Formula for a player of the year award?

[DyessMan89]

Me and my friends play poker together, and categorize our events into "seasons". For every season, we have 20 events (almost all NL Holdem) and at the end we crown a player of the year. The way we have been doing it is the person with the most accumlative points at the end wins. If theres 10 players in the first event, you get 10 points for first, 9 for second ... and so on. My question is this: Is there a better formula for this?

[kodonnell]

HomePokerTourney.com leagues

Sure, you could use some sort of parabolic formula to give higher places more points.

Using 1 point increments is awful.

Especially for the winner, because playing heads-up is so much more complex than a ring game, the winner should get a decent cut of the cake.

You can take a look at what they use at cardplayer.com and do something with that. Here's the URL: http://www.cardplayer.com/player_of_...oycriteria.php

[Quicksilvre]

In short:

- more points for beating more players
- more points for bigger buyins
- way bigger difference in points between first and second than, say, fifth and sixth.

Maybe something like...

10 for first
5 for second
3 for third
2 for fourth
1 for fifth

[Sean D]

We used to have a Player of the Month race at our old home game. The formula was simple and based on how many players played. Sometimes we'd only have 8 or 9 people and sometimes we'd have 15 or 16, so a set point structure wouldn't be very accurate. We took the number of players and multiplied that by 10. That was the total number of points up for grab for the night. First place got 35%, 2nd 25%, 3rd 20%, 4th 13% and 5th 7%, rounding where necessary.

For example, 12 people playing.

12x10=120 total points

1st- 120 x .35 = 42 points
2nd- 120 x .25 = 30 points
3rd- 120 x .20 = 24 points
4th- 120 x .13 = 16 points
5th- 120 x .07 = 8 points

It worked out well for us and was a fun thing to keep people coming to the game. We also gave one point each time someone knocked a player out.

[wonkadaddy]

maybe also subtract a few points for each tournament entered so folks aren't penalized quite as bad for missing a few.

[Hedge Henderson]

In the home game I host, we play ring games most nights. We do have 6-8 tournament nights a year, though, ranging from 4-player "mini-tourneys" (you might play 5 or 6 in one night) to full two-table tournaments.

For tourney rankings, I use the natural log of the player's finish vs the number of entrants. I think I got that idea from someone here.

For a 8-player tournament, it works out to a score of ~2.2 for first, 1.5 for second, 1.1 for third, and so on.

For a 10-player tournament, first gets 2.4, second 1.7, third 1.3, etc.

Once I have everyone's raw score, I average those together, de-logify it, and multiply by 100 to get a number (percentage, if you like). I have it all set up in an Excel spreadsheet, so it's a lot less work than it sounds.

Our best players usually have scores of 60-75, the worst have scores of 25-40. A score of 50 means you nearly always finish in the middle of the pack.

We set an arbitrary minimum for number of tournaments played so the guy who just showed up once or twice and happened to get lucky doesn't win a title.

If your tournaments have many tables and radically different numbers of players each time, the above method might require some adjustment. It works well for us, though, since I can't really seat more than 16.



[ QUOTE ]
In short:

- more points for beating more players
- more points for bigger buyins
- way bigger difference in points between first and second than, say, fifth and sixth.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why not just use the cash to keep score, then?


[ QUOTE ]
...playing heads-up is so much more complex than a ring game, the winner should get a decent cut of the cake.


[/ QUOTE ]

In a perfect world, it would be. Unfortunately, in most home tourneys, since they're limited to just a few hours, how the top two or three places fall usually involves a lot of luck.

[stevea]

[ QUOTE ]
Me and my friends play poker together, and categorize our events into "seasons". For every season, we have 20 events (almost all NL Holdem) and at the end we crown a player of the year. The way we have been doing it is the person with the most accumlative points at the end wins. If theres 10 players in the first event, you get 10 points for first, 9 for second ... and so on. My question is this: Is there a better formula for this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I use the same formula for my league too.

There's the www.cardplayer.com system, but this would need to be adjusted based on the buyin, and I don't like how it only awards points to players that make it into the money.

The NJPL http://www.northjerseypoker.com/info/ranking-info.asp uses a natural log for their rankings.

Also check out: http://www.tourney.com/about-tournament-poker.html.


steve
My home league: <font color="orange">North Shore Low Rollers</font>

[Quicksilvre]

[ QUOTE ]
Why not just use the cash to keep score, then?


[/ QUOTE ]

You know, I looked at it again...and you're right, that's pretty much what I'm saying. My bad [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

[Hedge Henderson]

[ QUOTE ]

The NJPL http://www.northjerseypoker.com/info/ranking-info.asp uses a natural log for their rankings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, so that's where I got it. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]