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 [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]