PokerQueens.co.uk

[Anton]

A proper league table will be set up soon but just to re-iterate these are the point values after our first night.

Matthew 6
Anton 5
Maria 4
Paul 'The Limpet' Hurley 3
Lisa 2
Mark 1

Some thought however needs to be given to the structure of the league. The way we are planning to do it now means that you could theoretically win it by turning up and going out early every week as opposed to other players who might play less frequently but consistently finish higher.

Does anyone have any thoughts on how better to allocate points?

A

[m4rkie]

Perhaps relate it somehow to the length of time in the game relative to the total time of the game, with the winner getting some extra points. For example if a game of 6 people lasts 4 hours:

Winner 240 minutes, 100 points + 50 bonus points
Second 240 minutes, 100 points
Third 210 minutes 87.5 points
Fourth 180 minutes, 75 points
Fifth 120 minutes, 50 points
Sixth (me) 12 minutes, 5 points.

What do y'all think?

[Anton]

Once you got heads up you could both play really slowly to get more points!

[m4rkie]

Yeah. But I have to get to heads up first..! Heads up situation already has the maximum points, and it wouldnt be long before someone ran out of patience or got a good hand they couldnt resist playing..

Just an idea, see what people think.

[hurleyp]

Mark

I;ve never heard of a poker touney run along these time-accloated points lines as you suggest. It doesn;t work because a poker game is not about length, or indeed how long in terms of minutes you stay in. If one week I win the whole thing in 60 mins and the next 6 hours it doesn't make any difference.

However the ideas of allocation points for places is worth looking into. I believe Anton is researching how other poker leagues are structured. Our current system is pretty good though and might need only minor tweeking.

P

[m4rkie]

What were the scores for Sunday's game? I'm compiling a little spreadsheet to keep track

[Anton]

This weeks results and league totals are as follows.


Game 1

Matthew 6
Anton 5
Maria 4
Paul 3
Lisa 2
Mark 1

Game 2

Helen 9
Jason 8
Paul 7
Mark 6
Matthew 5
Anton 4
Chris L 3
Chris VS 2
Maria 1

Totals

Matthew 11
Paul 10
Helen 9
Anton 9
Jason 8
Mark 7
Maria 5
Chris L 3
Chris VS 2
Lisa 2

As far as the structure of the league is concerned the point system seems pretty good to me. I haven't found much on the web however to help.

IMHO it is fine that you get more points for winning against a bigger table. You've beaten more players and that seems fair.

The problem of whether to factor in the number of games played is more complicated. If, as has been suggested, we divide the number of points by the number of games played our new totals are;

Adjusted Totals

Helen 9
Jason 8
Matthew 5.5
Paul 5
Anton 4.5
Mark 3.5
Chris L 3
Maria 2.5
Chris VS 2
Lisa 2

In many ways this appeals more to me but there are downsides. As I see it the major problem with not doing so is that players who turn up every week and go out early could still amass more points than a more consistent player who plays infrequently.

On the other hand if we do adjust for the number of games played a player who played just one or two games but scored highly would appear high in the table without showing any consistency at all. In fact if a player played just once at a full table and won they would be guaranteed to win or tie the league if they never played again.

Neither option seems perfect to me. Does anyone have any thoughts?

A

[hurleyp]

i really don;t like the adjusted league system. for the reasons you mention and others. i can;t think of an example of it being used.

quite like the way it is but it works against anyone who doesn;t turn up too often.

how about this - a simple points allocation- each week only points go to the top five (regardless of starting number). 10 pts for the winner, 8 for 2nd, 6, 4 and 2 for fifth.

Then at the end of the year each player's score is their top 15 places throuhgout the year (theoretically 150 points would be the perfect score).

i would either keep it as is, or change it to something like the suggested way, which would make the current league look like:

Matthew 12
Helen 10
Paul 10
Anton 8
Jason 8
Maria 6
Mark 4
Lisa 2

one other thing to think about is when the league should run until? the end of the calendar year? or should we make it a six month affair and the restart?

[m4rkie]

Of course my little idea using a time system was a little complex.

But I’m not so sure of this average system – not least people will have scores of 4.568333333 and 3.44444, but it does not sufficiently reward those who want to play more and be more successful.

eg, taking 3 players from a league system over 10 games:

First 5 games:

Player A: 8,5,3,7,7
Player B: 1,0,0,0,2
Player C: 8,0,0,0,0

Second 5:

A: 7,6,7,3,6
B: 1,0,0,7,0
C: 0,0,3,0,0

In average system:
A: 5.9 (with 10 games played)
B: 2.75 (with 4 games played)
C: 5.5 (with 2 games played)

Player A, with the most games played 10 and the most consistent is only marginally ahead of C who has played only 2 games.

Total system:
A: 59
B: 11
C: 11

Player A is miles ahead, justifiably, as he has played all 10 games, demonstrating consistency and willingness to participate and improve his/her game, contrary to Players B and C.


I can’t think of any sports that do this, eg football requires everyone to play, if a driver misses out on a motor race he simply forfeits points.

The initial points seems fairer – as you say, beating more players rewards you with more points, rewarding time spent playing, the experience it gives and consequent success.

However, it would be interesting to keep a score system using both methods..?

[hurleyp]

i agree - the average system is going to mess with our heads, and i also agree we could run both others at least for the time being - it is definitely fairier to use some sort of basic points system

[Bennie the Flop]

I must say, I like the system we are using - no, not because I'm winning! It has the advantage of simplicity and of rewarding consistency of attendance: both of which I think are desirable. I know it penalises people who, for some perfectly valid reasons, can not play sometimes, but I think that, over the course of the year, there will be a certain amount of levelling out of this effect. My preference would be for the league to finish at Christmas with a big Christmas Prize-giving. Hurrah!

[Helen]

Happy to go with whatever the majority think and whatever is easiest to administer.

Talking of administering, did we ever agree if there was going to be a sub of some kind? I would be in favour of a small sub, say £1 each week, to go to prizes for the top places, and maybe a donation to SLT's fundraising as well.

If an average of six people played once a week, you've got £300 already...

H

[Bennie the Flop]

Good idea.

[hurleyp]

i said i would collect £3 from eveyrone as a one off payment, but maybe a pound is better each time as you say would lead to a bigger prize and money to the club

[Helen]

I don't mind collecting/recording it, if people are happy with £1 a go. If we've got more than 6 regulars, the prizes could be quite nice!