– I’m sure this will be rolled into another thread, and I hope it doesn’t –
Over the past few months, Both types have been talked about and debated. After competing in TheColleseum, I can now say I’ve actually played both types.
Now, what difference is there in a 45 ppl SnG , and a MTT with 45 ppl in it ???
Other than 1 has a scheduled start time, and the other starts when 45 ppl register… There is NO difference in strategy or gameplay whatsoever. So why are SnG leaderboards “ave of” & MTT leaderboards are “best of” ???
( TheColleseum promotion was “ave of” with a min but no max, in a MTT setting.)
While multiple threads have discussed leaderboards, 1 thing I’m pretty sure Shakeraise said, was that Staff didn’t really want situations that incentivised players to stop playing events due to it hurting thier standing. I reviewed the leaderboards for SnGs for the last few months, and exactly that occurs… ppl hit thier 60,90, or 120 SnGs, and stop there to preserve thier “ave”, just as I did in TheColleseum. Yes I understand staff used the promo as a beta for future things like revamped Jewel leagues.
Since it can be shown SnG & MTT are really the same thing, a better metric for leaderboards ( monthly or promotional ) should be the same for both groups of ppl. There some problems with both methods currently used and basically its like comparing apples to oranges.
Lets start with “Average of” :
Currently with no max, and only a min … it specifically says " after X number of SnGs, you aren’t really helping yourself, so stop playing them". Staff has said, thats not a situation they want for thier players… to just stop playing SnGs @ a certain point.
Now for “best of” :
Again with no max, this lends itself to those who play 10-14 hrs a day. It also encourages loose play because after a while, the only thing that will help you is going super deep and/or winning. This is achieved easier if you chip up early on. ( say 3x starting stack ) To do that you normally press harder than necessary, plus a DNF won’t hurt you.
While both of these methods have weaknesses already described, they both have 1 HUGE problem… Neither of them truly compare apples to apples…
The MTT side has worse problems as the SnG side. This is caused directly by the formula used to determine points in the 1st place… Let me explain further, shall I …
IF, you were determining how to pay people (chip payout) for risk-reward, then yes perhaps the formula might be ok, but when you are comparing them to each other (tourn points) it falls apart. You also add in problems of online times of your playerbase for the MTT side. If you have a combined leaderboard ( L-M-H ), certainly you must take into account buyin levels, but only on a L-M-H basis, not subdiveded in each catagory. Since Replay has divided up leaderboards, then buyin amount is basically meaningless. When you try to compare multiple MTTs, you cannot allow external factors like … when a person is online, to screw up comparing apples to apples.
This is the constant battle of … " uninted consequences "… example : Lets say you change the t-pts system to a system where all MTTs, in each level (like low), would be worth 10k pts, and for each posistion down from the winner, they deduct 10 pts… so basically you have room for 1000 players per MTT…( what happens if you have 1001 players ? ) This still occurs with SnGs but to a lesser degree due to whats offered.
Then you have created the situation opposite from how it is now, where players will search out the MTTs with the LOWEST # of players, rather than now … they search out the MTTs with the HIGHEST # of players… If you base it on finishing posistion, you also have the same problem… ppl will search out the ones with fewer players entered.
@least then you are far closer( not 100%) to comparing apples to apples than currently exsists. So the “holy grail” here is to find a way to structure the formula, that can pretend all fruit are apples, that does not create unintended consequences or built in unfairness.
— IF —, you just said ok, there’s a leaderboard for 5k 9ppl SnGs … yes you are comparing apples to apples, and you’d need what about 25-50 leaderboards, not just 6… AND you cannot do that on the MTT side because “# of entrants” is variable, not static. This is also why you want situations for different levels of participation on the site… ie- casual, consistent, & maniac… where each level has a fixed target # of “played events”…
(1,000 × (√Runners)/√(Finishing Position))×(1+log(Buy-in)) … of the 3 variables, only finishing posistion is need’d because… “Buy-in” only applies if there was a combined L-M-H Leaderboard, so we can eliminate that since there is 3 separate leaderboards. “Runners” is highly problematic because it descriminates against time of day. Basically you are rewarded for playing in the “high traffic times/high # of players” and penalized for playing in the “low traffic times/low # of players”… so we can also eliminate that too…
All thats left is finishing posistion, and whats still a problem is how to equate a 45 ppl SnG/MTT to a 9 ppl SnG/MTT… WITHOUT creating any unfairness between the two of them. Even I agree thats a tall order, and may be impossible (100%).
I will ask all people who reply to this post, this is a discussion/debate not argument… but that being said, don’t just post and say… I like it as is, don’t chg it… What I am looking for is thoughtfull, logical, rational and un-personal comments… Pretend this is about a FICTIONAL poker site, not replay… I am trying to help Replay find a 100% fair system for every MTT/SnG/Promotional leaderboard … If staff rolls this into another thread, then it will lose its objectivity… because this post will get lost in the clutter of another post and get overlooked by many many more ppl.
I can show why the 50% finishing posistion rule needs to be eliminated, and I am happy Shakeraise has already said it will be phased out soon. The Level 3 rule should go bye bye too, leaving only the 50% participation rule, which I think could be upped to 70%… but in reality is un-necessary too.
What I have seen here @ replay is that Staff tries to “protect” part of the playerbase, @ the expense of players learning valuable lessons and strategies on thier own to “protect themselves”. Simply explained like this… NL & PL, don’t make a rule to protect against All-ins preflop in a NL setting, because thats what No-Limit allows… instead encourage those players to play PL instead, where that protection is built in to the format Pot-Limit.
I learned online poker playing 180 or 360 SnGs, that started every 5 minutes… You MUST learn ( strategy wise ) how to deal with “Bingo players”, “No play players”, “bubbles” and other situations that … well… are eliminated by things like the Level 3 rule. These are valuable lessons everyone here needs to learn.
Also and this is MASSIVELY important… DO NOT payout tourn-points/chips untill the event is OVER… This allows you to deal with ALL of the crap that some of these rules try to prevent … alot easier… just pay out T-pts and Chips, AFTER the event is over.