Tourney League Championship Tourney - Bonus Chip Award Help - Poll (1 Viewer)

[CraigT78]

All,

I am working on my 2019 House Rules and have gotten some feedback on changes made to my bonus chip distribution for the end of season free roll. To give some background, we play a 12 or 13 game season and the top 10 finishers who have attended a minimum of 5 games qualifies for the Tournament of Champions, a free roll for the season rake.

Option A
The first year, I gave a 1k bonus chip for every position above 10th place. There was of course feedback that this wasn't enough separation, as the winner of the season should have more bonus chips than just 9k, and also that attendance was being rewarded to highly.

Option B
In 2018 I changed it up and made it where the top 10 would have their scores adjusted to the top finishes of the lowest qualifier. Example - Rob played 9 games, so everyone had their top 9 scores taken and we set the bonus chips at 1k per rounded point difference above 10th. This has appeared to create too big of an advantage. Ignore the adjusted score of Jay - he's an alternate and gets no bonus chips.

Option C
So I am looking at another option, and that is to round the scores and award starting stacks based off the whole number. This would provide a more weight based award where the bonus is the same percentage of point lead the players have.

Option D
Same as C, but with a T500 per point award.

So what say you? What is the best system for awarding bonus chips - look for feedback from you as a player, and you as a host. What format would you best like, and for the longer running leagues - what has worked for you? This is my 3rd season free-roll and I'd like to nail this down to provide the most fun, and fair game, while still awarding the season winner with somewhat of an advantage. If you have other ideas, please feel free to post them.

 

[CraigT78]

@BGinGA I would love to hear your thoughts on this one.

 

[BGinGA]

Best system? The one that works for you. But I personally prefer a system that is not linear, and instead really rewards season-long performance. While that type of system can sometimes create large differences in stack sizes, those differences were rightfully ~earned~.

Our league's Championship Game consists of the top 8 players in the point standings after nine monthly events. Points are awarded to the top 33% of each field, and are scaled to the number of entries for each event. Typical award is 55%-30%-10%-5%. Tie-breakers for point standings are # wins, # bounties, and # appearances, in that order.

Championship stack sizes are based on a combination of total points, wins, bounties, appearances, and re-buys. Everybody's stack starts with a minimum of 10,000 chips, with 1000 chips added for each point scored, 1000 chips for each win, 500 chips for each bounty earned, 500 chips for each event appearance, and 500 chips deducted for each re-buy purchased..... and calculations are rounded to the nearest 500 increment.

Rarely does anybody start with less than 20,000 chips. Historically, the average stack size is around 33,500 chips, and the biggest stack is usually in the 45k-50k range. The largest starting stack ever was 69,000 chips, and in 15 seasons, the big stack has won the event exactly ~one~ time. Lots of starting chips in a long tournament (9-10 hours) isn't as big of an advantage as you might think.

 

[BGinGA]

Looking over your options listed above, I like C best. Performance-based, lots of chips for the top players, yet stacks are still plenty big for the bottom half of the field.

 

[CraigT78]

Best system? The one that works for you.

This is my goal!!

those differences were rightfully ~earned~.

100% agree here.

Everybody's stack starts with a minimum of 10,000 chips, with 1000 chips added for each point scored, 1000 chips for each win, 500 chips for each bounty earned, 500 chips for each event appearance, and 500 chips deducted for each re-buy purchased..... and calculations are rounded to the nearest 500 increment.

Interesting way to add bonuses - I like it.

big stack has won the event exactly ~one~ time.

We’ve only played 2 so far, and it hold true for us as well.

Thanks. I didn’t like the linear method either - bust wasn’t sure if my current method was balanced enough.

 

[CraigT78]

Looking over your options listed above, I like C best. Performance-based, lots of chips for the top players, yet stacks are still plenty big for the bottom half of the field.

Thanks - I might run a variation of this option with some additional bonuses like your group. Could make things more “fun”. Our season winner crushed it this year, he placed 7 times and won 2. He rightfully gets a big stack, but as it stands it’s almost 3x the little stack - was some grumbling that was too big a swing. Of course the guy at the bottom will always complain the loudest

 

[Suited Connector]

I play in a league where all individual tournament winners make the tournament of champions as well as 3 wild cards, people with the 3 highest scores that don't have a win. Your starting stack is based off of your top 8 finishes.

 

[CraigT78]

I play in a league where all individual tournament winners make the tournament of champions as well as 3 wild cards, people with the 3 highest scores that don't have a win. Your starting stack is based off of your top 8 finishes.

Interesting approach! I’d have to look at my spreadsheets and see what that method would look like. Of course I run 12/13 games and only have 10 seats for my championship......

 

[timinater]

We use a system where the chips are awarded based on the points accumulated over the course of the season. The final tournament is, in theory, a T20k, however, chips are distributed according to your percentage of points earned of all qualifiers. Usually works out where top players start with 35-40k and bottom will have around 5-10k. It's fairly transparent and provides everyone with a laser focus all season; more points.

Our point system rewards attendance, cashing and winning.

Edit: (Paging: @CraigT78) In the examples below, these are our standings after eight games. You must play three to qualify for the "Final Table", that's the only hurdle to clear to qualify. In the first two examples, the final table was a T2000, in the last one I decided to 10x and use high denom chips to make it special.

To calculate the multiplier I take 20,000 (or whatever I want the tournament stack to be) and divide it by the average of all qualified players point totals. This season it was 575. The average stack of 20,029 is a result of rounding stacks to the nearest T25 chip.

Like I said earlier, It's simple enough, the only drawback is you can't say exactly that a win is worth x number of chips for the final table. In our standings after every game, everyone who is qualified will have their "Final Table Chips" total calculated so they can see where they stand, relative to the rest of the field.

From our league rules:

Average chip stack will be 20,000. Ex: If the average point total is 50, the point multiplier would be 1 point = 400 chips. If you finished the season with 37 points, you would receive 14,800 chips to start the final table. The multiplier will be finalized at the end of the eight preliminary tournaments.

 

[CraigT78]

We use a system where the chips are awarded based on the points accumulated over the course of the season. Final tournament is in theory a T20k, however chips are distributed according to your percentage of points earned of all qualifiers. Usually works out where top players start with 35-40k and bottom will have around 5-10k. It's fairly transparent, and provides everyone with a laser focus all season; more points.

Our point system rewards attendance, cashing and winning.

I will edit this with some examples tomorrow to help illustrate it.

Look forward to seeing that. A percentage of my top 10 points earned might be a viable option as well. Thanks for your input!

 

[BGinGA]

Thanks - I might run a variation of this option with some additional bonuses like your group. Could make things more “fun”.

Our players like it, and it provides incentives for selective aggressive play (collecting bounties), and keeps players coming until the very end, since they can still add to their championship stack size even if already firmly qualified based on points. The final field is almost never set until after the last league game completes, so even people who have scored zero points usually have a shot at making the Championship by doing well in the last event of the season (although it may also require that a few others do badly).

Our season winner crushed it this year, he placed 7 times and won 2. He rightfully gets a big stack, but as it stands it’s almost 3x the little stack - was some grumbling that was too big a swing. Of course the guy at the bottom will always complain the loudest

Our players have a single joint response to anybody who complains about the size difference in Championship starting stacks: "Do better next time." We're not giving out participation trophies* -- you gotta step up and get it done to reap the rewards.
* although everybody at the Championship table does get a commemorative chip.

Interesting approach! I’d have to look at my spreadsheets and see what that method would look like. Of course I run 12/13 games and only have 10 seats for my championship......

In our league, with only 9 events and 8 qualifiers, a regular season win pretty much guarantees a seat in the finals. But not necessarily a big stack..... not that it really means as much as people typically think.

Historically, more winners have come from the #4 position than any other. And every single staring position except 8th has won at least once. Third place is the average finishing position for the 15 past starting chip leaders.

 

[Mojo1312]

IMO, everyone should have to hold their own in each and every tournament. Basketball and Football teams with the best record do not start a game with free points on the scoreboard. Usain Bolt didn't have the advantage of a 10 yard head start for being the world's fastest runner.

I know such a system makes everything fun and exciting on the front end, but those feelings are largely lost after the chip calculations have been made at the end of the season. Recognition is its own reward.

Side note: The duration of a tournament can be increased by lengthening the time of the various levels.

 

[BGinGA]

IMO, everyone should have to hold their own in each and every tournament. Basketball and Football teams with the best record do not start a game with free points on the scoreboard. Usain Bolt didn't have the advantage of a 10 yard head start for being the world's fastest runner.

Only agree if everbody is paying equal entry into the event.

But for freeroll events that also require qualification to play and are ~designed~ to reward players from the get-go, it's just another perk and is perfectly fine.

 

[CraigT78]

IMO, everyone should have to hold their own in each and every tournament. Basketball and Football teams with the best record do not start a game with free points on the scoreboard. Usain Bolt didn't have the advantage of a 10 yard head start for being the world's fastest runner.

I know such a system makes everything fun and exciting on the front end, but those feelings are largely lost after the chip calculations have been made at the end of the season. Recognition is its own reward.

Side note: The duration of a tournament can be increased by lengthening the time of the various levels.

Apples and oranges. The season winner contributed more than anyone to the free roll prize pool in terms of lost rake. At $100 a game raked, the winner lost out in $50 to his 1st prize money. Why bother hosting an end of year free roll, just give the league winner the money.

 

[TexRex]

Craig, as you know, I'm not a fan of that system. However, "fair" is what everyone agreed to. BG commented about everyone paying the same amount. I don't disagree with him, but that really doesn't happen most of the time anyway. If you have 12 games (or 13), does every participant attend the same number? If not, they didn't all pay the same.

Craig, as for the winner of one of your regular games paying more, that's not really the case. Since you take out the same amount (I don't like the word "rake" as it could be misconstrued), the fact is everyone who attended that game pays the same exact amount. The ones who attend the most games pay the most.

You do that game as a freeroll, while I wouldn't like it, I think the most important thing is you announce the rules in advance and stick with them. That's fair, even if it doesn't work well. A system that rewards specific things for a set amount, and penalizes specific things things are a set amount, though linear, at least have a feel of "here's how you got this amount."

What I did when we had a rollover fee was credited players who came for what they had already paid into the prize pool. Then we charged everyone who attended the same amount. Anyone who came to every game had approximately 33-40% of their big game entry fee prepaid. Thus no one paid more.

That gives players an incentive to keep coming because while they don't really pay less at the end, they don't lose anything they have paid. Since I think it would be extremely rare to not have undesignated money in the prize pool, you could make it a regular game, open it up to the first 20 to sign up, with maybe some guaranteed slots for each winner, and maybe the top points winners, everyone knows they get to pay in the same amount but the prize pool exceeds the total.

It's OK if you don't even want to consider that, but I'd be curious how many prefer that to any idea you suggested. I'd be curious about it on the forum here, but the most important would be how your players feel about it.

My vote is for Other, and here is my Other.

Do what you do now as far as entry (is it $100?). Have a rollover fee the same as now. Each attendee gets his proportional credit for that fee. I'll use $5 as an example. I'll assume 20 players each paying $100, and $100 coming out. 13 tournaments creates a prize pool of $1,300.

And the end of the year, instead of a freeroll, charge the regular fee (say $100 -- total of $2,000). For someone who attended 13 games, he's already paid $65. For someone who attended only 5 games (using what I understand your minimum to be), he's already paid $25. My Preferred Alternate: The guy who paid the least still pays $100. He sets the base for $0 paid. For each game another player attended over 5 games, he gets $5 credit, so the guy who came every time gets $40 in credit. I'll assume average games attended is 10, so the average player really only pays $75, for a total of $1,500.

Every winner is automatically in, assuming [1] they can make it, [2] they have attended the required minimum number of games, and [3] they are willing to pay. Suppose that is 10 players due to 3 multiple winners. Allow at least the top points winner who didn't win a tournament 1 slot, but maybe more. Then the last 5-7 slots (25-35%) are open on a first come first serve basis. That guarantees you a slot since you can answer your request for open slots at the same time you send them. That way you aren't hosting a game you didn't make.

Everyone starts with the same amount in chips. They all paid the same amount to get in. Make it a longer tournament than the others. Maybe the same blind schedule, but 2x-3x the chips. That won't double or triple the time, but might only go up 50% or so, depending on your blind schedule.

Prize pool = $2,800. Use your same payout schedule as now, but instead of them playing for $1,900, they are paying a little less but playing for $2,800. It's a good deal and a tournament worth entering!

If you announce the date of the game at the beginning or at least early in the year, and the rules at the beginning as far as making the final event.

 

[detroitdad]

@WedgeRock want to share how our league does it?

 

[CraigT78]

If you have 12 games (or 13), does every participant attend the same number?

No - the top ten games was 9 for the lowest number of attended and two players attended all 13. The average games attended was 11.2

Craig, as for the winner of one of your regular games paying more, that's not really the case. Since you take out the same amount (I don't like the word "rake" as it could be misconstrued), the fact is everyone who attended that game pays the same exact amount. The ones who attend the most games pay the most.

I charge $80 to enter. $20 of this is a hospitality charge, $50 goes to the prize pool, and $10 is the bounty. I charge $50 for re-buy (7 average), and $20 (18 average) for an add-on at the break. I hold back $100 per game to go to the tournament of champions. You could make the argument that this is a per player charge, but I would disagree. With 20 entries, it would calculate out to $5 per player, but when you add in rebuys and add-on this calculation goes out the window. I don't have the time or the desire to calculate Player 1 with a rebuy and an addon, paid $7.32 to the final game, and player 2 with only an addon paid $5.25. No thanks!

The other argument that can be made (an an easier one IMO) is that the winner of the tournament paid 50% of the hold back, as it came out of his winnings. 2nd, 3rd and 4th paid their share as well. My point system rewards these players with more points. Because it is a free roll in which you have to qualify for (top 10) the players who placed more often, have a better shot at winning back their money.

And the end of the year, instead of a freeroll, charge the regular fee (say $100 -- total of $2,000).

My vote is for Other, and here is my Other.

These are well thought out alternatives, but at the end of the year I don't want to hold just another tournament. I want a single table freeroll. My players were polled, 79% indicated the league format was an important factor of why they play the game (33% moderate, 30% very important, 16% wouldn't play without). I feel like opening the ToC to a 20 player game would negatively affect the core of my format. Keep in mind that I do several MTT deepstack events per year, that are outside the league. These are freeze-outs and I host 4 tables.

However, "fair" is what everyone agreed to.

Agreed - this is why, though while not optimal, I am sticking with the assignment of chips that were in the 2018 rules. I am looking to improve this to the point I can have a year without any adjustments.

Thanks for the feedback Rex - I always enjoy discussing with you!

 

[Frogzilla]

IMO, everyone should have to hold their own in each and every tournament. Basketball and Football teams with the best record do not start a game with free points on the scoreboard. Usain Bolt didn't have the advantage of a 10 yard head start for being the world's fastest runner.

But if we are talking about postseason, there are playoff byes, priority seeding, home field advantage...

As to the points, if it was my league I’d probably shoot for biggest stack to be around 2-2.5x stack of smallest, 3x feels a bit on the high side. As-is isn’t that bad though...the small stacks still have a legitimate opportunity in the tourney, and you are rewarding season play. Those are the main goals

 

[CraigT78]

But if we are talking about postseason, there are playoff byes, priority seeding, home field advantage...

As to the points, if it was my league I’d probably shoot for biggest stack to be around 2-2.5x stack of smallest, 3x feels a bit on the high side. As-is isn’t that bad though...the small stacks still have a legitimate opportunity in the tourney, and you are rewarding season play. Those are the main goals

As the number 8 player on this years tournament - you aren’t allowed any input

 

[Gobbs]

I can speak to @BGinGA 's game from a player's perspective. As somebody who has played in many of his Championship freeroll tournaments (I think 14 out of 15???), I have started with the biggest stack, the smallest stack, and everywhere in between. I have zero complaints about his system. I think it properly rewards strong play throughout the season while still giving those that squeak into the Top 8 a shot at winning. The way the tournament is formatted, even the shortest stack has plenty of play and strong play can build a chip stack that can compete for the win. In fact, I have been lucky enough to win the tournament twice and, in both instances, I believe I started with less than an average chip stack.

So, I voted for C. Of the systems being considered, I think it rewards the strongest players during the season the most and most fairly. I think it's important to note, though, that the system doesn't work alone. You have to consider it in conjunction with the tournament itself. The advantage of bigger starting stacks can be negated or accentuated based on the format, too.

 

[Mesnik44]

Here is a brief rundown for my league;

 

[CraigT78]

I think it's important to note, though, that the system doesn't work alone. You have to consider it in conjunction with the tournament itself. The advantage of bigger starting stacks can be negated or accentuated based on the format, too.

Can you elaborate on this statement?

 

[BGinGA]

When even the smallest stack is still very deep, a 3x bigger stack has significantly less advantage -- particularly with slowly increasing blinds -- than if the smaller stacks were also "short-stacked" or if an aggressive blind structure were in place.

Big difference between 150-450bb spread over 9-10 hours vs 25-75bb spread over two or three hours. The big stack's advantage in the latter is huge.

 

[CraigT78]

When even the smallest stack is still very deep, a 3x bigger stack has significantly less advantage -- particularly with slowly increasing blinds -- than if the smaller stacks were also "short-stacked" or if an aggressive blind structure were in place.

Big difference between 150-450bb spread over 9-10 hours vs 25-75bb spread over two or three hours. The big stack's advantage in the latter is huge.

Got it. My small stack is looking at 150bb over 5 to 5.5 hours.

 

[WedgeRock]

@WedgeRock want to share how our league does it?

Well, a complete explanation is avaialable on the league website... Oh wait.

Well, I guess you can check the league rulebook... Oh wait.

Well, there's probably a discussion on the league blog. Oh wait.