn't it"

Hectorjelly

BrendanB wrote:

While people like Joe, Vivian and Derry do do well, only Joe has recently been making top threes, and while that's partly due to the fact he's damn good shorthanded, it also has a lot to do with the fact he always seems to start the final table with a monster stack. Neither Vivian nor Derry, while often getting paid, feature in the big money that often, despite often being head and shoulders over many of their opponents. Brendan.

First of all I have no idea if this is true or not, but that would tend to suggest that Derry and Vivian arent that good, maybe they're afraid to take risks early on; or they're not so good shorthanded.

BrendanB wrote:

A possible solution would be to steepen the early increases and add it on at the end, though this would be punishing the rest of the field for the benefit of those who do make a final table.

I think this is a really bad idea! The blinds go up fast enough as it is.

BrendanB wrote:

On the unrelated JJ A9 controversy, I think the point is uncertainty. If someone throws it all in with something you think could well be one overcard you have to ask where the value is in the call. Even players who raise A9 will also raise both AK and pocket queens. So you are at best 70-30, more likely 50-50 and quite possibly in a big hole. The fact that they would be willing to do it with half a hand doesn't mean they don't have one this time. I'd throw away the jacks if I could afford it at all, regardless of whether I have the bet covered or not.

So you would fold JJ to a single raise at the final table? There is a huge rage of hands that you have dominated, a few that dominate you, and some that are 50 50. We're not talking about a raise and a reraise.


The whole point of tournaments is find a single winner and reward him handsomely. If you dont like the big jumps in prize money between the top few, then you should be playing cash games. They are structured that way to reward players who take risks to finish first. There are only three places you should be concerned with 1 2 3, you pass up on a lot of equity just trying to get into the money.

Lafortezza

Culchie wrote:

I like LaFortezza view on this

omg someone thinks I have a point! :eek:
One thing I've noticed is that the people who are constantly making final tables are very capable of changing their game late on in a tournament. You see time and time again new and inexperienced players at the final table with a reasonable stack who keep trying to limp from early position with their Q10 suited. It might be worth it early on with small blinds but not at final table.

One rule I sometimes use at final tables: "If its worth a call, then its worth a raise, and if you're going to raise you'd better be prepared to go all in on it."

DeVore

Hopefully with the new area they might get back to 40 player tournies as they can run several then. Ok the prize money isnt going to be a huge amount but personally I'd prefer to play from 8 to 1 or 2am against 50 players with less vicious blinds raises.

A 2x40 player tournie is better then an 80 person slogathon that turns into a crap shoot.

DeV.

DeVore

One thing I've noticed is that the people who are constantly making final tables are very capable of changing their game late on in a tournament. You see time and time again new and inexperienced players at the final table with a reasonable stack who keep trying to limp from early position with their Q10 suited. It might be worth it early on with small blinds but not at final table.

Absolutely. I cant count the number of times I've seen that happen.
The biggest reason why people dont make the big money is that when it goes from 9 player to 7 they dont change gear and then again from 7 to 5. I stand by my assertion that 1,2,3 and pretty much decided by random and given relatively even stacks I'll always take a deal unless I think my opponents are poor or havent shifted gear sufficently. Between any reasonable players with fairly even stacks its a coin toss and I'd rather be in my bed.


I think they should cut the entire 10/25 level and shorten the 25/50 level to 20 mins (if its not already). Then ADD that extra time to the final table levels (500/1000 and 1K/2K). Also freezing at 1k/2k would be good too, I've been on final tables that have gone to 5K/10K which was farcically funny! "So, I'm BB then, ok I'm all in for 10K... only two of the 5 remaining players can call for the full 10K... how do these split pots work again??


DeV.