Poker stack straw poll

OK, if we are going to do a poll, let's do this right, without false alternatives. If someone can think of an option that we are not considering, let me know.

This poll does not claim to suggest that TBJPA would accept the results of this poll. This is just what the players at this site think would be the best rule.

P.S. The first option isn't meant to exclude stacks of exactly 20, if the players start with larger stacks of chips to begin with. IMO, the stack size would be based on the largest starting stack size.

 

Online polls

Most player don't even take these online polls. I will be asking the players at land based tournaments (not just TBJPA events) what they perfer for chip stacking as well as using the online poll.

I have already had 6 players contact me that they don't like the chip stacking rule, they perfer no limit.

This is why I try to compromise and be fair to all players.

I'll explain why we need a mimimum of 20 chips and why only one stack of each color should be allowed if that is the rule the players choice to play by.

1) the chips are to be stacked to make it easier to count the other players chips. So if this is the case, why allow multiple stacks of $5 and or $25 chips across the table. This just causes more chance at hidding chips, with multiple stacks of the same color it allows a player the chance to cover up chips as well. Either on purpose or by accident, I've seen it too many times.

2) the chip stacks need to be at least 20 chips high to avoid players from constantly asking for more chips, should they keep getting beat. Now should you have to count 20 chips or less shouldn't be a issue.

3) if only a certain amount of chips are to be allowed, then a penlity would have to be enforced for any player asking for change to try and get more time, (this of course would not be a penlity if the player actually needed the color change).

4) from my understanding, the players posting want the chips stacked to make chip counting easier, in that case all the bets should fall under the same rule. If the stakes need to be made easier to count, then so should the bets.

 

Rick, I believe you that there are people that may be contacting you personally, and want to keep the old rule. That they (or you) are not justifying their reasons makes me assume that the reasons are the same as I suggested earlier: It's the way it's always been done, and they want to maintain an advantage that they are used to having.

The argument you are making above is known as a "straw man" argument. You say that the only way that stack limits work is if only one stack per denomination is allowed. Then, you point out how unwieldy that would be. So, let's discuss whether or not multiple stacks of the same denomination is truly untenable.

1. UBT has allowed multiple stacks of 10 (or 20) high for about 9 months now, to mostly positive effect, so inherently, this is not an obvious problem.

2. Having multiple stacks of a multiple of 10 (or 20) is much easier to count. A stack of 25 chips = 250 (or 500). People simply count 250 for each full stack, plus 25 for each leftover chip.

3. Having multiple stacks at a set amount actually makes it easier to count the change as there is a clear baseline. If I have a full stack, and a stack 2 below the full stack, I know that the partial stack is 8 high. There is no added difficulty from multiple stacks of a consistent height.

4. Having multiple stacks acts as verification that your stacks are the right height. Most times that peoples stacks are accidentally higher or lower than required are due to the fact that there is not a reference stack next to it to compare it to.

5. The one argument against multiple stacks you make is that it's easier for a high denomination chip to be hidden. First of all, doing this on purpose is blatantly against the rules as the rules state that all stacks must contain a single denomination. In practice, when this is done accidentally, there is plenty of time to catch it. As chip stacks grow gradually, there is usually a period of time where the stack is visible and being counted by others before it is being hidden by other chips. Other players at the table will generally be monioring this, unless it is done deceptively.

-------

Now, I know that a poll here is far from scientific. But It looks like there is a concensus developing on this forum. I also know that some people will always want to hold back change, but when an idea makes good sense, then the change ought to be done. I also know that this is your tour, Rick, but I know you want it to be "the people's tour", so I think that a debate about this is a good thing.

 

You can go back to when I first started posting here and see that I ask for feedback on all my ideas and concepts. But as we both agree, online polls are not 100% acturate. So as always I will be talking to all the players I see at the different events and get feedback and opinions from all of the players.

If I wasn't willing to change I never would have made the "Sand Timer" rule in the first place.

One thing is for sure, I do concider what the players want and do try to be fair to all.

 

miscounted stacks

Rick your point about players, some new and some trying to gain an edge, having only 9 chips in a stack or 11 chips, instead of the 10 has already come up numerous times while I was playing at the Venetian.

Invariably this happens and one player at the table says,
"Are you sure that's a stack of 10?"

The player in question counts their stack and 8 times out of 10 finds they have either 9 or 11. They correct the stack and the game continues.

As far as "hiding" chips that's simple too. All chips go against the back rail. When you've got 2 or 3 stacks of 100 chips you just don't touch the 10 stacks you use the other ones.

The 10 chip stack rule doesnt' negate chip counting - it merely simplfies the process. I had been mentioning 20 earlier because that was what I remembered at the final table and in Aruba at the first UBT event. While they still want stacks of 20 at the FINAL TABLE, the other tables are stacks of 10 which now that I think about it is much better. Toonces discussed this earlier in this thread (and did a better job of explaining that I can) so I won't be redundant.

Each of your rebuttal points to Toonces has already been addressed and implemented in past UBT tournaments. Each scenario that you listed, from the not enough chip stacks to the "hidden chip" has already been dealt with. Bottom line is this: YOU as a player, are responsible for counting your and your opponents chips. The method of 10 chip stacks is done in order to hasten the process. If you, the player, assume the stacks are all 10 when in fact they have 11 or 9, then it is your, the players, fault.

As far as players PM to you. I respect their opinion and while you are trying to please as many as possible by giving the players "what they want" you ultimately need to make a final decision about what is in the best LONG TERM interest of the TBJPA - do you please the loyal fan/customer base by retaining status quo or do you make improvements that will attract new players, make the game move at a quicker pace and ensure a more level playing field?

As far as the sand timer issue - I would drop that altogether and either have a 10 chip stack rule or nothing. Just my opinion

 

Rick

you're just throwing out garbage arguements to avoid facing the issue - stacking in stacks of ten, and having multiple stacks is not a problem - unless you choose to pretend it is - and if a player ends up with 8 stacks of $5 chips - then the dealer can color him up on a few stacks - dealer/player discretion

My theory -

if you're not a very good player - then you grasp for every tiny advantage you can get - since you're not getting much off of your playing skills - so you learn to be an expert chip counter instead of learning to play better tbj - a simple mechanical skill instead of a complex strategic/tactical skill set -

just my theory

 

You haven't read my last post I take it...LOL

RKuczek, go read my last post about the chip stacks...LOL

As long as the monkey is taken off the dealers and TD back, I am willing to try the stacks of 10, but in changing this rule, means that no more than stacks of 10 of any color maybe bet as well. After all there is no reason to bet more then 10 - $5 chip other then to try and hide your bet.

 

Glad to see you coming around to the "10 chip stack" rule, TXtourplayer. Just one thing I'm not clear about. Are you still saying only one stack per color? If you stick to this then I foresee a lot of coloring up or down which will delay the game. My opinion is that there should be no limit on the number of stacks per color a player is allowed to have in front of him/her. However, if you do want to limit the number of stacks per color then you should allow at least 2 (3 would be better) stacks per color to decrease the color up/down time consuming process.

PS:
It's tough trying to follow this flow of posts when 2 threads are talking about the same subject. I didn't know which thread to post my thoughts. If it's the wrong thread, sorry.

 

LOL, I kind of got lost myself...LOL

Like I said I don't have a problem trying most new things that I believe can and will help tournament play.

But before I agreed I wanted to point out any and all possible problems I could foresee. Once those were all posted and the fact several of the Old School Counters (OSC) weren't going to be at Laughlin (maybe Seattle though) I thought this is the time to give the stack of 10 a chance.

I even had a discussion with Ken today and told him I was willing to try it, but only if the stack of 10 was also used for betting as well. After all it made no sense to me to improve the chip counting in front of the players and not improve the chip counting for the players bets.

As long as the players all understand that it is there responsiblity to still have to count the chips (only 10 now) and police the other players stacks I love the idea.

And as a player I have no problem making tournaments easier to count down. Just gives me more time to figure other things.

 

Well said Tex, well said.

 

First, I have to admit I don't follow the discussions on chip stacks very closely. Did not, don't and will not have enough free time to do so, therefore I may have missed many of the arguments, pro and con.

I don't want to expand much energy on this, but here are a few observations:

It seems to me the pros who do a lot of Internet plays, all want chip stacks similar to what's required by UBT. Their chief argument is, if you land-based folks want to attract us to your tournament games, please provide us with the chip count we have been accustomed to. In other words, we are the newbies calendar-wise, regardless of whether we actually have played many more Internet or land-based tournaments than you or not, we want you to play the way we are used to.

The luck of the draw determines where one sits at a tournament table whether one has poor eyesight or not. In reality, the older players who have played land-based tournaments for years may have worse eyesight than those of the Internet generation. Their worse eyesight penalizes them more whether it's an Internet or land-based tournament, but chances are they too would want to play the way they are used to, i.e. chips stacked only visibly by denom. And many have the discretionary income and time to play land-based tournaments though may not touch the Internet games.

Making a player keep stacks of 10 or 20 chips requires more work on the part of that player (more so for the 20 chip count then the 10, etc ....) Does anyone ever consider the fact that there are tournament players who don't care to keep an accurate count of their own bankroll nor of anyone else's as long all chips are visible by denom at all time?

If a tournament director wants to attract more players to his/her tournaments, the most persuasive and effective action to take is simply to keep the percentage rake as low as possible.

 

wow!!!. come to wa. state and play where there are only black, green and red chips at certain casinos. then, one gets the challange of trying to count up to 70-80 high (these are not with any side markings), which happens a great deal. plus, most of the time people play with their chips (i.e. poker style), which is a constant problem in this area. we, just have to deal with this on a daily basis.

 

The time required to keep one's chips in stacks of 10 is minimal. In the course of playing, I think it actually saves a player's time because of ease of keeping track of his/her own chip count.

Second, those that don't care to keep track of chip counts, either their own or their opponents, will play a tournament irregardless of the rules. They don't know the rules before they sit down and they don't care. So trying to please that minority becomes an exercise in futility. And yes, they are "dead money".

 

Believe me, I had that in mind before I ever suggested any of the stack rules...LOL

Already being warned about some of the players up there, by Marichal, Thrasht, Hemi-power, and Lehay. This is why I had already decided to make a change in the chip stacks, (the Sand Timer rule), but after a very nice debate with several members over the last few days and I decided to go on and try the 10 stack rules instead.

I have the word of both the Auburn and Everett Iron Horse managers and the Auburn table game manager, that all the TBJPA rules will be enforced up in Washington.

This also includes only speaking English while playing at the tables. I made sure about the enforcement of the rules before agreeing to host the TBJPA events up there.

So far the Iron Horse management have been great, three of them are even coming down to Laughlin to checkout the events next week.

From word of mouth I am expecting a very nice turnout in Washington next month, (several first timers for the TBJPA events).

 

Just a little piece of personal experience here about RULES enforcement.

Now rules are rules but how the “pit bosses” enforce them has a great deal of influence between eager compliance and downright animosity.

I simple, “excuse me Mr/Mrs Doe – please check to make sure there are only 10 chips in your stacks – thanks” is the correct way to enforce the rules.

Having a person reach over, pick up your chips and place them into 2 or 3 stacks of 10 then abruptly leaving is NOT the correct way to enforce the rules.

Now you may scoff at that but that is EXACTLY what I personally observed in two different live tourney events. The atmosphere at the table in the first example was great, people having fun, laughing, etc. In the second example the table mood was nasty, ugly, etc…

To Orca, your points about people not wanting to bother with chip stacks or totals may be true of some people and I’m sure they will put up a fuss about having to keep stacks of 10. They’ll grumble, moan and complain about how “silly” this rule is. Oh well. Whenever there are “new rules” there are certain people who don’t like it. No one likes change – not even babies with wet diapers. But change can be good. In the fact of standard chip stacks it will do the following:

1. Increase the pace of the game
2. Make count downs easier – speeds up the game
3. Help newer players who aren’t as adept at chip counting as more experienced players
4. Help to level the playing field
5. Assist any individuals with poorer eyesight (it’s a lot easier to see 3 stacks of 5 chips and know that person has 150 than to count 15 chips.

Your last point about keeping the keeping the percentage rake as low as possible is an excellent point and I agree with you 100%

The goal, in my opinion, is to get a standard established. That way Jane/Joe Doe will feel comfortable playing in a BJT wether it is held in Washington, Nevada or Mississippi. Poker already has this going for it and I feel it's a big reason why it has flourished. BJ needs to step up to the plate and do the same.

 

Good points, Fred. And I think that with the two BJ tours both following a 10-chip rule, it is more likely to catch on with other unaffiliated tournaments.

I alos think that any old-timers that are currently not happy with the rule will learn to appreciate the more relaxed state of making the best bet without the added concern of continuously having to recount stacks.

 

It is my belief that after 1 or 2 times of following this rule and having it enforced the correct way, most players will find it allows more strategy to become involved.

Lets face it when the surrender card was introduced most people were skeptical of it. Having used it I feel that it should be the standard with BJT play as it makes the game run smoother and less confusion.

Will it totally eliminate chip confusion? No - only with the use of a tote board, as I had previously mentioned, will the chips & counting become a non issue.

Oh BTW - Rick should be congratulated on his decision to make an executive decision based not only on player feedback but on sound principles. Too often people complain about poor decisions but we should be appreciative of those who do the right thing. :celebrate

It's not easy to try and please everyone :juggle:

 

By the way, I have not seen the surrender card used before. How does it work?