Poker Leauge

[Sarge85]

I'm looking for some advice/tips/resources on how to go about starting a "Poker Leauge".

We have a pretty regular group of people and we are starting to brainstorm a couple different ideas. One of them was at the end of this next year having a "Master" tournament. Having the best of our group compete for a prize pool that would grow through out the year.

Do any of you have ways of incorporting ring game wins and tournament wins to come up with some sort of point system?

[LetsRock]

It seems to me, if you play at the same stakes for all of your "ring games" throughout the year, it would be simple enough to just track your win/loss $ for each session and set up a ranking based on total net $ for the year.

If you're concerned that some players have an advantage/disadvantage for playing more sessions than others, you could convert it to a net $/session basis.

If you'd rather do a "1st, 2nd, 3rd" type point system, you could just deliver points (Say 50, 30, 20) to the players for each session. The only reason I would be inclined to do this, would be if my regular "league" games were tourney format vs. cash format.

[Jezebel]

Here is one way I have seen it done:


Game Type Frequency Minimum Qualifier
Limit About 4 games per month 1/3 of annual games; 1/2 of Nov. and Dec. games
No-Limit About 4 games per month 1/3 of annual games; 1/2 of Nov. and Dec. games
Tournament 12 per year (once per month) 1/2 of all tournaments; one of the Nov. or Dec. tournaments

Philosophical Discussion: At least 1/3 of annual games must be played by each player to qualify...this insures high enough statistical sample...1/2 of Nov. and Dec. games must be played to insure leader doesn't avoid games in order to protect lead.



Limit

Players will be ranked according to their cumulative average big bets won per hour for the entire year.

Formula: (total # big bets won for the year) / (total # hours played for the year)
Example: Dino's big bet totals over twenty hours are... (-20)+15+20+40+(-25) = 30 big bets won... 30 / 20 = 1.5 big bets won per hour

Philosophical Discussion: In limit poker, the number of betting units won per hour played is the standard measurement used to track quality of play...using big bets per hour the formula allows for games of different stakes to be measured equally.



No-Limit

Players will be ranked based on three criteria; total money won (lost), percentage increase (decrease) of buy-in, and total money won (lost) as percentage of total money available to win.

Formula: (amount $ won) x (% increase of buy-ins) x (amount $ won / total $ opponents have in play)
Example: Dino buys-in a total of $300 and cashes-out $650, all other players have a total of $4000 in play. Dino's No-Limit index would be figured as follows: ($350) x (1.167) x (0.088) = 35.94

Philosophical Discussion: In the theory of poker, how much money you can extract out of a game is really the only thing that matters, however, the goal is to judge the level of skill of each player, and not just how much money they won...in this formula, money won is still the most important factor, meaning it influences the index most dramatically, but it is tempered by the other two factors...the percentage increase of buy-in is introduced to negate stack size advantage, allowing smaller bankrolls to be just as competitive as larger ones...the money won as a percentage of total money available to win is a "quality of win" factor, winning a large percentage of all the money that one could is rewarded over a player that won only a small fraction of the available money even though the small percentage win may have been more total dollars.



Tournament

Players are ranked according to how much total money they win in tournaments versus the total buy-ins.

Formula: (total money won in tournaments) / (total buy-ins for tournaments)
Example: Dino wins $1600 for the year in tournaments, Dino bought-in $1200 for the year in tournaments. Dino's tournament index is figured: ($1600 / $1200) = 1.33

Philosophical Discussion: The formula for tournament index is an efficiency rating, this again helps smaller bankrolls be just as competitive as larger ones in the instance that they would not be able to play in a large buy-in tournament, therefore not being able to amass the highest dollar amount won...in addition this formula does allow for different buy-in stakes, and for rebuy tournaments as well as freeze-outs...the other no-limit considerations made above are not pertinent to this formula due to every player within a given tournament having the same beginning stack size and same available money to win.



Player of the Year

The Player of the Year will be the player with the best average ranking across the three game types.

Formula: (limit rank) + (no-limit rank) + (tournament rank) / 3
Example: Dino is the number 8 limit player, the number 3 no-limit player, and the number 1 tournament player. Dino's Player of the Year ranking is: (8+3+1) / 3 = 4.0 Mikey's ranking is 2.4, Worm's ranking is 9.3, and Teddy's ranking is 2.6...Dino finishes third out of these four players, Mikey first and Worm last.

[Rams_Law]

I can understand the desire to make the game more interesting among a group of regular players, but it seems to me that poker inherently has a ruthlessly accuracte, simple, and efficient means of keeping score.

Consider that keeping comprehensive data of the kind that you suggest may discourage players who are behind from sticking around.

Regardless, good luck and Happy New Year.

[David]

Read the above post carefully before implementing any kind of win/loss "tracking" in your game. It could kill your game. I know that I would not want this done in my weekly game. Some of the guys in the game would quit coming if it was put on paper what they lose. I would not want most of them to know what I won in that game last year.

In my game we had a small buy in ($20) tourney every week prior to starting the regular game and kept track of every players finish each week and at the end of a years time we distributed money withheld from the entry fees of each tourney to send some people to The Orleans Open. Everybody got something, but the top few finishers got the most.

Think long and hard before you start committing each players w/l records to paper for all to see!!!

You especially don't want some guys to see their own w/l records!!!

[Sarge85]

[ QUOTE ]

In my game we had a small buy in ($20) tourney every week prior to starting the regular game and kept track of every players finish each week and at the end of a years time we distributed money withheld from the entry fees of each tourney to send some people to The Orleans Open. Everybody got something, but the top few finishers got the most.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ultimately this is what our goal would be behind any sort of tracking system - we want an end of the year tournament with the best players playing for a prize pool that we contribute to throughout the year.

Perhaps I'll just stick to tracking tourney results.