Free Poker Tournaments Pt. 2

The Problem with Free Poker

Part Two

In Part One I discussed a few of the leagues offering Free Poker Tournaments around Houston, their shared history’s, and the problem that can occur by lockstep following that which came before.

PART TWO

In this part I cover some of the criteria that I look for not only in free poker tournaments but all tournaments including freerolls.

I try to avoid tournaments that fall into basically one or more of three criteria: poor structures, poor application of generally accepted rules, and poorly run tournaments.

First, I try not to play those tournaments whose structure benefits or favors luck over skill.  Common characteristics are small starting stacks, short blind levels, and rapidly escalating blind levels.  The problem with any and all of these is that they do not allow for actual poker to be played for the most part.  It becomes more of a crap shoot. Now I understand why this is.  The leagues typically have to finish their tournaments in a very specific and constrained time frame.

This forces the tournament organization and by extension the tournament director (or Host as they are commonly called), into doing things such as changing the length of the blind levels on the fly, chipping down, artificially pushing the action. This, by its very nature, reduces the importance of skill and luck is more likely to impact the outcome.

Secondly, I find tournaments that deviate very far from real poker rules as being tedious and ill-informed. Particularly since most of these leagues state that educating players on proper play and improved play are parts of their mission.  I will cite some examples.

The blinds are 50/100 and the flop comes out.  The first person to act throws out a 500 chip and says nothing, at Da Pub that is considered a bet of 100. They cite the rule about a “single oversized chip”. This is a gross misapplication of the "single oversized" chip rule. That rule applies only when facing a bet or raise.  If no action has occurred that rule does not enter into the equation. Look up the WSOP rules number 92, last sentence. “After the flop, an initial bet of a single oversized chip without comment will signify a bet equal to the size of the chip.” Nuff said.

Another horrible rule is the killing of a hand if one or more cards are exposed.  WSOP rule 105 states quite clearly that a player exposing one or more cards will incur a penalty at the end of the hand. But they will not have a dead hand (emphasis added).

Another rule that is misapplied is what should happen when a player goes all in with more than the previous bet but less than a complete raise. For example let’s say the blinds are 300/600. After the flop the first player to act bets 1000. The next player to act goes all in with 1550. In no limit holdem subsequent players facing no new action may call the 1550. At most Free Poker Leagues subsequent players must at least call an amount equal to or greater than what a “legal’ raise would have been. In other words since the minimum legal raise would have been 1000 more, making the new bet 2000,  a player after the player going all in would have to fold or bet at least 2000. They would be allowed to raise if they wished.  If all the players who didn’t want to bet 2000 folded, the original bettor would be allowed to call for only 550 more.

The problem here should be obvious. In case it isn’t, this situation gives an advantage to the last player that acted before the all in player.  They can call for less than all of the other players that folded.  One of the beautiful things about Texas Holdem rules (and in fact most poker rules) is that they are primarily constructed so that NO player shall have any advantage, other than their skill, over any other player(s).  Now you may say that house rules allow for some of the deviations. Well that is possible but several of these leagues have their rules posted on websites.  They often don’t follow their own house rules. All of these situations lead me to my last point: poorly run tournaments.

I will admit upfront that this applies less to Free Poker Leagues than one might think with the exception of the aforementioned objections. But in general poorly run tournaments are often the result of people in charge without the necessary training. This leads to defensive responses when they may be questioned on a point by those having more knowledge than they do. The necessary training should start with a good knowledge of the rules and lead to some instruction on dealing with players.

I find this often the case in allegedly professionally run clubs. In Part Three, I will compare some of the Free Poker Leagues. I will outline some of the pros and cons.

See you around the felt!