Tourney To league or not to league? That is the question (2 Viewers)

[Preditor]

Started my home tournament game 6 months ago. Over the holidays, I have been devouring league posts on PCF on points formulas, TOC free rolls, etc.

I am curious if there are any pitfalls to introduce league points. While everyone in my game seems to have a good time, my group is mostly green players. To introduce changes has been fun for them, but also a little taxing to explain it to them before they "get" it. No one else in the group really cares much about poker outside of poker night. I don't think anyone in my game would be inherently resistant to the idea. But I don't think it would take some explaining to convince them "why" we're doing this and how the meta-game could be fun.

I also want to grow the group to still be low-stakes and friendly, but include some more seasoned players, and I think a league may be a way to do that. We have enough space, tables, and chairs for 16 (enough chips for 25… maybe one day), but so far have never had an MTT; tables have run between 6-8 players, which feels too small for me to do a league.

For a variety of reasons, I think it's a strong likelihood that we'll get 12-14 people in January though. And I am wondering if it's a good idea to introduce a league structure at that event, or if anyone sees any pitfalls with making that transition this soon into a home game's existence?

So I guess my question is:

Chicken or the egg… Am I rushing too fast to introduce league points when we’ve only been averaging 8 players over 6 months? Or would pulling the trigger on league points at my first MTT help us have a consistent number? Are there any inherent pitfalls to tracking league points?

 

[Coyotesetter]

Do you hate free time and love people bitching at you about nothing for hosting a tournament on the regular? If so then league. Otherwise. No league. Just play! This coming from someone who has hosted tournies and cash games for almost 20 years.

 

[Rakrul]

We're in our 19th season now (STT), each last about a year so a few things to consider IF you do go for a league.

The question you should be asking yourself is what do you hope to achieve with a league?

You need a price for the league winner. You could either rake a small amount of each buy in (i.e. monetary), or it could just be a name on a plaque (i.e. honor and bragging rights).
You need a mechanism to keep the bottom of the league players interested. There are several ways to accomplish this. One is to reward regulars, e.g. attended 3 tourneys in a row = bonus points. What I do is to give points after a given formula for the first 1/3 of the league. Then the 2nd 1/3 gets 50% more points and the last 1/3 gets 100% more points (than the first 1/3). That means if you ding a tourney on the last 1/3 you're suddenly in the running. The need the option and hope more than outright points.
Don't (only) reward the best players. They're already winning the tournament, no need for them to kill all interest in poker.
Find a way to reward losers. Usually participating should ensure points, but remember that losing players needs some incentive as well to come if they have no chance of winning the league.
Have the point-scheme ready way before the league starts, make it public and transparent. Don't just award points to John because he's cool and losing. Then you're de-valuing the points and achievements contributed to them.
Have all the league rules ready way before. Also, you need to pre-determine league dates in advance. If you suddenly announce "Tournament tomorrow!" then the people in the top half who can't make it, will be pissed off and feel it's unfair.

There's more but in short, make sure you make it interesting and fun for the fish. Nobody likes being picked last, don't make your league so the fish feels like that. Also take notice that once you start a league with poker-n00bs, you create a hierarchy based on the results. This will make some study poker (which is good and sustainable) but it will increase the gap between good and bad players and the worst players might be completely turned off poker.

It sounds like you're now just a bunch of friends playing (bad) poker and having fun, I might be wrong. A league will change that for better and for worse. If there's a genuine interest in poker there, then it's mostly good as you can create an environment where you discuss hands, what line is optimal, what are the ranges, etc. If not, then it might have the opposite effect - you're taking something fun and making it serious. If all are shit players, then it's still bingo and won't matter.

 

[Labrat]

Do you hate free time and love people bitching at you about nothing for hosting a tournament on the regular? If so then league. Otherwise. No league. Just play! This coming from someone who has hosted tournies and cash games for almost 20 years.

This. I run a golf league which is bad enough. I can't imagine what it'd be like trying to run a poker league.

Cash games. Every time, all the time.

IMO, of course.

 

[Preditor]

The question you should be asking yourself is what do you hope to achieve with a league?

Good question. My hope is that it might do the following:

1. Help recruit some better players.
2. Give some newer people who will be there the first time in January incentive to come consistently.
3. Give our regular players something to look forward to.
4. Nudge our middle-level players to improve their skills.

Not everyone will care about the league; that's fine. But I want to structure it in a way you can come and play without caring about league points with little consequence, but if you DO care it will be a fun meta-game for a sizable number of attendees.

You need a price for the league winner. You could either rake a small amount of each buy in (i.e. monetary), or it could just be a name on a plaque (i.e. honor and bragging rights).

For sure. I have thought about this. My initial thought is to take half of all rebuys/add-ons and put it into a Championship table prize pool. My rough estimation is that would net us (in a $40 tournament) about $300-500 for the year's end. And I want to award the top 6-8 point winners to play in a free roll for that money.

You need a mechanism to keep the bottom of the league players interested. There are several ways to accomplish this. One is to reward regulars, e.g. attended 3 tourneys in a row = bonus points. What I do is to give points after a given formula for the first 1/3 of the league. Then the 2nd 1/3 gets 50% more points and the last 1/3 gets 100% more points (than the first 1/3). That means if you ding a tourney on the last 1/3 you're suddenly in the running. The need the option and hope more than outright points.

I would love to hear more about your particular formula. But I agree. I want to make it so people can qualify by coming a few times and placing consistently high, or coming consistently and placing in the middle.

I actually have an entire structure for the league I've written out. The plan is to post it here for review when I tweak a few more things. But I thought this question of whether to league or not was a-priori.

If not, then it might have the opposite effect - you're taking something fun and making it serious.

Yup! This is definitely a concern and I am feeling it out. For me, pulling the trigger largely depends on what our response rate is for January. We've had 14 people attend so far (6-8 at a time), with 5 more expressing interest.

I think in January, we will have 12-14 people, which 3-4 of them being new to our group. If we get a MTT in January, I'll be more tempted to introduce league points to keep the new people coming back.

 

[Coyotesetter]

This. I run a golf league which is bad enough. I can't imagine what it'd be like trying to run a poker league.

Cash games. Every time, all the time.

IMO, of course.

Or just run tournies and let each one be a one off. Points smoints.

 

[Labrat]

Or just run tournies and let each one be a one off. Points smoints.

(I hate tournies. LOL!)

 

[Preditor]

(I hate tournies. LOL!)

I absolutely get the point of cash games and disdain for tourneys (though personally I like them).

But for me, I believe tourney's are easier for people more reticent to try poker to dip their feet into, since each bet doesn't have a real-world monetary value (even if that value is $.25/$.50).

 

[Rakrul]

[...]
I would love to hear more about your particular formula. But I agree. I want to make it so people can qualify by coming a few times and placing consistently high, or coming consistently and placing in the middle.
[...]

My formula is unnecessary complex due to the results of tiny tweaks in Tournament Director so not necessarily something I would recommend unless you have TD.
Excel version: logE((# of participants+1)/Place)*(# of participants+1).
TD version: round(((round((log(n/r))*n))+1)*1)

This should give you scores like:
8 players:
1. 18
2. 12
3. 9
4. 7
5. 5
6. 3
7. 2
8. 1

10 players:
1. 24
2. 17
3. 13
4. 10
5. 8
6. 6
7. 5
8. 3
9. 2
10. 1

So we run that formula the first 3 tournaments, then add *1.5 to it for 4-6, and finally *2 for 7-9. This makes it way more important to both participate and especially win the last three tournaments giving everyone the option to win the league. I can guarantee that the winner of tourney 7 will participate in the last two. Of course, if there's a player that's crushing everyone, any formula will be moot but the volatility of tournament should ensure that, especially for turbo tournaments.

 

[DeeVee8]

I might wait a little. Get more players.

You could always have a "league" within your game. Players have the choice to pay a set fee to compete in the "league". They earn points based on their play in your regular games. If you don't join the league, you just play. I called ours the "Players Championship". Charged 40 for the season. At the conclusion we paid top 3. It was a way to increase the action without forcing everyone to be involved.

I use points for place (inverse place, 1st in a 10 person tournament is 10, 2nd is 9...), points for cash (cash/10/rebuys), and points for koi's (1 each).

 

[Labrat]

I absolutely get the point of cash games and disdain for tourneys (though personally I like them).

But for me, I believe tourney's are easier for people more reticent to try poker to dip their feet into, since each bet doesn't have a real-world monetary value (even if that value is $.25/$.50).

Agree with that 100%.

 

[MrBoosh]

I might hold off on the league until you get your game established with some regulars first. Our league definitely has varying levels of poker enthusiasts in it. Some guys are super serious about studying and playing the best they can and other guys just barely make the league minimum amount of tournaments by the end of the season. It is great when you finally get enough guys who are really into it, and they want to learn and get better and talk about strategies. The tournaments get tougher but that also makes it lots of fun for everyone looking for a challenge. I think it can turn off the more casual players sometimes though.

Our league is open to 20 players at the beginning of the season. And those 20 players compete and earn points during our tournaments. But our tournaments are open to non league members as well. They can compete for the prize pool of the tournament but just don't receive any points for the league. We hold one buy-in from each tournament and put it towards our league main event tournament. Each member also pays a member fee to join the league. Most of that fee goes back to the players in the main event, but a third of the member fees go towards league expenses throughout the year. Anything left over gets added to the main event prize pool.

Our tournaments are stand alone events but they are also built for our league members to earn points during the season. So players who are more serious can join the league and players who aren't as serious and don't want to commit that much time still can attend tournaments when they want.

 

[Preditor]

Our tournaments are stand alone events but they are also built for our league members to earn points during the season. So players who are more serious can join the league and players who aren't as serious and don't want to commit that much time still can attend tournaments when they want.

Thanks for the wisdom. This is the philosophy I would want to adopt as well.

Only difference is I definitely wouldn't do membership fees. My thinking is structuring it where everyone wins points, and if they care? They care. If not? They don't need to.

Just having a championship table at the end of the year for top point earners with a moderate $300-500 prize pool would be enough.

Still, I am thinking if it is the right time to implement. Will continue thinking about it. Our next tourney isn't until the 28th, so no rush to decide.

 

[Finest]

We’ve had a weekly STT league for ten years, and I honestly care about the points / standings more than the payouts. Go for a league. (We also play cash ~1x/month.)

 

[PooperJeans]

Ive also been interesting in starting a league for my tournaments and all my players seem up for it. My only problem has been figuring out how it would work with my players other favorite mechanic; re buys. was wondering if anyone has any suggestions or thinks the two are just to incompatible?

 

[Preditor]

Ive also been interesting in starting a league for my tournaments and all my players seem up for it. My only problem has been figuring out how it would work with my players other favorite mechanic; re buys. was wondering if anyone has any suggestions or thinks the two are just to incompatible?

They're not incompatible. In fact, plenty of league formulas account for rebuys and add-ons, deducting a percentage of points if a player rebuys or adds on to their stack.

 

[Rakrul]

We're running with rebuys. League-wise it wouldn't matter. I've actually had leagues with different pokerformats, so half are NLHE and half are PLO. You usually score based on placement and number of players.