Tourney Best Poker League Ranking System? (1 Viewer)

[decoldestcraw]

So I’m currently holding a once to twice a week poker league that utilizes a ranking system to determine the final table after 6 months.
How it works right now is your best 5 games determines your rank, with bounty’s on past weeks winners to raise the stakes a little bit!
Doing this makes sure ones who may join late season can still go on a run and make the final table (if they play perfectly)

Do y’all like this system? If not what would you recommend?
Thanks!

 

[Preditor]

How it works right now is your best 5 games determines your rank

Little hard for me to picture what you mean by this. Is it your average placement of your best 5 games? Is there a formula involved that only accounts for your best 5 games?

I think a little more clarification could help people give insight.

 

[Mr Winberg]

If you're asking about what the best poker league system is then the answer is simple: It doesn't exist because it depends on what you're after. A ranking system should promote that which you think is important. Attendance? Then give everyone who attends points. Aggressive play? Make it top heavy. Nitty play? Top light. Want people to feel they have a chance even though they missed the first tourneys? Only grant points for the X best tourneys (as you've done). Etc...

To illustrate this in another way:

If you want to be 100% accurate in how the players are ranked, then there is really only one way: Net profit. However you look at it, a player who has netted (after deducting buyins, re-buys etc) $80 has done better than someone who has netted $75, because poker is valued in money! Any other points are artificial, because it rewards things that have no value. For example, getting points for bubbling is purely artificial, because bubbling has the same value as busting the first hand: 0. But I think almost everyone would agree that using net profit as a ranking system would absolutely suck for many reasons. So the "best" system from one point of view is the worst from other point of views.

One of my pet peaves is when every spot is worth more than the previous, like place 12 gets you more than place 13. Why? Because you lasted longer? Maybe you didn't? Maybe you busted in 12th after 15 hands, but the player who busted in 13th place played 16 hands on another table? So why are you getting more points??

If I ran a ranking system, I would probably award everyone 1 point (reward attendance), slowly progress one or two spots before the bubble (add some artificial value to the bubblers), then ITM progress the points roughly in relation to the payouts (to mimic the actual value of those spot).

 

[decoldestcraw]

Little hard for me to picture what you mean by this. Is it your average placement of your best 5 games? Is there a formula involved that only accounts for your best 5 games?

I think a little more clarification could help people give insight.

I apologize, so yes your average placement of best 5 games. Basically i use chatGPT to keep track of each game and bountys. This keeps track of everyones placement in each game and calculates their best 5 games. Its nothing crazy, someones score would just look like this for example: John Smith: 1st, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 4th, = 10.

 

[decoldestcraw]

If you're asking about what the best poker league system is then the answer is simple: It doesn't exist because it depends on what you're after. A ranking system should promote that which you think is important. Attendance? Then give everyone who attends points. Aggressive play? Make it top heavy. Nitty play? Top light. Want people to feel they have a chance even though they missed the first tourneys? Only grant points for the X best tourneys (as you've done). Etc...

To illustrate this in another way:

If you want to be 100% accurate in how the players are ranked, then there is really only one way: Net profit. However you look at it, a player who has netted (after deducting buyins, re-buys etc) $80 has done better than someone who has netted $75, because poker is valued in money! Any other points are artificial, because it rewards things that have no value. For example, getting points for bubbling is purely artificial, because bubbling has the same value as busting the first hand: 0. But I think almost everyone would agree that using net profit as a ranking system would absolutely suck for many reasons. So the "best" system from one point of view is the worst from other point of views.

One of my pet peaves is when every spot is worth more than the previous, like place 12 gets you more than place 13. Why? Because you lasted longer? Maybe you didn't? Maybe you busted in 12th after 15 hands, but the player who busted in 13th place played 16 hands on another table? So why are you getting more points??

If I ran a ranking system, I would probably award everyone 1 point (reward attendance), slowly progress one or two spots before the bubble (add some artificial value to the bubblers), then ITM progress the points roughly in relation to the payouts (to mimic the actual value of those spot).

I like this idea thank you, we did net profit first but not everyone like that and it kind of discouraged play weekly. But i like your idea! It makes sense, ill pitch it to my guys!

 

[Mr Winberg]

we did net profit first but not everyone like that

Yes, I think the main problem is that the losing players not only see how much they have lost, but it's there for everyone to see like a public shaming. It can definitely discourage people from playing.
Also, someone can theoretically win the whole leage by winning one tournament and then not showing up again.

But i like your idea!

It was more of a shell than an actual idea, but thanks. Could be a good idea to somehow make the total points proportional to the number of players. If I win a tourney of ten and you win one with twenty, ideally you should get more points.

 

[decoldestcraw]

Yes, I think the main problem is that the losing players not only see how much they have lost, but it's there for everyone to see like a public shaming. It can definitely discourage people from playing.
Also, someone can theoretically win the whole leage by winning one tournament and then not showing up again.


It was more of a shell than an actual idea, but thanks. Could be a good idea to somehow make the total points proportional to the number of players. If I win a tourney of ten and you win one with twenty, ideally you should get more points.

Thats probably what we'll implement. Thats also why we added a bounty so that someone who wins 5 games doesnt just stop since they can still get a higher score. But i will probably change it to a point system rather than "Placement" (like 1st 2nd etc..)

 

[TKEUofM]

I use a point system for where you finish and you get bonus point for making the semi final and final tables. We regularly get 28-36 players. If you win an event, you automatically qualify for the season ending Tournament of Champions (14 players). If you don't have a win, you can still qualify by being highly ranked from top finishes.

Here's our rankings after 7 events this season. The people who play the most often and consistently finish high are rewarded and will be at the top of the rankings. Ranking formula takes into consideration Average points earned for consistency, bonus points for deep runs, and of course your total points.

Is it perfect, probably not, but we've tweaked it quite a bit over the last 20 years and seems to be pretty fair overall.

And yes @WedgeRock is currently our #1 ranked player.... he's having a great year.

 

[WedgeRock]

And yes @WedgeRock is currently our #1 ranked player....

he's having a great year.

 

[TKEUofM]

Didn’t a previous Michigan State coach say “pride comes before the fall”……. lol

 

[WedgeRock]

Proverbs 16:18

 

[TKEUofM]

Proverbs 16:18

If you are first 5 out of the next event, then it's God sending a message. lol

 

[CraigT78]

yes @WedgeRock is currently our #1 ranked player.

How does one get an invite to this league??

 

[WedgeRock]

How does one get an invite to this league??

 

[TKEUofM]

How does one get an invite to this league??

Dallas to Metro Detroit should be an easy trip once a month..... come on up!!!

Here is the setup.

 

[DeeVee8]

If I ran a ranking system, I would probably award everyone 1 point (reward attendance), slowly progress one or two spots before the bubble (add some artificial value to the bubblers), then ITM progress the points roughly in relation to the payouts (to mimic the actual value of those spot).

This has worked pretty well for our group. Similar to what you spoke of. I wanted something simple that I didn't have to pay attention to until the final table and I wanted the points to increase at a pretty steep rate to award players who played to completion. If players chop, they all get the next position in points. For example, if it's a 3 way chop, they all get 29 points. Cash can be chopped however the players want, but points are non-negotiable.

 

[decoldestcraw]

Y’all have been amazing, thanks guys!
I’m surprised even a ichigan fan would help me!! Haha jk. Really appreciate all the help.

 

[WedgeRock]

Back to the point here. Dr. Neau from the HomePokerTourney days created a formula that gave more points to bigger buyins, punished rebuys and rewarded deeper events. His theory was its harder to win the bigger buyin tournaments, its harder to win without rebuying, and its harder to do well in a bigger tournament.

His formula is:

SQRT(B1*B2*(B2/B3))/(B4+1)

B1 = number of players
B2 - buyin
B3 = total expense (buyin + rebuy(s))
B4 = finish

3rd place in a 20-player, $40 tournament without a rebuy is worth 7.07 points (we round to 2 decimal places). 1st place in a 18-player, $40 tournament after a rebuy is worth 9.49 points (but would be worth 13.42 points without the rebuy)., and only 7.75 points if you had to rebuy twice).

We've used it our league for 20+ years and it works fine. Because of the consistency, players have a pretty good idea how many points they will get based on their finish. It also allows me to create a Google Sheet for our last event so we can update points in real time and let people on the bubble know where they finished for the season.

I agree with @Mr Winberg, though, pick a formula that rewards the attributes that you are trying to encourage. If you only reward winning, you might lose players who don't finish near the top every time.

 

[BPTDirector]

I have always used the simplest one point for each surviving place. Some don’t think that’s complex enough but over 20 years I can say it has pointed out the better players, and also who has improved. I was a database admin and data analyst for the big part of my career, my specialty was solving complex problems in the simplest way. The cream will rise to the top no matter how simple or complex your scoring calcs are.

 

[Preditor]

Dallas to Metro Detroit should be an easy trip once a month..... come on up!!!

Here is the setup.

View attachment 1546143

I want to go to there…

 

[HiveKueen]

This is an excellent exploration of points formulas - https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/league-points.6199/

I have implemented the OP's final formula and am quite happy with it after 2.5 years of tracking results.

And, food for thought - once you implement something, if you want to be able to track league player performance records over time, you can't really change the formula. So know and love what you first implement.

 

[Mr Winberg]

And, food for thought - once you implement something, if you want to be able to track league player performance records over time, you can't really change the formula. So know and love what you first implement.

A thought: If you want to track over time I suggest saving the actual results in a database (number of players, each player's result, etc) rather than whatever the ranking system resulted in. That way you can test various ranking systems on historical results. For example, with Dr Neau's formula John would have won 2024's league, but with another formula Jane would have won, and so on.

I believe @Poker Zombie has done something like that.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Yes - Database.

We previously used he system used by Bluff Magazine for their Player of the Year, but divided the buy ins and field sizes by 100 as we don't play for as much or as deep of fields as the pros.

This, like Dr Neaus' system, was utterly stupid. Poker is easy math. Why make the formula something that you need a computer to tell you what position you need to win?

I now use a far simpler formula. Everybody can calculate where they stand at the end of the night (if they're sober enough to do simple math).

(P+R) x (B/20) x F

This looks complex, but...
P = Players
R = Rebuys
B = Buy-in. Buy-in was $20 when I developed the scoring system.

So in simpler terms, it's the number of entries, x 1, x F

So what is F?
F is finishing position. You must cash to earn these points. If we only pay 4 places, 5th and 6th do not get paid (we have never paid 7 places).

Finally, (B/20) points are awarded to each player that finished out of the money. Like @Mr Winberg said, a points system should drive behavior. I want people to attend, so 1 point for a $20 entry game wasn't going to amount to a lot, but it could tip the scales in a close battle.

I was able to shift between the old point system and the new one and go back through the records to see how it would have altered the winners. You could weight the "F" multiplier closer to your typical pay structure to reflect winnings, or you could place it all the way through the tournament. I stopped at cashing, because that is the goal of every poker player. Some want to win or go home, some simply want to finish in the money. I rested on a system that keeps the recreational players competitive with the highly skilled players. Our current league leader hasn't won a game this year, but has consistently cashed.

Anybody that tells you they have the "best" points system is blowing smoke. Build a database, and between seasons devise a system that rewards the behavior you want to see. Then roll out the points system the following year.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Everybody can calculate where they stand at the end of the night (if they're sober enough to do simple math).

 

[WedgeRock]

Everybody can calculate where they stand at the end of the night (if they're sober enough to do simple math).

Again, every formula promotes different attributes.

 

[drdr]

Fascinating to see formulas that others came up with. For past twenty years I've simply used a calculation of each players ROI%. The same stat used by tournament players as a measure of success on the return of their buyins. Works for my league since player numbers (and therefore payouts) can vary greatly from game to game. The drawback is that it can favour players who play few games yet got lucky and cashed well. So, just added a league requirement if playing at least 1/3 of games for the year.

 

[idoru99]

I belong to a group of players who have been playing $40 buy-in, 1 optional re-entry tournaments for about 20 years. The scoring system we use rewards more points for larger events, as follows:

1st: 10 * # of buy-ins + 1 point for each dollar of prize money won
2nd: 8 * # of buy-ins + 1 point for each dollar of prize money won
3rd: 6 * # of buy-ins + 1 point for each dollar of prize money won
4th: 5 * # of buy-ins + 1 point for each dollar of prize money won (if any)

and so on until

8th: 1 * # buy-ins + 1 point for each dollar of prize money won (if any)

We take the top 10 scores for a given season (calendar year) to determine the final score.