Tourney League Points Help (yes again) (1 Viewer)

Which League points system do you prefer (and why)


  • Total voters
    7
  • Poll closed .

DoubleEagle

4 of a Kind
Supporter
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
5,256
Reaction score
8,095
Location
Salina, KS
We are starting up a nine player WSOP League on Monday and I am seeking opinions on our points system. Nine players, starting stack of 15,000, no re-buys or add-ons.

For many years, we have awarded points based on the reverse order of finish. Additional bonus points are added to your weekly finish for placing in the money that week (top three); 1st gets 3 bonus points, 2nd gets 2 bonus points and 3rd gets 1 bonus point. The points awarded would look like this:

PlacePoints
112
210
38
46
55
64
73
82
91

Alternatively, Dr. Naeu's formula would award points as follows (assuming I used the formula correctly):

PlacePoints
1184
2122
392
473
562
652
746
841
937

Looking for opinions as to why one or the other may be better.
 
Maybe I have answered my own question. If you look three examples of 7, 8 and 9 players, the ratio between the points granted to the winner and the points granted to the last place finish, our current points system is tilted more heavily in favor of players winning events. If I'm right, it appears Dr. Neau's system awards points based more on consistency.

RatioRatio
PlaceDr Neau's1st to LastOurs1st to Last
11845.01212.0
212210
3928
4736
5625
6524
7463
8412
9371
RatioRatio
PlaceDr Neau's1st to LastOurs1st to Last
11734.61111.0
21159
3877
4695
5584
6493
7432
8381
RatioRatio
PlaceDr Neau's1st to LastOurs1st to Last
11624.01010.0
21088
3816
4654
5543
6462
7411
 
As somebody who prefers to reward performance over attendance, I don’t like either system so much. I usually prefer a point system based on the number of players that gives points to only the top-finishing players; awarding points to one or two more players than the number of players who cash. For example, if there are 10 players and the top 3 cash, the top 4 (or maybe 5) get points. The rest get nothing. Of course, first place in a 12-person tournament should get more points than first place in a 9-person, too.

I believe @BGinGA has a really good formula for this. I don’t remember it, though.
 
I never award points to the bottom half of the field -- there is no valid reason to compensate a 5th place finish over a 6th place finish in a 9-player field. In fact, it actually provides a negative incentive (to try and outlast vs try to win).

For a nine-player league, I'd simply go with the following:
1st - 10 points
2nd - 6 points
3rd - 3 points
4th - 1 point

It rewards performance, not endurance, and there's no reason to complicate it further. Don't like scoring zero points? Play better.....
 
Another reasin I dislike most commonly-used formulas (including both shown above) is that they do not reward combined finishes properly. A player with one 1st and one 3rd should reflect a higher score than a player with two 2nd place finishes, and a player with two 3rd place finishes should never have a higher point total tha a player with a win and a 4th place or 5th place finish. And two 4th place finishes shouldn't be equal to a lone win, either.
 
Not to pile on, but I think it’s worth emphasizing ...

There is an old saying in business, “You get from your employees what you measure them on.” Similarly, you are going to get from your players what you reward them for. If you reward them for good attendance and consistently not finishing last, players will show up and try not to finish last. If you reward them for finishing in the top half, they will try to finish in the top half. If you reward them for extraordinary performance, they will try to perform extraordinarily.

So, you have to think what you want and reward it. Note that, wanting increased attendance is understandable but simply rewarding it is not the answer, IMHO. A byproduct of rewarding top finishes is that players need to give themselves as many chances as possible to finish well. Thus, they have to show up. Also, most leagues offer adjusted chip stacks in their championship tournament, based on points. So, attendance helps for that, too.
 
Not to pile on, but I think it’s worth emphasizing ...

There is an old saying in business, “You get from your employees what you measure them on.” Similarly, you are going to get from your players what you reward them for. If you reward them for good attendance and consistently not finishing last, players will show up and try not to finish last. If you reward them for finishing in the top half, they will try to finish in the top half. If you reward them for extraordinary performance, they will try to perform extraordinarily.

So, you have to think what you want and reward it.

Spot on.

If you've got a dedicated group of players, you can put less weight on attendance. We find the cash does a good job of rewarding the players, so we reward attendance a little more in the points to keep everyone interested in the finals.

If you're awarding one big prize and not much else, then as others have mentioned I think you'll want your points to be fairly top heavy.

As mentioned above, pick the behavior you want to see, incentivize it and watch everyone adjust to meet that reward*.

* It's worth noting, this is applicable in so many areas of life.
 
I never award points to the bottom half of the field -- there is no valid reason to compensate a 5th place finish over a 6th place finish in a 9-player field. In fact, it actually provides a negative incentive (to try and outlast vs try to win).

For a nine-player league, I'd simply go with the following:
1st - 10 points
2nd - 6 points
3rd - 3 points
4th - 1 point

It rewards performance, not endurance, and there's no reason to complicate it further. Don't like scoring zero points? Play better.....


How would you scale this up or down? Say up to as many as 18 or down to as low as 6?
 
Last night we had out first WSOP League tourney. Our group is a little different than most. We have been playing together for 15 years or more. We make a lot of decisions as a group. I act as organizer and TD. But we really don't have a "host" that is inviting people to the league with rules as determined by the host.

Most of our group didn't like the idea of awarding points to only the top four spots. I understand and agree with the philosophy of awarding points based on the behavior we are looking to achieve. But paying only the top four didn't gain any traction with our players. Dr. Neau's formula was too complicated for them.

After a bit of discussion, this is what our group decided to do. I found this point system in an old 2+2 post. It awards three points for each player for each player you outlast, with five bonus points to the winner. Winning bonus points are only earned when played out to a win, no chopping. Not perfect, but no point systems is.


PlacePoints
130
222
319
416
513
610
77
84
91
 
How would you scale this up or down? Say up to as many as 18 or down to as low as 6?
I typically use the 10-6-3-1 ratio of awarded points applied to the average number of players (for example = 12, in a two-table 18-player max league where the qualifying field size can range from 6 to 18 players) and adjust the awarded points up or down based on the actual field size. Cash is usually paid to the top 25% of a given field size, and points are typically awarded to the top 33% of the field size (and always less than half).

Fields larger than 12 increase the points by 5% per player; smaller fields decrease the points by 5% per player. For example, the awarded points for a 16-player field would be 12.0 - 7.2 - 3.6 - 1.2 - 0.3 and the awarded points for an 8-player field would be 8.0 - 4.8 - 2.4 , with no points for 4th in an 8-player field (always pay less than half).

Note that the point drops are always 60%, 50%, 33%, 25%, and 20% of the next higher awarded point total. For example, for a 10-6-3-1 payout, 6 is 60% of 10, 3 is 50% of 6, and 1 is 33% of 3.

For an 18-player field, points would 13.0, 7.8, 3.9, 1.3, 0.3, 0.1 (paying points to 1/3rd of the field, rounded to tenths where needed) which follows those same percentages (7.8 is 60% of 13, etc.).

If you don't like working with decimals (or just like really big numbers), multiply everything by 10. Personally, I like point races that are decided by a fraction of a point. :)
 
Last night we had out first WSOP League tourney. Our group is a little different than most. We have been playing together for 15 years or more. We make a lot of decisions as a group. I act as organizer and TD. But we really don't have a "host" that is inviting people to the league with rules as determined by the host.

Most of our group didn't like the idea of awarding points to only the top four spots. I understand and agree with the philosophy of awarding points based on the behavior we are looking to achieve. But paying only the top four didn't gain any traction with our players. Dr. Neau's formula was too complicated for them.

After a bit of discussion, this is what our group decided to do. I found this point system in an old 2+2 post. It awards three points for each player for each player you outlast, with five bonus points to the winner. Winning bonus points are only earned when played out to a win, no chopping. Not perfect, but no point systems is.


PlacePoints
130
222
319
416
513
610
77
84
91
You're never gonna convince me that three 6th place finishes in a 9-player field is actually equivalent to and should be worth the same points as winning the event. Explain it that way to your players, and they will likely change their minds.
 
You're never gonna convince me that three 6th place finishes in a 9-player field is actually equivalent to and should be worth the same points as winning the event. Explain it that way to your players, and they will likely change their minds.
You are not accounting for the fact that the winner of one event getting 30 points will get points for more two events to compare to three 6th place finishes. Would only be valid if the winner was a no show for two other events.
 
Makes no difference what his other two finishes are -- to make three very poor showings worth the points awarded for a win is insanity.
 
Your chart would be much better if the bottom half points were cut in half.
 
Not to beat a dead horse, but... this is another example of not giving due consideration to how a given point structure impacts the standings when dealing with multiple results.... which is it's entire purpose for existing at all.

Let's say player A is clearly the best player in the field (although some would also say the unluckiest). She wins the first event, but gets knocked out in 8th in the next two events, when her 94%+ favorite all-in hands get rivered not once but twice by two-outers. Net result = 38 points.

Meanwhile, Player B has slogged his way through three tournaments, managing to outlast exactly half the field each time and finishing 5th in each event -- the very definition of an 'average' performance, every time. Yet he has amassed a total of 39 points, when clearly neither his play nor results have exhibited a level of skill superior to that of player A over the course of three events......but he still has more points. Why is this level of 'performance' being rewarded?
 
Last night we had out first WSOP League tourney. Our group is a little different than most. We have been playing together for 15 years or more. We make a lot of decisions as a group. I act as organizer and TD. But we really don't have a "host" that is inviting people to the league with rules as determined by the host.

Most of our group didn't like the idea of awarding points to only the top four spots. I understand and agree with the philosophy of awarding points based on the behavior we are looking to achieve. But paying only the top four didn't gain any traction with our players. Dr. Neau's formula was too complicated for them.

After a bit of discussion, this is what our group decided to do. I found this point system in an old 2+2 post. It awards three points for each player for each player you outlast, with five bonus points to the winner. Winning bonus points are only earned when played out to a win, no chopping. Not perfect, but no point systems is.


PlacePoints
130
222
319
416
513
610
77
84
91

We're doing sort of the same thing for our league's first season. Wanted to maybe use Dr. Neau for next season since this first one is to help get new people into the game, but even the more advanced players we have like it this way where it's simple and not to much of a contrast to Neau's.

We have it to where each place holder gets one point higher than the previous person they place over, where the bubble gets one bonus point, 3rd place gets +2, 2nd +4, & 1st +6

PlacePoints
115
212
39
47
55
64
73
82
91

You're never gonna convince me that three 6th place finishes in a 9-player field is actually equivalent to and should be worth the same points as winning the event. Explain it that way to your players, and they will likely change their minds.

But you're playing over a period of different tournaments and not that one when distributing points. It still gives more points to the ones who perform better than others, and over more tournaments he'll get even more points than the bottom people over time and gain a larger lead. I believe it works fine when you look at the big picture.

Plus it does give players more incentive to believe they can possibly make a comeback of sorts (obviously not getting top 3-4 if they mostly didn't perform well). If you only give points to top 3-4, and possibly the same people more than likely getting those spots than others, then the rest would have no incentive to play. Because not only would they believe they won't cash, they won't even bother trying to qualify for the Championship tournament at the end.
 
We're doing sort of the same thing for our league's first season. Wanted to maybe use Dr. Neau for next season since this first one is to help get new people into the game, but even the more advanced players we have like it this way where it's simple and not to much of a contrast to Neau's.

We have it to where each place holder gets one point higher than the previous person they place over, where the bubble gets one bonus point, 3rd place gets +2, 2nd +4, & 1st +6

PlacePoints
115
212
39
47
55
64
73
82
91



But you're playing over a period of different tournaments and not that one when distributing points. It still gives more points to the ones who perform better than others, and over more tournaments he'll get even more points than the bottom people over time and gain a larger lead. I believe it works fine when you look at the big picture.

Plus it does give players more incentive to believe they can possibly make a comeback of sorts (obviously not getting top 3-4 if they mostly didn't perform well). If you only give points to top 3-4, and possibly the same people more than likely getting those spots than others, then the rest would have no incentive to play. Because not only would they believe they won't cash, they won't even bother trying to qualify for the Championship tournament at the end.
It all boils down to whether you want the final league point standings to reflect true performance over time and a legitimate ranking of such, or if you want it to reflect something else.
 
While we quit doing a league format years ago, I still measure players for annual award purposes.

For points, we use a Fibonacci sequence for the top 7, and 8th and beyond gets 1 point. Thus, it's 1=34, 2=21, 3=13, 4=8, 5=5, 6=3, 7=2, and everyone else gets 1 (basically for showing up). We do not throw out any scores -- all games count.

I found awarding points for the top 7, since the most I could accommodate is 30 players, worked best. Let's say you pay 3 players at 10 attendees, and 5 players at 20 attendees. At the break points, that is where you are adding an additional payout slot, creates problems when you number of players varies. If you literally have the same 9 over time, it won't make as much difference, but our group has ranged from 8 to 19. Looking at ours, if we only gave points to the number we paid, it creates weird gaps.

We multiply that by the number of players and I use 2 systems. One is from BG where each position is 4% higher or lower (he says 5% here -- perhaps he's changed over time). The other is dividing the number of attendees by 10. Years of measuring both has yet to result in a difference in the final positions of players, at least not anywhere near the top. So I can't say that one is better than the other, but neither can I say it wouldn't make a difference. The "BG system" assumes that adding one additional player is directly proportional to the extra difficulty of winning with a larger field. The other assumes it the larger the field, the less difficult to win with just one more player. Both have merit and I could argue either side, but it would be all opinion since it's yet to make a difference in final scoring.

Another thing that will make a difference is how you do points if there is a chop. Not allowing chops and point chops can create a situation where luck becomes a much bigger factor. In one tournament this year, we had 18 players. The last 4 decided on a 4-way chop, and we chop the points. That is only the second time I've ever seen that many players chop for first. (The other time every player in the money did it because it was a weeknight, we all had to work the next day, and it was late.) They did that at the end of a round. Blinds were about to go up by 50%, and collectively, those 4 players had 45 BB. They had basically already played a 20 minute round at the point where for that number of players, it was a luckfest. Their chip stacks were surprisingly close. Payouts were going to be $190, $145, $105, and $65 (for a $30 buy-in). They all got $126 except for the chip leader who took $127.

The fewer games you have, the more the differences in these situaitons. If we didn't chop the points, but at least made them play to a winner, regardless of point system used, were the 4 really that far apart? At the end of the year, if you were the unlucky guy who got the worst cards in that situation, your chip stack at the final tournament might be a lot smaller not because of the quality of your play, but because of how things worked out that one night.

I like to reward truly elite performances. If you really are trying to measure the best players over time, scoring is almost always going to reward attendance. The more times you get points, the better you will do. However, big differences in top performances won't help poor performers catch up.

While I understand why BG doesn't reward those who show up and perform poorly, I'm not convinced a player who shows up and plays poorly should be treated the same as someone who didn't show up at all.

We don't have a final game per se. We have an open event with twice the buy in. Everyone starts the same, even if they've not attended any other games.
 
Here's a riddle for you all: Who has performed better, player A who bubbled all ten league tourneys, or player B who finished last (say, 30th) in nine tourneys but min-cashed the tenth?

I think most point systems (and most people) would rank A higher, but B won more (or actually, loss less) money, and isn't money what it's all about?
 
Here's a riddle for you all: Who has performed better, player A who bubbled all ten league tourneys, or player B who finished last (say, 30th) in nine tourneys but min-cashed the tenth?
I'd say it's irrelevant, and doesn't matter which one performed better. :)
 
The easiest system is to just score the money won, 1 point per dollar won.

I wouldn't use that system, but how easy is that?
 
One of the reasons I just prefer cash games. Focus just on the poker itself.
Points and leagues present a sence of something bigger. You can go bowling every week, but players like to join leagues. Neither is wrong, but one is more communal, and the other is more laid back. My number of "core" players (players with 70% or better attendance) skyrocketed once I formed a league. I also saw fewer of the "once a year" players.

Plus, our cash games also earn points for Player of the Year.
 
1) If you have records of past seasons, I would scrutinize those to look for patterns, and also try applying various new systems to old results. Then you will see better what the effects of a change might be.

If you’ve played regularly with the same pool of a dozen or so players, you already know who the top 3-4 performers are. Would a change of system better reflect what should have been the right results?

2) I prefer (and have been working on) a system with more of a logarithmic progression of points, for lack of a better term.

One can mildly encourage participation by awarding points to the lower part of the field. But IMHO these should be a lot less than 1/11th or 1/12th of 1st place. And also much less than the rest of the top 1/3rd of players.

In a 9-handed game, the people who go out 8th or 9th occasionally just got unlucky. But much more often, they just played poorly. And I bet certain regulars in your game are much more likely to finish in the bottom 3rd than the rest of the field.

At the same time, Someone can be a really solid player, yet over a 6- or 12-month period still might rarely win, frequently bubbling. A fair point system can keep that player coming back, or frustrate them until they stop comkng to the game.

For example, the guy in my game with by far the best long-term results over ~4.5 years has only gotten in the money twice in the past 12 months—both 2nd place finishes, in fields averaging 14-15 players.

But he never, ever busts in the bottom 50%.

So: For players like that, do you want to reward solid play that probably ran into some bad variance... or just the very top?

And, do you want to “punish” reckless play which only results in cashes a tiny percentage of the time, and almost always means they go out in the bottom 25%?

My preference is to escalate points from relatively little in the bottom 1/3rd, modestly in the middle 1/3rd, and much more at the top.

I also like to escalate the total points based on the size of the field. Finishing 11th in a field of 13 is way worse than finishing 12th in a field of 18, I believe, and the relative points should reflect that.

Will post my working chart and formula later...
 
Points and leagues present a sence of something bigger. You can go bowling every week, but players like to join leagues. Neither is wrong, but one is more communal, and the other is more laid back. My number of "core" players (players with 70% or better attendance) skyrocketed once I formed a league. I also saw fewer of the "once a year" players.

Plus, our cash games also earn points for Player of the Year.

That's true. Tournaments get bodies to the tables. Worked for us when we only did cash games, but started doing a league. And the guys in it are very competitive so that works well.

But I love the game and the grind when it comes to cash games. Can play differently in certain situations without the blinds increasing, but would be difficult to do in tournaments unless you become deepstacked, and we have 100BB starting stacks for ours.

But I would be lying if I said I didn't enjoy the competition and rush of a tournament. Just don't like it to be the only form of poker to play; Hardly played any home cash games in a while.
 
That's true. Tournaments get bodies to the tables. Worked for us when we only did cash games, but started doing a league. And the guys in it are very competitive so that works well.

But I love the game and the grind when it comes to cash games. Can play differently in certain situations without the blinds increasing, but would be difficult to do in tournaments unless you become deepstacked, and we have 100BB starting stacks for ours.

But I would be lying if I said I didn't enjoy the competition and rush of a tournament. Just don't like it to be the only form of poker to play; Hardly played any home cash games in a while.
We work 1 cash game in each year into our tournament schedule. Our point system accounts that as well. However, after much consideration I decided not to post the Zombie system. It does what we want, but other players/groups have different needs. It would be foolish to think one system fits all.
 
We work 1 cash game in each year into our tournament schedule. Our point system accounts that as well. However, after much consideration I decided not to post the Zombie system. It does what we want, but other players/groups have different needs. It would be foolish to think one system fits all.

Actually meant to say we do have cash tables (supposedly) during and after the tournaments, but the people who bust first don't like having cash with less then 4-5 people, and by the time us cash people bust, it gets too late to stay and play for a bit (All young people with little ones at home and know we won't get much sleep in the mornings). Plus everyone's always too busy to make it to more than one poker night a month.

I wanted to incorporate cash games to the league points system, that way we can try having cash and tourneys interchange every month so some of us who prefer cash can actually play them in more social and pure poker playing. I'll try and do more research and see if I can find a solution there.
 
Points and leagues present a sence of something bigger. You can go bowling every week, but players like to join leagues. Neither is wrong, but one is more communal, and the other is more laid back. My number of "core" players (players with 70% or better attendance) skyrocketed once I formed a league. I also saw fewer of the "once a year" players.

Plus, our cash games also earn points for Player of the Year.

They can also be used to send people to events. Next year I'm gonna shoot to send some people to wsop.
 

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