[jaeden]

Hello,
I have a home tourney every Friday of about 10-12 regular players.
I was wondering if there are any spreadsheets or programs where i can track the results. I want to also to a points system. Any idea where i can get this info?

Thanks,
Jaeden

[CaptLego]

We have a spreadsheet that we use for the Chiptalk Tourney Leaderboard.
You can download it here:
http://www.captlego.com/Download.html
and modify it to suit your own needs.

[Captn_All_In]

Also the beta version of Tournament Director will track a league. You may want to look into that. This new version will be out shortly.

[seymour]

Originally Posted by Captn_All_In

Also the beta version of Tournament Director will track a league. You may want to look into that. This new version will be out shortly.

Really? That sounds pretty cool. One of the few things I'm missing in TD.

Is that beta publicly available? I don't want to wait

[Captn_All_In]

Originally Posted by seymour

Really? That sounds pretty cool. One of the few things I'm missing in TD.

Is that beta publicly available? I don't want to wait

No its not. Sorry!

It should be out real soon!!

[danopoker]

Originally Posted by jaeden

Hello,
I have a home tourney every Friday of about 10-12 regular players.
I was wondering if there are any spreadsheets or programs where i can track the results. I want to also to a points system. Any idea where i can get this info?

Thanks,
Jaeden

Hi Jaeden, thought I'd put my $0.02 in here -- better late than never.

You will have some things to consider when adopting a point system.

1) Not everyone will make every tournament
2) Should it matter if you finished 8/11 or 11/11?
3) How much do you want to weigh tournament wins vs. consistent good finishes?
4) How long is the "season"?

For #1, you have some options. One is to work on some sort of averaging basis, however for obvious reasons someone shouldn't be able to play in one tournament, win it, and be the season champion. You can determine some minimum participation level, and if someone is short you simply count their missing tournaments as zero points and figure the average. This is what I do in my game, and the minimum participation is 50% (15/31 to be exact) which I keep relatively low as to not provide too much advantage to myself as the host.

The second option is to develop a points system where finishers towards the bottom lose points, and finishers at the top gain points, and you simply track total points. This takes some work to get even close to fair, and introduces the next issue...

For #2, if you are running more than one table, then it can be a little difficult to determine who finished where when two people on two different tables bust out at roughly the same time (is moment in time or chip count higher priority?). This is one reason why I don't advocate a points system that makes 11th vs. 12th place matter. The other is that I think the point is to win or at least finish high in the tournament, not to finish fifth every week.

For #3, that is definitely a matter of personal preference. You have to think about a player who wins once and busts out once, compared to a player who finishes second and third. Who should have more points?

Similarly, #4 is something you will want to think about. I use 31 tournaments in a season, and it is maybe on the long side (why 31? I don't know). We do a trophy for the season winner, and this year there will be an end-of-the-year tournament for those who score in the top eight. It just depends on what makes sense to you.

Now for actually implementing the stuff... well I've used a spreadsheet in the past, and for me it was too error-prone once the games got big. I put everything in a database and run queries to generate statistics and so forth, but to put it in perspective I had 92 different people play (average tournament size: 22) during "Season 2" which was essentially the year 2005. So I needed something more robust than hand-entering stuff in a spreadsheet.

Good luck, it definitely gets to be a lot of fun watching the names go up and down on the points ranking lists...

[Seitz333]

Dr. Neau's Tournament Manager!

The free version does not include the league system, but it is well worth the price.

Chuck

[JonnyRockets]

Hey Man,

check out my website, and click on the points system explained icon . . . It'll give you an idea of where to start as a possibility. Pretty much find other ways of do it, then pick one that is closest to what you want. Then you can tweak it bit by bit.

http://www.jonnyrockets.net

if you have any questions, just PM me!

[Feen666]

homepokertour.com

[ky70]

Jaeden, I use Homepokertour.com to maintian my league results and activity. Once you get familiar with using it, it's really easy to use and you will have a central location where your players can go to get league onfo.

As far as point systems (this will be LONG, so run now unless you can withstand 5 minutes of boredom), I started out using the reverse point system where you give the 1st place finisher the same number of points as the number of particpants and each subsequent finishing position receives 1 point less. For example, for a 10 man tourney, 1st place would get 10 points, 2nd place = 9 points, 3rd place = 8...10th place = 1 point. This method is simple and easy use but I had to abandon this method because it does not handle swings in attendance at all and since missing a tourney is a random act, I wanted each season tourney game to have close to the same points available. Here is a write-up I posted about how I resolved this issue for my stiuation and it has worked out very well:

I genreally get between 7 - 10 players but the turnout numbers aren't always consistent. I started out using the reverse point system but I had to come up with something different when 5th place in a 14 person tourney got the same points as 1st place in a 10 person tourney. The system below was created using 10 players as the measuring stick as that is generally the max for my games.

We are currently in the middle of our 12 game league season and each player's best 7 results will be used to determine the season's Champion (and I may have the top 4 spots play a Championship game to determine the "Post Season" Champion). The following LONG winded thread from my league message board explains the new system I created and my rationale for the change from the reverse point system (this system would need to be modified if the average turnout was more than 10 players per game):

• Each player’s points for a particular tourney will be calculated based on 1500 points for every game as follows:
1st = 120%, 2nd = 96%, 3rd =82%, 4th = 70%, 5th = 60%, 6th = 50%, 7th = 40%, 8th = 30%, 9th = 20%, 10th and lower = 10%.

• With 10 or less players the point scale will be the same. 1st place would receive 1800 points (1500 x 120%), 2nd place would receive 1440 points (1500 x 96%) and so on.

• For every player over 10, 2% would be added to the total points earned for each position for that particular tourney. In the 14 player tourney we recently completed, 8% (14 players - 10 players x 2%) would have been added on top of the regular points for each position. 1st place with 14 players would receive 1944 points. That number comes from adding 8% to the 1800 points for the regular 10 player point scale (calculated as 1800 x 1.08 ). 2nd place would be 1555.2 points (1440 x 1.08 ). This would change the difference in points earned for 1st place for the 14 player game vs. 1st place for the 10 player game (for example) to 8% instead of the 40% difference we currently show using the reverse point system. With the reverse point method, the 40% difference only gets wider with each finishing place (2nd = 44% diff, 3rd = 50% diff...7th = 100% diff) but with the new method it would be 8% across the board when comparing 10 player tourney points to 14 player tourney points.

This alternate/new point system addresses a couple of holes that are present in our current point system:

First, there is now less of a disparity between tourney points awarded with varying players participating but at the same time we do give additional points for games where the field is larger than 10. This helps to somewhat balance out the points that can be earned for any particular game so that a missed game for a larger turnout would not have as much of an impact on your overall score (as it may with our current system). Also, now 2nd place in the larger games may come close to the same points as 1st in a 10 person tourney, but 2nd place in a larger game would only earn more than a 10 player 1st place finish if the larger game has 23 participants. As a comparison, in the current method 5th place with 14 players earned the same as 1st place with 10 players.

Second, we now have a higher value (and more separation) for finishing in 1st place as compared to the other finishing positions. 2nd and 3rd place were also given a little bump up from the rest of the field to recognize that it’s harder to finish in the top 3. In our current system, 1st place only receives 1 more point than 2nd place. For our 10 player games, that converts to 1st place receiving 11% more than 2nd and for the 14 player game, 1st received 7.7% more than 2nd. In the new system, 1st receives 25% more points than 2nd (1800 - 1440 / 1440).

The weakness of the new system will be that the bottom players will recieve higher points when there are smaller turnouts. For example, if 7 players show up last place would receive 200% less than first place (600 vs. 1800) but in the reverse point system a last place 7th finish would recieve 600% less than 1st (1 point vs. 7 ponts). But I prefer that the inequity be in giving the bottom too much and not have huge swings over all places because of attendance variations.