TLB points suggestion

[VirtualXtrem]

I know that this wouldn't promote everyone to play every day, both games. But I can't play every day both games.

I would like to see instead of using all of the accumulated points in the month, take the points from the highest 30 games and use them. If you don't play 30 then you use just the games you play. For instance I only played 23 games last month, so I would have to use all of mine, and it would have to stack up against those that might have placed in the money 20-25 times in the month. It would not actually give me an edge but it would allow me an opportunity to be closer to the top of the TLB points.

Please have some discussion on this suggestion.

VX

[Melina 07]

hmmmmmmmmmm

[Kat]

We had this discussion at another place and I tend to agree with your suggestion. The problem with using points from all games (and there are a LOT per month here) is that it can become more of a measure of attendance than performance. My guess is taking the best 30 would iron that out a bit without causing a significant drop in attendance.

[VirtualXtrem]

I was looking at the numbers and it wouldn't actually change the outcome that much.

I don't know how to post a file here but I have the July points adjusted to best 30 finishes, just doing the top 20 or 21 and it makes very little change.

VX

[Yoda]

I was looking at the numbers and it wouldn't actually change the outcome that much.

I don't know how to post a file here but I have the July points adjusted to best 30 finishes, just doing the top 20 or 21 and it makes very little change.

VX

probably makes little difference because it helps knock out all the low scores taken in by those who play alot . Its easily seen that it gives an advanage to playing alot, but the solutions are few. The problems I see are.

1. We only have 3 places paid out most time due to the struture on PS. (less then 28 people) In a normal structure, it would pay out 4 spots at 18 people and 5 spots at 27. Most of our tourneys are in the low 20's, so its still just 3 places. thus, with less players, more money gets paid at the top and with that alot more points.

2. The points structure really favors those who cash and little with little reward for 4th or bubbler. In our format, those who cash get a big advantage in points and since only 3 payout most nights, its a huge advantage. Based on total points, heres how the distrubution comes out. See example

The total points given out not including the points for cashing is 171 points. The points for cashing by itself is 139 points total. Both points together come out to 310 points given out for the night.Thats an over all increase of almost 100% in points for the top 3.
171 non cashing points+ 139 Cashing points= 310 total points
total points given out by % is

for example, ill copy from one tourney
1: Virtualxtrem (Arkansas-USA), $45.00 (50%)=18+45=63 PTS 20%
2: CalifNaughti (Team Cali), $27.00 (30%) 17+27=44 pts 14%
3: voices_Shh (San Antonio), $18.00 (20%) 16+18-=32 PTS 10%
4: bullish06 (Evans),15 .048%
5: KMCWA (San Antonio), 14 . 045%
6: A REAL DEAL (Chicago),13 .042%
7: bendMEover (USA),12 .038%
8: phishfinder2 (media), 11 .035%
9: Raise, Ha! (Team Cali),10 .032%
10: boltman015 (San Diego),9 3%
11: hcal (Burlington),8 8 .025%
12: Phaedrus101 (Kemah),7 .023%
13: MoReal (Chicago),6 .019%
14: bertman019 (San Mateo),5 .016%
15: Mi§T¥ ߣuë (repntgny), 4 .013%
16: Derby Status (Agua Dulce),3 1%
17: MONEY1959 (Havertown),2 .006%
18: *MELINA 07* (Laval, Quebec), 1 .003%

Total points given out to top 3 is 139, which is 45% of all points given out to 3 places. The difference between 3rd and 4th is only 1 points,which is an increase of less the 1% of , but when cashing points are added, is an increase of 113% for cashing. for just one place. In this case,,,4th who played well, gets screwed in points.

MY point is that while I agreemore points should be awarded for those who are winning, the distrubution is a little out of line mathmatically
The solution? I dont have one,,yet, but I have an idea how it might work. I used a points structure for the TOC game that was pretty well spaced out, but it only paid out points for the top 30% of the players or so and I still think that points given out for all places still has merit. Ill post what I used for the TOC and propose to use something like this, but with points payouts for all places. Points placing would have to be redone completly for all places, but here is how it looked in the TOC points set up. only 30% of the players got points in this set up, which also was weighted more toward those who won too. After looking this over some more, I dont like it so much for a forum points. LEt me pull up infomation of a team tourney and see how those points look.

*** If we only get 3 to 6 players, I will award points based on 6 players.
# of Entrants/ % to get points/# PLACES getting points/ -TOTAL PTS given out for the tourney/ 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th

6 30% 3 6 3 2 1
7 30% 3 9 5 3 2
8 30% 3 14 7 4 3
9 30% 3 20 10 6 4
10 30% 4 27 11 8 5 3
11 30% 4 32 13 10 6 3
12 30% 4 36 14 11 7 4
13 30% 4 39 16 12 8 4
14 30% 4 42 17 13 8 4
15 30% 5 50 17 12 9 7 4
16 30% 5 53 19 7 6 5 5
17 30% 5 59 21 14 11 8 5
18 30% 5 62 22 15 11 9 6
19 30% 5 65 23 16 12 9 6
20 30% 6 74 26 15 12 10 7 5
21 30% 6 76 26 15 12 10 7 5
22 30% 6 80 28 16 13 10 7 6
23 30% 6 85 30 17 14 11 8 6
24 30% 7 87 29 16 13 10 8 6 4
25 30% 7 91 31 16 14 11 8 6 5
26 30% 7 92 31 17 14 11 8 6 5
27 30% 8 96 33 16 13 11 8 7 5 4
28 30% 8 97 33 17 14 11 8 7 5 4
29 30% 8 98 33 17 14 11 8 7 5 4
30 30% 9 103 32 12 12 10 9 8 7 6 5
31 30% 9 108 34 13 13 11 10 9 8 6 5
32 30% 9 110 34 13 13 11 10 9 8 7 6
33 30% 9 112 35 13 13 11 10 9 8 7 6
34 30% 10 117 36 16 13 12 11 8 7 6 5 4
35 30% 10 121 38 17 13 12 11 8 7 6 5 4
36 30% 10 125 39 18 14 13 11 9 8 6 5 4
37 30% 11 129 40 18 14 13 12 9 6 5 5 4 3
38 30% 11 136 42 19 15 14 12 10 7 5 5 4 3
39 30% 11 144 45 20 16 14 13 10 7 6 5 4 4
40 30% 12 151 45 20 16 12 11 9 8 8 7 6 5
41 30% 12 159 48 21 17 13 11 10 9 8 7 6 6

heres a points set up i used for a team tourney. It paid out points for all places,. This particular example shows points paid out for a 10 person tourney.While it still does give more points to the top, the % difference between 3rd and 4th is a lot more reasonable. I could come out with a points layout for up to 50 places using this format, but would take some time.

1. 30 100%
2. 27 90%
3. 24 80% (4 point diff between 3rd and 4th.)
4. 20 66.6%
5. 17 56.6%
6. 14 46.6%
7. 10 33.3% (4 point diff between 6th and 7th.)
8. 7 23.3%
9. 5 16.6%
10. 3 10%

Im just looking for things to help make the the points more fair for the forum over all.Im not sure this is a solution either. just somee ideas.

[Holdem Freak]

I am not sure but this is how we used to do the points somewhere else and I used to like them a lot. It did work out quite well I felt.



The formula used:

Points = 10 * [sqrt(n)/sqrt(k)]
Where:
n is the number of entrants
k is the place of finish (k=1 for the first-place finisher, and so on)

[Yoda]

I am not sure but this is how we used to do the points somewhere else and I used to like them a lot. It did work out quite well I felt.



The formula used:

Points = 10 * [sqrt(n)/sqrt(k)]
Where:
n is the number of entrants
k is the place of finish (k=1 for the first-place finisher, and so on)

After applying the numbers, heres what I came out with usng a 10 person tourney and 20 person tourney. I went ahead and rounded everything. I like this format with the exception that last place in any size tourney will automaticaly get 10 points. 10 points by showing up seemed to eay to me, so My suggestion is to apply same formula Fish suggested, but subtract 9 from the totals. See second set of numbers to see how these points would come out.

10 person 20 person Current ly propossed points Structure
1st 32 ---------- 45
2nd 22 ----------- 32
3rd 18 ----------- 26
4th 16 ----------- 22
5th 14 ---------- 20
6th 13 ---------- - 18
7th 12 ---------- 17
8th 11 ----------- 16
9th 11 ---------- 15
10th 10 ---------- 14
11th ---------- 13
12th ---------- 13
13th ---------- 12
14th ---------- 12
15th ---------- 12
16th ----------- 11
17th ----------- 11
18th ----------- 11
19th ----------- 10
20th ------------ 10


This is the same formula used, but subtraced by 9. Here are current points payouts for 10 AND 20 person tourney. The second 2 numbers are how they would normaly come out under current conditions
10 person 20 person
1st -- 22 36 35 70
2nd --13 23 24 49
3rd -- 9 17 18 38
4th-- 7 13 7 17
5th-- 5 11 6 16
6th-- 4 9 5 15
7th-- 3 8 4 14
8th-- 2 7 3 13
9th-- 2 6 2 12
10th--1 5 1 11
11th 4 10
12th 4 9
13th 3 8
14th 3 7
15th 3 6
16th 2 5
17th 2 4
18th 2 3
19th 1 2
20th 1 1

[Kat]

I am not sure but this is how we used to do the points somewhere else and I used to like them a lot. It did work out quite well I felt.



The formula used:

Points = 10 * [sqrt(n)/sqrt(k)]
Where:
n is the number of entrants
k is the place of finish (k=1 for the first-place finisher, and so on)

This is similar to the way p55s calculates its sliding points scale.

I actually like the fact that unlike other leaderboards the HF one has a big emphasis on cashes. Seriously peeeple the bottom line in poker is to make money. However, a simple solution if it is felt the current algorithm is too biased in favor of cashing would be to base the "cash points" on (amount of cash)/(some number) where the bigger the number the less the amount of the cash boosts the points, obv.

[Yoda]

This is similar to the way p55s calculates its sliding points scale.

I actually like the fact that unlike other leaderboards the HF one has a big emphasis on cashes. Seriously peeeple the bottom line in poker is to make money. However, a simple solution if it is felt the current algorithm is too biased in favor of cashing would be to base the "cash points" on (amount of cash)/(some number) where the bigger the number the less the amount of the cash boosts the points, obv.

Dam Kat,,,IM over here kiling myself with numbers, and u come up with a great idea thats simple...sigh

[Kat]

Being fundamentally lazy I have developed a skill for identifying the simple. Leaves more time for naps.

[Yoda]

Being fundamentally lazy I have developed a skill for identifying the simple. Leaves more time for naps.

I on the other hand have developed a skill for driving myself batty. Kinda like that it awakens some dead brain cells, but drives me nuts when I miss the easy route. Comes with over thinking it I guess

[phishfinder2]

Being fundamentally lazy I have developed a skill for identifying the simple. Leaves more time for naps.

naps are good
having just woke up from one thought it was appropriate to put my two cents in!!!

[Yoda]

naps are good
having just woke up from one thought it was appropriate to put my two cents in!!!

Having Thought about this all morning, I could use a nap.


How about something like Kat suggested, like all cashes are devided by 2 rounded and then added to points total?
Still benifits the top cashes, just takes away the huge gap differnce, between cashes and 4th place,,etc

[Holdem Freak]

You guys are coming up with some good ideas the nap being the best one yet :D

[Melina 07]

ummm huh??? i need a nap just trying to read it

[Kat]

ummm huh??? i need a nap just trying to read it

It's prolly safe to skip the huge posts by Yoda that look like the output from an Intergalactic IP trace.

[Barron40]

The other thing to consider I hope:

1. That when this started we had one game a night with the occasional second game added. Now we have second game every night. It is quite tough for some people to play the late one whenthey get up early for work. That also has changed dynamic of system over the last two months. I liked it better when there were not 2 guaranteed games every night. If you dont play both and 7 or 8 people always play both then it gives the others no real chance of winning points over those that play every night both games. Why did that change? Just curious?

[Yoda]

The other thing to consider I hope:

1. That when this started we had one game a night with the occasional second game added. Now we have second game every night. It is quite tough for some people to play the late one whenthey get up early for work. That also has changed dynamic of system over the last two months. I liked it better when there were not 2 guaranteed games every night. If you dont play both and 7 or 8 people always play both then it gives the others no real chance of winning points over those that play every night both games. Why did that change? Just curious?

It used to be that people asked for it and we made it, Then we were having good numbers for all the late games and it became the norm. It became like a second chance to get points. I do agree it has changed the dynamics of the game.Im not working right now and can sleep late, but if I was in your shoes, I wouldnt be able to play late games during the week. Id be dead tiried getting up in the morning. Baiscally Damand created supple in this situation. How to make this fair for all is still being worked on.

[CaliNaughti]

To be honest, I liked it better when it was just the Main game used for TLB points. Not everyone can play in 2 games a night or even play every game every night.
Just my 2 cents.