Small league (points system)

Drkev

Sitting Out
Joined
Feb 22, 2020
Messages
44
Reaction score
92
Location
Bucharest
After a year of tournament play (feb 2020 - feb 2021) 31 games and a few gathered stats I want to improve a bit the structure/play/keep players attending more games etc.
We use Poker Timer Pro for TIME & BLINDS. We’re not there yet to use Tournament Director.

GAME SPECIFICS
  • TOURNAMENT
  • NLHE
  • 4-9 players tops
  • T20K chips buy-in (10$)
PLAYERS / prizes

4-5p - 100%
6-9p - 1st 100%, 2nd place receives the buy-in)
6p+3 re-buys - 1st 100%, 2nd receives the buy in, 3rd receives 1/2 buy-in

I want to award points based on
  1. Attendance
  2. Being on time (2k in chips in season play + points: 2x no. of participations)
Point structure for the 6 places (odd no. multiplier 13/11/9/5/3/1/0)
  • 1st place 13* (the number of 1st place rankings),
  • 2nd place 11* (of number of 2nd place rankings)
  • 3rd place 9* of number of 3rd place rankings) etc
Should we award Knockout points?(they usually will end up to the winners so I don’t think it will add more value to the whole game)

IMPROVEMENTS? (season play only, not the FINAL TOURNAMENT)
  • 1x SHOW-em / RABBIT HUNT chip (in season games)
  • RUN-it 1x/2x/3x? Both players should agree
  • Use 2 decks of cards to speed-up play?
I think it provides a balanced output for the FINAL TOURNAMENT (PLAYER OF THE YEAR) game in February based on rankings and attendance.
What do you think?
 
Last edited:

Poker Zombie

Royal Flush
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
13,005
Reaction score
23,563
Location
Nashville-ish
After a year of tournament play (feb 2020 - feb 2021) 31 games and a few gathered stats I want to improve a bit the structure/play/keep players attending more games etc.
We use Poker Timer Pro for TIME & BLINDS. We’re not there yet to use Tournament Director.

GAME SPECIFICS
  • TOURNAMENT
  • NLHE
  • 4-9 players tops
  • T20K chips buy-in (10$)
PLAYERS / prizes

4-5p - 100%
6-9p - 1st 100%, 2nd place receives the buy-in)
6p+3 re-buys - 1st 100%, 2nd receives the buy in, 3rd receives 1/2 buy-in

I want to award points based on
  1. Attendance
  2. Being on time (2k in chips in season play + points: 2x no. of participations)
Point structure for the 6 places (odd no. multiplier 13/11/9/5/3/1/0)
  • 1st place 13* (the number of 1st place rankings),
  • 2nd place 11* (of number of 2nd place rankings)
  • 3rd place 9* of number of 3rd place rankings) etc
Should we award Knockout points?(they usually will end up to the winners so I don’t think it will add more value to the whole game)

IMPROVEMENTS? (season play only, not the FINAL TOURNAMENT)
  • 1x SHOW-em / RABBIT HUNT chip (in season games)
  • RUN-it 1x/2x/3x? Both players should agree
  • Use 2 decks of cards to speed-up play?
I think it provides a balanced output for the FINAL TOURNAMENT (PLAYER OF THE YEAR) game in February based on rankings and attendance.
What do you think?
I always track KO's for statistical purposes, but never award points.

KO's dont always go to the winningest player. In my league, the player with the 2nd most knockouts has just 5 wins, in 69 events.

When developing a point system, ask yourself "What do I want to encourage my players to do?" Attendance and early attendance are certainly fair options. Playing well (winning) is also the whole point of tournaments. I award points for finishing in the money, but just attendance points for anyone out of the money, because I dont want anyone to think "my goal tonight is to score 7th place points." That just alters how people play, and not for the best.

Awarding KO points could encourage aggressive behaviour toward short stacks. This is a common technique anyway, but you are essentially penalizing your tight players who aren't ever going to call a 3 BB all-in with :6c::8c:, because their focus is getting into the money and squeezing out a profit for the night. I don't think a point system should encourage any particular type of play. You play your game, I'll play mine. We may both hit our goals. That's what makes poker great.
 

TexRex

3 of a Kind
Joined
Aug 8, 2013
Messages
664
Reaction score
497
Location
Texas
Drkev, I’ll try to address your questions in order.

Attendance (and Finish)
I like awarding points based on attendance. Years ago, BGinGA suggested to me a method of awarding extra points for higher attendance games. I had one, but I like his better. I’ve modified it, particularly last year when we had only 9 tournaments. While I don’t run a league anymore, I do track things for certain awards. I track performance like I did when we had a league.

The formula I use now is a base of 5 players = 1.0. For each additional player, I multiply the attendance by 1.04 per additional player. I only track to 3 decimal places, but 10 players has an attendance value of 1.217; 15 players 1.480; 20 players 1.801; etc. Any player who shows up gets attendance points. That is a way to not only reward attendance, but even encourages players to want more players there since they get a little more in points for other players. You could start your base anywhere. I used to start at 10, but went to 5 last year. You could start the base at your average number of players. There isn’t a right or wrong place to start, but the idea is to recognize that larger tournaments are harder to win, but they are not proportionally harder. A 20-player tournament is not twice as hard to win at a 10-player tournament. BG suggested the 1.04, but I think he’s also used 1.05. Once again, there is no right or wrong.

For performance, I use what I call finish points. Players get points for where they finish. Finish points are multiplied by attendance points. That means the guy who finishes first at a 20-player tournament gets 4% more points than a guy who finishes first in a 19-player tournament.

The finish points system I use intends to reward levels of performance. Use 3 tables of 10 as an example, and assume that players can start late, but not after the final table begins. Is the guy who goes out 1st the worst player? There isn’t really enough info to tell. So for us, all players who don’t make the final table would get only attendance points. I used to award players separately for getting to the final table, but last year went to simply starting the final table at the bottom with more points.

In my case, I multiply those who make the FT by 1.6. Our “in the points” scores start at #6, and each spot from there to #1 is multiplied by an additional 1.6. However, if we have 1 table, the very lowest person gets only attendance points. In fact, all of those below #6 get only attendance points.

A consistent ratio between spaces is not a linear system. It appears your system is linear for the top 3, and seemingly random before that (3x, 1.67x. 1.8x, etc.). A 1st + 3rd is equal to two 2nd place finishes. The percentage distance in the system I use between all places is the same. The consistent increases I use means the person who finished higher once will wind up with a higher score.

If you don’t like dealing with decimal places, you can round, but the effect will be the same. The higher finish will do better.

I’ve toyed around with multiplying spots by 1.33, 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6. I like the 1.6 the best, but there is no real right or wrong.

Here’s a problem with only 3 places, especially if attendance isn’t considered. The guy who finishes 1st in a 6-player tournament gets exactly the same number of points as they guy who wins a 30-player tournament. That does not reflect the difficulty of winning larger tournaments. I use this on a 3/2/1 basis for top 3, but only as a back up in case of a tie. I had 3 players that were very close in score. Without explaining, that led last year to implementing that system to break a 2-way tie, only to result in a 3-way tie.

Being On Time
I don’t reward points for this. What we do is give bonus chips, which give a player who is on time a little better chance of winning. If your best player has to be late because of work, I don’t think punishing him by fewer points tells you who the best player is. I honestly don’t think that shows anything about the quality of players. This is coming from a guy who can statistically show that better players show up on time, but there are exceptions. I see no need to reward them with points for getting there on time, but the bonus chips help us get started on time. That’s why I do it.

2 Decks
There is no doubt that 2 decks will speed up your game. We use 2 dealers. The next hand is starting almost the instant chips and cards are cleared from a hand – no gap time. It’s much more difficult to do that without dedicated dealers. We sometimes alternate dealers by rounds. It’s not quite as fast, but still quick since the dealer for that blind round receives the deck and starts shuffling. The “reserve” dealer who will deal the next round helps clear from the prior hand.

KO points
I used to track KO’s. Zombie does for statistical purposes, and that makes sense. I’d love Zombie to tell us how he uses his stats from it. However, I was never able to figure out how to score KO’s, and I played with it a lot.

I believe KO’s is a skill. Statistically I can tell you that most of our better players had more KO’s, but I have one player who is a consistent winner, almost always makes the final table, and almost always does something at the final table (not the first one out), but he rarely KO’s anyone. It’s unusual based on my experience. I think I can reasonably prove it’s a skill, but it’s not easy to measure from a scoring viewpoint. I concluded while some are better at it, it doesn’t seem to prove a player with a high KO count is better. Other factors enter the equation.

We used to have a Top Bounty Hunter (TBH) award to the player who scored the most KO’s in a year. What I found is that most years, the winner just blew past everyone in this category, but the next year, it would be someone else. No one won it twice, but consistently the TBH was one of our better players for the year. But never did their KO scores affect any places near the top. So I stopped trying to score it and I stopped tracking it.

I’m not sure what stats Zombie uses it for, but at least one piece of helpful info comes from it. It tells you who the most dangerous players are to call them on an all-in.
 
Last edited:

BGinGA

Royal Flush
Tourney Director
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
25,218
Reaction score
38,423
Location
Atlanta
Search 'league points' and you'll find a half-dozen (or more) threads discussing the issue in great detail.... including why I don't like your proposed idea above.
 

andy699669

3 of a Kind
Joined
Feb 23, 2018
Messages
644
Reaction score
312
Location
Samarinda
Search 'league points' and you'll find a half-dozen (or more) threads discussing the issue in great detail.... including why I don't like your proposed idea above.
What do you think of this?
1st - 24.1
2nd - 21.0
3rd - 18.1
4th - 15.4
5th - 12.9
6th - 10.6
7th - 8.5
8th - 6.6
9th - 4.9
10th - 3.4
11th - 2.1
12th - 1.0
 

TexRex

3 of a Kind
Joined
Aug 8, 2013
Messages
664
Reaction score
497
Location
Texas

Sorry, I tried to delete this post. See below.
 
Last edited:

TexRex

3 of a Kind
Joined
Aug 8, 2013
Messages
664
Reaction score
497
Location
Texas
Andy, I see some serious issues with your scoring.

First, as players place higher, the percentage of increase decreases. If anything, that is going in the wrong direction.

YoursIncrease
20%​
25%​
30%​
33%​
35%​
40%​
50%​
55%​
60%​
1​
24.1​
1.148​
7.430​
11.642​
17.922​
23.612​
27.144​
40.496​
86.498​
124.065​
175.922​
2​
21.0​
1.160​
6.192​
9.313​
13.786​
17.713​
20.107​
28.925​
57.665​
80.042​
109.951​
3​
18.1​
1.175​
5.160​
7.451​
10.604​
13.288​
14.894​
20.661​
38.443​
51.640​
68.719​
4​
15.4​
1.194​
4.300​
5.960​
8.157​
9.969​
11.032​
14.758​
25.629​
33.316​
42.950​
5​
12.9​
1.217​
3.583​
4.768​
6.275​
7.478​
8.172​
10.541​
17.086​
21.494​
26.844​
6​
10.6​
1.247​
2.986​
3.815​
4.827​
5.610​
6.053​
7.530​
11.391​
13.867​
16.777​
7​
8.5​
1.288​
2.488​
3.052​
3.713​
4.209​
4.484​
5.378​
7.594​
8.947​
10.486​
8​
6.6​
1.347​
2.074​
2.441​
2.856​
3.157​
3.322​
3.842​
5.063​
5.772​
6.554​
9​
4.9​
1.441​
1.728​
1.953​
2.197​
2.369​
2.460​
2.744​
3.375​
3.724​
4.096​
10​
3.4​
1.619​
1.440​
1.563​
1.690​
1.777​
1.823​
1.960​
2.250​
2.403​
2.560​
11​
2.1​
2.100​
1.200​
1.250​
1.300​
1.333​
1.350​
1.400​
1.500​
1.550​
1.600​
12​
1.0​
1.000​
1.000​
1.000​
1.000​
1.000​
1.000​
1.000​
1.000​
1.000​
1.000​

Below is a chart for those who hate decimals showing these same percentage increases rounded to whole numbers. I put our scores in an Excel spreadsheet and go out to 3 decimal places, as in the above.

YoursIncrease
20%​
25%​
30%​
33%​
35%​
40%​
50%​
55%​
60%​
1​
24.1​
1.148​
7​
12​
18​
24​
27​
40​
86​
124​
176​
2​
21.0​
1.160​
6​
9​
14​
18​
20​
29​
58​
80​
110​
3​
18.1​
1.175​
5​
7​
11​
13​
15​
21​
38​
52​
69​
4​
15.4​
1.194​
4​
6​
8​
10​
11​
15​
26​
33​
43​
5​
12.9​
1.217​
4​
5​
6​
7​
8​
11​
17​
21​
27​
6​
10.6​
1.247​
3​
4​
5​
6​
6​
8​
11​
14​
17​
7​
8.5​
1.288​
2​
3​
4​
4​
4​
5​
8​
9​
10​
8​
6.6​
1.347​
2​
2​
3​
3​
3​
4​
5​
6​
7​
9​
4.9​
1.441​
2​
2​
2​
2​
2​
3​
3​
4​
4​
10​
3.4​
1.619​
1​
2​
2​
2​
2​
2​
2​
2​
3​
11​
2.1​
2.100​
1​
1​
1​
1​
1​
1​
2​
2​
2​
12​
1.0​
1.000​
1​
1​
1​
1​
1​
1​
1​
1​
1​

If you look at rounded numbers, you can see that there is no difference in rounding at the lowest levels until the increases are at least 50% between each place. I prefer 60% increases, but won’t take time hear to explain why because it’s a lengthy explanation.

Second, it seems to me that 12 places is an odd place to start. I can only think of 2 reasons why you would start there.

If it is because you have 12 players, are you playing with 12 all at the same table? If so, I can see where 12th place would be less than other places, but that’s a lot of people at one table. I think once you get beyond 1 table that presents serious challenges.

If your league is large enough to pay the top 12, then 12 makes sense as the place to start, and you are rewarding those who survived much longer than other players. If that’s the case, ignore the next paragraph.

I’ll use 3 tables of 10 as an example. The final table would be the top 10 (or maybe 11, but I think 11 is too many at a table so I’m only using 10). At 30 players, we would pay the top 7. It is hard to distinguish any measurable difference between #11-30. I’ve seen this happen more than once. On the first hand, one of the best players had a nut flush after the turn, so we went all in. He got called by a guy who was drawing to an inside straight flush, and the guy caught the one card he needed and got his straight flush. So one of our best players played the odds and lost on the first hand. Is he really the worst in that tournament? What about the 3 players who showed up a bit later, are they really better than him? I don’t think you have enough to say. Instead, I’d reward those who made the final table with something extra, but #11-30 would all score the same. I’d make them 1 point since they at least showed up.

General thoughts: Start your scoring increases based on either the number of players you are paying, or as a reward for surviving to the set number of tables. If you want to reward those who survive to the final table because you pay no more than the top table, start the scoring with tables of 10 at 10th place or 9th place for tables of 9, etc., not 12th. In my 3-table, 30 players example, the bottom 3 at the final table would all get the same score, though it would be higher than 11-30. Then, starting a #7, each place would get a higher score.

I look at the relationship between finishes by comparing two players. One had a 1st +3rd vs. 2nd +2nd. Then I look at 1st +4th vs. 2nd + 3rd. I believe that the first-place finish in that group should always be more. I believe 2nd + 2nd should beat 1st + 4th. That may create what appears to be some quirks though. Starting at 33% increases, 1st + 5th beats 2nd + 3rd. I’m OK with that, especially since rounding below that increase level will create ties that I don’t like because I don’t think it’s really a tie.

I also believe that a player should get something for coming, but I want that to be a low number so I start at 1. If you want to start higher, you could multiply the numbers on the chart by 10 and deal in round numbers. The ratios would stay the same.
 

andy699669

3 of a Kind
Joined
Feb 23, 2018
Messages
644
Reaction score
312
Location
Samarinda
Andy, I see some serious issues with your scoring.

First, as players place higher, the percentage of increase decreases. If anything, that is going in the wrong direction.

YoursIncrease
20%​
25%​
30%​
33%​
35%​
40%​
50%​
55%​
60%​
1​
24.1​
1.148​
7.430​
11.642​
17.922​
23.612​
27.144​
40.496​
86.498​
124.065​
175.922​
2​
21.0​
1.160​
6.192​
9.313​
13.786​
17.713​
20.107​
28.925​
57.665​
80.042​
109.951​
3​
18.1​
1.175​
5.160​
7.451​
10.604​
13.288​
14.894​
20.661​
38.443​
51.640​
68.719​
4​
15.4​
1.194​
4.300​
5.960​
8.157​
9.969​
11.032​
14.758​
25.629​
33.316​
42.950​
5​
12.9​
1.217​
3.583​
4.768​
6.275​
7.478​
8.172​
10.541​
17.086​
21.494​
26.844​
6​
10.6​
1.247​
2.986​
3.815​
4.827​
5.610​
6.053​
7.530​
11.391​
13.867​
16.777​
7​
8.5​
1.288​
2.488​
3.052​
3.713​
4.209​
4.484​
5.378​
7.594​
8.947​
10.486​
8​
6.6​
1.347​
2.074​
2.441​
2.856​
3.157​
3.322​
3.842​
5.063​
5.772​
6.554​
9​
4.9​
1.441​
1.728​
1.953​
2.197​
2.369​
2.460​
2.744​
3.375​
3.724​
4.096​
10​
3.4​
1.619​
1.440​
1.563​
1.690​
1.777​
1.823​
1.960​
2.250​
2.403​
2.560​
11​
2.1​
2.100​
1.200​
1.250​
1.300​
1.333​
1.350​
1.400​
1.500​
1.550​
1.600​
12​
1.0​
1.000​
1.000​
1.000​
1.000​
1.000​
1.000​
1.000​
1.000​
1.000​
1.000​

Below is a chart for those who hate decimals showing these same percentage increases rounded to whole numbers. I put our scores in an Excel spreadsheet and go out to 3 decimal places, as in the above.

YoursIncrease
20%​
25%​
30%​
33%​
35%​
40%​
50%​
55%​
60%​
1​
24.1​
1.148​
7​
12​
18​
24​
27​
40​
86​
124​
176​
2​
21.0​
1.160​
6​
9​
14​
18​
20​
29​
58​
80​
110​
3​
18.1​
1.175​
5​
7​
11​
13​
15​
21​
38​
52​
69​
4​
15.4​
1.194​
4​
6​
8​
10​
11​
15​
26​
33​
43​
5​
12.9​
1.217​
4​
5​
6​
7​
8​
11​
17​
21​
27​
6​
10.6​
1.247​
3​
4​
5​
6​
6​
8​
11​
14​
17​
7​
8.5​
1.288​
2​
3​
4​
4​
4​
5​
8​
9​
10​
8​
6.6​
1.347​
2​
2​
3​
3​
3​
4​
5​
6​
7​
9​
4.9​
1.441​
2​
2​
2​
2​
2​
3​
3​
4​
4​
10​
3.4​
1.619​
1​
2​
2​
2​
2​
2​
2​
2​
3​
11​
2.1​
2.100​
1​
1​
1​
1​
1​
1​
2​
2​
2​
12​
1.0​
1.000​
1​
1​
1​
1​
1​
1​
1​
1​
1​

If you look at rounded numbers, you can see that there is no difference in rounding at the lowest levels until the increases are at least 50% between each place. I prefer 60% increases, but won’t take time hear to explain why because it’s a lengthy explanation.

Second, it seems to me that 12 places is an odd place to start. I can only think of 2 reasons why you would start there.

If it is because you have 12 players, are you playing with 12 all at the same table? If so, I can see where 12th place would be less than other places, but that’s a lot of people at one table. I think once you get beyond 1 table that presents serious challenges.

If your league is large enough to pay the top 12, then 12 makes sense as the place to start, and you are rewarding those who survived much longer than other players. If that’s the case, ignore the next paragraph.

I’ll use 3 tables of 10 as an example. The final table would be the top 10 (or maybe 11, but I think 11 is too many at a table so I’m only using 10). At 30 players, we would pay the top 7. It is hard to distinguish any measurable difference between #11-30. I’ve seen this happen more than once. On the first hand, one of the best players had a nut flush after the turn, so we went all in. He got called by a guy who was drawing to an inside straight flush, and the guy caught the one card he needed and got his straight flush. So one of our best players played the odds and lost on the first hand. Is he really the worst in that tournament? What about the 3 players who showed up a bit later, are they really better than him? I don’t think you have enough to say. Instead, I’d reward those who made the final table with something extra, but #11-30 would all score the same. I’d make them 1 point since they at least showed up.

General thoughts: Start your scoring increases based on either the number of players you are paying, or as a reward for surviving to the set number of tables. If you want to reward those who survive to the final table because you pay no more than the top table, start the scoring with tables of 10 at 10th place or 9th place for tables of 9, etc., not 12th. In my 3-table, 30 players example, the bottom 3 at the final table would all get the same score, though it would be higher than 11-30. Then, starting a #7, each place would get a higher score.

I look at the relationship between finishes by comparing two players. One had a 1st +3rd vs. 2nd +2nd. Then I look at 1st +4th vs. 2nd + 3rd. I believe that the first-place finish in that group should always be more. I believe 2nd + 2nd should beat 1st + 4th. That may create what appears to be some quirks though. Starting at 33% increases, 1st + 5th beats 2nd + 3rd. I’m OK with that, especially since rounding below that increase level will create ties that I don’t like because I don’t think it’s really a tie.

I also believe that a player should get something for coming, but I want that to be a low number so I start at 1. If you want to start higher, you could multiply the numbers on the chart by 10 and deal in round numbers. The ratios would stay the same.
6UP 2 Tables.
 

TexRex

3 of a Kind
Joined
Aug 8, 2013
Messages
664
Reaction score
497
Location
Texas
Andy, if you have 12 and 2 tables, how many make the final table (FT)? There are so many variables about who goes out first, I don't think you can truly accurately distinguish. Let's say you take 10 at the FT. The first 2 out could be at the tough table so 6 from 1 table and 4 from the other make the FT. If you take 9, you could have all 3 eliminated from the same table by starting 6/6, then 6/5, then 6/4 so move to 5/5, then 5/4. It's hard to say what that means. It could be the 2nd table was the tough players or the worst players.

There are other issues. If one guy is an hour late, and already 2 have been eliminated, why should he finish higher than them if he goes out his first hand? That actually punishes players who are there on time. I think you will get the kind of behavior your rules and scoring system encourage.

If I had 12 players, I'd give them something extra for making the FT, but then I'd have a few spaces where those at the FT are all the same. What I'm trying to measure is elite performances. But even if you want to start measuring from the bottom of the FT, you still have the issue of better performance gets less increase.

I think those who show should get something, though not everyone agrees. I also think until they have demonstrably done something that makes them better, don't judge based on who goes out first. How late can someone arrive and still play? Using my 3x10 as an example, we give them the first 6 rounds (7 rounds in one case) to arrive and still play. Our rounds are 20 minutes. It is highly unlikely that we'd have 20 players KO'd in that 2:00 hours or 2:20. Thus, someone who shows up late still has to play well enough to survive to the FT. Even when I've gone to 2 tables of 9, it is highly unlikely half the field would be wiped out in 2 hours -- it's never come close to happening. We do have a rule when we table up to the FT, there are no more entries, even if it's less than the registration time. But if I know someone is coming, we can put their stack on the table and blind it off until they arrive. But someone who shows without me knowing they are coming can't join if we've gone to FT.

Those are my thoughts.
 

BGinGA

Royal Flush
Tourney Director
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
25,218
Reaction score
38,423
Location
Atlanta
The difference in perfomance between 12th and 11th is negligible, and the difference -- if any -- in awarded points for the two positions should reflect that.

This is why logrithmic tables work best for points distribution, imo. Even better if there is a cut-off of if/when points are awarded at all.

A good example of this -- and a poorly-designed point schedule imo -- is the somewhat common reverse-order-of-finish points, where last place gets one point with each subsequently higher finishing position getting an additonal point. So with 8 players, 1st gets 8 points while 8th gets 1 point.

But look at the message that this sends, in context of multiple contests: it's essentially saying that playing in all eight contests and finishing last in every single one (8 points total) is EXACTLY EQUAL to playing in just one contest and winning it (also worth 8 points total). That's rubbish, and any points system that supports it is also similarly flawed.
 

Marhault

Full House
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
3,250
Reaction score
5,206
Location
Marion, Illinois
The difference in perfomance between 12th and 11th is negligible, and the difference -- if any -- in awarded points for the two positions should reflect that.

This is why logrithmic tables work best for points distribution, imo. Even better if there is a cut-off of if/when points are awarded at all.

A good example of this -- and a poorly-designed point schedule imo -- is the somewhat common reverse-order-of-finish points, where last place gets one point with each subsequently higher finishing position getting an additonal point. So with 8 players, 1st gets 8 points while 8th gets 1 point.

But look at the message that this sends, in context of multiple contests: it's essentially saying that playing in all eight contests and finishing last in every single one (8 points total) is EXACTLY EQUAL to playing in just one contest and winning it (also worth 8 points total). That's rubbish, and any points system that supports it is also similarly flawed.
Our league runs a similar style with to this. The difference is we award bonus points to finishing in the money, as well as bonus points for knockouts (we almost exclusively play bounty tourneys so I feel its a good bonus). We also have negative points for rebuys and addons. I wanted to do everything freeze out but my players are strange, they're happy to buy in and rebuy 3 times but don't want to pay 3 times the buy in with no rebuys. I don't quite get it but it's worked well for us so far this season.
 

Mr Winberg

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
1,954
Reaction score
3,739
Location
Sweden
The difference in perfomance between 12th and 11th is negligible
I agree! There's even the chance that the 12th place finished lasted more hands than the 11th place finisher if they sat at different tables. In that case, who lasted longer, really?
 

andy699669

3 of a Kind
Joined
Feb 23, 2018
Messages
644
Reaction score
312
Location
Samarinda
Andy, if you have 12 and 2 tables, how many make the final table (FT)? There are so many variables about who goes out first, I don't think you can truly accurately distinguish. Let's say you take 10 at the FT. The first 2 out could be at the tough table so 6 from 1 table and 4 from the other make the FT. If you take 9, you could have all 3 eliminated from the same table by starting 6/6, then 6/5, then 6/4 so move to 5/5, then 5/4. It's hard to say what that means. It could be the 2nd table was the tough players or the worst players.

There are other issues. If one guy is an hour late, and already 2 have been eliminated, why should he finish higher than them if he goes out his first hand? That actually punishes players who are there on time. I think you will get the kind of behavior your rules and scoring system encourage.

If I had 12 players, I'd give them something extra for making the FT, but then I'd have a few spaces where those at the FT are all the same. What I'm trying to measure is elite performances. But even if you want to start measuring from the bottom of the FT, you still have the issue of better performance gets less increase.

I think those who show should get something, though not everyone agrees. I also think until they have demonstrably done something that makes them better, don't judge based on who goes out first. How late can someone arrive and still play? Using my 3x10 as an example, we give them the first 6 rounds (7 rounds in one case) to arrive and still play. Our rounds are 20 minutes. It is highly unlikely that we'd have 20 players KO'd in that 2:00 hours or 2:20. Thus, someone who shows up late still has to play well enough to survive to the FT. Even when I've gone to 2 tables of 9, it is highly unlikely half the field would be wiped out in 2 hours -- it's never come close to happening. We do have a rule when we table up to the FT, there are no more entries, even if it's less than the registration time. But if I know someone is coming, we can put their stack on the table and blind it off until they arrive. But someone who shows without me knowing they are coming can't join if we've gone to FT.

Those are my thoughts.
7, if both tables are 6-max.
 

TexRex

3 of a Kind
Joined
Aug 8, 2013
Messages
664
Reaction score
497
Location
Texas
Zombie, that is a great catch on the shortest post. There might actually be a prize for the first person to catch that. See, even when I try to delete a post, it's STILL 3 lines long! Y'all are lucky my deleted post is only 3 lines long.

It reminds me of this baseball story. A good hitter (can't remember names or team, it really happened in the major leagues though) struck out, but the catcher dropped the ball. The batter took for for first base. The catcher overthrew the first baseman and the ball went into right field. The now runner rounded first and went headed to second. The right fielder retrieved the ball and tried to throw him out at second. However, another errant throw sent the ball over the shortstop who was covering 2nd. The runner, after sliding, jumped up and started towards third. The left fielder however was on the ball, and immediately threw it to 3rd. The runner went safely back to 2nd. Later the manager said, "He's such a great hitter, even when we strike him out we were lucky to hold him to only 2 bases!"

***
Andy, if there are only 7 at the FT, I'd give those 7 something extra. If you pay 4, then the top 4 get even more. However, is 12 the most you would ever have? Perhaps your tables could hold 8, 9, or 10. I'd plan for more players. If it was us, we'd go to FT table at 9, and we have a max of 6 in the money places, so those 6 would get additional points with each ascending place getting 1.6x more than the previous. That way we are only measuring those who truly accomplished something worth noting, but the highest places count the very most.

For us, FT starts at 9. All players who don't make the FT get 1 point for attending. Those who make the FT each start at 1.6. Starting at 6th, we multiply each ascending place by 1.6. I think that gives us a great chance of finding the best player by rewarding most the best performances. We also make adjustments based on tournament size, but they aren't nearly as dramatic.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom