SEASON 2 Proposal Discussion thread
There has been much discussion of late as the season draws to a close regarding how points are allocated in the standings after each tournament. All the suggestions appear to involve expanding the system with more points, although there are differences about the details and breadth of that expansion. I suggest we post discussion here as comments under this post regarding the potential rules change, so that we all have a chance to talk it out before we need to vote. Personally, it's no skin off my lily pad, and I'll be happy to abide by any rule change. Not that you care about my opinion anyway... *sniff sniff*
* Important note: one rule proposal has already been made by Dustin in this regard: that 1st place count for 4 points, 2nd place count for 2 points, and 3rd place count for 1 point.
posted by The Poker Frog @ 1:36:00 PM
19 Comments:
Greg Hipius has emailed a proposal and I take the liberty of posting it here:
1st place: 15 points
2nd place: 10 points
3rd place: 6 points
4th place: 3 points
5th place: 1 point
The reason I do so is I would like to post a new proposal by me inspired by Greg's proposal. which I will post nex.
Here is my new proposal:
I propose we have a sliding point scale for three different types of tournaments, Small, medium, & large.
The points for each tournament and their tournament size are as follows:
Small tournament (6 or less players)
1st place 3 points
2nd place 2 points
3rd place 1 points
Average tournament (7-11 players)
1st place 5 points
2nd place 3 points
3rd place 2 points
4th place 1 points
Large tournament (12+ players)
1st place 7 points
2nd place 5 points
3rd place 3 points
4th place 2 points
5th place 1 points
I also propose any player receiving points be allowed to participate in the grand championship tournament.
My reason for this are as follows. I recognize the current system is flawed and values winning too highly. In looking at the real casino tournament world, a consistent 2nd place finisher would make slightly more in earnings that an all or nothing 1st place finisher. I also recognize that the size of payouts and amount of people in the prize pool would grow and shrink depending on tournament size.
I do not want to get too complicated though. Most of our tournaments fall into the 7-11 range, so most tournaments would fall into the average range. Only 2 tournaments last year fell into the small and 2 fell into the large category. The points can be posted on the wipe/erase board at the beginning of the evening for all to see, much like the money pool is posted at the beginning of a tournament at the Casino.
I am against all players receiving points for participating, mainly because it benefits Heather and I disproportionately. Because the tournament is at our house (and since we started this we would like to keep it here, we have fun hosting it) we would be participants in all tournaments. This would give us an advantage and one that is not dese3rved. Going out early in a regular tournament is just as bad as staying in until right before the first cut. But because this is fun we will be giving points to a little under to a little over 1/2 the participants, which I think is acceptable.
Comments thoughts Insults?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I like the new proposal better than my own (and gee, I was inspiration? I feel so warm and fuzzy!). I hereby withdraw my own, leaving it the only proposal on the table at the moment.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I also want to make another ruile change, regarding season 2 which will be up for a vote. If my proposal for different tournaments getting different values. I think it would be helpful and possibly beneficial to all to have an agreed upon starting chip amount.
I would personally want the starting chip allocation for each player be $12,500. This is more then the World Series of Poker and equal to a 10 person tournament under the current rules.
Set up would be alot easier for the host and every player would have the same amount of chip allocation, ending any confusion over how many blues and whites and reds and greens one has. This would also allow late show ups to the game as their chip stack can be reduced based on the blind amounts passed at the time they show up.
So if we pass the rule to have a chip stack of $12,500.00 the starting chip allocation will be as follows: 6 green, 10 red, 10 blue, 10 white.
This will also allow players to adjust to the blind escalation in a uniform manner no matter how many people are at the table.
I can do this chip allocation with the current chip set I have along with the extras that I brought to Ghettysburgh. It will also alow me to set up quicker and get right into the game.
I think that I need to make a further proposal...
I like the sliding scale of points awarded, depending on the number of people at a tournament (and I can see a value to rewarding folks who are ALWAYS there, too...), but this is what I would propose...
All tournaments should have a point system like the one in Dustin's small tournament system. There should never be any more than 1 point difference between placing. (Anything more than a 1 point difference means that someone who never wins a tournament, but is always placing in the top 3 - 5 will never catch up to a person who regularly comes in first place... for example, my 3 second place wins would always be worth fewer points than qanyone who has won only 2 tournaments [using the current proposal], but if there was only a 1 point difference this would mean that 3 second place finishes would be equitable to 2 first place finishes and so on down the lines, therefore keeping a top standing in sight for those who regularly play well, but never finish first.)
In my proposal 2 2nd place finishes of equal tournaments count a little more then one win. I think that is fair as tournaments normlly alot 50% of their cash out to 1st place and 30% of their cashout to 2nd place.
so in the system I propose 2 2nd place finishes compared to 1 first place finish equal out the following ways:
small 4 points to 3 points
Medium 6 points to 5 points
Large 10 points to 7 points
Having only one point differences would actually over value third through 5 finishes. I t would also mean that placing 3rd in a large tournament equals finishing 1st in a small tournament which I do not think is fair. Winning is important and there should not be a system where a third place finish equals a first.
Alright... It seems that I wasn't clear, so here I go...
No. I wasn't looking to amend an existing proposal. I know that not everyone feels that the point values should be the same regardless of the size of the gathering, but I don't frankly see that it makes any difference. It's a different kind of game, each time we get together, regardless of the size...
Anyway... This is my proposal...
1st place = 5pts
2nd place = 4pts
3rd place = 3pts
The above would go for ANY tournament. In larger tournaments (11+ players) we can add pts for 4th and 5th place, as follows...
4th place = 2pts
5th place = 1pt
Above I acknowledged that I know that people have an issue with tournament size, but the people who make it to the pointable slots work to get those points no matter what size group we are playing with. As I mentioned before, anything more than a 1 point spread creates the feeling that once you've hit a second place (or lower) position it's nearly impossible to reach those folks who have gotten the win more than once... I don't think that's fair...
Thanks for the clarification Pam.
I like your system better then the current system. But I still like mine better then yours. I do think it is important to have 1st place count higher in larger tournaments then smaller ones. And I have placed and won in both small and large tournaments. It is harder when there are potentially 11 callers around the table early on then say 4 in my opinion.
One other thing I noticed. UNder Pam's system 2 3rd place finishes result in more points then 1 first place finish. I can't find any example of any tournament anywhere where that is the case.
So under this system a person could qualify third in two 5 person tournaments and have 6 points where someone would qualify 1st in one 12 person tournament and only have 5 points.
I am just not sure that is fairer then our current rules, which I think are also equally flawed but in the opposite direction.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I have deleted the raise rule comments as I have opened up a new thread on that and included it in there.
I have also altered my point structure to accomodate what I think is Pam's grievance, and to be more mathmatically consistent. However Pam's proposal remains and will be voted on unless, like Greg did, she wishes to remove it.
I changed the point structure only because I wanted consistency.
Here is what I changed my proposal to:
Small tournament (6 or less players)
1st place 7 points
2nd place 5 points
3rd place 2 points
Average tournament (7-11 players)
1st place 10 points
2nd place 7 points
3rd place 3 points
4th place 1 point
Large tournament (12+ players)
1st place 13 points
2nd place 9 points
3rd place 4 points
4th place 2 points
5th place 1 point
The reasons for this are thus:
1.) I wanted to make sure that 2 2nds beat 1 first and 3 2nds beat 2 firsts, but only by a slight point lead. I view this as an even accomplishments while rewarding the more consistent player.
2.) I wanted to make sure 3 3rds were almost equal to a first place finish, which I have done.
3.) I wanted to make the point jump from tournament to tournamnet follow a logical progression.
4.) I wanted to make sure a third place finish of any tournament does not equate a 1st place finish of any tournament and the only time a second place counted more then a win is when the 2nd comes in a large tournament and 1st place in a small tournament. Since we are talking about nearly double the amount of participants that is acceptable.
I am adding another proposal and that is simply to rename the two annual championship trophies from the "Prince Charming Trophy" for the Regular Season Standings and "The Kermit Trophy" for the Grand Annual Championship trophy to the "Single Season Standing Trophy" and the "Grand Annual Championship" Trophy.
I found it very hard to actually find prince charming and kermit items that could actually be made into nice trophies. Next year we should keep the frog theme but allow more freedom when shopping for the items.
Here is my, long postponed proposal:
Points are awarded based on the number of players at the table. (12 Players at the table, winner gets 12 points, 5 players at table, winner gets 5 points. etc.) and each place lower gets one less point.
eg.
5 players
1st place 5 pts
2nd place 4 pts
3rd place 3 pts
4th place 2 pts
5th place 1 pt
For the end of the year tournament, we simply select how many players we want at the table and, whatever that number is, we allow that number of top point scorers. (let's say, purely for example, 8 players. We would then have the top 8 point scorers at the final table.)
Between us all, we have enough chips for side games etc. if others want to come.
I believe that playing consistently is the most important indicator of success in this particular venture. Winning is great, but placing consistently is, to my mind, a greater acheivement. I also believe in fairness and equity, as this is, at its core, simply a fun game played among friends seeking an excuse to get together. If we must have a point system, I believe this is the fairest way to do it. It rewards everyone who comes with at least one point, values consistent play and delineates a strong reward difference between winning a 5 persaon tournament and winning a 15 person tournament. It also eliminates any chance of "The Patty Problem" re occurring, in that no one can come in once and place highly, yet never come again, and still wind up with a final table ranking.
Mark your proposla is noted and placed in the voting thread. If there are any problems with the wording please let me know.
As I said I am against any proposal that awards people with points for just showing up. The main reason is that Heather and I would benefit disproportionately from it. This proposal will also make me track large numbers and make the work of running the tournament harder. Also in Mark's system going out 6th in a 12 person tournament would count more then winning a tournament.
Rewardging consistent play is one thing. I am for that as my proposal I think shows. It is a hybrid of Pam and Mark's proposal and I think brings everything to bear in a fair way.
Having played in online tournaments and at the Casino no tournament rewards people with money for busting out early. Busting out first is just as bad as busting out right before the money. This rewards trying to win as opposed to juist hanging on until you are blinded out of a tournament.
One other thing I don't like about Mark's proposal is that it almost makes showing up at every tournament a neccesary step in making a run at the regular season standing.
We schedule these tournaments the best we can but many times even Poker Frog members can not make the tournament. I just think if you play well enough to place in any tournament you should be invited to the championship. Sure we are runnign a 2nd table this year and will need to in year's to come if this goes on. But I am for opening up the process and inckuding everyone who places well. This still rewards consistency but only consistently good players. 3rd, 4th, & 5th place should get something. But not last place.
Post a Comment
<< Home