Vote for points structure

Juan Pablo

Well if HJ is playing it would be rude not to play I'll be late again I'd say, 20 minutes on Sunday only cost me 200 chips which I quickly bluffed back off Tom in the first hand so its not too costly with EV+ players like that around

as re the above barney, I'd have to side with HJ. I like the idea of a steep prize pool/ point structure, if you are not in it to win it, wtf are you doing there in the first place? This idea of getting rewarded for reaching the final table in an event with less than, say, 40 runners, is madness imho.

BrendanB

Maybe it's just me, but I think the cash payouts might have an impact as well. The business league is evidence of how bad flat structures can be. There should be some benefit for coming up the top, if for no other reason to add a bit of interest at the end, as opposed to f-in it all in and seeing who wins.

bohsman

Im playing in the club tonight but I would like to pass the bounty on my head over to HJ, Tom heads up online or off is THE most skillfull part of poker its like a chess game depending the blind structures of course

Imposter

This is just the points for the boards league we're talking about. The payouts will stay the same and i'd imagine most players would be playing for $ on a given night and that the boards points would just be a bonus and/or used for bragging rights on here.

bohsman

At $10 entry with 20 odd runners its not about the money for me, its more like the business league

karlh

im playting tonight, will reg when i get home.

i agree with oscar on heads up. very skillful and i love it when people think its a crap shoot since i can usually take their money. great one last night when i was outchipped 6 to 1 when a tournie got to heads up and i creamed him (and myself).

see ya tonight.

ionapaul

I am thinking of playing in the 50 double chance tonight so mightn't make it - though Sunday's tournie certainly was fun. Although playing for the sake of it is fun and all, when I play I am going for the $$$ each time, so a points structure that in some way matches the payout / recognises finishing in the money sounds good to me. And I'm not saying that because I finished 3rd, either.

DeVore

I've played a lot of Chess in my time and I dont think its anything like Chess at all (and I dont mean that *literally*, I'm aware one is a Board game and one, ostensibly, a card game ). I honestly dont think its a test of skill and while I can play it, I dont take any one outcome seriously.

Also, the arguments here have been weak, along the lines of "thats how the money goes" or "thats how other tournaments do it, we shouldnt be different". Yes, first is better then 5th or 6th. He's getting double or triple their points as it is, but the structures being suggested are so non-linear that 1st may get triple *thirds* points. I mean, why stop there. Lets give first N-1 points and second 1 point and everyone else gets nothing. And no, I'm not really being facetious, its only a matter of degrees of difference from what you are suggesting is a good way to go.

I'll ask you all again two simple questions and I'd appreciate direct replies if you are going to criticise my suggestion:

1. Why are we playing these games if not to determine the most skilled player, over time. (cos lets face it, the ROI of this tournie has to be one of the worst in the country!

2. Who would you consider the more skilled player, a player who comes 4th three times out of 3 or a player who comes first once and nowhere twice?

Now rationalise your answer of question 1 with question 2.

If you answer "The guy who comes first" in Question 2, then a non-linear approach works for that. If you answer "the guy who comes fourth 3 times" then by chosing a non-linear points structure you are rewarding the wrong player.

DeV.

Hectorjelly

DeVore wrote:

I'll ask you all again two simple questions and I'd appreciate direct replies if you are going to criticise my suggestion:

1. Why are we playing these games if not to determine the most skilled player, over time. (cos lets face it, the ROI of this tournie has to be one of the worst in the country!

2. Who would you consider the more skilled player, a player who comes 4th three times out of 3 or a player who comes first once and nowhere twice?

Without other information the question isnt anwserable, but why did the guy come 4th 3 times? That shows a lack of finishing skill just as only making the final table once shows a lack of skill in the early rounds.

Hectorjelly

DeVore wrote:

I've played a lot of Chess in my time and I dont think its anything like Chess at all (and I dont mean that *literally*, I'm aware one is a Board game and one, ostensibly, a card game ). I honestly dont think its a test of skill and while I can play it, I dont take any one outcome seriously.

I play about 100 heads up games a month, and I feel it is the biggest test of poker skill out there. I agree with Bohsman its like a chess match, as you have 1 opponent and you can focus all your energy on exploiting his weaknesses. As long as the blinds are reasnable there is almost no reason for the better player to lose. I figure to win about 70 - 75 % of my heads up encounters at any level on VC lower than $100, and I almost never finish 2nd in tournements.

This is all assuming the blinds arent massive once it gets down to HU. Any game with huge blinds relative to stacks is primarily about luck and aggresion. rather than skill

bohsman

Dev Im fairly sure it would be possible to win a heads up game playing on the blind (obviously not letting your opponent know this) That said chess is not exactly a game of skill its a memory game

henbane

Dev, the key point you seem to be avoiding/missing is this...

hectorjelly wrote:

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.

If people are sacrificing $EV for points EV or vice versa this will lead to some strange plays for the sake of coming out ahead in one and not the other.

DeV wrote:

Why are we playing these games if not to determine the most skilled player, over time. (cos lets face it, the ROI of this tournie has to be one of the worst in the country!

The most skilled player will be the person who is capable of accruing the most points by playing the best poker for points. If they have sacrificed $EV along the way to this end, have they proven themselves to be the best player?

It's all about the

BrendanB

Aaah, bad people.

Firstly and utterly offtopic, Oscar, chess. Memory is indeed an element, but not to the extent that people think, at moderately high levels (we're talking at least 1800+) you can't realistically compete without a decent openings repertoire, and at strong master level 2300+, you need individual opponent preparation/novelties. Below those kinds of levels, people regularly win with shockingly bad theoretical knowledge. Give any strong player 300 points and you can throw the books out the window. Anyway, not the point.

Heads up is a great game, but I don't think that really is the point of a tournament structure. How you structure payouts is based on more than the value of the heads up play. It is very easy to play ultra tight in a full ring and survive for a long time. Pokerstars have a amusing article explaining 'why sitting out is not cheating', which they wrote in response to complaints from people about players who would register in multiple small play money tournaments and then sit out of all of them, in the expectation that they would still be there in the payouts.

So when you structure a tournament, you recognise that part of tournament poker is taking the big risks to win the big money, you need to be playing to win from the first hand of a tournament. Maintaining a small stack all the way through involves maths, which Tom finds pleasing, whereas for example, Joe O'Neill wouldn't. Tournaments are not just cash games with increasing blinds, they are strategic entities in and of themselves. (Which is where the chess comparison comes in, what HJ would call 'metagame' considerations. Showing a bluff then sticking it to the same player with a decent hand, putting people on tilt etc.)

Surviving to be first in the money in a big tournament sometimes involves being unlucky with a big stack, but more often it's a sign of someone who clung on to the table with their nails. The problem with the final stages of e.g. fitz tournaments is not the payouts, it's the blinds. When there is a reasonable blind structure I have no problem giving most of the money to first, second and third, with first getting a big edge.

Tournaments are better when everyone plays to win.

PS. By the way Tom in response to your questions:
1. For the craic.
2. If you don't see the fallacious nature of this argument...

karlh

while we're mildly off topic, can i direct anyone interested in chess to the chess forum.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=417

i'm sure i saw some tumble weed and a wounded soldier in there yesterday. was talk of a boards chess tournament last year. i know a few peeps including me who'd be interested. ill pop up a thread to gauge interest.

now back to the gambling....i mean gaming.

mewso

I agree with this idea in theory that more money for first is rewarding the player who played to win right from the start. Unfortunately I can't get rid of the feeling that it ends up rewarding this weeks lucky git who played like an idiot all night and got lucky.

Culchie

23 played last night, good turnout !

Getting on to the final table is going to be a significant challenge the way this tourney is shaping up for the future !!

DeVore

musician wrote:

I agree with this idea in theory that more money for first is rewarding the player who played to win right from the start. Unfortunately I can't get rid of the feeling that it ends up rewarding this weeks lucky git who played like an idiot all night and got lucky.

He shoots. He scores! \o/

Brendan, I dont see the fallacious nature of the argument.

Henbane, if its all about the money and a disparity between points and money is BAD[tm], then why do we pay only 3 and neither of the options on the poll is < 6 in length. *zing*

I play to get to the final table, that in itself requires a number of gear changes. Once I make final, I look at it as having achieved my goal for the night ie: giving myself a shot at the title. Not only that but also giving the cards the opportunity to turn for me and *gift* me a paycheque, cos if you aint there you cant get lucky.

I've played 7 tournies in the Fitz this year (I've been busy!) and had a money placing in 6 of them. A couple I won and a couple I've picked up next weeks tournie entry in profit. If I can do that all this year I will be one very happy poker player. I think locking 2/3rds or 3/4s of the money into the top two spots is dumb and unfair. Thats just my honest opinion though.

DeV.

kencleary

DeVore wrote:

He shoots. He scores! \o/

Brendan, I dont see the fallacious nature of the argument.

I've played 7 tournies in the Fitz this year (I've been busy!) and had a money placing in 6 of them. A couple I won and a couple I've picked up next weeks tournie entry in profit. If I could do that all this year I will be a very happy poker player. I think locking 2/3rds or 3/4s of the money into the top two spots is dumb and unfair. Thats just my honest opinion though.

DeV.

Why though? If as you seem to believe luck plays a bigger part than skill at the final table/heads up then assuming your luck is as good as the next guys youre not losing any equity by not making a deal. And if you've made the money 6 times outta 7 in tournies in the new year I would have to assume that your skill level is far higher than average in these tournies. Surely therefore its a mistake for you to deal?!

mewso

Just remember Devilfish and Donnacha O'Dea in last years Ladbrokes poker million.

Devilfish - QQ
Donnacha - AA

Game over.

Two players of equal skill headsup playing well this is what it will almost always come down to, luck. I actually do think there is a certain skill to headsup but the above can happen with 2 well matched players. The skill was in getting there imho.

kencleary

musician wrote:

Just remember Devilfish and Donnacha O'Dea in last years Ladbrokes poker million.

Devilfish - QQ
Donnacha - AA

Game over.

Two players of equal skill headsup playing well this is what it will almost always come down to, luck. I actually do think there is a certain skill to headsup but the above can happen with 2 well matched players. The skill was in getting there imho.

But the point is that everybody has the same luck (I know it may not seem this way sometimes) so you're not gaining anything by making a deal. Unless of course you make a deal which disproportionally benefits yourself of course

BrendanB

DeVore wrote:

2. Who would you consider the more skilled player, a player who comes 4th three times out of 3 or a player who comes first once and nowhere twice?

DeVore wrote:

Brendan, I dont see the fallacious nature of the argument.

Well.
Firstly: All that your 'point' is, is a statement of one aspect of the question, it does not make an argument for or against it. For example:
'What do you consider right? Allowing Nazis freedom to peddle their ideas or not?', while it may make an effective rhetorical device, doesn't actually say anything at all. The argument is (a) whether your question is right or wrong, and (b) whether it is the whole of the matter.

Secondly: You unjustifiedly assume an objective measure of 'skill', independent of the payout structure of the tournament.

Third: You assume skill is the be all and end all of the payout structure, ignoring the impact of a structure on the tournament.

Fourth: As has been mentioned, you provide insufficient information as to circumstance.

Oh yeah, I forgot. The 6 payout structure doesn't actually do that.

Shortstack

So it's a draw ! I am going to break with democracy and pick the system to use.
9 places get points and 12,10,8,6,5,4,3,2,1.

This should work out ok and fair top all. Coming 3rd twice gives you more points than winning once and also winning and third is the same as twice coming second.

Other issues :

I said I would put all affiliate payments into a pot when paid. A lot of people have said they used the link but only 2 sign ups have registered on my account for February. If you did use the link from Clan poker and downloaded the software from there please let me know and I can speak to Pokerstars about the missing credits.

Oscar nominated Hector for the bounty in the 3rd game. Who knocked him out ? There is a choice of prize waiting.

Who knocked Brendan out of the last game ?

Dev is bounty tonight - 8pm Register early if you want to play.

Sunday's game is $20 and will be at 7pm. 50% more points for the end of the month game.

First league table should be up here about 30 mins after the end of tonights game. Early front runners look like Brendan, Karl and Dev.

Can Dapper be the first player to be the first player knocked out 3 times ?

Imposter

Shortstack wrote:

Can Dapper be the first player to be the first player knocked out 3 times ?

T'would be a brave person to bet against it

I definitely signed up from the clan poker site.

DeVore

Shortstack wrote:

So it's a draw ! I am going to break with democracy and pick the system to use.
9 places get points and 12,10,8,6,5,4,3,2,1.

This should work out ok and fair top all. Coming 3rd twice gives you more points than winning once and also winning and third is the same as twice coming second.

When you put it like that, I guess thats fair enough....

Who knocked Brendan out of the last game ?

That would be me...

Dev is bounty tonight - 8pm Register early if you want to play.

Eeeeek. :eek:

First league table should be up here about 30 mins after the end of tonights game. Early front runners look like Brendan, Karl and Dev.

Nah, all I do is write about poker....

Can Dapper be the first player to be the first player knocked out 3 times ?

He'll have to beat Hyzepher to it...

DeV.

karlh

Shortstack wrote:

First league table should be up here about 30 mins after the end of tonights game.

so what's the overall structure then? we have 2 weekly games, a 20 end of month sunday game......what are the points building towards?

Imposter

karlhoff wrote:

so what's the overall structure then? we have 2 weekly games, a 20 end of month sunday game......what are the points building towards?

I think Mike said that the best 20 scores for each person would be taken and used to form a league table and there would be a prize at the end. It's in one of the other threads. competition lasts until 31/12/2005.

karlh

cool thanks. where's the prize coming from though? is it scooped from prizepools as we go along or is it just top 10 people get the right to buy into a STT final?

Imposter

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.

Actually it was in this thread.

henbane

Who wants one of these? ++EV trophies!

karlh

LOL.

cool, thanks for info.