HORSE Event Picks IV, Limit Tournament Structure

Hello,

Of all the picks I made, eight to start and four additional to replace my bustouts, only Erick Lindgren made the final table. The final table started while I was not at home so I did not have the chance to post my picks for winner. There are currently seven players left (Patrick Bueno was shortstacked coming in and busted out quickly) and I cannot choose just one player. If I had to I would select Scotty Nguyen but I think DeMichelle has a shot at winning it (let's face it, the whole final table has a shot). With just seven players left and the average stack of about 15 big bets (most have less than 10 big bets), anything can happen.* I would like to see Scotty redeem himself from last year's Main Even blunder. I firmly believe if he had taken a few minutes to change gears and collect himself he would have won the Main Event last year. He got aggressive to get in good chip position for the final table but forgot to slow down when he had enough chips. He wanted to win it with eleven players left, something that just isn't possible. He wanted most of the chips going into the final table but instead gave them to Mr. DunkHisChipsOffOnADraw and busted out two spots before the final table. Nevertheless it should be one interesting table to watch when it airs on ESPN and the entire Series is shaping up to be interesting televsion.

* Sidebar: The structure of the tournament is such that each player began with 100,000 in chips with the betting limits (I'll use flop game limits for illustrative purposes) 600-1200 (blinds at 300-600). That means each player began with an M of ~110. Going into the final table, the average stack is ~1,800,000 and the limits are 60,000-120,000 (blinds 30,000-60,000). If you divide those numbers by 100 you get 300-600 for the blinds (the starting blind structure) but only 18,000 for the average chip count. So the average stack has an M of 20 with some have considerably less and some considerably more. The tournament has essentially been reset to the beginning and stripping the players of more than 80% of their stacks. There is something about tournaments that add too much of a luck factor at the end to allow for the winner to be considered greater than the person who, for example, finished in sixth. Did he do something that much greater or did the sixth place finisher lost one key hand. I find this to be so much more so in limit tournaments as the beginning lends itself to so much play that I, along with many I know, skip the first level entirely because it rarely does any good and can usually only hurt you. It is difficult, if not impossible to double up in the first level of a limit tournament but it is not as difficult to really get hurt. While they have given these players a great deal of play in the beginning (making them feel that they got their $50k worth) they have really cheated them when in counts. Perhaps something like and fixed maximum where the limits cease to increase is in order. At some point it gets ridiculous. These guys have played five days of top poker and will only be rewarded if they get lucky, or better yet, don't get unlucky. If the stacks were deeper and the limits fixed, a champion would truly be the better player, on least on that day. There would have to be a way to make it end but I think having limits of 100,000-200,000 is a little strange with the average stack at ~2,000,000. Where's the play? The limits need to be high enough for the tournament to end but low enough that skill has an edge. Just my two cents.

See you on the felt,