Mr Winberg
Full House
My 2 cents:
I agree with all those that have said that the point system should encourage what you want from your players. If I ever started a league, I would for that reason reward participation, because that's what I want from my players. I could still use BG's approach, just that everyone who participates gets 1 point, then the top finishers get bonuses. (If every tourney was maxed out and there was always a waiting list, then I might drop the participation points!)
I also think that in, for example, a 20 player tournament you shouldn't get more points for finishing 16th than 17th, cause there really isn't any difference. Heck, the one finishing 17th might be on another table and actually lasted longer (in terms of played hands) then the one finishing 16th! I'd probably have small point jumps at table breaks instead, if I wanted to differentiate between early and middle finishes.
My real point is that any point system that is used will add an artificial reward, so make sure you reward what you want to encourage. If you give a good chunk of points to consistent players who regularly make deep runs but rarely cash (and then usually min cash), then your model means that they are better players than those who often bust early but occasionally win, even though the latter make more money.
tl;dr: Points are fun but add artificial rewards. Make sure to reward that which you encourage.
I agree with all those that have said that the point system should encourage what you want from your players. If I ever started a league, I would for that reason reward participation, because that's what I want from my players. I could still use BG's approach, just that everyone who participates gets 1 point, then the top finishers get bonuses. (If every tourney was maxed out and there was always a waiting list, then I might drop the participation points!)
I also think that in, for example, a 20 player tournament you shouldn't get more points for finishing 16th than 17th, cause there really isn't any difference. Heck, the one finishing 17th might be on another table and actually lasted longer (in terms of played hands) then the one finishing 16th! I'd probably have small point jumps at table breaks instead, if I wanted to differentiate between early and middle finishes.
My real point is that any point system that is used will add an artificial reward, so make sure you reward what you want to encourage. If you give a good chunk of points to consistent players who regularly make deep runs but rarely cash (and then usually min cash), then your model means that they are better players than those who often bust early but occasionally win, even though the latter make more money.
tl;dr: Points are fun but add artificial rewards. Make sure to reward that which you encourage.
Last edited: