Regarding alternates and / or substitutes, for this year at least there cannot be any switches.
Im am very sorry, but changing course during an event which is a pretty big task in admin as well as involving over 150 players is not something I want to risk.
As for the future, having a fourth nominated player would mean recruiting more players, assuming nobody can enrol for 2 teams.
One possibility would be allow a reshuffle after the qualifying:
A Team with 2 active players would have 8 of the necessary 9 scores and could recruit if they qualify after eliminated players are available.
Other games
Introducing a non hold’em game has been suggested. Therein lies another layer of administration. Should the non hold’em game always be the same MTT, or should we rotate?
Has anyone got other ideas which could make RTC more interesting?
If you want to make the RTC truly a team concept, instead of having Player A be the captain (and that’s the only distinguishable factor in the lettering), you could do the following:
Player A always plays a 9-handed NLH tournament.
Player B always plays an 8-handed NL Omaha Hi/Lo tournament.
Player C always plays a 6-handed NLH tournament.
That way…the two most popular games are being played in the RTC and the team concept becomes more about recruiting players for their preferred strength/game…building a team of specialists.
Also, just use the same starting stack amount and blind structure for all 3 games.
Not sure how the alternate would fit in as that seems to be a big undertaking for the admins. It probably is just a buyer beware scenario: know/trust who you are teaming up with and incur the risk if they must drop out (especially after the 4 qualifying games).
I think the other game if you do decide to add one besides Hold’em should be Omaha H/L based on the popularity of the monthly Marathon games. If you think other games should be played similar to the RPOS that is fine with me except don’t ever add Royal which is a game which makes no sense to me. Rotation of games is also fine with me. It will demonstrate some poker skill level and might even increase the participation in the series. It would be kind of a mini RPOS or a prelim practice for the later series
@RyRyRobe 's suggestion is also fine with me since players have certain preferences on table sizes.
Yup that happens it’s the end of the fair competition rule. You are assuming that all players are proficient at all games. Anyway, how does (help me out here) what is the prime number of players needed to have A at 9, B at 8, C at 6?
9-handed and 6-handed tables are the standard and popular formats for NLH games. Just to mix in something different from those…I figured let’s have NLO8 be, say, 8-handed tables. It’s not a reflection on the number of players or anything. It’s just a suggestion of the list of tournaments that would be offered to each team based on whether you are the team’s player A, B, or C. And you only need to be proficient at one of those games as you would be locked in that specific tourney throughout the whole series based on your letter choice for the team.
I very rarely post here unless it is music or a lighthearted topic, but I do feel it necessary to say how well organised and thought out the RTC competition is. All it needs is for the players who join to make the firm commitment to play for the required number of Saturdays. It is totally different to an individual competition when you only let yourself down if you bail out, but letting down teamies is a definite no-no in my book.
If you have a genuine reason that makes you unable to play, then have the courtesy to let your team mates know, and sadly that is all you can do. Hopefully they will do well as a duo but it will not be the same.
To water down the format or tweak it in any way is unfair on the ones who do show up and play.
I agree with @grapevine, the tournament runs smoothly due to @Chasetheriver’s excellent efforts and the lack of wiggle room in the current format. More complications might well cause more problems than they solve.
I also vote for Omaha Hi/Lo if there is to be another discipline introduced. If that happens I would also propose that the final round of the tournament be a mix of the two disciplines.
I am going to investigate a month long RTC style game. There has to be a lot of thought put into logistics. 2 games a week for 3 weeks and the final on the 4th weekend?
If we run it more often, it does lose some exclusivity, but it will make it smoother if it happens on a regular basis.
There has to be a better way to enrol teams. Lots of players state they are available and dont get matched.
I think we need at least some qualification before the sudden death. That way, everyone gets at least some games and possibly a day in the limelight.
If the number of Teams is fewer than about 40 though, I would say we revisit 4 rounds for sure.
I like the idea of having the additional format of 6-max used. Possibly one week in the qualifying rounds and the quarter-final. Since these two seem to be the most popular formats and it would add some variety.
The RTC is a big deal for a lot of the players in my private leagues; 2 or sometimes 3 of the leagues I organize turn off our leaderboards or reschedule games, at least for the RTC finals. Heavy player involvement in the RTC warrants it. It would be advantageous to me to have the tournament cycle shortened to 1 month and two games a week. The present format is great, but I see each year the no-shows. I think 10% the first game, less the second, seven weeks, is a commitment.
It’s not a large amount of no-shows, considering the 54 teams this year, but I feel for the players that had a commitment from someone and then were let down. I don’t feel bad enough for them to give Rob and his crew more work. I would suggest lengthening the signup period another two weeks or a month to give players that are pushed to the final hour some time to sort out teammates that are able to commit to the duration of the RTC.
My advice to players when recruiting teammates is to take a look at their prospects profiles to see how much time they are committing to the games here on Replay. If the account is new or the player only played 4 times in the last 3 months, well, that’s a gamble that may or may not work out. IMO the RTC should remain NLHE, we have the RPOS for mixed format, and that should be good enough.
If you want a HORSE-style tourney, then make one stand-alone for those that love the medley. I know I would sign up, I love all the games and am an organizer in two leagues that are in the HORSE format; it is a true test of your poker skills. And yes, that includes Royal. a game I once scoffed at but came to love after learning how to play it.
I want to thank @Chasetheriver and his crew for making these exciting tournaments that deliver a prestigious legacy for the winners and another chance every year for the rest. Carry on with your bad self!
Two games a week will end up excluding alot of players. If you put a game mid day mid week those of us who have to work are going to be left out. A single game on the weekend mid day allows the most people to play. Shortening the qualification to 2 weeks and having the knock out stage be 24 to 9 and 9 table final would be an awesome format. After two weeks of qualifying the number of no shows goes up significantly. As far as substitutes they should NOT be allowed for the knock out stages, qualifying maybe but giving a team an advantage for having inept management is not right. Allowing a trade deadline after the 1st week of qualifying however would be fun. But after that the rosters need to be locked down. That and how do you get a team not have anyone show up for the first two weeks? Same team did the same thing last year I believe. Need some quality control
