EBJ Suggestion (length between eliminations)

T

toonces

Member
I'm not sure how the powers that be came to determine that 8, 16 and 24 were the right lengths for elimination hands. However, it seems to have a major flaw: The same player can be on the button for multiple elimination hands. The problem is that there is 8 hands between EH1 (EH=Elimination Hand) and EH2 (evenly divisible by 4) and 9 hands between EH2 and EH3 (evenly divisible by 3). That means that if exactly 5 players remain after EH1 (a common scenario), then the button on EH1 is expected to also be the button on EH2. If he miraculously survives this round, he is the designated button on EH3. This hardly seems fair to the button, but is a huge advantage to the guy you continually gets to act last.

My suggestion is that there be 7 hands between EH1 and EH2. And 7 hands between 2 and 3. Since there are never 7 people alive between 2 and 3, the button will never repeat (barring an early elimination). Some example orders would be 8,15,22,28 or 9,16,23,30.
 
Uh?

toonces,

First, a minor correction to you first sentence. The third elimination hand is 25 not 24. Now the reason for my response.

I’m having a problem with your conclusion. I created the following sequence of hands to illustrate:

Initial premise = Assume player #2 is on the button for the first elimination. Also assume players 1 to 5 remain after first elimination – per your scenario.

On the next 8 hands, button rotates as follows: 3-4-5-1-2-3-4-5
** #5 is on the button for the second elimination

Let’s assume #4 gets eliminated in the second elimination.

On the next 9 hands, button rotates as follows: 1-2-3-5-1-2-3-5-1
** #1 is on the button for the third elimination

So in this example, #2, #5, and #1 were on the button during an elimination round, not the same person all the time.

The “problem” you are talking about would be valid if only 4 (not 5) remained after the first elimination and no other players busted out between EH1 and EH3. Now I have never played UBT rules, so is this scenario common i.e. only 4 remained after the first elimination and no other players busted out between EH1 and EH3?
 
uh

For player 2 of 7 to be on the button on hand 8 someone would have had to been eliminated before hand 8. If not player 1 would be on button at hand 8.

I have not tried to figure out why, but it seems that when I'm on the first button I am often on the 2nd button.

Thanks to you guys for working on this.

tgun
 
I'll restate

I picked #2 randomly only to illustrate my point but I understand it can add some confusion so let's do it this way:

Start with 7 players.
Jump to hand 3 - player #7 busts out
Jump to hand 5 - player #1 busts out
Now we have 5 players: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
The sequence of who is on the button is: 1,2,3,4,5,6,2,3

Now I'll reproduce what I said in my prevous post but change the button sequence to match the new fact that the remaining players are 2,3,4,5,6 (no need to refer back to my first post):

Player #3 is on the button for the first elimination. Players 2 to 6 remain after first elimination.

On the next 8 hands, button rotates as follows: 4-5-6-2-3-4-5-6
** #6 is on the button for the second elimination

Let’s assume #4 gets eliminated in the second elimination.

On the next 9 hands, button rotates as follows: 2-3-5-6-2-3-5-6-2
** #2 is on the button for the third elimination

So in this example, #3, #6, and #2 were on the button during an elimination round, not the same person all the time.

The “problem” you (toonces) are talking about would be valid if only 4 (not 5) remained after the first elimination and no other players busted out between EH1 and EH3. Now I have never played UBT rules, so is this scenario common i.e. only 4 remained after the first elimination and no other players busted out between EH1 and EH3?
 
Agree about the change, especially if there is a way to greatly ensure a person doesnt take the button the first two times in a row. I have taken the first 4 buttons in elimination hands during one tournament, and have taken the first 3 in a row way too many times. Its a disgusting feeling when your forced into using your secret bet on hand #8, and then you become the button holding sitting duck for the next elimination hand or two. Its hard to survive that.
 
The Viper's Disgust:

You win some. You lose Some. Some get rained out. But, you've got to dress up for them all.

That's the button consideration. And one thing up for discussion and analysis on proper play. So far the concensus has been that one must play more aggressively as an early better to offeset that disadvantage.
 
I dont know that there is a better sequence that would eliminate this problem...it happenes and when it happens to me it stinks but when is happens to someone else..well...

Norms right on about the adjsutment of strat when faced with this problem...

Heres my complaint though...I bet all in and I guaren damn tee ya the next thing I hear is "INSURANCE?"........

I think you need to strive for a higher BR position when you are threatened with this situation...

Im not going thru all the options but would it change all that much if elimination came at 7 or 9 or 23 or 26..etc...there are always random numbers of players making it to different levels...and while 6 is common at hand 7 ...it isnt a rule...it can be 5...4 ..or even 3...I won a TEC game the other day min betting by hand 3...lol

I wish it would never happen but I cant come up with a better spread for the elimination hands...and besides seating is random...Im not doing the math though...just shooting from the hip here.

I understand though .....lots of times and under my breath Im saying ...Make the button your friend....make the button your friend....crap!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is a good brain teaser question though ....Could the elimination hands be seperated so as to create a more even dispersion of the button?

Im saying no...but Im not fireing up my egg head..just gut feeling it.
 
I apologize for the math error above. It is true that the nightmare scenario involves 2 bustouts before hand 8 and none since.

The far more common scenario (and the one that bugs me the most when it happens) is that it is very common in "2 advance" rounds for there to be 4 people left by hand 16. Whoever is the button in hand 16 will also be the button in the final hand 25. The only time this is not the case is if the button gets eliminated or the round ends early.

All it takes for this not to be the case is that the length between rounds not be divisible by 3, 4, or 5 (and not 6 for round 1). If we are basically choosing arbitrary numbers any, using a multiple of 7 seems like a good idea.
 
Well I just finished a game (Wed Night) where I had the button on hand 16 and 25 which was the final hand! That suks!

Its worse when Annie Duke is on your right pulling 2 BJ in a row (as if to rub my nose in it) while I had the big bet out with a 16 aginst dealer ten and then all in with a 15 against dealer ten....I finished third...beep sorry eliminated.

Someone had to bust out in between 16 and 25 for me to get the button twice...dont really see a change that could improve that ...but I sure would votew for one if it would lessen that type of azz kickin....

I was in fair to decent position til I got the button the second time...2 Duke BJ's and two buttons were key to my undoing....any solid hand would have kept me in too..but two stiffs against dealer ten was just too much to ovecome....its one of those days to stop playing and read a book!
 
Rando21 said:
Someone had to bust out in between 16 and 25 for me to get the button twice...dont really see a change that could improve that ...but I sure would votew for one if it would lessen that type of azz kickin....
Click to expand...

Most of the time, it is not the case that there needs to be an intervening elimination. If hand 16 has 4 players, then the button will be the same for hands 16 and 25.
 
The real seat from hell is seat 3 in a 5 player match. If everyone stays in except for forced eliminations, you get the button on hands 8, 16, and 25.

In St Kitts, some of the sit and gos were run with 5 players.
 
Love to see numbers one day

I would be interested to see, after the game has been around long enough for someone to run numbers, what the percentage of the time someone from seat 1, 2 and 3 are eliminated compared to the other 4 seats.

And, Ken: Just say no to 5 player 'turbos' in the future. I have no idea what we were thinking playing some of those :)
 
You're right Ace. But hey, we were all a little crazy in St Kitts. And, I'm sure we'll do the same thing next time. :laugh:

For those who weren't there, a "turbo" sit and go is one where the rules are changed to speed up the game. We'd be standing around waiting for the next round of a multi-table tournament, and there wouldn't be time to play a normal sit and go. Instead, we would play a turbo version. Generally the rules were: Eliminations on hands 5, 10, and final hand is 15. Time limit on all decisions was 10 seconds. No chip countdowns, unless needed to decide who was eliminated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top