[ky70]

I saw a blind structure question somewhere that made me think about evaluating blind structures by the % increase from one level to the next. I knew I doubled the blinds on some levels and went up half the previous blinds on others but it was very interesting (to me) to look at the % increase for each level. My Average % increase per round is 55.5%. I backed into this % using trial and error because I couldn't figure out the formula at the time.

My % increases are the same for my T5000 and T10,000 Tourneys but show both schedules below for comparison purposes with blind. If you have the time (and don't think this is ridiculous), please post your blind schedules with your % increases.

T5000 blind schedule
Level...Small...Big.....% increase
1.......25......50...... -
2.......50......100.....100%
3.......100.....200.....100%
4.......150.....300.....50%
5.......250.....500.....67%
6.......500.....1000....100%
7.......1000....2000....100%
8.......1500....3000....50%
9.......2000....4000....33%
10......2500....5000....25%
11......3000....6000....20%
12......4000....8000....33%
13......5000....10000...25%
Avg increase per level = 55.5%

T10,000 blind schedule
Level...Small...Big.....% increase
1.......100.....100........ -
2.......100.....200.......100%
3.......200.....400.......100%
4.......300.....600.......50%
5.......500.....1000......67%
6.......1000....2000......100%
7.......2000....4000......100%
8.......3000....6000......50%
9.......4000....8000......33%
10......5000....10,000...25%
11......6000....12,000...20%
12......8000....16,000...33%
13......10,000..20,000...25%
Avg increase per level = 55.5%

[SpaceMonkey]

I'll try and get to this sometime this weekend.

[mcc235]

The WPT blinds have a more gradual increase after the first few blind levels, there are no 100% jumps like your level 6 and 7. Here is the breakdown for the Foxwoods tournament:

1.......25......50
2.......50.....100....100%
3......100....200....100%
4......100....200....0%
5......200....400....100%
6......300....600....50%
7......400....800....33%
8......600...1200...50%
9......800...1600...33%
10...1000...2000...25%
11...1200...2400...20%
12...1500...3000...25%

keeps varying between 25%, 33%, and 50% from here

I don't know if "average increase" actually means anything. You will feel the effect much more at a particular blind level, espcially if you jump 100% from one level to the next.

[SpaceMonkey]

Just to clarify the Foxwoods schedule above, levels 3 and 4 are correctly the same, but antes start on level 4.

Since I assume this is for home game schedules where antes aren't typically used, they probably don't need to be factored in.

[ky70]

Originally Posted by mcc235

I don't know if "average increase" actually means anything. You will feel the effect much more at a particular blind level, espcially if you jump 100% from one level to the next.

I think the avg % increase per level is somewhat meaningful as I can compare the average increase per level from 1 blind schedule to another regardless of starting stacks/blinds. Looking at Foxwood's blinds progression, I'm guessing that this is a T2500 tourney or if it is a T5000 tourney I'm betting it's for several tables and not a single table tourney. In any case, their avg % increase per level is apprx. 45.1%.

[ShadyJoe]

I think the percent of the increase compared to starting stack might provide some more useful information. In a T10,000 tourney, jumping from 100 to 200, a 100% increase, is not nearly relevant as jumping from 1600 to 2000, which in only a 25% increase.
Jump fro 100 to 200
100 = 1% of 10,000 200=2% of starting stack

Jump from 1,600 to 2,000
400 = 4% of 10,000 2,000=20% of starting stack

The smaller percent increase later in the game have a bigger impact on decisions than the larger percent increases earlier in the game.

I've been meaning to shove a bunch of blinds schedules into a spreadsheet and compare these things. One of these days...

[CaptLego]

To me, the important thing is the average M. This depends not only on the blinds schedule, but also how fast players are eliminated. I've been searching for information, for example, on how many players are left in the WSOP at each level. But I haven't found that information yet. Related to that, I'd be interested in knowing how the average M affects the rate that players are eliminated. Certainly, as the blinds get comparatively large, people become more desparate. I wonder if it's self-regulating?

Mabye I should contact Lee what's-his-name (The TD for P*?) and see if he would have/share some of that data?

[ky70]

Originally Posted by ShadyJoe

I think the percent of the increase compared to starting stack might provide some more useful information. In a T10,000 tourney, jumping from 100 to 200, a 100% increase, is not nearly relevant as jumping from 1600 to 2000, which in only a 25% increase.
Jump fro 100 to 200
100 = 1% of 10,000 200=2% of starting stack

Jump from 1,600 to 2,000
400 = 4% of 10,000 2,000=20% of starting stack

The smaller percent increase later in the game have a bigger impact on decisions than the larger percent increases earlier in the game...

I agree 100% with your post and I initially calcuated those % too but I didnt want to get too carried away but since you rightfully bring it up, here is that data added in the far right column. But as CaptLego somewhat points out, the data becomes even more meaningful when compared to total chips in play and average stacks as the tourney progresses and players are eliminated.

T10000 blind schedule
Level...Small...Big.....% increase....Blind Increase as a % of Starting Stack
1.......100.....100........ -
2.......100.....200.......100%--------------1%
3.......200.....400.......100%--------------2%
4.......300.....600.......50%----------------2%
5.......500.....1000......67%----------------4%
6.......1000....2000......100%--------------10%
7.......2000....4000......100%--------------20%
8.......3000....6000......50%---------------20%
9.......4000....8000......33%---------------20%
10......5000....10,000...25%---------------20%
11......6000....12,000...20%---------------20%
12......8000....16,000...33%---------------40%
13......10,000..20,000...25%---------------40%
Avg increase per level = 55.5%

[wijwij]

I know this is an old thread, but I have recently been giving some thought to examining the percent change between blind levels, to avoid doubling.

The blind schedule I am thinking of using tries to keep the % increase in blinds as consistent as possible -- omitting any "double" jumps.

I use a "2-3-4-6" pattern for the number of chips in the small blind.
By repeating this pattern, the ratio of consecutive blinds is always either 3:2 or 4:3 or 5:3, that is, 50%, 33%, or 66% increases only.

Using this pattern with T1, T5, T25, T100, T500 chips yields the following pattern shown below.


Universal blind schedule.
(Percent of increase between blinds is shown in parentheses.)

2 4 ----- <-- start T200 here
3 6 (50%)
4 8 (33%)
6 12 (50%)
---- color up W ----
10 20 (66%) <-- start T1000 here
15 30 (50%)
20 40 (33%)
30 60 (50%)
---- color up R ----
50 100 (66%) <-- start T5000 here
75 150 (50%)
100 200 (33%) <-- start T10,000 here
150 300 (50%)
---- color up G ----
200 400 (33%)
300 600 (50%)
400 800 (33%)
600 1200 (50%)
---- color up K ----
1000 2000 (66%)
1500 3000 (50%)
2000 4000 (33%)
3000 6000 (50%)
---- color up P ----
5000 10000 etc.

The advantage of this schedule is it is easy to remember and can be used for many different tournaments. Just choose where to start based on your starting stack divided by 100. Tourneys with this structure reach a big blind equal to starting stack at level 10 or 11.

The above idea does need minor tweaking for certain chip counts. For example, to do a T2000 or T2500 that starts with T25 as the lowest chip and doesn't use T5 chips, you'd probably add a 25-25 and 25-50 level and then continue from the 50-100 point in the schedule above.

I have to give some thought to the question raised earlier in this thread, about the actual effect of increases in relation not only to starting stack size, but average stack size at various points in a tournament. If the average stack size changes in a non-linear way, then maybe a blind schedule could be devised to acknowledge this. Then again, when assessing a blind schedule, you might best be served by presuming you are looking at it from the perspective of the "average" player -- that is, a hypothetical player who always just happens to have an average stack at every point in the tourney. It would be interesting to look at a blind schedule from this point of view -- how does the actual increment of a blind level change (not the % change) compare to the average stack size?

[FeelLikeANut]

1. 5 / 10
2. 10 / 20 (100%)
3. 15 / 30 (50%)
4. 20 / 40 (33%)
5. 30 / 60 (50%)
6. 45 / 90 (50%)
7. 60 / 120 (33%)
8. 80 / 160 (33%)
   REMOVE 5-VALUE CHIPS
9. 100 / 200 (25%)
10. 150 / 300 (50%)
11. 200 / 400 (33%)
12. 250 / 500 (25%)
    REMOVE 25-VALUE CHIPS
13. 300 / 600 (20%)
14. 400 / 800 (33%)
15. 500 / 1,000 (25%)
16. 600 / 1,200 (20%)
17. 800 / 1,600 (33%)
18. 1,000 / 2,000 (25%)
19. 1,200 / 2,400 (20%)
20. 1,600 / 3,200 (33%)
    REMOVE 100-VALUE CHIPS
    REMOVE 500-VALUE CHIPS
21. 2,000 / 4,000 (25%)
22. 3,000 / 6,000 (50%)
23. 4,000 / 8,000 (33%)
24. 5,000 / 10,000 (25%)
25. 6,000 / 12,000 (20%)
26. 8,000 / 16,000 (33%)
27. 10,000 / 20,000 (25%)
28. 12,000 / 24,000 (20%)
    REMOVE 1,000-VALUE CHIPS
29. 15,000 / 30,000 (25%)
30. 20,000 / 40,000 (33%)
31. 25,000 / 50,000 (25%)

The numbers obviously flucuate around because each blind needs to be a multiple of a certain chip denomination, but these generally go up by 27.2%, though the early levels go up much faster before the increases settle on this percentage.