Tourney Handicapping a Poker League (1 Viewer)

[Moxie Mike]

Hello fellow poker league TDs!

We're entering season 4 of the Moxie Poker League, and after 3, six-event-long seasons there's a clear pattern of dominance in the points race from each season that makes late season events more or less irrelevant to the outcome of the points championship.

So I'm seeking suggestions as to how I can level the playing field a little for the weaker performers in our league, without punishing the better players in the league. Our league can get pretty expensive if you rebuy a lot and never cash, and a few players have lamented the costs and are considering playing less.

Why would I want to do this you ask? Because 1) recruiting players is difficult; 2) I want to make the game more enjoyable for players who are cash-flow-negative in our games yet consistently show up week after week; and 3) The primary purpose of the league is that we have a good core of quality humans most of whom are friends of mine.

***I don't want my league rules posted publicly so I won't post them in this thread, but I'll send them via PM to anyone interested in reading them.***

The points count toward bonus chips in the championship event. Points are awarded for event placement using the [25,18,13,9,6,4,3,2,1,1,1,1...] system, as well as a point for every bounty collected.

One idea I had was to award an additional point for earning bounties from a higher ranked player - similar to how some golf leagues operate. Tracking this would be cumbersome though.

Lastly, I've already had the 'if people want to earn more points they need to learn to play better' discussion with a few league regulars, so no need to rehash that here.

Thanks for reading my post!

 

[DaneWoj]

Make the later events slightly more points? Maybe do like 1x points for event 1, 1.2x for event 2, 1.3x for event 3, etc. creates more points for later season tournaments.

 

[Moxie Mike]

Make the later events slightly more points? Maybe do like 1x points for event 1, 1.2x for event 2, 1.3x for event 3, etc. creates more points for later season tournaments.

That's an interesting idea.

 

[Beakertwang]

Give points for buy-ins as well as finish rank, to reward participation?

 

[Moxie Mike]

Give points for buy-ins as well as finish rank, to reward participation?

All players get at least one point for playing... 8th place and above get more points.

 

[Beakertwang]

Secretly tell certain players that they won a raffle so they get bonus points?

 

[HeWhoWouldPun]

Here is a quick half-baked idea: choose one event (or more) and award points based on rank at beginning of the event. I.e. if you are in 15th place going into it, you get 15 bonus points for playing. It feels a little “here’s your participation trophy slash everyone is a winner” but might help some of the players.

 

[JStew]

I like your reasons 2 and 3. So far I’ve tried to accommodate #2 by making the game the best I can: chips, table, food, drinks, etc. but the idea of a handicap is interesting. I don’t like the idea of manipulating the points. I’m thinking potentially manipulate starting stacks. Say anyone who hasn’t cashed in 3 events gets 20% bigger starting stack. This could grow to 50% if no cash in 6 straight events. Down side is it would change total chips in play but if you have lots of rebuys this might not be significant. Would allow less skilled players to play longer as they would start with more chips. The higher skilled players should be okay with this as If they aren’t getting bonus chips that means they are cashing plus they can win the chips of the lower skilled players.

You could also handicap starting stacks using stats like points per tournament played or cashes per tournament played. Like golf you would need 5+ tournaments to get a handicap.

 

[timinater]

It’s not necessarily handicapping like you asked for, but you could flatten the points structure a bit, or award more “participation“ points to reward attendance a bit more (say 3) - basically just raising the potential points floor for your weaker but consistent players.

Flatter the point structure the more a win might let someone jump up the rankings. In this example instead of 25x for a win vs showing up you’re more like 8x for a win vs showing up. Our final table usually has 1st place with about 35k in chips to last place’s 15k or so.

Our league is run with a similar philosophy. Very social and friendly, with just enough stakes to make it interesting and competitive.

 

[Josh Kifer]

Just talking out loud.... Not saying it's a great idea. But what about doing a league where you have two pots. Maybe like a 75% goes to points, 25% to a final game. Issue point backwards from loser to winner. Person with least points wins most of the main pot. Pay out second and third and such. But with the other 25%, do a game with chip stacks based off of how many points you earned. Basically, worst player is going to be chip leader, best player is going to be short stack. Let that play out. Everyone gets a shot at both pots, but if you miss the main, you have an advantage with the other route.

 

[BGinGA]

I'm seeking suggestions as to how I can level the playing field a little for the weaker performers in our league, without punishing the better players in the league.

That's a very tough row to hoe. By the very definition, it's basically impossible to not rob Peter to pay Paul. Making things easier for the weaker players also makes it harder for the stronger ones.

Our league can get pretty expensive if you rebuy a lot and never cash, and a few players have lamented the costs and are considering playing less.

Perhaps the overall cost/expense is an avenue you can explore changing to make it "better" (or less painful) for the weaker players. You never want to price out your weaker players, and it sounds like this is the real crux of the problem.

The points count toward bonus chips in the championship event. Points are awarded for event placement using the [25,18,13,9,6,4,3,2,1,1,1,1...] system, as well as a point for every bounty collected.

One solution is to count collected bounties towards championship bonus chips, but not give them any weight in the actual point standings. So the stronger players (who typically amass more KOs) will still get their bonus chips, but don't also get it compounded by also getting additional points in the season standings for bounties. That's how our system works (points awarded for placing, but chips awarded based on total points, wins, bounties, and events, less re-buys).

Short of a) flattening out the awarded points (which I like as-is, btw), or b) reducing the skill level requirements of the event (through smaller stacks, more aggressive blinds, and/or shorter events), there's not much you can do to help even the playing field. It is what it is, and the best you can do if keeping the status quo is to make it less expensive to lose.

 

[MrCatPants]

I'd probably go with weighting less towards the season prize pool as that double-dip benefits the stronger players. A weaker player can bink a tourney, but they aren't going to bink a whole season.

 

[aaronroch]

... Our league can get pretty expensive if you rebuy a lot and never cash, and a few players have lamented the costs and are considering playing less.
... The primary purpose of the league is that we have a good core of quality humans most of whom are friends of mine.

Would the league work as well without the multiple rebuys?

I’ve a good friend who has run a 3-table league for over a decade. Some of the players have never won an event in all that time. They like “the feeling of playing poker”.
He keeps it going by providing what the lower skill players are looking for: a fun night out with friends that is cheaper than going to the bar.

 

[karsus]

I do a similar method where your points totals determine your chip stack at the 'Final Table', however; I also introduced a Playoff game for those that are trailing in points. The idea is that the top 6 point earners get a spot at the final table.. everyone else can play in a playoff game where the points earned are doubled. Top 4 players in the playoff get a wildcard slot at the final table.

By doubling the points in the playoff game, it gives a chance for a lower ranked player to catch-up. To ensure that I am not punishing the top 6 players, I cap the wildcard point totals to be no more than the 6th ranked player (to keep from the wildcard players from getting an advantage of the top 6).

Now, this idea is still untested (we haven't started out league yet), but it is the method I plan on using to resolve the issue.

 

[BGinGA]

I do a similar method where your points totals determine your chip stack at the 'Final Table', however; I also introduced a Playoff game for those that are trailing in points. The idea is that the top 6 point earners get a spot at the final table.. everyone else can play in a playoff game where the points earned are doubled. Top 4 players in the playoff get a wildcard slot at the final table.

By doubling the points in the playoff game, it gives a chance for a lower ranked player to catch-up. To ensure that I am not punishing the top 6 players, I cap the wildcard point totals to be no more than the 6th ranked player (to keep from the wildcard players from getting an advantage of the top 6).

Now, this idea is still untested (we haven't started out league yet), but it is the method I plan on using to resolve the issue.

I too thought that having a "last chance" tournament to fill the last spot(s) in the season-ending championship game would be a great opportunity for players to still qualify, even if they had a somewhat dismal season.

I ran it for three seasons, but interest (and participation) was very low. Dunno if it was just this particular group of players, or if the reason was that nobody could get fired up for a "losers event". I eventually abandoned the idea.

Good luck with yours -- I'd be very interested to hear how it plays out.

 

[Moxie Mike]

Thanks for the thoughtful replies so far. Here's a couple additional notes:

Would the league work as well without the multiple rebuys?

I’ve a good friend who has run a 3-table league for over a decade. Some of the players have never won an event in all that time. They like “the feeling of playing poker”.
He keeps it going by providing what the lower skill players are looking for: a fun night out with friends that is cheaper than going to the bar.

We've ran games as freezeouts, with a single rebuy and with unlimited rebuys. Unlimited rebuys is the absolute preference of the group. It's also worth noting rebuying is optional.

This isn't cheaper than 'going to the bar'. Entry fee is $60, which includes dealer tip ($5), bounty ($5) & championship event prize pool contribution ($10). Rebuys are $45 including the bounty and the break add-on is $10 for 10k chips, $20 for 20k chips or $30 for 30k chips. We sell on average of 35 add ons at the break, so most people buy the max.

So in other words, virtually all players are in for a min of $90. Add in a rebuy or two and it's easy to be in for nearly $200. Do this 2x per month with poor results and the losses can add up quickly.

I'd probably go with weighting less towards the season prize pool as that double-dip benefits the stronger players. A weaker player can bink a tourney, but they aren't going to bink a whole season.

The idea is that a player can accumulate a few bounties and have a decent night points-wise despite getting knocked out early. One night we had a guy accumulate so many bounties that he was awarded the most points despite finishing second that night. The point is to provide mini-rewards for short term wins. as opposed to rewarding only long term performance (a deep run in the tournament).

Perhaps the overall cost/expense is an avenue you can explore changing to make it "better" (or less painful) for the weaker players. You never want to price out your weaker players, and it sounds like this is the real crux of the problem.

The players in our game are all well-off enough to afford the entry fees. The stakes aren't the issue.

One solution is to count collected bounties towards championship bonus chips, but not give them any weight in the actual point standings.

If I can find the time, I'll run the numbers for the first 3 seasons without the additional points for bounties and see how it affects the results. It's possible that our method adds no value to the league.

Short of a) flattening out the awarded points (which I like as-is, btw), or b) reducing the skill level requirements of the event (through smaller stacks, more aggressive blinds, and/or shorter events), there's not much you can do to help even the playing field. It is what it is, and the best you can do if keeping the status quo is to make it less expensive to lose.

Making wholesale changes to the mechanics of the games themselves isn't an option. We've worked pretty hard to set up a game that rewards skilled players, which everyone in the group wants. Even the weaker performers have expressed gratitude for a tournament that's better than most charity rooms and casinos.

By doubling the points in the playoff game, it gives a chance for a lower ranked player to catch-up. To ensure that I am not punishing the top 6 players, I cap the wildcard point totals to be no more than the 6th ranked player (to keep from the wildcard players from getting an advantage of the top 6).

I'm not sure how this would work or if the players in my group would go for it. After 6 events, would I exclude the top x slots of the leaderboard?

Currently, our league points system rewards top players with an advantageous chip stack in the championship event. The challenge circles back to the ethics of providing an opportunity to lessen that advantage that the top performers earned. If it's just an chance to jockey for position in the middle of the league standings, that wouldn't affect the top of the leaderboard but it wouldn't really serve much purpose overall.

 

[Frogzilla]

A couple ideas

1) Offer more people the chance to still be in the running by bumping up the points the last two games:

Games 1-4
[25,18,13,9,6,4,3,2,1,1,1,1...]

Games 5-6
[35,26,19,13,9,6,4,2,1,1,1,1...]


Idea 2:
The first two games $15 per player goes to the championship prize while everyone still has a shot at it
Games 3/4 it’s the $10 you do now
Games 5,6 only $5 per player

 

[karsus]

I'm not sure how this would work or if the players in my group would go for it. After 6 events, would I exclude the top x slots of the leaderboard?

Currently, our league points system rewards top players with an advantageous chip stack in the championship event. The challenge circles back to the ethics of providing an opportunity to lessen that advantage that the top performers earned. If it's just an chance to jockey for position in the middle of the league standings, that wouldn't affect the top of the leaderboard but it wouldn't really serve much purpose overall.

The way I was planning on running it was that the 'Championship Event' would be limited to a one table tournament. I was planning on having the top 6 (but might might it 7) point finishers automatically get a seat at the table and the other 3-4 seats would be determined by the Playoff event (which those already qualified for the championship event would be excluded from).

Then the winners of the Playoff event (no necessary the top point totals) earn a seat in the Championship. The reason I decided to double the points payout of the playoff was to allow for someone low in the standings, to do well in the Playoff's and not be too horribly short stacked in the Championship. Starting stacks in the playoff event would be adjusted by points, just like the Championship event.

If you want I am happy to send out league rules over for you to review (it might make more sense then).

 

[timinater]

I've always been of the opinion that the top players are usually pretty fairly rewarded with cash, and thus the ancillary benefits for those players are less important than they are for your middling to lower tier players - so I wouldn't be afraid to tinker with it. Your best players are hopefully wise enough to understand and support a system that keeps the fish interested and reasonably competitive throughout the length of the season.

 

[Moxie Mike]

The way I was planning on running it was that the 'Championship Event' would be limited to a one table tournament.

That makes more sense. Our league is a little different. If a player plays in 3 regular season events, the entry fee to the championship game is $50. If they only play in one or two, the entry fee is $100. The logic being that since $10 is pulled from every entry fee for the C.E., players who play more contribute more to the prize pool.

Playing in more regular season events not only makes the buy in to the championship cheaper, but also provides more opportunities to earn C.E. bonus chips, which can be significant.

 

[Gobbs]

So I'm seeking suggestions as to how I can level the playing field a little for the weaker performers in our league, without punishing the better players in the league.

You can’t. It is impossible.

EDIT: League sounds pretty great, though. I’m sure it is very nice.

 

[BGinGA]

Our league can get pretty expensive if you rebuy a lot and never cash, and a few players have lamented the costs and are considering playing less.

The players in our game are all well-off enough to afford the entry fees. The stakes aren't the issue.

Sorry, Mike, but these two statements are in direct conflict with each other. If you have a few players lamenting the costs to the point they are considering playing less, then stakes are most definitely at least part of the issue. And whether or not they can afford the stakes is irrelevant -- it's still an issue *to them*.

There are various ways to provide incentives to promote player financial behavior, and ways to accommodate different player price-points by making some items multi-tiered or optional. Willing to discuss in detail privately if desired.

***I don't want my league rules posted publicly so I won't post them in this thread, but I'll send them via PM to anyone interested in reading them.***

Interestingly, your league's overall structure, intentions, and total costs are very similar to ours. We began in 2005, and our 17th season starts in January. I'd definitely be interested in privately viewing your rules, and am willing to reciprocate.

 

[Moxie Mike]

Sorry, Mike, but these two statements are in direct conflict with each other.

I can see where you would say that. I should have expressed that more accurately. Allow me to clarify.

The guys in question routinely play in $100-$300 buy in events and buy in full at $1-$2 NL... it's not the stakes themselves... it's NEVER cashing after numerous $100+ evenings is what they were complaining about. I'm worried they might go looking for an easier game.

The level of competition in our league is not elite, but it's definitely above average compared to what you'd encounter at your local charity or casino. As a point of reference, I think we have 2 or 3 players with 6-figure Hendon Mob profiles. These guys play a LAG style and do just fine against inferior competition. But in our game, they're usually the first ones out despite numerous rebuys due to their opponents abilities to make the proper adjustments.

These are good people, friends of ours and (obviously) good for the game. My thought was to install a handicap system of some sorts is to make it more fun and give them a slightly better result in a game they're clearly overmatched in.

I appreciate the offer to review. I'll send you a PM with a link.

 

[Moxie Mike]

If I can find the time, I'll run the numbers for the first 3 seasons without the additional points for bounties and see how it affects the results. It's possible that our method adds no value to the league.

I finally got around to reworking the numbers to see how awarding points for knockouts affected the end results.

Through 3 seasons and 57 total participants, an average of 2 spots were modestly affected per season. The top 3 finishers in the standings were never affected, and no player ever moved up or down more than 1 slot as a result of removing KOs from the formula. In short, the effect was negligible.

So our conclusion is the cumbersome extra step of tracking knockouts for points purposes doesn't add any value to the league, so we're doing away with that.