Hope the New Year is treating you royally!!
Last month, December, was interesting for me in terms of the High Stakes Leaderboard. I hadn’t planned on playing so much but caught the cold/flu bug during the last two weeks of the month. Ended up laying around and playing a lot of poker. It resulted in some deeper awareness for me regarding the Leaderboard point structure calculations.
Based upon my experience with it, my sense is that the tourney points are being calculated in a way that may be overly penalizing to players after they’ve passed the 60 game plateau. I guess it just depends on what your intentions are when you came up with this formula. But if the goal is to quantify player skills it seems that it misses the mark. If the goal is to level the playing field for players who are unable to play as many games in a month I think it results in an overly “tilted” playing field against those who play more games.
Here is how my month played out:
When I reached the 60 game plateau my tourney point total was just over 480,000 points, and my average was just over 8,000 points.
When I got the flu I decided to keep playing. Was too boring to just watch. I ended up playing a total of 126 High Stakes SnG games. I didn’t keep track of all of the games I played, but I started to get curious so I did record my final 13 games.
At the end of the month my total points on the leader board had fallen from 480,000 points after 60 games, to 446,633 points and my average had fallen from just over 8,000 to 7,443. I don’t believe that this a an accurate reflections of player skill.
I didn’t record all of my finish places but here are the leader board results over those past thirteen games.
Finish Leader Board Total Leader Board Average 445,656 7427 zero pts. 441,677 7361 zero 437,??? ???? placed 439,010 7316 placed 440,601 7343 placed 442,432 7373 placed 442,776 7379 placed 446,837 7447 placed 447,139 7452 #1, 6/200 451,097 7518 #3 451,782 7529 #3, 6/200 452,457 7540 zero pts. 445,217 7420 #2 6/100K 446,662 7443
So, in my last thirteen games I placed “in the points” ten times, and got zero point three times. So the result of combination of those ten “wins” and three “losses” was that I was able to increase my point total by 1,006 points, and my average by 16 points. Since any player below the 60 game plateau is earning between 8,000 and 19,000 points per “win” this just feels overly onerous, especially since they aren’t losing any points for a loss.
As you can see above some “wins” only increased my average by as few as 6 points, or 11 points, while a single loss would drop it by 120 points. It just feels like this is overly weighted in the negative making it nearly impossible to earn any significant points unless you “win” in every game.
You might also note that for the month, with a final average of 7,443 over 126 games played, the actual total points earned for the month was 937,818 tourney points. The final total for the month reflected on the leader board was 446,662, or 47.6% of the actual winnings. So the final average certainly has very little value as a reflection of player skill.
Another way to look at it is that in the first 60 games of the month I won just 480,000 tourney points on the leader board. During the following 66 games that I played I won an additional 457,818 tourney points, and yet my total tourney points on the leader board actually dropped approximately 34,000 points. Might there be a more equitable way to approach these calculations? Having run businesses in the past it’s hard for me to fully grasp the logic of severely penalizing your best customers.
Obviously there are numerous ways to fine tune the formula used for these calculations. One simple one would be to just eliminate the possibility of ever losing points. Since with this formula it becomes so difficult to win significant points after reaching the 60 game plateau, those players under 60 games have a very large advantage just by design. For example if prior to 60 games you win 15,000 points for a tourney, but after 60 games you can only earn 4,000 points for the same tourney, that is a pretty large advantage by itself.
Lots of other possible ways to “tweak” the formula but I’ll leave that to better mathematicians than I.
Please know that this missive does not fall in the “complaint” department. I enjoyed playing in those games inspite of the added challenges. Hopefully this is constructive feedback.
Mahalo again for all you do to make Replay such a great site.
Happy New Year!
P.S. I had also made a suggestion awhile back about not including games in the tourney point calculations if a player signed up for a tourney but didn’t actually play a single hand. Got a response saying it was under consideration but haven’t heard anything lately. Any feedback on the status?