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.
| Yours | Increase | 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.
| Yours | Increase | 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.