WSOP ME fantasy team?

[wray]

I was thinking of doing a fantasy deal for the ME. Maybe we all throw 25 in and pay say 10% of the people that do it. I realize noone in here knows me but I'm willing to give a moderator several things to verify I am who I am. Or Maybe someone like Sklansky would be willing to hold the money.

Something like we put up 25$ a piece and choose 10 players. Then say 5000 people play in the ME. Maybe the top 250 get points.

1st = 1000
2nd = 975
3rd = 950
etc


Please don't flame with all the flaws as I'm sure there are many. Instead of that help me out. I just thought it would be something to help sweat the ME.

[slickpoppa]

In order for this to work you need:
a) A middleman who everyone trusts (Granny?) who can collect the money and do the payout
b) Have everyone in the competition have an account at the same site (Stars?) to expedite transferring the funds to the middleman and for the payout

[wray]

[ QUOTE ]
In order for this to work you need:
a) A middleman who everyone trusts (Granny?) who can collect the money and do the payout
b) Have everyone in the competition have an account at the same site (Stars?) to expedite transferring the funds to the middleman and for the payout

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm vanilla with about anything. It could be netteller, PayPal, or any # of sites. I don't know Granny, nor do I know Sklansky..but if the masses trust em then I'm all for it.

[samjjones]

This is a good/fun idea. Would there be a "draft", or could everybody own the same players (i.e., everybody could have Dan Harrington on their team, etc.)?

[wray]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a good/fun idea. Would there be a "draft", or could everybody own the same players (i.e., everybody could have Dan Harrington on their team, etc.)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said I'm flexible. But my initial thought was you can pick who you want. The only one I've been a part of was on fullcontact poker where you rate your own players.

Like from 1 - 10. It's obvious I need help here. But if we could figure out a way to each get any ten players. Rank them and based on how they do and how we had them ranked would determine the # of points.

[samjjones]

An easy way to do this might be to use actual $$$ won in the ME as the "point keeping" system. For example, if Dan Harrington wins $200,000, and you have Harrington on your team, you get 200,000 points. Serpentine draft, each team picks 10 guys. Of course, whoever picks the actual ME winner would very likely win the pool, but this system might work pretty well.

[wray]

I basically "borrowed" this system from FCP who "borrowed" it from The Commerce's point system.

1st 250
2nd 249
3rd 248
4th 247
5th 246
6th 245
7th 244
8th 243
9th 242
10th 241

so on....


Rank multiple

1 20
2 19
3 18
4 17
5 16
6 15
7 14
8 13
9 12
10 11


So if you had P Ivey ranked 2nd and he won the tourney it would be 250 x 19 = 4750. Then if you had Miami John 10th on your ranking and he came in 5th you would get 11 x 246 = 2706. So your total would be

2706 + 4750 = 7456

[Action Scott]

chances are...noone would pick the winner as it is likely to be someone none of us have ever heard of before (i.e. moneymaker, raymer, varkyoni). But sounds like a good idea.

[danvh]

Could it kind of be done backwards.
You get a point for the finish place of your player.

For example:
1st Place= 1 Point
4356 PLace= 4356 Points

Player with the fewest points wins.

It would keep the math pretty simple allthough it might punish someone who goes out real early too much.

Just a thought. Though I would be willing to participate in this if it comes togather.

[TheMainEvent]

Not a bad idea, but I think all players who finish out of the money should get the same amount of points. The scoring system should reflect the payout structure of the tournament.

[wray]

The reason I said something like only top 250 was it would be impossible(I think) to figure out who came in 5000th place. So only people in the money should get points IMHO.

[samjjones]

This is correct. Following the KISS theorem, it would be optimal to just have the scoring system mirror the WSOP ME $ payouts. Easy for all to tabulate/verify, and no complex mathematical formulae to keep track of.

[handsome]

[ QUOTE ]
Could it kind of be done backwards.
You get a point for the finish place of your player.

For example:
1st Place= 1 Point
4356 PLace= 4356 Points

Player with the fewest points wins.

It would keep the math pretty simple allthough it might punish someone who goes out real early too much.

Just a thought. Though I would be willing to participate in this if it comes togather.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this "rotisserie" style point system. It is either between this or a budgeted draft based on bookie odds (too complicated).

With that said, there should be a draft. Without one, everyone would have near identical teams and it would just be a competition between the players who are not identical.

example:
team 1: ivey, cloutier, seidel, brunson, juanda, harman, harrington, layne flack, negreanu, david pham
team 2: ivey, cloutier, seidel, brunson, juanda, harman, harrington, layne flack, negreanu, gus hansen

I mean, this is simply an example, but I think that's close to the team that a lot of people would pick. My point is it's no longer fun when it's a last-longer bet between david pham and gus hansen (a small number of players). After all, the player pool is enormous and in a small 10-team league or whatever, the pros and well-known names will not run out.

Any pooh-bahs wanna run this? I'd definitely be down for a $20-50 buyin.

[wray]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Could it kind of be done backwards.
You get a point for the finish place of your player.

For example:
1st Place= 1 Point
4356 PLace= 4356 Points

Player with the fewest points wins.

It would keep the math pretty simple allthough it might punish someone who goes out real early too much.

Just a thought. Though I would be willing to participate in this if it comes togather.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this "rotisserie" style point system. It is either between this or a budgeted draft based on bookie odds (too complicated).

With that said, there should be a draft. Without one, everyone would have near identical teams and it would just be a competition between the players who are not identical.

example:
team 1: ivey, cloutier, seidel, brunson, juanda, harman, harrington, layne flack, negreanu, david pham
team 2: ivey, cloutier, seidel, brunson, juanda, harman, harrington, layne flack, negreanu, gus hansen

I mean, this is simply an example, but I think that's close to the team that a lot of people would pick. My point is it's no longer fun when it's a last-longer bet between david pham and gus hansen (a small number of players). After all, the player pool is enormous and in a small 10-team league or whatever, the pros and well-known names will not run out.

Any pooh-bahs wanna run this? I'd definitely be down for a $20-50 buyin.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll do it either way....BUT you might want to check out Danile Negreanu's site. The fantasy deal there has it where you pick 20 people. There's 600+ teams and there are many with the same names. But just like in the NCAA pools that person to pick a few 12's to beat the 5 wins some cabbage.

[drewjustdrew]

2 suggestions:

1. instead of $won, go with square root of $ won. So if 1st is $7mil, it would receive 2646 pts, and if 2nd is $3.5mil, it would receive 1871pts, etc. That should flatten out the points somewhat in the event that someone picks an unknown. But it still gives preference to higher finishes.

2. To avoid overduplication of picks, have everyone select 20 players instead of 10. I do this in golf, and there is always enough variety to avoid a tie. Draft would be a pain in the ass amongst strangers.

I have no solution on holding the money, but I get an honest vibe from NicksDad, so I might risk the minor investment.

[danvh]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I said something like only top 250 was it would be impossible(I think) to figure out who came in 5000th place. So only people in the money should get points IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. I remember there being some listing of the place everyone placed it, but it would definitally be easier to just count those in the money.

As for selection. 20 players might be easier to avoid duplication and the hassle of a draft. Not like we can lump allot of good players into groups and have to pick 1 player from a group, which is what some golf fantasy games do to avoid this problem.

[NickPoker]

I would be interested if the semantics can be worked out.

[wray]

[ QUOTE ]
2 suggestions:

1. instead of $won, go with square root of $ won. So if 1st is $7mil, it would receive 2646 pts, and if 2nd is $3.5mil, it would receive 1871pts, etc. That should flatten out the points somewhat in the event that someone picks an unknown. But it still gives preference to higher finishes.

2. To avoid overduplication of picks, have everyone select 20 players instead of 10. I do this in golf, and there is always enough variety to avoid a tie. Draft would be a pain in the ass amongst strangers.

I have no solution on holding the money, but I get an honest vibe from NicksDad, so I might risk the minor investment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the comfort. I know I can be trusted....but I understand hesitation. I don't want to burden some of the well known trusted people to do this. So if someone who IS trusted calls me and I give them enough info about myself then they could vouch for me and we could go from there.

I can think of some ways to make someone who doesn't know me trust me beyond a reasonable doubt (IMHO)

[Daniel Hoerr]

I'm in and would be willing to put together some sort of a website to aid in picks/rules/communication, etc.

But we'd have to move on it pretty quick to have it all in place by July 7.

NicksDad - If you'd like to get ahold of me shoot a mail to daniel.hoerr@gmail.com and we can discuss getting things moving along.

Daniel

[drewjustdrew]

[ QUOTE ]

I can think of some ways to make someone who doesn't know me trust me beyond a reasonable doubt (IMHO)

[/ QUOTE ]

I take back what I said about that honest vibe now. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[mlagoo]

I would be up for this.

I think 20 players with the points being allocated as the square root of the winnings makes a lot of sense. That way the numbers aren't too astronomical, and it gives proper weight to first place over 3rd place, for instance, rather than just an extra two points.

Should we also add a weight based on how we "rank" each of our picks? I know that was discussed earlier. It would definitely make things a bit more complicated, but could still be done. It could also serve as a pretty good tiebreaker, as it's still *possible* that people would pick the same 20 people, but there is really no way they would pick them in the same order.


But yeah, good idea, will make watching the live updates a lot more fun for me.

[wray]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I can think of some ways to make someone who doesn't know me trust me beyond a reasonable doubt (IMHO)

[/ QUOTE ]

I take back what I said about that honest vibe now. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


LOL.... Could you imagine someone coming up with a scheme likek this??? They could make hundreds of dollars! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[drewjustdrew]

[ QUOTE ]
I would be up for this.

I think 20 players with the points being allocated as the square root of the winnings makes a lot of sense. That way the numbers aren't too astronomical, and it gives proper weight to first place over 3rd place, for instance, rather than just an extra two points.

Should we also add a weight based on how we "rank" each of our picks? I know that was discussed earlier. It would definitely make things a bit more complicated, but could still be done. It could also serve as a pretty good tiebreaker, as it's still *possible* that people would pick the same 20 people, but there is really no way they would pick them in the same order.


But yeah, good idea, will make watching the live updates a lot more fun for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

If two people have the exact same 20 picks, they should be disqualified and forfeit their buy-in based on lack of originality. In the extremely unlikely event of a tie, go by year to date POY points for in the money finishers.

[wray]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would be up for this.

I think 20 players with the points being allocated as the square root of the winnings makes a lot of sense. That way the numbers aren't too astronomical, and it gives proper weight to first place over 3rd place, for instance, rather than just an extra two points.

Should we also add a weight based on how we "rank" each of our picks? I know that was discussed earlier. It would definitely make things a bit more complicated, but could still be done. It could also serve as a pretty good tiebreaker, as it's still *possible* that people would pick the same 20 people, but there is really no way they would pick them in the same order.


But yeah, good idea, will make watching the live updates a lot more fun for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

If two people have the exact same 20 picks, they should be disqualified and forfeit their buy-in based on lack of originality. In the extremely unlikely event of a tie, go by year to date POY points for in the money finishers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again I would recommend going to fullcontactpoker and chacking the scores on that. There are more than 600 teams and I didn't see ANY teams that were tied.

Even if 2 people both had the same players (depending how the points are given) they won't get the same points unless both people rank all 20 of their people the same.

[mlagoo]

well cool. any ideas on who would be up for making sure we arent just donating $25 to some scoundrel (i.e., any 2+2 "vets" wanna volunteer?)

[La Brujita]

Send me the money. I am very honest. /images/graemlins/wink.gif