Vote for points structure

Shortstack

I have two point structures in mind. Whichever is chosen the end of month events will have 50% more points.

Waylander

I think 9 people is too many. In the two tournie played to date, giving points to 9 people would have been at least half of the entrants.

DapperGent

Six places for me. Not that I'll get anywhere near it.

Imposter

Waylander wrote:

I think 9 people is too many. In the two tournie played to date, giving points to 9 people would have been at least half of the entrants.

That may be true but there have been about 25 players so far. If they and possible say 10 more play in a game then 6 is way too few. Maybe say <20 = 6 places get points while >19 9 get points.

RustySpoon

9 places given points would make it for a tighter and more competitive league. I'm in favour of it. It might even give me a chance of a point whenever i can get free to play in it. I will be there on tuesday!

karlh

9 places regardless of the field.

Dub13

Yea you should give points to the top 9....anybody at the last table should get something,you never no this could grow to 4/5 tables.

Waylander

Is there a set term for each league. When does a season end or start. If it just goes on indefinitely it will gett to a stage whereno one can get on the leaderboard unless they have been playing for a long time.

Iago

I think Mike said that regardless of how many times you play only your best 20 results count, so all you have to do is win 20 times and then you can relax

Shortstack

Final postions will be as of 31st December 2005. I will get a trophy made for the winner. If we get enough players regularly then I am sure Pokerstars will donate something for a prize. They gave the bloggers a Leather jacket for their tourney last month. I am sure nearer the time we can organize a presentation ( piss up ) evening.

Iago

Shortstack wrote:

Final postions will be as of 31st December 2005. I will get a trophy made for the winner. If we get enough players regularly then I am sure Pokerstars will donate something for a prize. They gave the bloggers a Leather jacket for their tourney last month. I am sure nearer the time we can organize a presentation ( piss up ) evening.

With that in mind and based on your last post stating that only the top 20 results will count, how will you allocate the positions between people who have the same score?

Will it be on number of times played? i.e. the less games played to accumulate the points will be ahead?

Number of 1st place finishes?

Just need to be clear on the structure...

ionapaul

Ahhh, I can already smell the new leather of my end-of-year jacket of glory...as long as PokerStars can supply enough sequins to write 'IONAPAUL - POKER STUD'* across the back, I'll be happy

*'Poker Stu' will have to do if there isn't enough sequins

Dr_Colossus

Hi All
What league are you all referring to exactly. I vaguely remember reading something about someone trying to set up a regular tournament on pokerstars for board members. Is this on Tueday nights or is it played twice a week now? Also what time does it start and is it under the special tournaments section with a required password. Great idea who ever came up with it and hopefully pokerstars will donate something for all the rake we hand them.
Regards
D

Shortstack

Iago wrote:

With that in mind and based on your last post stating that only the top 20 results will count, how will you allocate the positions between people who have the same score?

Will it be on number of times played? i.e. the less games played to accumulate the points will be ahead?

Number of 1st place finishes?

Just need to be clear on the structure...

If this is the case then I will take into account the 21st result of each player tied. If there is no 21st result then it will have to be most wins then most 2nds if still tied and so on. ! in the unlikely event everthing is exactly the same for each player than a heads up match will have to take place.

mewso

Theres a sticky now Colossus - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2377854#post2377854

Dr_Colossus wrote:

Hi All
What league are you all referring to exactly. I vaguely remember reading something about someone trying to set up a regular tournament on pokerstars for board members. Is this on Tueday nights or is it played twice a week now? Also what time does it start and is it under the special tournaments section with a required password. Great idea who ever came up with it and hopefully pokerstars will donate something for all the rake we hand them.
Regards
D

Krusty_Clown

Points for 9 Places will encourage more people to play / join in.
After three months, if the top 6 have taken a large lead, at least the other players still have an opportunity to get points. It also rewards consistency, removes the lottery-fest element to the competition.

Dr_Colossus

I would also agree to the 9 point payout. The last couple of tournaments appear to have a decent turnout and this is only likely to increase as the news spreads and the competition heats up there. Given the larger field therefore 9 places is fair as there's more of an incentive to get to the final table.

DeVore

I really hate the way first gets considerably more for coming first then second and third get. Imho it should be a flat structure or at most one extra, extra point for winning.

9,6,4,3,2,1 means that if you come third you get less then half the winner. In chosing the better player between someone who got third twice and someone who got first once I know where my money would be going. In fact you could come 3rd,4th and 5th in three tournies and only equal someone who did a "Vernon" and monstered a load of chips with a run of lucky cards.

We should be rewarding consistency, rather then luck and those structures do the exact opposite imho.

Just my 2c but 10,8,....1 would be what I'd chose!

DeV.
ps: Way to go getting this sorted Shortstack, so far its been very enjoyable! See you guys tonight for Round 2!

pps: I think Mike said that 10 would score, has that changed to 20? Either is fine since we have about 80 games to play if we keep up this rate (2 a week) until December.





DeV.

Hectorjelly

Originally Posted by DeVore


DeV.

The problem with this structure is that it does not adequately reward risk taking once you get down to the final few. If the big stack were to move all in each hand near the end it would almost never make sense for any stack to call but the lowest. In fact because the points % would differ from the actual $ for each place it would mean that there would be two optium strategies at the late stages of the tournament, depending on whether you wanted to maximise $ EV or points EV, and this is obviously a bad situation.

I know you feel that pay structures should be flatter, but the way tournaments are structured now mean that going for 1st place is rewarded richly. What you are suggesting is that for our boards tournament we change the nature of our tournament, and so a different strategy would be required. I think this would be an odd situation dont you?

DeVore

I thought the idea of this tournament was to identify and reward the best Boards player. Am I wrong in that? Additionally to have fun and interact with each other over a game of cards, however the points structure doesnt affect that either way.

The best players cannot be identified in a single night, the variance of the cards causes too much "noise" but over time the better players will *tend* to shine through.

The problem is that rather then using a linear increase in points as the placings increase, we're using an accelerating scale. This distorts the outcome as fluke cards towards the end will AMPLIFY the noise because of the greater jumps in points.

First,second and third already get money, so why the need for a points-distorting incentive?

If anything I think Heads Up play is LESS skillful then shorthanded play so the ideal structure would be :11,10,9,8,7,6! (two sixths would beat one first!) But I wont try and argue for that, just for a linear increase in points, or at most 2 points extra for getting first.

DeV.

Hectorjelly

DeVore wrote:

I thought the idea of this tournament was to identify and reward the best Boards player. Am I wrong in that? Additionally to have fun and interact with each other over a game of cards, however the points structure doesnt affect that either way.

The best players cannot be identified in a single night, the variance of the cards causes too much "noise" but over time the better players will *tend* to shine through.

The problem is that rather then using a linear increase in points as the placings increase, we're using an accelerating scale. This distorts the outcome as fluke cards towards the end will AMPLIFY the noise because of the greater jumps in points.

First,second and third already get money, so why the need for a points-distorting incentive?

If anything I think Heads Up play is LESS skillful then shorthanded play so the ideal structure would be :11,10,9,8,7,6! (two sixths would beat one first!) But I wont try and argue for that, just for a linear increase in points, or at most 2 points extra for getting first.

DeV.

Why is heads up less skillfull than shorthanded? And you havent answered the point that you want the points awarded to differ than the $$ prizes.

Imposter

We could start a new poll and put the money prizes as an option. Meaning for each $ won you'd get one point. Can't see too many going for it though. The structure on PS is something like that there has to be more than 27 for 5 to get paid. Such a structure would make for a crap league table imo.

DeV is the 12, 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 so much different than 10, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1?

Culchie

I thought the idea of a vote would establish what people wanted?


Are are these the 'hustings' ?

mewso

DeVore wrote:

The best players cannot be identified in a single night, the variance of the cards causes too much "noise" but over time the better players will *tend* to shine through.

I'm going to dispute this in advance of not shining through.

Iago

DeVore wrote:

The best players cannot be identified in a single night, the variance of the cards causes too much "noise" but over time the better players will *tend* to shine through.

DeV.

Is that why you scrapped through to the final of the BSOP in a once off STT then DeV

DeVore

/ignore Iago.

To be fair though, the final table of the BSOP fairly well mimiced my choices for the top players from Boards (myself excluded and HJ included.)

Heads up isnt about the cards so much as the aggression and the reading of the player. Heads Up online isn't a patch on heads up live imho (and its just that, an opinion. I cant get a slide rule and prove it!).

Hector, you already know I think the prize structure is too steep in most card clubs. I'd flatten that to a linear structure too if I had my way. The current way its done is dumb imho. I've seen two good players play very well and get to the final 6, then one of them got a run of savage cards which he played well (as I've said already, he was a good player) and monstered his stack while the other guy nipped and tucked but ultimately didnt get the cards and went out fourth. First player got nearly 2K the fourth player got about 150. The skill difference between them wasnt much and it felt very unjust. I was dealing it btw.

DeV.

Hectorjelly

With a good run of cards anyone can do well in any type of poker, shorthanded longed handed etc etc. Anyway it doesnt make that much difference. You playing tonight? So far we only have 5 entrants.

DeVore

I'm in for tonight.

I agree but in a 270 person competition a good run of cards doesnt mean that much, in a 3 person competition, the impact they have is huge. For example, up in the Cavindish Club in the north, the two boys who came first and second were the two worst players at the table imho. Eoin and Neil were excellent btu were outdrawn when they got their chips in, miles ahead. In Neils case, not only was he out drawn but the guy calls his all in with A5o and hits a 5. The two of them continued on and took down the chip leader in two huge hands, one after another, and then played heads up for two hands before yet again the cards simply awarded 50K sterling to one guy.
This is a specific case of the general "theory" / opinion I am expousing to be true, that the impact of variance in heads up requires HUGE data sampling to over come. the "signal" of skill (as I, conveniently, define it) is considerably overrun by the "noise" of good/bad cards.

The "run" of good cards doesnt need to be very long either. In maths terms the "period" of the signals wavelength is short and easily affected by noise. Ok, that analogy has run its course. It doesnt take a lot of good cards to beat down on a player who is ACTUALLY better then you at heads up.

My question is to turn this around and ask you: "Since the play who wins IS getting a point then second (as second didnt from third, third from fourth etc), why is this unfair? Fifth over came (say) 20 people to get there, first over came 24 but gets what, triple, quadruple the score??"

My suggestion is that all of final table gets points, linearly from top to bottom. Alternatively and additional point be given to first simply as a symbolic "You r teh winn4r!" reward. So I ask you...why is that NOT fair?

DeV.

Imposter

Hectorjelly wrote:

You playing tonight? So far we only have 5 entrants.

Calm down there, most don't register until the last hour. This should be good tonight especially the Hector and DeV show!

If anyone is looking for value for your 10$ (in terms of winning some $ back) this is not the place for it!

DeVore

Ah to be fair (and I was commenting in the club a while back about this) I only argue with Hector for two reasons. Firstly I enjoy the arguments and secondly I respect the depth of his understanding of the game. Not much point arguing with someone when you think "hey, you're a goon anyway, wtf do you know!"

I'll still wipe the floor with him tonight though and as for that Oscar fella... well so long as I dont get a smack to the noggin of the STUPID STICK with KJ again (and my 50/50's stand up repeatedly) ...

DeV.

Hectorjelly

Its not fair because any decent tournament strategy realises that 1st place is worth a lot more than 4th 5th and 6th, a linear payout means a different strategy should be employed, and it doesnt make sense for this tournament to be any different than all the others.