Assign Poker League Points - Need Advice

[aj1405]

We’re starting up a new poker league.
Top two will win a tournament package.

I’m thinking about doing:

Buyin cost *(Number of players - Rank + 1)
+ Winnings amount
+ Rebuy cost * Number of rebuys * 0,5
+ Addon cost * Number of addons * 0,5

Your points are accumulated towards a final tournament where your points are given out as chips.

This is what I want to achieve with this formula:
- Reward players that put more money into the league. There will be different buyins during the season. (Using the buyin cost/cash amounts instead of regular points)
- Reward player that play often, even though they might not do so well. We got a lot of players that usually don’t play poker/isn’t that interested in poker as some of us, so I want to entice them to play. (Number of players - Rank + 1)
- Have an exponential scoring based on you rank (Winnings amount)
- A small reward for doing rebuys and addons/putting more money in the pot. (Rebuy and addon cost)

Some of my conclusions:
- Doing such complex formula will make almost impossible for the players to calculate their goals in advance, which is bad, but it allows us to do a scoring which rewards players based on our requirements.
- Having the points accumulated towards a final tournament where your points are given out as chips will give everyone a fighting chance for the prices. Some bad player is probably going to suck out big time, which is the risk. But I think that with our clientele if we were to just accumulate the points many will fall off towards the end since they don’t have a chance to win anyway.
- There is a small group that usually occupies the top placements every time, so I need to entice the rest to keep them coming/wanting to play.

This is my first league, so I really would like you opinion on my plan.

[StevenH72]

Good system imo.

A change I would make.

Rather than winnings amount why not mulitply by finishing position (but you'd have to do a ranking system, i.e

1st = x by 1.8
2nd = x by 1.5
3rd = x by 1.2
4th = x by 1.0
5th = x by 0.9

etc. etc.,

That way players get rewarded all the way down, but doesnt mean the Bubble player gets the same credit as player finishing last.

I don't know how many players you have, but you could estimate your maximum and figure out a sensible "multiplication threshold" for your group individually.

My group used to do

Buy-in size x Number of players x position

With all cof the 3 categories having a ranking system.

Buy in size was something like £16-20 x 1.0, £11-15 x 0.9 etc
Number of players was along the lines of: 2-5 x 0.6, 6-7 x 0.7, 8-9 x 0.8, 10-14 x 0.9 etc.
Position i explained earlier.

This format worked really well and awarded everybody points. And also benefits regular attenders, rather than just finishing position.

[aj1405]

Thanks for you feedback.

Originally Posted by StevenH72

Good system imo.

A change I would make.

Rather than winnings amount why not mulitply by finishing position (but you'd have to do a ranking system, i.e

1st = x by 1.8
2nd = x by 1.5
3rd = x by 1.2
4th = x by 1.0
5th = x by 0.9

etc. etc.,

That way players get rewarded all the way down, but doesnt mean the Bubble player gets the same credit as player finishing last.

You’re right that is a better system. Adding winnings was the simplest solution.

I tried some different formulas like this on:
(Number of players - Rank + 1) * (Number of players - Rank + 1) * Buyin cost / Number of players

But none of them give me the curve I’d like. Where are the mathematicians when you need them?

A manual table to multiply by would be the best, but I don’t think the tournament director supports it.

Originally Posted by StevenH72

I don't know how many players you have, but you could estimate your maximum and figure out a sensible "multiplication threshold" for your group individually.

My group used to do

Buy-in size x Number of players x position

With all cof the 3 categories having a ranking system.

Buy in size was something like £16-20 x 1.0, £11-15 x 0.9 etc
Number of players was along the lines of: 2-5 x 0.6, 6-7 x 0.7, 8-9 x 0.8, 10-14 x 0.9 etc.
Position i explained earlier.

This format worked really well and awarded everybody points. And also benefits regular attenders, rather than just finishing position.

Calculating the rough numbers in advance shouldn’t be that big of a problem.
It just would have been easier to have: “I’m 5 point behind the leader, so I’ve got to outlast him/her and 4 others” or something like that.

[Krafticus]

I just did mine old school, and made up the numbers

I have 24, and all 24 play each week. 8 weeks, top 9 make the final table.

first out, you get 0, then it increase by 2 points until 20. Then it increases by 3 points until 30. Then it increases by 5 to 65. It is a wide range, but it all balances out.

after week 7, we have a low score of 134 and a high of 308. The low score made the final table during the week 1 time, the high made it 5 times (winning once, coming in 3rd twice, 5th once, and 7th once).

Mark

[squiggly]

I use the Neau formula, first created by Jeff Neau who wrote tournament manager software.

Players are ranked in each tournament using the following formula:

score = (sqrt(((a * b) * (b / c))) / (d + 1.0))

where

a = Tournament Buy-in Count
b = Player Buy-in Expense
c = Player Total Expense
d = Player Finish
The caculator gives these:

I find it works well for us, even though we don't use it to its full potential; we don't vary our buy-in size or have rebuys or add-ons.

Season end I use the points x constant to adjust starting stack sizes for the final table.

If you're interested in his software, go here.

[StevenH72]

The Neau formula looks perfect for what you want imo, I had never heard of that before, thanks for posting

[wafflestomper]

I have a tourney excel spreadsheet that I've been working for the past 6ish months (fine tuning) that I think I've got to work exactly the way I want it to.

I'd be happy to send you a copy and talk you through how it works, but it has the ability to use different formulas to try out (I use Dr. Neau's formula). We don't reward rebuys (because we wanted to see who the best player was, and we think that the person who puts in the least amount of money and makes the most consistently is the best player).

Shoot me an email at brian [dot] zollinhofer [at] gmail and I'll talk you through it. It is pretty impressive (if you ask me...)

[rhinton7078]

Im gonna go the lazy route and post the address ( PAR - Page: 1 of 6 ) where we keep our points posted. It has all the details of the game such as money breakdowns and points system, the leaderboard, and even a smack talk area.

We have been at this a while and keep a pretty consistent group each go around.

[aj1405]

Originally Posted by squiggly

I use the Neau formula, first created by Jeff Neau who wrote tournament manager software.

I find it works well for us, even though we don't use it to its full potential; we don't vary our buy-in size or have rebuys or add-ons.

Season end I use the points x constant to adjust starting stack sizes for the final table.

If you're interested in his software, go here.

Originally Posted by StevenH72

The Neau formula looks perfect for what you want imo, I had never heard of that before, thanks for posting

Thanks, this is basically what I did in my previous formula.
But I think it gives the middle range to many points.

Buyin	200
Rank	Points	Rank² * Buyin / 200 + (Buyin / 10)
1	20	420
2	19	381
3	18	344
4	17	309
5	16	276
6	15	245
7	14	216
8	13	189
9	12	164
10	11	141
11	10	120
12	9	101
13	8	84
14	7	69
15	6	56
16	5	45
17	4	36
18	3	29
19	2	24
20	1	21

I’ve been playing around, and think I’ve found a good formula:
(Rank⁴ * Buyin / 100,000) + (Buyin / 10)>>

Buyin	200
Rank	Points	(Rank⁴ * Buyin / 100,000) + (Buyin / 10)
1	20	340
2	19	281
3	18	230
4	17	187
5	16	151
6	15	121
7	14	97
8	13	77
9	12	61
10	11	49
11	10	40
12	9	33
13	8	28
14	7	25
15	6	23
16	5	21
17	4	21
18	3	20
19	2	20
20	1	20

[aj1405]

Originally Posted by wafflestomper

I have a tourney excel spreadsheet that I've been working for the past 6ish months (fine tuning) that I think I've got to work exactly the way I want it to.

I'd be happy to send you a copy and talk you through how it works, but it has the ability to use different formulas to try out (I use Dr. Neau's formula). We don't reward rebuys (because we wanted to see who the best player was, and we think that the person who puts in the least amount of money and makes the most consistently is the best player).

Shoot me an email at brian [dot] zollinhofer [at] gmail and I'll talk you through it. It is pretty impressive (if you ask me...)

E-mail sent.

Your right about the rebuys, good players shouldn’t have to rebuy. But I want to give them a small reward for putting more money in, and not quit the game.