NPL needs an overhaul

[todd182]

ill just say that im liking npl the way it is now. A final table at the kingsford for example takes 3 hours and maybe a little more. if you double the passports i'd hate to think how long these torneys could go for.

[Scotty]

ill just say that im liking npl the way it is now. A final table at the kingsford for example takes 3 hours and maybe a little more. if you double the passports i'd hate to think how long these torneys could go for.

We'll assume you mean it takes three hours to get to the final table Todd ...

[AceLosesKing]

Anyway, I completely understand why NPL does it, and I completely support it. BUT in a RCON centred world, we would play with slightly relaxed blind structures, in a pub close to his house, with all his friends there, and at time convient to him, with him getting dealt AA on the button everytime. Oh, and lots of Pale Ale drink specials. And it would be teaching break every weeks too.

I know it aint going to happen, but I do empathise with the op. I don't expect anyone to change it, but if enough people voice their opinion, maybe someone will come up with something for people, like me, who'd like something slightly different.

This post says everything I was going to say, and does it better than I would've. Bravo.

[BigPete33]

"If your good enough to win with 4000, your good enough with 1000" "teaches people to play short stack"

and how do you play short stack, ALL IN.

Nope.


I haven't received a single stamp (let alone filled a card) all season and I'm currently looking like I'll sneak into the state final.

short stack does NOT = allin.

[BigPete33]

I'd also like to suggest that you join a freeroll tourney online Dug, and have a look how quickly about a THIRD of the field gets knocked out.

It doesn't even really matter if it's a freeroll or not, or if there's huge amounts of runners, or huge amounts of runners in a non-freeroll.

I can even give you an example... I played in a tourney online (it was very much NOT a freeroll) and there were a shade under 7 thousand runners. Starting stack was 10 thousand, it had 15 minute blind levels all the way through (not to mention more levels) and starting blinds were 25/50. Keep in mind people had to win their way into or buy their way into this tournament. The first thousand runners went in about 30 minutes - and that happens all the time.


I think with more chips, especially at a pub poker level, it just encourages looser play (as in 'not tight' - for all you people who can't spell). I don't feel that this would teach any players anything so therefore I also think it's probably better that we start with a base of 1000 chips.

[Garth Kay]

Ladies and gentleman,
I would like to say that is great to finally see a constructive, polite debate taking place without any insults been thrown or verbal sparring.

If you would permit I would like this debate to last a bit longer before I answer all queries and proposals in this thread. I would like to see some more contributors to this thread and some other voices speaking for 'dug's proposals.

Generally when I comment or answer a post like this it dies within several days. I would like this post to continue as I am interested in as many player's opinions before I comment.

Thanks you ladies and gentleman for contributing to the best read I have had on this forum in some time.

Dug please do not take this as a brush off, I respect your views and opinions and normally I would answer these in a timely fashion. In this matter I would like to see a few more player's reactions.
I hope you appreciate my stance on this matter.

You guys are the players and we will endeavour to adapt and evolve the product to the majority's satisfaction.

[rcon]

I'd also like to suggest that you join a freeroll tourney online Dug, and have a look how quickly about a THIRD of the field gets knocked out.

It doesn't even really matter if it's a freeroll or not, or if there's huge amounts of runners, or huge amounts of runners in a non-freeroll.

Yes, you lose lots of poeple quickly still, but those who do want to sit around and wait for some better spots to put their chips in, have that option. I'll often register myself in the online australian freeroll, but play it far less often - I'll sometimes get home an hour or more after it starts, and still have half my stack left - you look at the stats, and you and been folded out of something like 50+ hands. You'd be luck to see 50 hands before hitting the points bubble in a 45 runner tourny at some pubs! AND you've still got a playable stack left.

I really do understand why we can't have deep stack tourneys every night in every pub, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see something done to allow a little more "thoughtful" play.

I've suggested before perhaps when you get to heads up, you could drop back a blind level, or maybe you could even do that for the entire final table? Just a thought - I'm not pretending that it would be perfect, but its an idea that might allow the more skillful players a little more poker, yet not drag the night out to all hours.

I think with more chips, especially at a pub poker level, it just encourages looser play (as in 'not tight' - for all you people who can't spell). I don't feel that this would teach any players anything so therefore I also think it's probably better that we start with a base of 1000 chips.

See above idea - maybe you get your final table, everyone keeps their current stack, but then you knock the blinds back x levels..... that way your not giving everyone licence to try and buy every pot, your not really doing anything more than allowing the shorter stacks at the final table to chose their "spot" a little more carefully.

Anyway, I'm sure I'm not the only one with this point of view, but I hope someone can come up with perhaps a more workable idea - that way it might have half a chance of being implemented one day far into the future


note: as stated before, I DO love my NPL just as it is, but I would like to see (slightly) more flops and that is enough for one post I thinks.

[Nevah play JJ]

I must admit that I am finding all this talk about chipstacks really interesting.

But I do have a question, when your starting with a chipstack of $3,000 what kind of blinds do you begin with?

Is it $25 - $50 or is it higher?

It might not matter in the scheme of things, it is just something that I am interested about.

[bennymacca]

See above idea - maybe you get your final table, everyone keeps their current stack, but then you knock the blinds back x levels..... that way your not giving everyone licence to try and buy every pot, your not really doing anything more than allowing the shorter stacks at the final table to chose their "spot" a little more carefully.

i understand what you are saying rcon, but you really can't drop the blind levels back - that would make a mockery of the play leading up to the final table.

but what about capping the blind levels at the level it was at the start of the FT?

i.e for a smaller 45-50 venue, this might be 2-4 or something like that, but for roulettes it might be 5-10 or higher.

this would allow some extended play for the final table, and still allow for the tournament to finish in a reasonable time?

i saw this sort of thing in action in the regional final where the blinds were capped at 5-10, and this seemed to work well as there was some really good play on the FT, and not many people getting effectively blinded out.

just a thought

[Scotty]

maybe you get your final table, everyone keeps their current stack, but then you knock the blinds back x levels..... that way your not giving everyone licence to try and buy every pot, your not really doing anything more than allowing the shorter stacks at the final table to chose their "spot" a little more carefully.

I'm sorry, but this just (as benny the cunt also said) makes a mockery of the work the bigger stacks have done in the previous 2-3 hours.