OK, you talked me into it, discuss why this wont work please:)

[eejit101]

A bit of background, i was thinking about a way to develop sit and gos and cash games into the same table, as i thought it would be a bit of fun, and a good way for low limit players and medium limit players to play together, and have a shot at some big money, and we all know that theres a LOT of people out there who waste all their bankroll on games they cant play. SO i came up with something that lets them, but they have options on how tyo play it.

This idea isnt genious, its just a good concept for a new area in hold em that hasnt been tapped. I have 2 sites interested now somehow. I now do have copywrite paperwork back, so you guys cant steal it not that you would of course.

This isnt gonna make me a millionaire of course, but i suppose id like to see this game played on a site, and to see how it turns out, as i know the very interested site are as well..

So here goes...

This is the concept.

It is basically a 10 seater table, although smaller tables can be used. To sit down, everyone has to pay $1 or more, that fee is up to the site itself. Once sat down, you can buy in for any amount from $5 to $10,000. Once having bought in and sat down, the blinds are $0.25/$0.50. The game is started, and the first ten hands are dealt. The game is played normally, with it being in the style of a cash ring game.

After the first 10 hands are dealt, players have the option to leave the table. If noone leaves the table, the blinds are raised to $0.50/$1. ANother ten hands are dealt and played out, then the same option occurs. This will continue untill the blinds reach $10/$20 where they will stay until a player leaves.

here are some basic rules.

1. If a player is disconnected, he or she will be given 1 minute to return. or they will site out until the ten hands are dealt, having to post and fold the blinds if they are in them in the sit out status. Then the player will leave the table, and a new player must take his place for the game to start again.

2. The blind levels will be 0.25/0.5, 0.5/1, 1/2, 2/4, 3/6, 4/8, 5/10, 7.5/15, 10/20.

3. If a player has been knocked out, the other players can vote on whether they want to continue one player short of the full 10 seats. If all vote yes, they continue. if one votes no, then the table stops and waits till a new player is sat down.

4. The rake for the site is as usual 5% to a $3 max i belive you have.

5. the buy in i had in mind is $1, but maybe for smaller blinds levels for the smaller players, it could be less, or if you wanted a huge game, with blinds starting at 10/20 and going to 100/200, it could be more.

6. If there is a shorthanded version of this game, or if a player has been eliminated, and has chosen not to rebuy more cash, and the players all vote yes to continue, then there will be one BB per player in the round. So if 9 players are left, each level will be 9 hands, and for a short handed 6 seat game, each level is 6 or 12 hands (if you wish to have 2 rounds per level), again this is up to the site.








Any questions about thsi idea, or flaws, post em here and ill improve it. Be honest now

[MAYHEM45]

Dont have time to give full input at the moment, but one thing really caught my eye. 7.5/15. Yuck.

[Boobie Lover]

I assume this will be played in a no limit fashion?

[eejit101]

either really. it would suit no limit better, as the idea is to give the fish a change to get all in in huge stakes and double up their bankroll

but limit works too. But i would start the blinds higher than 0.25/0.5, maybe 1/2, and put a max of 25/50 on it.

[2Tone]

Granted a dollar isn't much if you are eventually going to be playing 10/20, but from a player's perspective, I don't understand why I have to pay a fee to sit at this table in addition to the standard rake.

[Zybomb]

or why a 10/20 NL player would want to sit at this table as opposed to a normal 10/20 table

or why a lowerl imit player would want to pay a fee, sit down and then have to leave once the stakes got too high, rather than just stay at the limit they'd like

[eejit101]

its designed for the people who think they can win at levels they cant. Thats the idea.

The fee was the one thing i wasnt sure of, im probably gonna get rid of that idea.

And the 10/20 players wont play it more than likely, but if they do they will feel its easier money if the table gets that far as they have the knowledge of playing 10/20, against the people that dont. get what i mean?

[Talking Poker]

This is the problem I have with it.

I think it's an interesting idea... and I think I understand what you are trying to accomplish with it.... but I'm not really sure who would play this and why.

Explain to us who your target audience is and why you think they will want to play this game, as opposed to the regular games that don't have the extra $1 fee.

And I agree with Mayhem: Change 7.5/15 to 8/16.

[Talking Poker]

Also.... with only one orbit before the blinds go up, I think people (the short stacks) will be in all in or fold mode pretty quickly. And that will most likely kill the game.

[eejit101]

finally, someone agrees, thanx TP, i said 2 rounds but the guy i cahtted to about it said one.

The audience can vary, there can be many levels of this game, it can start at any limit, and stop at any limit.

The basic audience for the one i detailed above would be the average 1/2 player. A guy who has mastered the lower limits and fancys a move up, but wants to test the water a few times. Its a way for him to see what its like, but not risk too many chips sitting down with a big enough buy in.

Its also targeted for the people who do what Brian didn win a bit at low limits, and jump 2 levels thinking they are the man. They will sit at this with say $50, 1.4 of their bankroll, thinking they cant wait till the 2/4 level, and bust out.

The higher limit players will be attrated for the obvious lack of understanding of the higher limit games, thinking if the game progresses to level 6 or 7, they have a huge advantage over the 1/2, 2/4 players.

Its quite complex as to why people will play it, but i tried to base it so all levels of players will have a reason to sit down.

1 - low limits - to try and win a bit extra cash than what they are used to.
2 - medium limits - to exploit the low limit guys, and to play a bit of levels they normally dont.
3 - high limits - to take everyones money.


I will change it to 8/16.

My origional idea was to have a few different tables.

Some starting at 0.10/0.20.
Some as outlined above
Some for the big stacks.

Also to have a turbo version, 10 hands per level, and another, say 20 or 30 per level.

[BabyRN]

interesting...but why the fee?

[eejit101]

it was like a rake idea, like a SnG or MTT fee, but noones likes it so ill scrap the fee thing.

[Nikita]

I actually don't mind the fee, as long as you don't also charge a rake. It should be one or the other.

And I'm also wondering how many orbits you will end up getting? At least in the levels I play, I find that there is someone leaving the table almost every orbit. And if you do get several orbits, those micro limit players who sit with the min at every table, will be quickly all-in or fold especially if they haven't won a pot in the earlier rounds.

The idea is interesting and does seem to be a good combination of both a ring game and a SnG.

[ashmc2]

Good idea eejit, stick with it and keep honing it and see where it takes you.

Rake or entry fee? They aren't going to give up those rakes, especially at the high levels, so drop the fee IMO.

Keep rockin' eejit with this concept to fruition, so we can say, "That ain't shit buddy, I know the guy that came up with this game, so just sit there, stop whining, and play!"

[eejit101]

Ill delete the entry fee, and lmoa, i hope that works

[JPSmiley]

when i first read about the fee i thought that it was like the buyin and the winner would get to keep it... guess i was wrong. Wouldnt it make it more interesting if the fee was like 5$ per player and the last 2 or 3 players left playing would share the 50$ prize pool. So if someone busted out they would have to join a different table that was just starting, or if someone felt that they have lost too much they can just leave and forfit their buyin.

[eejit101]

thats a good idea. Any1 see a problem with this?

[Talking Poker]

Yup... it's not worth it and it goes against what you are trying to accomplish. If the game gets to $10/$20 NL, who gives a crap about the $50 fee?

I can think of alternative ways that this might work, but not for what you have written down so far.

BTW.... I thought you had this idea copyrighted. If that's the case, how can you keep changing it?

[eejit101]

Simple. I keep the basic structure, but i can change minor details.

Im getting rid of the fee if we go ahead.

Whats the ideas TP, PM me if u dont wanna tell me on here, if i sell it ill send ya a bonus

[Akverno]

I understand the concept of this game, but if you start with ten players say I did want to take advantage of the donkeys at the lower limits and buy in appropriately. Will I be able to rebuy when the limits get higher? Say I sit down with fifty bucks, then the limits get higher and I want to reload to get the appropriate chip stack to be sitting at this table, will I be able to do this?

Edit: This idea reminds me of a SnG structure that party has, it's been a long time so I don't remember the name of it but where there's like six levels and you win a SnG to move up. People end up playing for a crapload of money at the end and you can start with a five dollar sng.

[Talking Poker]

"Steps."

As for my ideas eejit, it would be to base it more on a SNG that plays like a cash game, instead of a cash game that plays like a SNG. In other words, it would BE a SNG with a buy in, but in ADDITION, players would be playing with actual cash (the cash amounts should be less than the buy ins). If they bust, they would be allowed to reload as per your rules (maybe a max of 3 times though, so the game wouldn't go on forever), and they could buy in for whatever amount they wantin between whatever min and max are defined (you'd need a reasonably tight range too, like $25-$100 on a $100 buy in, because if someone sat with $10,000, it would be nearly impossible for them to lose). Then play "normally," with increasing (cash) blinds. People are free to get up whenever they want, but as soon as they do, they are out and not eligible for the prize pool (unless they finish in the top 3).

HeEre comes the interesting part.... Instead of playing down to 1 player, you could keep a full table going by allowing more people to buy in to the empty seats. What you'd need to do though is keep track of who came in when to determine who is eligible for what part of the rolling prizepool. That may not make sense, but it does in my brain.

Lots of details would need to be worked out, but it has potential. It's a lot different than what you are posing though, and I think I like your idea better, at least as far as what it's trying to accomplish.

[BlibbityBlabbity]

If this is NL then the buyins should change with every level change and there should be a normal maximum buyin (no matter what format it is). Having a 10/20NL player sit with $10,000 during the 25c/50c level would be annoying. If it is limit then it doesn't matter. At the end of a level you could either keep what you have on the table (even if it is above the maximum--not that it would be that much above) OR top off to the max for the next level if you want.

I like the idea of incorporating a prize with a buyin SNG style (or MTT style, but that would be confusing). Not sure how you would keep track of who is winning though...

MTT, it might make things easier (eliminate voting to continue short handed, waiting for 10th player, etc,etc) if there were a couple of tables of this going on at a time.

[eejit101]

wow, theres some thing i never thought of, thanx for the input guys. Maybe ill steal TP and Blabs ideas and get both running

but seriously, thanx very muchos.

CRAP, its monday, when does west coast america wake up?

[Reel Deal]

eejit, just so you know your copyright registration is not really going to afford you much protection. Basically under copyright law you're only protected against an exact duplication of the original... so if someone just changes your idea ever so slightly, you can't stop them. This is why you need to get the people you're discussing the idea with to sign a confidentiality agreement with a non-compete clause.

[BlibbityBlabbity]

Not to mention that you would have to shell out a lot of money to fight an infriging company, right? Poker Sites have the unlimited resources of Microsoft and tobacco and they are not officially in the US to begin with.

It doesn;t sound like you are looking for a huge payday for this anyway, but I hope you do get credit and a little s'thin for your time and effort.