Tourney Contemplating a poker league (1 Viewer)

[Beakertwang]

I'm considering running a poker league this fall/winter.

-Saturday or Sunday evenings, starting in Oct.
-8-10 weeks
-Mostly $10 buy-ins
-Several different structures, some rebuy, some bounty ($3 bounty fee), at least one PLO, maybe one night have two ultra-turbo tourneys for $5 each.
-Have a cash game available after people start busting
-Championship deepstack tourney at the end.

I'm thinking $2 of each $10 buy-in goes to the championship pool.

To calculate points, I'm thinking a point per dollar for buy-in (no points for rebuys), and a point per dollar for cashouts. So if you buy in for $13 for a KO game, get $16 for 3rd place, and two KO's ($6), you'd receive 35 points. That rewards participation as well as cashing. It also seems pretty simple. Maybe there's a better way, and I'm open to suggestions.

It's unlikely that we'd ever have more than 10 players, so maybe I'll limit the Championship to top 6 scorers. Maybe make sure they've played in half + 1 of the games to qualify for the Championship.

If we average 8 players, for 10 weeks, that's $160 in the prize pool. We could make it another $10 buy-in for that game, to make the prize pool bigger.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

 

[Black Hatter]

Sounds like fun, I am in a league with over 50 players and we have been doing this for about 5 years. If your going to do a league keep in mind that it's a lot of work.

 

[DaneWoj]

I run my own league which sends ppl to WSOP each year. You need to be persistent. If you game says it starts @ 6pm. You need to start @ 6pm sharp. No leeway. I wish you luck. Ask any questions you may have.

Also I’d suggest Saturday over Sunday. NFL attracts many people.

 

[Gobbs]

I'm not big on rewarding points for participation in leagues. I'd consider a point system that rewarded performance far more and participation far less (or even not at all). If Player A shows up 90 percent of the time and can't cash as often as Player B, who only showed up 50 percent of the time, Player B played better and deserves the seat more than Player A.

If you want to reward participation, consider awarding chips in the Championship tournament based on performance, bounties, and participation. For example, you could have a Championship Tournament base stack of T10000. Players get additional chips based on points (maybe T500 for every point earned), bounties (maybe T100 for every bounty earned), and participation (T500 for every tournament entered). Of course, if you do this, I would make it a complete freeroll for the Top X amount of players. The only exception to the freeroll I would have would be to have any players who did not play in at least half the tournaments make up the difference of the championship tournament cut. I like having Championship tournament starting stacks based on performance (and participation) since it gives those who have performed well during the regular season an advantage - kind of like giving the teams that performed the best during the regular season home field advantage in the League Championship Series.

 

[Farcry44]

I’m in a WSOP qualifier league too. 10 guys, top 5 get points and the winner each time gets $50 of the prize pool. We play 14-15 games throughout the winter and at the end our lowest 4 points get dropped. (That gives leeway in case you have to miss a couple games throughout the season). We set the schedule before the season starts, so everybody can plan for it. We avoid major holidays, etc. It works really well. Our guy we sent 2 years ago made a pretty deep run, finished like 40th out of 2000+

 

[Gobbs]

We set the schedule before the season starts, so everybody can plan for it.

Definitely a must!!!!!!

On a side note, I've never played in a league in which you got to drop your X amount of worst performances (or, I assume absences). Does anybody have any thoughts on that? Pros? Cons? I like the concept, but have never experienced it to know.

 

[BGinGA]

I've never played in a league in which you got to drop your X amount of worst performances (or, I assume absences). Does anybody have any thoughts on that? Pros? Cons? I like the concept, but have never experienced it to know.

It depends a lot on the type of point structure used, but extensive research has shown that it actually makes very little difference in the final standings in most cases. It's mostly a psychological ploy, and one that isn't worth the extra effort involved imo.

 

[CraigT78]

Definitely a must!!!!!!

On a side note, I've never played in a league in which you got to drop your X amount of worst performances (or, I assume absences). Does anybody have any thoughts on that? Pros? Cons? I like the concept, but have never experienced it to know.

My leauge the top 10 is the top 10. Must be at 5 games to qualify for ToC free roll. I do however award bonus chips based off the lowest number for games attended plus 1. So if one guy has been to 9 games, I take everyone's top 10 finishes for the bonus chip breakout. This will probably change next year, we'll see

 

[clapton77]

If you're near Des Moines and need another player, let me know. Sounds like a fun league and I'm sure all the veterans on here will get it perfectly tweaked by the end of this thread.

 

[ChaosRock]

On a side note, I've never played in a league in which you got to drop your X amount of worst performances (or, I assume absences). Does anybody have any thoughts on that? Pros? Cons? I like the concept, but have never experienced it to know.

My league plays a total of 20 Tournaments plus the Tournament of Champions. However, only the top 17 results count at the end, so dropping the worst 3 results. To me it works pretty well, specially since it is not a rotating league and I'd have a significant advantage over other players since I never miss a game, LOL!!! I think it works well and I never had any complains about it. It gives people the flexibility of missing a game here and there and not be penalized too badly.

Now, having said that, I do give points to every player playing a tourney. Some might call it a "points for just showing up", and I won't dispute that's what it is. However, it depends on your motivation for doing it. I want players at the seat. I want to incentivize players to show up. Also, I differentiate points based on the number of players playing the tourney and number of rebuys, and apply that for the entire curve. I.E.: the winner gets more points for winning a 20 player tourney with 5 re-buys (and the first out less points) than the winning of a tourney with 8 players (the first out more points). The other reason is that I charge a League Fee every game (used for both TOC payout and League Points payout, 50/50), so the more players show up, the better the final money pool.

* Just read Dave's post above, I agree, at the end, the dropping X results don't necessarily affect the final results too much, with the exception of myself as a host. But it does work psychologically to probably all of the players.

 

[Poker Zombie]

When deciding on a point system, consider what you want to encourage. In a WSOP league, you want to send your best player(s), so awarding points to only the top 10-15% of the field makes sence. If you want to encourage frequent attendance (great for a fledgling league), then points for attendance should be awarded.

Decide what you want, then devise a point system.

 

[CraigT78]

Get a hot dog roller!

 

[Mojo1312]

It depends a lot on the type of point structure used, but extensive research has shown that it actually makes very little difference in the final standings in most cases. It's mostly a psychological ploy, and one that isn't worth the extra effort involved imo.

Interesting. Law of averages? Dropping x number of games for every player evens out.

But if the above is correct, that is all things being equal. Players who never miss a game will have a distinct advantage over players who miss x number of games if no scores are dropped.

 

[Beakertwang]

When deciding on a point system, consider what you want to encourage. In a WSOP league, you want to send your best player(s), so awarding points to only the top 10-15% of the field makes sence. If you want to encourage frequent attendance (great for a fledgling league), then points for attendance should be awarded.

Decide what you want, then devise a point system.

I definitely want to encourage attendance. I may have 15 players total throughout the series. If my freeroll is 6 or 8 players, it’s very likely that someone who makes all 8 (or 10) tourneys gets in, even if they never cash. I’m fine with that.

I do like the idea of adding chips to the starting stacks based on performance, but I’ll have to consider that.

 

[trever]

Definitely a must!!!!!!

On a side note, I've never played in a league in which you got to drop your X amount of worst performances (or, I assume absences). Does anybody have any thoughts on that? Pros? Cons? I like the concept, but have never experienced it to know.

Our league does this, it always results in a big pool of players remaining competitive for the big game all the way to the end. Very popular with our crowd and cuts down on losing players dropping out once they see that they'll miss the final game

 

[Farcry44]

Interesting. Law of averages? Dropping x number of games for every player evens out.

But if the above is correct, that is all things being equal. Players who never miss a game will have a distinct advantage over players who miss x number of games if no scores are dropped.

Yeah exactly. It helps promote regular attendance and makes our guys

Interesting. Law of averages? Dropping x number of games for every player evens out.

But if the above is correct, that is all things being equal. Players who never miss a game will have a distinct advantage over players who miss x number of games if no scores are dropped.

This definitely helps promote attendance and makes our guys prioritize league nights. Every point matters when it gets down to the end - with our league, we end up sending 2/10 guys down to Vegas for a 1k WSOP event. As well as like $600 American for accommodations per person. Last year we had 3 (me included) all within contention on the last league night. (I was the guy who didn’t go out of the 3 lol)

 

[Farcry44]

Lol I messed up my reply ^ I blame it on my chubby fingers.

 

[BGinGA]

Players who never miss a game will have a distinct advantage over players who miss x number of games if no scores are dropped.

Thank you, Professor Obvious.

But depending on the points system used, it may not be a significant advantage. A more performance-based system is affected far less than one which is highly attendance-based.

There are a number of ways to keep players motivated for the duration of a league or series besides just awarding points for showing up, or dropping x number of scores.

 

[Poker Zombie]

motivated for the duration of a league or series besides just awarding points for showing up, or dropping x number of scores.

Sure, but how many show each week to see what chips will be in play? :coffee:

 

[BGinGA]

Sure, but how many show each week to see what chips will be in play? :coffee:

More than you'd think.

 

[Gobbs]

Thank you, Professor Obvious.

But depending on the points system used, it may not be a significant advantage. A more performance-based system is affected far less than one which is highly attendance-based.

There are a number of ways to keep players motivated for the duration of a league or series besides just awarding points for showing up, or dropping x number of scores.

You mean like giving people who finish well in a tournament some money??? (y) :thumbsup:

 

[Gobbs]

You mean like giving people who finish well in a tournament some money??? (y) :thumbsup:

Oops...sorry.

 

[Black Hatter]

All good comments, after playing in a league for 5 years I find it easier to go to a casino now, there is know hassel or work, just sit down and try to win.

 

[DoubleEagle]

It's unlikely that we'd ever have more than 10 players, so maybe I'll limit the Championship to top 6 scorers. Maybe make sure they've played in half + 1 of the games to qualify for the Championship.

The first couple of years that we ran our league the championship was limited to the top 10 in points. After many complaints from players that showed up every week and paid into the prize pool but didn't get to play, we changed the championship to allow anyone to play that played in 1/2 plus one of the number of events. For example, if there are 12 events, anyone can play that participated in seven events. This has worked very well and we have had no more complaints.

The top ten in points get bonus chips to their starting stacks.

 

[DoubleEagle]

On a side note, I've never played in a league in which you got to drop your X amount of worst performances (or, I assume absences). Does anybody have any thoughts on that? Pros? Cons? I like the concept, but have never experienced it to know.

We drop the two lowest performances to allow for unavoidable absences.

 

[Poker Zombie]

The first couple of years that we ran our league the championship was limited to the top 10 in points. After many complaints from players that showed up every week and paid into the prize pool but didn't get to play, we changed the championship to allow anyone to play that played in 1/2 plus one of the number of events. For example, if there are 12 events, anyone can play that participated in seven events. This has worked very well and we have had no more complaints.

The top ten in points get bonus chips to their starting stacks.

We run a similar format, where anyone that attends more than 50% of the events can earn the end of year bonus. It's unrelated to points though, as the point champion gets a custom embroidered shirt.

 

[Mojo1312]

Thank you, Professor Obvious.

But depending on the points system used, it may not be a significant advantage. A more performance-based system is affected far less than one which is highly attendance-based.

There are a number of ways to keep players motivated for the duration of a league or series besides just awarding points for showing up, or dropping x number of scores.

Truthfully, the point you made in your post escaped my consideration. I suspect the same goes for other hosts who also drop x low scores in their leagues. Clearly, the conclusion of the studies should come as no surprise. This goes to show how common sense considerations can sometimes fly under a person's radar, which is why I chose to point out the obvious exception to their findings.

 

[WhiteMamba1646]

I'm considering running a poker league this fall/winter.

-Saturday or Sunday evenings, starting in Oct.
-8-10 weeks
-Mostly $10 buy-ins
-Several different structures, some rebuy, some bounty ($3 bounty fee), at least one PLO, maybe one night have two ultra-turbo tourneys for $5 each.
-Have a cash game available after people start busting
-Championship deepstack tourney at the end.

I'm thinking $2 of each $10 buy-in goes to the championship pool.

To calculate points, I'm thinking a point per dollar for buy-in (no points for rebuys), and a point per dollar for cashouts. So if you buy in for $13 for a KO game, get $16 for 3rd place, and two KO's ($6), you'd receive 35 points. That rewards participation as well as cashing. It also seems pretty simple. Maybe there's a better way, and I'm open to suggestions.

It's unlikely that we'd ever have more than 10 players, so maybe I'll limit the Championship to top 6 scorers. Maybe make sure they've played in half + 1 of the games to qualify for the Championship.

If we average 8 players, for 10 weeks, that's $160 in the prize pool. We could make it another $10 buy-in for that game, to make the prize pool bigger.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

why is this the first i'm hearing about this??? sounds awesome haha

 

[WhiteMamba1646]

we do a kitty tournament for the top 9 but that's as fancy as we get. i like the point structure, just alot of work.

 

[TexRex]

If you only have 10, why limit the size of the final game? Why not just give larger chip stacks to those who performed well?