Help with series structure

[cunningham22]

I'm going back to college in a few weeks, and me and a friend are trying to organize a series of weekly tournaments with a player points system. There would be two series, one for each semester, and the winners of each series would play heads up for a prize (such as a set of clay chips).

The tentative agreement for a prize would be each player can receive points for placing in a tournament, but they need to pay the prize fee to be eligible for the prize.

Buyins would increase weekly through each month, and reset at the beginning of the month. For example, there would be one $10, $20, $35, and $50 tournament each month.

The issue we need to work out is how to appropriately weight the points. We want the buyin and field size to affect the amount of points distributed. We decided no more than the top 20% of the field can receive points. What we came up with for buyin weighting is that points would equal the pot for the first game, 1.25 x the pot for the second, 1.5 x the pot for the third, and 2 x the pot for the fourth, or some variation. This way largest and most expensive tournaments pay out the most points.

What we are having a hard time with is a means of weighting overall performance over the course of the season. We want to maximize participation, and therefore it would be better to give weight to a player who "cashes" points in a higher percentage of his total tourneys played. Thus, if you receive points in 75% of your tourneys and have the same number of points as a player who places in 25% of his tourneys, your points should be weighted to account for your consistent performance. The idea of this point system is to award the players who can consistently perform well. Thus, we feel that a player who plays 3 of 12 tournamnets and finishes first in all 3 is not as worthy of the title as a player who receives points in 8 of 12 and has the same number of points.

I'm still working this whole thing out - its in its early stages of thought. Please point out any flaws and make suggestions for how to perfect this system.

Thanks!

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
We want the buyin and field size to affect the amount of points distributed.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, Phil Ivey, Jesus, Doyle, Chip Reese are a weaker game at the $10 table than Joe Schmoe (sorry, all of you Josephs out there :P ) Jim Dandy and whoever affords the $50 buy-in?

Why does everyone equate buy-in amount to increased skill level, rather than mainly bankroll size? Yes, the better players are in the bigger games in the REAL WORLD, since they can make more money there. But plenty of goofs buy in to the WSOP ME, I'm sure. If there was a good way to rank quality of field, then buy-in amount would be truly understood for what it is= amount of available cash to gamble with.
Sorry, end of mini-rant.

" We decided no more than the top 20% of the field can receive points. What we came up with for buyin weighting is that points would equal the pot for the first game, 1.25 x the pot for the second, 1.5 x the pot for the third, and 2 x the pot for the fourth, or some variation. This way largest and most expensive tournaments pay out the most points. "
Field size, yes. Buy-in amount is irrelevant and shouldn't be overweighted. In fact, the $50 winners already benefit- more money for same accomplishment (first out of X players)

"We want to maximize participation, and therefore it would be better to give weight to a player who "cashes" points in a higher percentage of his total tourneys played."

I think you'l find the opposite. If no one (with few or no points) has a chance to recover after a few tourneys, you're likely to get less players, not more, in my estimation. I think everyone who plays should get points, or at least have it set up so that early leaders are not uncatchable if I have a bad run of cards in the first few tourneys.

" The idea of this point system is to award the players who can consistently perform well. Thus, we feel that a player who plays 3 of 12 tournamnets and finishes first in all 3 is not as worthy of the title as a player who receives points in 8 of 12 and has the same number of points."

That's a good idea, in one way. However, if I can finish 8th eight times, should I have the same points as someone who finished 1st three times in the same fields?

I haven't fully balanced out yet the variables in my own tournament system. Search Home Games using "tourney points" or "tournament points" back a few months ago and see what you get for other ideas.

[Lottery Larry]

I was pushing participation more than results when I designed my current system, because the difference between 1st and last can often depends on the whims of the poker gods on one hand. How about this- first hand of tournament, AA3 board, you hold AK. All of the chips go in on the flop, they have AQ. Neither of you played badly, right?
Queen comes on the river. "Suck out artist" :P goes on to take 3rd place. Is he 40 points "better" than you are? What if Phil Ivey was the AK?

Anyway, here's my system. I was making it simple, plus thinking that a player who comes to 6 tourneys is more "valuable" to our group than one who comes once and wins the tourney.

POINTS
(Tourneys of 4 or less get 10 points for all player, +10 1st place )
10 pts- Bottom 1/2 of non-cash
15- Top 1/2 of non-cash (Bubble +2 points, for 17 total)
20- Cash place prize winners (below 3rd)
25- 3rd (-5 for 3 places paid, -10 if 2 paid)
35- 2nd (-5 for 3 places paid, -10 if 2)
45- 1st (-5 for 3 places paid, -10 if 2)

For us, 8 players pays 3 places, 12 pays 5, 17 pays 6. We may change the 25-30% payment rule next season.

BTW, our big event where the points are used, along with the extra $3 fees that increase the prize pool, the points affect your starting stack size.
One tourney paid for and played, out first, you get T10,000.
The leader, who paid over 12 tournaments, will get around T46K based on their point total.

[Lottery Larry]

One idea- average points as a tiebreaker/bonus points?, plus some bonus for greater number of tournaments.

Decide what's important to you and then adjust the results-only portion of your idea based on your decisions?

[stevea]

For my league, I just award points based on the number of players in the tourney. For example, in a 10 player tourney, 1st gets 10, 2nd gets 9, .... 10th gets 1.

I also ask for an up front payment and calculate player points on the best 10 of 12 tourneys to account for the fact that some players will miss poker night.

Like Larry, for the championship game, each players starting stack is proportionate to their points.

Here are some points system forumlas:

http://www.northjerseypoker.com/info...es_regs_v3.pdf
http://www.pokerstars.com/tlb_tournament_rankings.html
http://tourney.com/about-tournament-poker.html

Also check out cardplayer and the WPT's player of the year points.
*shameless plug*
Use my site to schedule your tourneys and track the results: www.homepokerclub.net

steve
<font color="orange">North Shore Low Rollers</font>

[Lottery Larry]

"Like Larry, for the championship game, each players starting stack is proportionate to their points. "

Steve (I assume), does your site explain how the final stacks are determined?

[stevea]

[ QUOTE ]
"Like Larry, for the championship game, each players starting stack is proportionate to their points. "

Steve (I assume), does your site explain how the final stacks are determined?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. For my league we allow the top 7 players to participate in the championship game. We do T10000 tourneys, so that's a total of 70K chips between everyone. We total up our top 7 players points and then apply each person's points to the total chip stack. There's an example on my league's rules page:

http://www.homepokerclub.net/clubrules.php?clubid=1

steve
<font color="orange">North Shore Low Rollers</font>

[cunningham22]

Thanks for the input. The weighting of buyins was not to value rich kids over poor kids, but to create more excitement for high stakes, important tournaments. But you're right, the weight should be on field. I hate the idea of 20, 19, 18, etc., and Larry's idea seems good.

I guess I'll work on it and let you know what I decide and how it turns out.

Thanks again.

[Mountainhawk]

I've run a series of tournaments a couple of times (with event sizes varying from 15-35), and the way I awarded points was 1000 points per event total to the final table, split up the same way that Pokerstars splits the cash if exactly one table cashes.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
and the way I awarded points was 1000 points per event total to the final table, split up the same way that Pokerstars splits the cash if exactly one table cashes.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you do/get by collecting points?
For those of us who don't play online, what percentages are you talking about?

Thanks
LL