Euro and NA Leaderboard Updates 20 Apr

[AleoMagus]

Ok, here are the leaderboard rankings for this week

Euro Standings
1 Helmetsky - 352 pts
2 Poker Jon - 226 pts
3 Stone_Eyes - 209 pts
4 The Strength - 155 pts
5 Profit - 137 pts
6 t_perkin 2+2 - 124 pts
7 Heyrocker - 122 pts
8 ByronKincaid - 118 pts
9 MobyDick - 102 pts
10 Ruddiger - 101 pts
11 Tosh27o - 59 pts
12 DrPhysic - 33 pts
13 Bingor - 29 pts
14 Senseless - 27 pts
15 SimonDiamond - 26 pts
16 debaser - 20 pts

North American standings
1 Toro85 - 176 pts
2 codewarrior - 152 pts
3 thomastem - 150 pts
4 heyrocker - 142 pts
5 Shub314 - 137 pts
5 Wadd - 137 pts
7 SimonDiamond - 134 pts
8 KURN - 126 pts
9 wayabvpar - 112 pts
9 jpg777 - 112 pts
11 XlgJoe - 99 pts
12 NotMitch - 79 pts
13 sawil - 60 pts
14 Husker66 - 53 pts
14 FloppedFlush - 53 pts
16 DrPhysic - 47 pts
17 MobyDick - 43 pts
18 skaboomizzy - 42 pts
19 t_perkin 2+2 - 31 pts
20 DaEvictor - 20 pts
21 VinnyTheFish - 18 pts

Congrats All
Brad S

[Simon Diamond]

2+2 SNG Series Homepage (http://www.simongreig.com/sng)

Simon

[AleoMagus]

In the past weeks since the leaderboard was started, there have been a few things on my mind and I thought I'd voice a bit of it now

First, I'm really happy with how things have been going overall. I like the leaderboard and I think it adds some extra flavour to our weekly games. I'd like to think it has also helped to get more people playing on a regular basis.

There are some downsides though

We have had at least one tourney with only 8 players who were 2+2 at the time. (I say 'at the time' because one later became a regular). I calculated points for this and I think in the future I will calculate points for a main game no matter how many show up. This is problematic because some weeks are definitely easier than others.

There has also been problems on the opposite end of the scale with too many players. I feel bad about players not getting in and it was at suggested by me that if we were to get at least half 2+2 on a second table we would count that game for points as well. Last night our NA leaderboard champ didn't get in and it seems like a silly way to lose a lead.

Still, I grow more wary each day about the idea of counting points on two tables. If we do start running second tables, I think I will not calculate points for those games. Opinions?

The private tourney idea would solve this but I am not sure this is wanted anyways. We are a SNG forum after all. Are we just out to compete with each other or is the sng format important? Is the private tourney idea even possible? I'm for it personally (though it would throw my sleek points system out the window).

Another issue is the way in which points are accumulating. Is everybody happy so far? One thing which is definitely becoming evident is that it is an advatage to play in all the SNGs. Perhaps this is what we want, especially given the 'league' feel that these sngs have these days. Still it seems somewhat biased at times and not placing enough emphasis on performance.

If we do stick with the SNG format, I am contemplating an idea which might alleviate some problems. We could drop the lowest 2-3 finishes for the current ten week cycle in calculating players points. This would allow a player to play only 7-8 tourneys and still remain competitive. This might also protect against the unfortunate occurrence of not getting in once or twice.

I'm not sure if this would place an emphasis on performance any more than the current system, but it's about the best idea I have right now in that regard. I suppose if performance is all that matters to you, you can always look at the 'most profitable players' rankings.

So, How do players feel? Are people paying attention to the leaderboard? Are there any other issues or concerns? Ideas?

<FORM METHOD=POST ACTION="http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/dopoll.php"><INPUT TYPE=HIDDEN NAME="pollname" VALUE="1082581139AleoMagus">


Leaderboard
<input type="radio" name="option" value="1" />I love the leaderboard. It is why I play
<input type="radio" name="option" value="2" />The leaderboard is good. Adds to the game
<input type="radio" name="option" value="3" />Whatever. I dont really pay attention
<input type="radio" name="option" value="4" />I don't like it. It could be better
<input type="radio" name="option" value="5" />I hate it. Get rid of it

Regards
Brad S

[AleoMagus]

lol. so much for that last poll. this one will work



Thanks guys
Brad S

[critterdude]

My stats are off.

I have no money finishes or $$$ earned according to the site.

HULA, now here? Are we a little sore I moved in front of your ranking? /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[Simon Diamond]

I haven't updated the statistics page yet. I have a lot of other stuff to get on with tonight, but will try and do it ASAP.

Oh, and your HULA stats are updated (but don't ask why you are at 2-0 and not 3-0, because I don't update the individual statistics until the end of each week.)

Simon

[Simon Diamond]

My thoughts:

Last night our NA leaderboard champ didn't get in and it seems like a silly way to lose a lead.

It's buyer beware - everybody knows they fill up quick. It was unfortunate, but these things happen.

Still, I grow more wary each day about the idea of counting points on two tables. If we do start running second tables, I think I will not calculate points for those games. Opinions?

I think there should be one main game each week that scores points. Where demand is high I think it is good to have a second game available, but scoring it is problematic. If you want to get rankings points, you are going to have to get in that first game - yes thats harsh, but I think the rankings need to have a stable structure. Mish mash rules like having to have half a SNG of 2+2ers to become eligible as a ranked game is not a good way to go about it in my opinion.

You said this earlier in your post "This is problematic because some weeks are definitely easier than others." A second game with only 9 2+2ers in it falls into that category (generally). So the players in the first game could well be getting penalised in my eyes.

I think one game should be scored for each leaderboard, then at least everyone knows where they stand.

The private tourney idea would solve this but I am not sure this is wanted anyways. We are a SNG forum after all. Are we just out to compete with each other or is the sng format important? Is the private tourney idea even possible? I'm for it personally (though it would throw my sleek points system out the window).

I don't think the private tourney route is the way to go with the SNG series. Conceivably they might not fill some weeks, which would ruin everything. Yes, stragglers get in sometimes but I think this adds to the events - and in the case of a few (Profit for example) they become posters here which is excellent.

Instead of berating the fact that a non 2+2er wins one of our games, we should really look at that and ask ourselves if we are playing well enough to prevent it happening. Adapting to different types of player is important right?

If we do stick with the SNG format, I am contemplating an idea which might alleviate some problems. We could drop the lowest 2-3 finishes for the current ten week cycle in calculating players points. This would allow a player to play only 7-8 tourneys and still remain competitive. This might also protect against the unfortunate occurrence of not getting in once or twice.

My initial thought was that 10 weeks might be too long. Personally, I would go with a 5 week rotation of results. Consistent performers will still be rewarded in the long run, and the people who do miss a game or two won't be affected as much.

Are people paying attention to the leaderboard?

I hope they are, to justify the effort you put in on the system. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Summing up, I think everybody in the organising committee needs to calm down a little - the games have picked up in the last couple of weeks (the US game especially). Whilst there are a few issues, nobody needs to panic and make rash decisions.

There is a week until the next SNG - my suggestion is to sit back and have a good think about these issues, thrash out some solid ideas and get a structure in place for next weeks games that will attempt to iron out some of the creases.

We cannot expect to get it right overnight, it may take time. In the mean time, thanks to Doc and the rest of the organising committee for all your efforts in organising these games. It is appreciated.

Simon

[Sheriff Fatman]

[ QUOTE ]
Another issue is the way in which points are accumulating. Is everybody happy so far?

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate it - surely 2 15th places and a 16th deserve better! /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[heyrocker]

[ QUOTE ]
First, I'm really happy with how things have been going overall. I like the leaderboard and I think it adds some extra flavour to our weekly games. I'd like to think it has also helped to get more people playing on a regular basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
We have had at least one tourney with only 8 players who were 2+2 at the time. (I say 'at the time' because one later became a regular). I calculated points for this and I think in the future I will calculate points for a main game no matter how many show up. This is problematic because some weeks are definitely easier than
others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah except those non 2+2'ers keep having the nasty habit of winning. Its not like having a half 2+2 / half non game is a ticket to victory. In some ways I bet its harder because they are unknowns, I get the feeling that we're all starting to get really used to each other. I definitely attribute some of my recent failures to being too predictable, and that only matters if people know who you are (going a whole SNG with ATo as your best hand doesn't help matters any, but I digress.) Also, I suspect that some of these "nons" were lurkers trying their hand.

[ QUOTE ]
Still, I grow more wary each day about the idea of counting points on two tables. If we do start running second tables, I think I will not calculate points for those games. Opinions?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to see if a formally scheduled second table can draw enough people to justify counting it. If we can schedule the second table, and it starts drawing 12+ people every week, then I really don't see a problem counting it. If it continues to be a scattered 6-8 people then I can see the point.

[ QUOTE ]
Last night our NA leaderboard champ didn't get in and it seems like a silly way to lose a lead.

[/ QUOTE ]

I made a half-joking complaint about this last night but really it doesn't bother me. Most of the reason I was on top in the first place was I played every week. The leaderboard is fun but really I just have fun playing with y'all.

Which leads us to the rest, which I will resist quoting in whole. Basically I do think there is a problem with the way the leaderboard works in terms of giving a huge advantage to those who play every week. The idea of dropping your one or two lowest games would work (although as more and more people try and get into the main game, it will be harder and harder to hit a spot and thus the less and less this will help.)

An alternate idea is to base the leaderboard on average score - total divided by games played (and keep in the two game requirement so someone can't win one week and then stop playing to keep their top spot.) In addition I think it would be fun to have an all time leaderboard in addition to a rolling one. If you're using averages, then the need for the rolling one drops quite a bit. I'm sure there's some math reason this is bad that someone will chime in with, but I feel like its definitely the best way to go if you want to focus on performance v attendance.

Suddenly I also feel like the length of this post is disproportionate to the importance of the topic (length = great, importance = low) and I shoud be posting hand histories trying to figure out why I'm on my worst losing streak in two months.

[Profit]

i'm just hoping to get in so i can get my name on the board /images/graemlins/grin.gif

The page looks great. Simon makes some good points. I'll post later when i have more time.

[PrayingMantis]

Some comments:

First, you're doing a great job, AM, Simon, Doc, and whoever is participating in making this so much fun (Tim, Vinny and Stone help too, I know). Thank you!

Second, I think this is way too early to judge anything about this system, and I'm not saying this because I'm doing fine. I just think we should at least give at the first 10 games cycle, to start changing things, or thinking about changing.

As for the low attendeance at the Euro games. Yes, it is probably somewhat easier to place higher when there are 8-9 randoms around, however, I think that it can actually make the games more interesting, because it's not only the 2+2ers tough style you have to adjust to, but also to the sometimes unpredictable, loose, "fishy" (not always), style of some of the unfamiliar randoms. The need to adjust to *both* of these styles together, can be sometimes very difficult, but also creates some fascinating situations, that might contribute significantly to the improvement of anybody's game.

I don't want to comment about openning a second NA table, as I don't play these games.

As for methods of calculating points, length of cycles, private tournied etc., I think, as I said, that it is still early to judge. I don't think that a method of counting only best results out of X games will work too good, as I'm not sure about avarage results methods. Every system has its problems.

The only thing I do realize, is that the way the system works now, there will never be any real "champion". As long as we don't have seasons, or *true* league system, our method is only about keeping track of who's doing well on a pretty short period (ten last games), and who's doing well on the longer term (through the statistics on the site Simon built). But there will never be any real dramatic climax of a "last second of the season" style. You know what I mean, if you're sports fans. That's the only thing I'm a little "sad" about, because it can add a lot of fun and excitement.

Well, these are some of my thoughts.

Again, I really love and enjoy these games a lot. I'm even thinking about becoming a proffesional "2+2 SNG series" player /images/graemlins/grin.gif, it looks like a very promising occupation right now... (especially if Poker Jon and Stone will not get too attached to finishing in top 2!)

PrayingMantis

[TylerD]

[ QUOTE ]
we should really look at that and ask ourselves if we are playing well enough to prevent it happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a form of implicit collusion should sort this out.

[woodguy]

I am new to 2+2, but I am looking forward to playing in the SNG with this group of people.
From reading the posts, I know that most of you dislike/hate Paradise Poker, but you can set up private tournaments pretty easily where you need a password to get into the tourney.
With this format, you can accomodate any number of players that show up, the tables just get added as needed.
Regards,
woodguy

[DrPhysic]

I have read all the posts on both threads, and gotten some input from Tim, Vinny, &amp; Stoneii, and AleoMagus &amp; Simon have indicated opinions on this thread. Here are my answers and thoughts on some of the issues raised.

No, this is not a private game. There is a PM that is sent out to anyone interested as a reminder of the games. It contains exactly the same information that is posted on 1 Table Tourn Forum, Multi Tourn Forum, and Internet Forum every Monday. If you want on (or off) the PM list, send me a request.

If it has looked like a private game in the past, it is possibly because the clock on my computer was set about 75 seconds faster than the Stars lobby clock. This has been fixed.

It is possible that private events are now possible on Stars. I do not think they are a good idea for every week. A 27 player SNG with a password might never start. A Multi tournament, first is not the basis of this forum or this group, and second would pay 3 places for 9-27 players, and 5 places for 28 to 45 players. The 18 seat SNG’s pay 4 places, or 8 places if we get two games.

The liability to SNG’s is and always will be that either there are some strangers in the mix, which as pointed out, is not necessarily bad, or somebody gets left out. I think that overall the consensus has been and remains that SNG’s are the right venue for this group. That assumes that if there are enough players, we have enough games to go around.

I think a private tournament on a Saturday afternoon, once a month, or 2 or 3, at a time suitable for both the US and EURO groups would be a good supplement to our weekly games. They could be regular cash tourns, or satellites to the Sunday $215. If there is interest, I will contact Stars to find out what the procedure would be. That, however, is somewhat a separate discussion from the one in question at this moment.

Re the scoring system, I think it is good. I think it has helped stimulate interest in the games. I think it should include any formally scheduled game regardless of number of players from 2+2. I agree that 10 weeks may be a bit long. I think the idea of scoring in such a manner as to equalize a bit for people who cannot play every game is a good idea, however it needs some more thought. How do you count the guy who has played only 3 games if you are dropping out the worst 3? Also, how do you count an average if somebody plays only two games, wins both, then quits? Permanently 100%? One thought has been that a running total, or running average of the last 5 games the individual has played might work, so if he misses one week or plays two one week, he still does not have an advantage or disadvantage, because his running score is always his last 5 games. (Nothing magic about the number 5 either). However, this is Brad’s part of the deal and given that it needs some more thought, I think we need to defer to him to work that out, take the best ideas given to him by all of us, and we will use what he gives us.

We tried two games from January 8 to March 15, with little success. Average participation in the second game was 4.8 players. Now, with the addition of Brad’s (AleoMagus’) leaderboard, there is apparently some renewed interest. A few more people would like to play.

XlgJoe suggested an 8:00EDT game. The reason that the US game is at 9:30 is a compromise between not too late for the East coast guys to play and not too early for the West coast guys to get home from work. His suggestion is not a bad one for a second game. It would also facilitate the possibility of people like myself who do not play more than one game at a time, but might play two if they were an hour and a half (or two hours: 8 &amp; 10?) apart. At the same time, I realize that this is potentially not available to the West coast people, therefore the addition of another game also needs input and thought.

In order to organize a second game we would need several things. First we would have to agree on a time. Second we would have to put up a poll to ask how many would play in each game. Presumably no rule precluding both. And agree to KILL IT right then if it had 8 people for one game, and decreased the number for the other game to 10. Third you would need two people who would be willing to be the ones to remind the other players about the game, and to start the game at the specified time. Two because on any given week one may be busy. Toro85 offered to be one of those on a table chat line last night, although he could not next week. (The rat is going to Aruba without us!) The function of those people is to drum up players for their game, post a notice a half hour to an hour before the game on all three forums to remind people, and mostly, BE THERE with some consistency to start the game because there are 17 or so others waiting for you.

It is my feeling that there may be enough new and returning players from the interest generated by the leaderboard that this would be a good time to consider trying a second US game again. I think the issues above need clarification to make that happen, but I see no reason why they could not be worked out in time for the games next week if the interest is really there. I think it also important to point out that an SNG series is an imperfect game in an imperfect world. Somebody will always get left out because of the player limit, and somebody will always be unhappy because of some detail or other that we have omitted, forgotten, or simply done wrong. We will never please everybody. The best we can hope for is a situation that is most suitable to the most players so we can get as many 2+2ers as possible involved and happy in the opportunity to play together.

Now: This discussion forum is open. Have at me.

Doc

[AleoMagus]

I misphrased it when I said that the worst three results would be dropped

What I meant is this:

all tourneys will accumulate points but after seven in the current ten week cycle, the lowest three would be dropped.

So, for any one player, a maximum of seven tourneys would count towards his points total.

As many are suggesting that ten weeks is too long a cycle, this could perhaps be changed to best 5 or 6 in an 8 week cycle or even...

best 4 in a six week cycle?
best 4 in a five week cycle?

I think five weeks is too small a cycle. We all know how swingy SNGs can be

I also think that a pure average is a bad idea because of exactly the thing doc mentioned - if you won (or even just placed well) in two, your best move would be to never play until the next cycle started

I also really agree that this series needs a kind of culmination. I know it would make players less inclined to play near the end of each series but I'd like it if somehow it all built up to something in stead of cycling on forever. If it was possible, I'd like to take a dollar of every entry fee to distribute to the leaderboard at the end (I know this is not feasible. just wishful thinking).

As for scoring second games.... sigh
I really do not want to and I don't think Simon wants to either.

If we are going to start more tables, I'd be happier with a third leaderboard. Believe it or not, this would be easier (for me anyways)

As much as he is modest about it, this leaderboard is as much or more Simon's baby these days. Really the only amount of effort I ever put in was coming up with a spreadsheet to automatically calculate points and all that info.

And yeah, we talk way too much about all this stuff.

I don't imagine anything will change anytime soon and that's probably for the best. We haven't been doing this for long now anyways.

Regards
Brad S

[DrPhysic]

For the public record:
As far as scoring goes, I consider that Aleo is the final word.

That's because while I do spreadsheet pretty well, I don't want anything to do with any database, and will happily shut up when it comes to an opportunity to defer to somebody who is willing to do it.

Doc

[Simon Diamond]

As much as he is modest about it, this leaderboard is as much or more Simon's baby these days. Really the only amount of effort I ever put in was coming up with a spreadsheet to automatically calculate points and all that info.

No way. They are your leaderboards, so any changes in the format of the scoring and whether a second table scores are your decisions. I don't mind offering an opinion, but my only real input in the SNG Series is updating the webpage.

The spreadsheet is so good, that it is just as easy for me to put the numbers in for you, to save you the effort. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Simon