Leaderboard

[AleoMagus]

Well, I did it

I have in my possession two complete leaderboards for the past 5 weeks of 2+2 sngs (one european and one N.American)

This means that I've compiled the results from the past 5 tuesday games and (separately) the past 4 wednesday games (tommorrow I'll update it and make it 5)

I had wanted to compile ten weeks worth, but finding results for some past tournaments has been difficult (perhaps I am just lazy)

At any rate, I am sure I will continue adding results until I reach ten weeks and I will leave it at the most recent ten weeks every tourney after that.

So, before I post these results I'll explain my methodology and ask for suggestions on how to make it better (it's fairly easy to change at this point so I welcome feedback)

1. All names are Pokerstars names, not 2+2 names
2. Only results from the main game are used.
3. Points are awarded as follows:

1st 15pts
2nd 12pts
3rd 10pts
4th 8pts
5th 6pts
6th 5pts
7th 4pts
8th 3pts
9th 2pts
10-18th 1pt

4. I have also calculated $winnings (not taking into account entry fees) for each player

This points system is just what I thought up in about 2 minutes when I was doing this so I am sure there will probably be a better system. Do any of you with knowledge in this area have any better suggestions?

My system awards points in a fairly flat scale, but places greater emphasis on making the final table and making the money

This system also awards 1 pt just for showing up

Should my points scale award 10th place more than 18th?
Should this points race run for ten weeks then start over or should it always be the most recent ten weeks and continue like that forever?
Should I pick a different number of weeks to do this?
Should I combine both leaderboards?

And I guess, one last chance to hear dissent - Should I post this at all? Anyone REALLY opposed to this?

Regards,
Brad S

[Al_Capone_Junior]

I do not think your quick brainstorm of a system is bad. However I am sure you could consider, but not necessarily implement, ideas from KOTZ. Check out http://www.geocities.com/kotzpoker/ if you are not familiar.

al

[Sheriff Fatman]

I'd agree with Al on this one - the KotZ formula was well debated and takes into account money finishes (giving additional weighting to them). Its worked pretty well to date and I can't imagine coming up with anything better, although there are many valid ways you could go about it.

Having demonstrated yesterday the art of how to turn a big stack into a bubble finish I think there should be some additional weighting for those who made the money. In many respects you could argue that my 5th place finish was no better than the guy in 18th place. I think the KotZ formula achieves a reasonable compromise in balancing out these views.

Sheriff

[Sheriff Fatman]

As for whether or not to post it. How about making it available via PM (or a web link) on an opt in basis or, if not practical, at least heading the post with a warning so those who don't want to see it can avoid it.

Personally, I prefer the PM option if there are any strong dissenting views expressed towards posting.

[Simon Diamond]

They will be your rankings, so I would suggest you use whatever system you want to use. You will not please everybody (speaking from experience).

Simon

[Simon Diamond]

What is wrong with posting it? I cannot see what objection anybody could have, the only issue I saw before was the possible revealing of your 2+2 name (if you wanted to keep it secret), but AM has said he is going to use Poker Stars names.

If people do have a problem with it being posted here, surely they wouldn't object to an external web page with them on? (go on surprise me)

Simon

[Sheriff Fatman]

Personally I don't have an issue with it - I'll be looking at them wherever they're posted. Was just trying to suggest options if there were strong feelings expressed against posting.

The more league tables the better as far as I'm concerned - that way I've got more chance of being above William in one of them /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[PrayingMantis]

The interesting thing will be, of course, that people will probably regard the ranking as more important than the money (which is not big, we're talking 11$ buy-in), so that in many cases, decisions will be made according to "points EV", rather than by $EV. Only to state the obvious: according to AM system, 7th place "pays" 4 times more than 10th place, 5th place is only somewhat less rewarding than 4th, and so on. These examples require a whole different strategy than the usual SNG, and actually, this will happen with any ranking system, that does not use $$-winnings as its only base data.

Only some thoughts,

(BTW, I'm for this leaderboard, don't take me wrong!)

PrayingMantis

[DrPhysic]

AleoMagus:

I think a PM to the 2+2 members who have actually participated in the SNG games to ask if the group actually wants a scoring system would have been appropriate. Their initial indication at the time the series was started was that it was not. You could research posts during the week prior to 8 Jan 04 which was the date of the first SNG game.

I would suggest however that if your "results" are as described in your post, you go back and do your homework. There are TWO SNG games at the 9:30pm start time on Wed or Thursday for each of the past 9 weeks.

Doc

[byronkincaid]

Funnily enough I'm not against this idea. I think first place should get more points though. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Simon Diamond]

There are TWO SNG games at the 9:30pm start time on Wed or Thursday for each of the past 9 weeks.

The second game hardly ever gets off the ground though does it? And when it does, there are never that many 2+2ers in it.

Simon

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not think your quick brainstorm of a system is bad. However I am sure you could consider, but not necessarily implement, ideas from KOTZ. Check out http://www.geocities.com/kotzpoker/ if you are not familiar.

al

[/ QUOTE ]

While looking up the KotZ idea is good, there are more variables inherent in the KotZ rankings. Each tournament is a different buy in, and has different number of players. The SnGs are all 10+1 and all have 18 players. Knowing this means that you can go on a straight point scale without having to account for the differing number of players or prizes in each one. Points for participation vs. making top 9; final table vs. money finish, etc should all be worked out in the points, but it doesn't have to be any more complicated than that. The point system you have now is good (I'd MAYBE weight it more top heavy) so just go with it. If you find that this point system doesn't work for whatever reason, you can always change it and retroactively change standings as well.

[DrPhysic]

Simon,
You are right that the second game has had less participation recently than initially. That is the reason that the second game is being dropped as of tonight.

VinnyTheFish has been kind enough to start the second game for each of the past 9 weeks. Since he has been in the second game, he should be left out of your "scoring system"?

In addition, here are the known 2+2ers that have played in the second game in the past month:
acesover8s (grand rapids),
alekhine8 (Land O Lakes),
C.M. Burns (Davis),
ClemsonAce (Lexington),
codewarrior (Mentor),
CrisBrown (Wesley Chapel), $72.00 (40%)
d9090 (Chinese Camp ),
DaGrifter (Milford),
jpg777 (Ballston Spa),
napawino (Brandon),
NotMitch (Somerville),
ohKanada (Leander),
sbastid (Del Mar),
superleeds (Fairfield), $36.00 (20%)
VinnyTheFish (Mine Hill),

I remain unconvinced that scoring is something that matters to more than a handful of people, however if it is to be done, I think it needs to at least be a system that is fair to all the 2+2 people who have played.

Doc

[AleoMagus]

Doc,

You have worked really hard making the 2+2 sngs a success, and frankly, it is your opinion on this suggestion more than anyone else's that matters to me.

I really tried to handle this suggestion as tactfully as I thought possible, especially when I learned that it had been brought up before. The trouble is, PMing every 2+2 member seemed impossible to me. For one thing, looking at the results made me see that there are a lot of repeat players that are obviously 2+2 but who's 2+2 identity I am not aware of. This was why I decided upon using my recent poll.

When last I checked it, I think the leaderboard was getting 17 'yes' votes, 7 'whatevers' and only 2 'no' votes.

This seemed to indicate that overall, the sentiment was either positive or apathetic so I went ahead

Posting this now was just another step in trying to be tactful here. I could have just posted the results flat out, and seeing as how they really are nothing but a compilation of info already on this board, I still wonder to some extent why there is so much concern.

I realize now that idea was brought up before. I did not know this when I first brought it up. Whatever the sentiment was then, it seems to have changed.

I also realize that there has been two games, which is why I stated that only the results of the main game were to be counted. I have not stated this in any authoritative way. This is merely what I have done for sake of simplicity and if I had to, I could change it (I asked for feedback, after all). As it sounds like the 2nd game is being phased out, counting it seems questionable. As far as being unfair... well, it is easily argued that counting the other game is unfair also. Players in the 2nd games often can earn double points by playing both tourneys AND in many ways the results are skewed by the fact that the competition has far less 2+2ers

Additionally, as far as doing homework is concerned - it is harder than it sounds. The results from many past tourneys are listed on this site with nothing more than 1st-4th along with a list of who played. Run a search yourself and you will see the difficulties I have faced. The past 5 weeks are as far back as I could go without hitting a roadblock. I suppose many of you could just look the results up on pokertracker or something. I just figured that it would not matter in another 5 weeks anyways.

I really get the impression that you are one of the two 'no' votes on this issue.

Say the word Doc, and I will stop this all right here.

Regards,
Brad S

[Simon Diamond]

As far as timescale is concerned, have you thought of doing the rankings on a month to month basis, starting on the first day of the month and ending on the last?

Simon

[William]

The more league tables the better as far as I'm concerned - that way I've got more chance of being above William in one of them

The dream is alive.
Pleased to see that you have a goal in your career /images/graemlins/grin.gif

William /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Sheriff Fatman]

I like to aim low - that way I always get there!

[William]

I like to aim low

You got the right person then, only 19 Multis to win and you've got me /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[DrPhysic]

AleoMagus,
I do not have a fundamental disagreement with your leaderboard idea. It has the potential to spur some interest in the games. Possibly also in a US vs EURO playoff that has been mentioned a time or two.

There are necessarily people who have entered more or less of the games. Therefore the people who have participated most often will no doubt be nearer the top of the leaderboard than those who have participated only a few times.

In the case of VinnyTheFish who has been the volunteer that started the second game every week so far, the results would be entirely unfair if the second game were not included.

You might also consider the running monthly total concept (regardless of the time frame... 6weeks, 8?,..). A new person who joins (or joined) after the start of the SNG's never has a chance to catch up to someone who was in the first game if it is purely a long term running total.

If you will make the results fair to all concerned by including the second game in the evenings, send me a real e-mail address by pm if you wish, and I will forward you a copy of all the results as they are known. They are on an Excel spreadsheet. As you pointed out, they become sketchy beyond 5 weeks ago.

Doc /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[t_perkin]

I think your points system is terrible. If you are going to post a leaderboard then you should come up with something better.

You need to account for AT LEAST:

The number of games played by each player may be different
You have to give new players a chance to "catch up"
You have to give WAY MORE credit for money finishes - finishing 5th regularly is a SnG player with a serious hole in their game.


Think harder and come up with something better and you will have my blessing. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Tim

[AleoMagus]

My system is terrible? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

lol. Don't hold back. Tell me what you really think.

I only posted those numbers to get other suggestions about how to rank it. The brunt of the work I have done is just getting all the results organized. It is easily changed now.

Doc and I are currently discussing another system and in order to be fair, it will be implemented next week. All past results will not be counted so you all have fair warning.

As far as different number of games played goes - I want to reward the players who come out. Besides, this is how leaderboards work. If you only play one and win but don't see yourself at the top of the leaderboard, too bad. If I go out tommorrow and win a major golf tourney then I shouldn't expect to be ranked higher than Tiger woods just because I average first place finishes over my one tournament career.

As far as more points going to the money, my new system does account for that somewhat, but still probably not as much as you'd like. Again, I'm sorry. The ultimate solution in this sense would be to just award based directly on prize $$$, but don't you all still want a 'social' atmosphere. More flat points distributions allow new players to feel good about playing even if they aren't making the money.

As for allowing new players a chance to catch up - Is anyone even reading my posts!? Ten weeks is not a long time. It would only be based upon the most recent ten tourneys. I'll say it again. It would only be based upon the most recent ten tourneys!

Sigh... Do Homework, Think harder, Make it fair, etc... are hard things to respond to, especially considering the time I have already put into this. Any more feedback should look like an alternative suggestion or it really isn't going to mean much to me.

I am really getting frustrated here. Many have indicated both publicly and privately that they are interested in a leaderboard. I just want to do it and I am not the only one.

I very much want to have the blessing of you, Doc and some of the other contributors to the success of these sngs. I will PM the details of my new system.

Regards,
Brad S



--------------------

[ThaSaltCracka]

where is the leaderboard all ready, I want to see my name at the bottom! /images/graemlins/cool.gif