Welcome to the ChipTalk Community

Want to join the rest of the ChipTalk members? It is free to sign up today and unlock new features, discussions, and reduce the advertising.

Sign Up

Home WSOP Circuit - How to Normalize Stats?

Discussion in 'Tournament Structures' started by justsomedude, May 5, 2015.

  1. justsomedude

    justsomedude Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2014
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    120
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    OK... I hope this isn't a confusing post, but something came up the other night with my regular group, and we're hoping some one has already figured out the structure for what we want to do.

    In a nutshell, my monthly group wants to send some one to the WSOP $10k Main Event. We realize this will be a 2-3 year process, but we are in for the long haul, and want to know how to make it fair. What we are struggling with is: how do we normalize games to keep performance fair over such a long period of play (and potentially different groups of players and pots)?

    We figured the baseline factors need to be:
    A) Pot size
    B) Game size

    For example, a player who wins 10 monthly games at a $10 buyin with 20 players, should not be outplaced by a guy who wins, say, an annual $250 game with 9 players. Or should they?

    Is there a way to structure this fairly? We figured some type of "points" system needs to be put in place, but we don't know what that is.

    Poker gurus... please help us!
     
    #1
  2. Bloody Marvellous

    Bloody Marvellous Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    33
    Location:
    Gouda, The Netherlands
    Sounds like you're looking for a league points system.

    This is what I use:
    Points = Prize Money / SQRT(Players * (Buy-In + Rebuys + Add-On)) * 100 / (1 + Finishing Place)

    Where:
    Prize Money = Total money in the prize pool
    Players = Number of players participating in that tournament
    Buy-in = The amount of the initial Buy-in paid per player
    Rebuys = The amount spent by that player on Rebuys
    Add-On = The amount spent by that player on Add-Ons
    Finishing Place = The position the player busted out on, or 1st place if he's won.
    (the " * 100 " is cosmetic, and not necessary).

    If you're not running rebuy tournaments you can simplify the formula to:
    Points = SQRT(Players * Buy-In) * 100 / (1 + Finishing Place)

    I've enclosed a simple excel sheet (.xls, though some functions may only operate in .xlsx) with this formula.
     

    Attached Files:

    #2
    Last edited: May 6, 2015
  3. justsomedude

    justsomedude Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2014
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    120
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    WTF?! Thank you Bloody Marvellous -- that's EXACTLY what we're looking for!!!

    This forum blows my mind.

    [​IMG]
     
    #3
    bordizzle likes this.
  4. pltrgyst

    pltrgyst Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,934
    Likes Received:
    49
    For my home series, I never thought it necessary to get that complicated.

    Regardless of the buy-in, I simply awarded one point for each player you finished above, plus one point for playing (to encourage continuous participation). Thus for a 10-man game, points were 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1.
     
    #4
    BPTDirector likes this.
  5. BPTDirector

    BPTDirector Creativity Alliance
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,981
    Likes Received:
    190
    Location:
    Central Illinois
    Simple is better. You will discover that using the simple method mentioned above will yield the same overall results over the long haul as the other complex method and will make it more fun for you as well.
     
    #5
  6. justsomedude

    justsomedude Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2014
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    120
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    I think I'm sold on simple. I'm sure I'll appreciate it... Especially after 5 beers.
     
    #6
    BPTDirector likes this.
  7. Bloody Marvellous

    Bloody Marvellous Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    33
    Location:
    Gouda, The Netherlands
    You could also award points based on the number of chips every player has at the end of the tournament.
     
    #7
  8. BPTDirector

    BPTDirector Creativity Alliance
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,981
    Likes Received:
    190
    Location:
    Central Illinois
    In a true tournament setting only one player has chips at the end!!
     
    #8
  9. Bloody Marvellous

    Bloody Marvellous Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    33
    Location:
    Gouda, The Netherlands
    That was kinda my point...
     
    #9
    CraigT78 likes this.
  10. pltrgyst

    pltrgyst Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,934
    Likes Received:
    49
    I also ran an annual series of $1/$2 cash games, awarding points as I mentioned previously for players who busted, and the remaining points at the end of the game to those who hadn't busted, according to stack size.

    People who busted were allowed to buy back into the cash game, but could not accumulate additional points for the night.

    That was an interesting series, and worked pretty well. We took 10% of the buy-in pool each week for a cash pool. The top ten players in points qualified for a season-ending single-table cash game, for which they received freeroll cash proportional to their points totals.
     
    #10
  11. jermfrog81

    jermfrog81 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2012
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    26
    Location:
    Carroll IA
    This in simply untrue...the more complex system rewards winners. Each place is worth slightly more points than the previous. It also rewards winning larger fields which is slightly more difficult. It also rewards winning higher buy-in tournaments which are slightly more difficult.
     
    #11
    TexRex likes this.
  12. bpbenda

    bpbenda Premium Supporter
    Staff Member Premium Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2013
    Messages:
    459
    Likes Received:
    111
    Location:
    Brentwood, TN.
    Having run tournament satellite series live and online, I have tried several different systems and have (as a result) established opinions on each. While this forum is a great resource, the 2+2 Home Poker forum also has a wealth of information. Having just completed administration of Season 2 of the ChipTalk WSOP Satellite Series, here are a few things to consider that helped shaped (and will continue to shape) the decision making process with regard to a points system ...

    Your stated goal is to send someone to the WSOP Main Event. Will the satellite winner have 100% of any potential cash in the Main Event, or will they be splitting such proceeds with the remainder of the group who participated in the satellite series?

    If the winning player will have 100% of themselves, you cannot guarantee that the winning player will actually play since the WSOP does not allow third-party registration. That being the case, then I think the fairest points system is one that rewards the player who performed the best over time (highest average finish among counted results).

    However, if the winning player will be sharing in any eventual WSOP cash with the group participants, then there is an implied incentive to the group to send the player with the best chance of producing the best result (i.e. winning a tournament over just cashing). Let me provide an example ...

    In the most recent ChipTalk WSOP Satellite Series, we had 53 participants and paid out five (5) $1,500 WSOP prize packages. The package winners are required to use the funds to enter a $1,000 or $1,500 bracelet event. In a $1,000 WSOP event, which usually has a field size of several thousand participants, a player must generally finish in the top 18-27 overall in order to cash for $10,000 or more. So, let's say that one of the winning players does this -- they make a deep run and get down to the final three tables, cashing for $10,000 on their $1,000 package entry. In accordance with our rules, the winning player would receive half (or $5,000) and the group would split the other half. When you divide $5,000 by 52 other group members, that equates to $96.15 each. Now, I wouldn't turn down $96.15 if someone where offering it to me, but the excitement of the sweat is in the opportunity for a much larger return. Conversely, what does it look like if one of the package players actually wins the WSOP event they enter? Let's say the top prize is $325,000 (common for $1,000 and $1,500 WSOP events). The winner would receive their half (or $162,500), and the group would split $162,500 (or $3,125 per person). You can see the difference.

    In the above example, to maximize potential benefit to the group, I used a graduated or exponential points system with each tournament in the series (similar to pay jumps in a standard poker tournament) to not only reward deeper and deeper finishes but to reward tournament winners. If you have not done so already, I would encourage you to think about your series in this way. What are you trying to accomplish? Go beyond the obvious answer of just sending a player to the WSOP Main Event.

    The specific points system that we used was ...
    10 x (SQRT (Number of Players in Tournament / Place of Finish)) - 5

    Our tournament series required a front-end buy-in and did not pay out cash based on the result of a given tournament. However, my personal opinion is that I'm not sure how relevant the buy-in is to the fair calculation of a series winner. In the typical home game environment, I have not found that higher buy-in tournaments (which usually end up being single table sit-n-go's) are played with any greater skill or against tougher opponents (as you are generally recruiting from the same player pool) than your typical $20-50 home game tournament. Maybe your situation is different. Furthermore, although the WSOP Main Event is a $10,000 buy-in tournament, having played it before, it is an EXTREMELY weak field. The difficulty in making a deep run in the Main Event is a product of both the sheer size of the field and the effort required to navigate that many donks. That alone gives credence to incentivizing players in your series who win larger events, not larger buy-ins.

    Just some things to think about. Good luck!
     
    #12
    Last edited: May 7, 2015
    JFCJ, TexRex and abby99 like this.
  13. abby99

    abby99 Admin / Chip Magpie
    Staff Member Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    12,586
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    388
    Location:
    Iowa
    I agree with bpbenda, and I'm a fan of that particular formula. We used that same points formula back in the days of two simultaneous series of CT tournaments, and I thought it worked well. However, none of those tournaments had rebuys or add-ons.

    My bone of contention, if you will, with the HPT formula is the assumption that even in a home-game league with the same cast of characters every week/month, the size of the buy-in and the toughness of the field are necessarily related. It's the same group of players! This is inconsistent with my own home-game experiences.
     
    #13
    TexRex likes this.
  14. Bloody Marvellous

    Bloody Marvellous Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    33
    Location:
    Gouda, The Netherlands
    I love the 10 * SQRT (n/r) - 5 formula. It's a really simple solution to a problem I've long been struggling with: Setting the lowest number of points to a fixed number regardless of field size, and not having the points double when the field size doubles, and having a similar curve to the Dr. Neau's (HPT) formula. It won't accommodate rebuys/add-ons, and doesn't take the buy-in into consideration (and I understand that not everyone thinks it should), but it's a great basis for any points calculation. I've combined the CT formula with my variation of Dr. Neau's formula, and I think I've finally arrived at a formula I am completely satisfied with.

    I personally don't like a linear points spread because I feel that finishing first is more than twice as difficult as finishing in the middle, and finishing second to last isn't even close to twice as difficult as finishing last. There is such a thing as too simple (hence my silly suggestion to base the points on the chipstacks when the tournament is over). A 1/(1+r) or 10 * SQRT (n/r) curve is a much, much better way of measuring skill and performance.
     
    #14
    TexRex, bpbenda and abby99 like this.
  15. pltrgyst

    pltrgyst Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,934
    Likes Received:
    49
    But those are just your opinions, and have no foundation in fact.

    This is a problem that sports, including auto racing in general, and F1 and IndyCar in particular, have been wrestling with forever, and the best minds in the world have come up with no authoritative, demonstrably best solution.

    In the end, do what works for you and your customers.
     
    #15
    TexRex likes this.
  16. 200 Motels

    200 Motels Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2006
    Messages:
    693
    Likes Received:
    25
    Location:
    Eastern--> Canada
    BPTDirector is saying if you "award points based on the number of chips every player has at the end of the tournament", then only one person would get points because there's only one winner. Is that what you're saying Marv? I don't think anyone here has heard of anyone doing this, I think that's why he questioned it.
     
    #16
  17. Bloody Marvellous

    Bloody Marvellous Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    33
    Location:
    Gouda, The Netherlands
    True, they are my opinions (that's why I used "Personally", and "I feel that"). But even though my suggested systems don't have a foundation in fact, my opinions about the linear points system do. Unless you really think it's twice as hard to finish 1st out of 1,000 as finishing 500th, and that you've played twice as well if you bust out in 999th in stead of in 1,000th. Even F1 and INDYCAR don't use a linear points system but apply a curve. NASCAR does, but then again they only need to make left turns.

    Of course, if you're happy using the linear points system that's fine. But I don't think that was what the OP was looking for.

    As for simple, I guess that depends on what you mean by simple. If it's a points system even a child can understand, than go for the linear one. If it's that it's easy to use, that depends on how the Excel sheet is built. An Excel sheet without formulas where you enter the simple linear points by hand is a lot more work and error prone than a sheet with formulas where you only need to enter the position in which the player finished and the sheet does the rest. If the sheet does the work for you, what's the merit of a simple formula?
     
    #17
    Last edited: May 8, 2015
  18. TexRex

    TexRex Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2011
    Messages:
    258
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    Texas
    Points systems intrigue me. I disagree with Bloody about a fixed bottom point because I think someone entering a 20 player tournament and finishing last has taken on a bigger challenge than someone entering a 10 player tournament and finishing last. However, I agree with many of his ideas about point systems.

    I think the larger the tournament, the less reliable low finishes are. For example, if you have a 3 table, 30 player event, if the first 3 KO's occur at different tables, I think it's hard to say that #28 actually did better than #30. There might be reasons for that unrelated to skill. For example, #28 might have started later, but played less time. #28 might have been at a table that played slower.

    #30 might be like a guy at our tournament one night who went all in with a nut flush on the first hand after the flop, only to be called by a guy who also had a flush but had an open ended straight flush and caught his straight flush on the river. He actually played the hand quite well, but just got unlucky. #28 might have played like a donkey.

    I think you have to figure out what you are trying to measure. If you are trying to send the player with the best chance of winning, average performance is a better measure than total performance. If the best average performance only attended half the games, you are rewarding a lesser player because he came more often. But his chances in another bigger event are probably not as good. Most systems seem to reward players significantly based on attendance.
     
    #18

Share This Page