Shake up the points system?

[LPL_Mike]

I was sent a mail the other day asking for a review of the points system, and one of the main reasons is that a player finishing in 16th gets the same points as a player finishing 11th.

The reason i am asking now as it will effect a major change in the 'Rewards Points System'.

New Points System will reward players with a higher score each place they move up through 16th -1st

As an example this could be the new system:

1st 800 plus 10 x total players
2nd 600 plus 10 x total players
3rd 550 plus 10 x total players
4th 500 plus 10 x total players
5th 450 plus 10 x total players
6th 400 plus 7 x total players
7th 350 plus 7 x total players
8th 300 plus 7 x total players
9th 275 plus 7 x total players
10th 250 plus 7 x total players
11th 225 plus 5 x total players
12th 200 plus 5 x total players
13th 175 plus 5 x total players
14th 150 plus 5 x total players
15th 100 plus 5 x total players
16th 50 plus 5 x total players

its not a huge change but maybe a slightly fairer system?

Any comments?

[Lisam8319]

I think that a shake up in the points system is a good idea as it would make it fairer. Possibly a jump of 200 points between 1st and second maybe too much though, as luck certainly plays a part at that stage in the game.

[pikeamus]

You could try using a formula similar to the pocket fives leader board formula or the meetup groups leaderboard formula. The pocket fives forumula is:

points = (prize_pool^1/2)/(place_finished^3/5)

so for us prize pool would be the number of entrants. The meetup leaderboard formula is:

points = ln((entrants + 1)/place_finished)

I've scaled these two formula (the pocket fives one by 150, meetup by 200) and plotted the points against the position and compared them to the current system. Here are some graphs (not sure if this'll work so bear with me):





Personally I think the meetup system is pretty good, its very smooth, less favourable to first place than the pocket fives formula and the lower payouts for the first few points placements will favour players that go deep rather than scraping into the points in lots of games. Thoughts?

[Flukey_Ian]

Even easier:

1st 500 plus 10 x total players
2nd 350 plus 10 x total players
3rd 300 plus 10 x total players
4th 250 plus 10 x total players
5th 200 plus 10 x total players
6th 150 plus 7 x total players
7th 140 plus 7 x total players
8th 130 plus 7 x total players
9th 120 plus 7 x total players
10th 110 plus 7 x total players
11th 100 plus 5 x total players
12th 90 plus 5 x total players
13th 80 plus 5 x total players
14th 70 plus 5 x total players
15th 60 plus 5 x total players
16th 50 plus 5 x total players

If it's too easy to score over 500 points for the Reward Scheme you'll being giving out baseball caps etc. left right and centre.

[Spider0]

I would definately agree with a switch to either of the systems suggested above or similar. for the simple reason that it makes it more like 'real' poker tournaments i.e. the total prize fund is based on how many people play and you get a bigger cut the better you do.

i actually prefer it with 16th to 11th the same (again in real MT tournaments their are bands at the lower cash levels). the realism of it is whenever there are 17 left there are always a few short stacks hanging around waiting for someone to get out and the game gets V.cagey, which is fair enough but at least when they do the remainer then get on with it knowing that they cant realistically 'cling on' for 5 more to die. but if there's more for every place then they'll try and stick til 15 or 14 cos its more and we'll be playing till 3am on a monday!

on the contrary to lisa's point,(sorry mate) i would say there's far more skill in a heads up battle than there is to someone folding there way from 16th to 12th because there's more points in it. i would also prefer the new system because it would appear to place more emphasis on beating larger fields. im not having a pop at people who play smaller venues but when i see people with loads of wins on their stats and then check their history and see they're getting 480 points every time i think 'dam, surely my beating 20 players should be worth a lot more than 120points more than winning one table??'

so if your putting it to a vote mike mine goes to the pocket 5's

[LPL_Mike]

One thing i didn't think about was 'player profile averages' this would be effected if we went over to a new system unless we keep the points on a similair basis to what we have now, like the one below, but still giving more points to players the higher they finish

1st 500 plus 10 x total players
2nd 350 plus 10 x total players
3rd 300 plus 10 x total players
4th 250 plus 10 x total players
5th 200 plus 10 x total players
6th 150 plus 7 x total players
7th 140 plus 7 x total players
8th 130 plus 7 x total players
9th 120 plus 7 x total players
10th 110 plus 7 x total players
11th 100 plus 5 x total players
12th 90 plus 5 x total players
13th 80 plus 5 x total players
14th 70 plus 5 x total players
15th 60 plus 5 x total players
16th 50 plus 5 x total players

[swinebag22]

Originally Posted by Flukey_Ian

Even easier:

1st 500 plus 10 x total players
2nd 350 plus 10 x total players
3rd 300 plus 10 x total players
4th 250 plus 10 x total players
5th 200 plus 10 x total players
6th 150 plus 7 x total players
7th 140 plus 7 x total players
8th 130 plus 7 x total players
9th 120 plus 7 x total players
10th 110 plus 7 x total players
11th 100 plus 5 x total players
12th 90 plus 5 x total players
13th 80 plus 5 x total players
14th 70 plus 5 x total players
15th 60 plus 5 x total players
16th 50 plus 5 x total players

If it's too easy to score over 500 points for the Reward Scheme you'll being giving out baseball caps etc. left right and centre.

my vote goes to this system.

800 points for winning is too much.

a 15 runner winner wouldn't have that much difference in points (percentage wise) from a 30 runner winner (which was the reason behind the change in points system all those years ago)

As for the player stats, no harm in resetting everyones stats and giving the donkeys a chance to make up for their earlier lack of experience

[Spider0]

woh woh woh!

regardless of anything else we should NOT be resetting those tables the only way to show a donk that s/he isnt as good as they think just because they've had a good month is to show them up over a longer period. those of us that have histories to be proud of shouldnt be losing them just because its deemed so important to differenciate between 15th and 12th.

as i said before you wouldnt get a different payout in a money game so i dont see the need to make it more but if you wanna do it dont erase the histories we've spent years building.

[LPL_Mike]

Originally Posted by Spider0

woh woh woh!

regardless of anything else we should NOT be resetting those tables the only way to show a donk that s/he isnt as good as they think just because they've had a good month is to show them up over a longer period. those of us that have histories to be proud of shouldnt be losing them just because its deemed so important to differenciate between 15th and 12th.

as i said before you wouldnt get a different payout in a money game so i dont see the need to make it more but if you wanna do it dont erase the histories we've spent years building.

Dont worry Kris i have no intention of resetting the player profiles!

[swinebag22]

Originally Posted by Spider0

woh woh woh!

regardless of anything else we should NOT be resetting those tables the only way to show a donk that s/he isnt as good as they think just because they've had a good month is to show them up over a longer period. those of us that have histories to be proud of shouldnt be losing them just because its deemed so important to differenciate between 15th and 12th.

as i said before you wouldnt get a different payout in a money game so i dont see the need to make it more but if you wanna do it dont erase the histories we've spent years building.

Its only 18 months worth. btw

i agree, I dont want really want the profiles resetting (i'm sooooooooo close to shark status). I was just thinking of a possible solution if they change the points system.

Thinking hard about it (could have done that the first time), the new points system proposed will not have too much effect on overall averages.