Tourney League format - final table (1 Viewer)

karsus

Pair
Joined
Jun 7, 2019
Messages
140
Reaction score
159
Location
Madison, Wisconsin
Our group has been running a twice monthly hold'em league since the beginning of the year. Our original plan for the 'final table' would be that the top 9 players measured by points earned throughout the year play for the league pot at the end of the year. Points would be used to determine initial chip stack. However; as we are a little more than half way through it is clear that the top 3 players are way ahead of the rest of the pack and my concern is that the chip stacks will be highly unbalanced, discouraging the player base.

One of the ideas we had was to change the format of the final table to have your points grant positional advantage vs a chip stack advantage. This would work with player 9 choosing their spot first, and then in order the other players choose where they want to sit, with the final decision on position being made by the person with the highest point total. Then everyone sits down and starts play with the same starting chips with the #1 ranked player starting as the dealer.

The thought is that there is still a fairly large advantage for being the points leader, but there isn't an out-sized advantage by running up the point total.

I would enjoy hearing your collective wisdom and let me know if you see any significant downfalls by switching to giving positional advantage vs extra chips for the point leaders.
 
Current league format:
- Points are typically given to the top 6 players (typically 2 tables) in the amount of 8 / 6 / 5 / 4 / 3 / 2
- Everyone gets 1 point for attending (so first place typically gets 9 points for that tournament
- Final table is for top 9 players. Starting stacks are T20k (400BB) on average, then modified by the players point total. ex. if the average point total is 50 the point multiplier would be established at 1 point = 400 chips; If you entered the playoffs with 60 points you would start with a stack of T24,000

We are currently 12 games in with ~8 more games in the year. The top 3 players are between 40-49 points with players 4-13 sitting between 20-29 points. If we continue at the current rate the top 3 players will be between 65-80 points at the end; and the rest of the final table will be around 40-50 points which would create a chip disparity of ~T30k for first place and ~T15K for positions 5-9

Suggested change would have everyone start at T20K regular season ranking would only count for positional advantage.
 
This would work with player 9 choosing their spot first, and then in order the other players choose where they want to sit, with the final decision on position being made by the person with the highest point total.

I think I am concerned it sounds like the chip leader would probably get forced into the choice of where to sit given he has last pick.

We are currently 12 games in with ~8 more games in the year. The top 3 players are between 40-49 points with players 4-13 sitting between 20-29 points. If we continue at the current rate the top 3 players will be between 65-80 points at the end; and the rest of the final table will be around 40-50 points which would create a chip disparity of ~T30k for first place and ~T15K for positions 5-9

Honestly this doesn't strike me as a huge disparity. A 2:1 advantage is hardly insurmountable and this really wouldn't be severe enough for me to want to consider changing the rules mid way.

If you want to ensure a minimum you could maybe add a rule that once the big stack is calculated all qualifiers get a minimum of 25% of that total unless their points entitle them to more chips than that.

But again I think this is fixing a problem that hasn't yet presented itself, and it's really not a good habit to change rules like this mid stream.
 
The solution is easy... stick with the original rules and let the top 3 have a massive chip lead and the best chance at winning the league pot... if the others wanted a better chance at winning they should've played better in the regular season... you can't change the rules and the format at the end.... otherwise the entire thing is invalid...
 
I think I am concerned it sounds like the chip leader would probably get forced into the choice of where to sit given he has last pick.

The point leader could choose to sit where ever they would like. For instance, person A and person B are next to each other; the chip leader could decide that he wants to sit between them and make them move.
 
The solution is easy... stick with the original rules and let the top 3 have a massive chip lead and the best chance at winning the league pot... if the others wanted a better chance at winning they should've played better in the regular season... you can't change the rules and the format at the end.... otherwise the entire thing is invalid...
You can change it if the top 3 are in alignment on the change. The group is a casual group of friends and what I want to avoid is people getting discouraged and deciding that they don't have a chance and not bother to play the following year.
 
I agree with previous posters: changing rules midstream is a really bad idea, and your projections of stack sizes at the final table don't look to be an issue to me whatsoever.

This is season 17 for our league. Tournament starting stacks are 20k, and only the top 25% of the field are awarded points (no BS participation points, ya gotta earn it) -- so a 16-player field would award points to the top 4 (10-6-3-1). After nine regular season events, total points determines the 8 players in the final Championship tournament.

Baseline starting stacks are 10k for the Championship, with bonus chips added for points, wins, bounties won, and appearances, with deductions for re-buys. Stacks generally average about 34k, and usually range from 15k-20k for the shortstacks to 50k-55k for the chip leaders. We use a slower blind structure with longer blind levels, so the Championship runs about 8+ hours (vs 4.5 to 5.0 hours for regular season events).

In 16 seasons, the starting chipleader has won the Championship just once -- one.single.time. In a longer, deeper tournament setting, it's not the overwhelming advantage you might think it is.

I think your points system and the Final stack sizes are just fine -- if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

We use random seating for all events. I don't like the idea of choosing seats at all.
 
Even though
the top 3 are in alignment on the change. The group is a casual group of friends
I still feel that
you can't change the rules and the format at the end

I mean sure, it's not that big of a deal if the stakes are low and you're all just a group of friends having a good time. But I think it's not just the integrity of the league that's jeopardized, it's also wasting a chance to properly evaluate a system. I recommend to follow through, then adapt the next league according to the feedback you get. My 0.02.

One way to reduce the impact of a large point lead is to have the starting stacks be X+Y, where X is the same for everyone and Y is according to points. The larger the X, the smaller the advantage for the leaders.
 
One way to reduce the impact of a large point lead is to have the starting stacks be X+Y, where X is the same for everyone and Y is according to points. The larger the X, the smaller the advantage for the leaders.

Exactly this!

For next year @karsus , if you have in mind an "ideal" ratio between the top stack and the bottom stack, say 3:2 for example, then just award starting stacks by place instead of by points. So say first place gets 24K, 9th place gets 16K and everyone in between gets an extra 1K for every place above 9th. (8th-17K, 7th-18k, 6th-19K, etc...), this keeps your 20K average.

But since you made the decision at the outset to do a chip-per-point formula, you really designed a system to incentivize participation for both the leaders and trailers, and in doing so you accepted someone having more than 2x the chips of last place was a real possibility and something players could work toward by participating in events. I think you should see it through as is and really make your players understand a 2:1 advantage isn't insurmountable if they are really concerned about it. I mean there have probably been several examples of people failing to close tournaments in your regular games with 2:1 leads.

We use random seating for all events. I don't like the idea of choosing seats at all.

100% agree with this. My only exception to this is the host, if participating, always sits in seat 1-1 as a point of privilege for managing the chips and money, everyone else draws.
 
Baseline starting stacks are 10k for the Championship, with bonus chips added for points, wins, bounties won, and appearances, with deductions for re-buys. Stacks generally average about 34k, and usually range from 15k-20k for the shortstacks to 50k-55k for the chip leaders. We use a slower blind structure with longer blind levels, so the Championship runs about 8+ hours (vs 4.5 to 5.0 hours for regular season events).

BGinGA, would it be possible for you to share your blind structure? That might be a better solution to achieve what I am looking for. A slower progression, give more time for player skill to have a larger impact than a stack size.
 
I agree with previous posters: changing rules midstream is a really bad idea, and your projections of stack sizes at the final table don't look to be an issue to me whatsoever.

This is season 17 for our league. Tournament starting stacks are 20k, and only the top 25% of the field are awarded points (no BS participation points, ya gotta earn it) -- so a 16-player field would award points to the top 4 (10-6-3-1). After nine regular season events, total points determines the 8 players in the final Championship tournament.

Baseline starting stacks are 10k for the Championship, with bonus chips added for points, wins, bounties won, and appearances, with deductions for re-buys. Stacks generally average about 34k, and usually range from 15k-20k for the shortstacks to 50k-55k for the chip leaders. We use a slower blind structure with longer blind levels, so the Championship runs about 8+ hours (vs 4.5 to 5.0 hours for regular season events).

In 16 seasons, the starting chipleader has won the Championship just once -- one.single.time. In a longer, deeper tournament setting, it's not the overwhelming advantage you might think it is.

I think your points system and the Final stack sizes are just fine -- if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

We use random seating for all events. I don't like the idea of choosing seats at all.

As a player who was the short stack after barely making it to the championship table and as a regular season champion who had the chip lead starting the champion table (and everywhere in between), I can attest that the system works very well. You play the regular season for a reason. Those who perform the best should get a decent advantage for the championship table. Yet, everybody who makes the final table has a decent chance of winning if he/she plays well (and, of course, gets a little lucky). The key is the longer format. There is always plenty of play and opportunities to pick your spots.

I can honestly say that in 15 championship tables (I didn't make it to the championship table one year), only once did I go into a tournament thinking I had little chance of winning and that had as much to do with the random draw for seating assignments as it did with my short stack. In fact, I believe one of the two times I won, I started as the short stack or very close to it. I also remember a tournament in which I was short stack going in (or close to it), chip leader by the second break, and ended up finishing third. So, chip stacks are not the end-all-be-all of who wins a tournament.

EDIT: Oh, and I definitely agree that you can't change the rules midstream without an incredibly good reason. I don't care what end of the spectrum I was on, I would not play in your league again if you did that. If you are willing to change the rules midstream for this, what else are you willing to change to work it to somebody's advantage or take away somebody's advantage???
 
Last edited:
I am thinking of using the blinds structure for addressing this concern vs making any mid-stream rule changes. The thought being; if we increase the time per level that gives more opportunities for players to seize an opportunity before they get short stacked

Currently, we run 15 minute blinds with the following structure:

SB | BB | % increase
25 | 50 |
25 | 75 | 33%
50 | 100 | 25%
75 | 150 | 33%
100 | 200 | 25%
150 | 300 | 33%
200 | 400 | 25%
300 | 600 | 33%
400 | 800 | 25%
600 | 1200 | 33%
800 | 1600 | 25%
1000 | 2000 | 20%
1500 | 3000 | 33%
2000 | 4000 | 25%
3000 | 6000 | 33%
4000 | 8000 | 25%
5000 | 10000 | 20%
7000 | 14000 | 29%
10000 | 20000 | 30%
15000 | 30000 | 33%

In regular season play with ~16-18 players (T10k stacks) we typically finish around the T6K or T8K level. With moving to only 9 players with T20K average stacks I would expect the tournament to end around a similar level (double the stack but halved the players).

The question is, do we simply double the time per level moving to 30 min levels or should we look for a more gradual increase (maybe target ~20% increase vs 25-33%). We are looking to make this a longer event, so having it run a full day isn't a worry.

Thoughts?
 
Here is my thoughts for a smoother blinds schedule with 20 min levels

SM BB Time % Inc BB on table
25 | 50 | 0:20
25 | 75 | 0:40 33% 2,400
50 | 100 | 1:00 25% 1,800
75 | 150 | 1:20 33% 1,200
100 | 200 | 1:40 25% 900
125 | 250 | 2:00 20% 720
150 | 300 | 2:20 17% 600
200 | 400 | 2:40 25% 450
250 | 500 | 3:00 20% 360
300 | 600 | 3:20 17% 300
400 | 800 | 3:40 25% 225
500 | 1000 | 4:00 20% 180
600 | 1200 | 4:20 17% 150
700 | 1400 | 4:40 14% 129
800 | 1600 | 5:00 13% 113
900 | 1800 | 5:20 11% 100
1000 | 2000 | 5:40 10% 90
1300 | 2600 | 6:00 23% 69
1500 | 3000 | 6:20 13% 60
2000 | 4000 | 6:40 25% 45
3000 | 6000 | 7:00 33% 30
4000 | 8000 | 7:20 25% 23
5000 | 10000 | 7:40 20% 18
7000 | 14000 | 8:00 29% 13

With breaks we would likely end in about 8:30 (figure 30 min for lunch in there)
 
Did the League rules say anything when people signed up about the championship game’s blind structure?
 
Here is my thoughts for a smoother blinds schedule with 20 min levels

SM BB Time % Inc BB on table
25 | 50 | 0:20
25 | 75 | 0:40 33% 2,400
50 | 100 | 1:00 25% 1,800
75 | 150 | 1:20 33% 1,200
100 | 200 | 1:40 25% 900
125 | 250 | 2:00 20% 720
150 | 300 | 2:20 17% 600
200 | 400 | 2:40 25% 450
250 | 500 | 3:00 20% 360
300 | 600 | 3:20 17% 300
400 | 800 | 3:40 25% 225
500 | 1000 | 4:00 20% 180
600 | 1200 | 4:20 17% 150
700 | 1400 | 4:40 14% 129
800 | 1600 | 5:00 13% 113
900 | 1800 | 5:20 11% 100
1000 | 2000 | 5:40 10% 90
1300 | 2600 | 6:00 23% 69
1500 | 3000 | 6:20 13% 60
2000 | 4000 | 6:40 25% 45
3000 | 6000 | 7:00 33% 30
4000 | 8000 | 7:20 25% 23
5000 | 10000 | 7:40 20% 18
7000 | 14000 | 8:00 29% 13

With breaks we would likely end in about 8:30 (figure 30 min for lunch in there)
I calculate that structure running no later than L23 (5000/10000) for 9 players with 20K stacks (180K total in play), or about 7:40 plus breaks. Looks good for your purposes.
 
I agree with previous posters: changing rules midstream is a really bad idea, and your projections of stack sizes at the final table don't look to be an issue to me whatsoever.

This is season 17 for our league. Tournament starting stacks are 20k, and only the top 25% of the field are awarded points (no BS participation points, ya gotta earn it) -- so a 16-player field would award points to the top 4 (10-6-3-1). After nine regular season events, total points determines the 8 players in the final Championship tournament.

Baseline starting stacks are 10k for the Championship, with bonus chips added for points, wins, bounties won, and appearances, with deductions for re-buys. Stacks generally average about 34k, and usually range from 15k-20k for the shortstacks to 50k-55k for the chip leaders. We use a slower blind structure with longer blind levels, so the Championship runs about 8+ hours (vs 4.5 to 5.0 hours for regular season events).

In 16 seasons, the starting chipleader has won the Championship just once -- one.single.time. In a longer, deeper tournament setting, it's not the overwhelming advantage you might think it is.

I think your points system and the Final stack sizes are just fine -- if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

We use random seating for all events. I don't like the idea of choosing seats at all.

+1 to all of this
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom