Leader Board Tourney Point Calculations

Suggestions & Feedback
1

Aloha Guys,

I’m writing this morning in an attempt to assuage my own deep frustrations. :o)

Last night, once again, I signed up for a high stakes SnG, and then, life got in the way, and I was unable to get back and actually play in the tournament. So I donated 100K.

I don’t know if it’s bad karma or what, but that has happened to me about six times just this month, I’ve signed up for 100K or 200K tournaments and gotten called away by “life” and have not played a single hand in any of those SnG tournaments. (Seems to be a unique month for me. I don’t remember it ever happening before.)

So, from my frustrated self, I’m writing to make a suggestion regarding how tourney points are calculated. It would be great if Replay chose to recognize that “stuff” happens out here in the world and that folks occasionally do what I’ve been doing and not showing up for tournaments they’ve registered for for reasons beyond their control.

With that in mind I would suggest that the player still lose out on the entry fee, say 100K, but that if a player doesn’t play a single hand in a tournament then that tournament not be included as a tournament played with regard to the leaderboards, and that it not be include in calculating a player point average.

I believe that this approach would be consistent with Replay’s intention that the tourney point average be a reflection of player skills. With this approach the tourney point average would only be affected by tournaments that the player actually played in, rather than be diluted by tournaments that the player didn’t actually play in, and thereby be a clearer reflection of player skills.

The player would still be penalized the entry fee, and other players would not be affected other than continuing to make it easier for them to score points with one less player at the table.

I’ve become more aware of this issue this month as I am currently at the top of the High Stakes leader board, but am painfully aware that the tournaments I have entered, but have not played in, have seriously diluted my point average. This month I believe there have been six of these “no shows” for me. And particularly onerous is the fact that two of these tournament “no shows” on my part have occurred after I reached the 60 tournament plateau which amplifies the negative effect on the tourney point average.

(Plus I’m watching my fellow poker soundrels creep closer and closer up the leaderboard as I fall backwards. Harrumph!)

Okay, I appreciate your consideration of this proposal. I enjoy the idea of the leaderboards each month as it adds some depth and motivation to the game since the chips themselves have a tendency to lose significant meaning over time. The little extra competitive aspect is fun and adds a little extra “juice” to the game. And I appreciate all of the many great touches you’ve added as Replay has evolved.

May your holiday season be blessed.

Bucksarge

1 Like
2

Passed this along to the team for consideration. Thanks a ton for taking the time to write up and share!

Good luck with the scoundrels – Mos Eisley is terrible this time of year.

4

A few days ago I read Sarge’s post on the horror of registering for a tournament and then life’s wheels take you down the road. When you get back you have lost not only the entry chips, in his and my case, of hundreds of thousands of chips, but also a game is credited as being played when in fact no game was played at all. It was precisely NOT PLAYED.

I am not asking for the chips back. I understand that the rule on that is fair and for good reason. But the people who lose out when you count a game that they didn’t play, it hurts an entire month’s effort.

This is especially problematic when there are contenders for leadership points.

If you don’t physically play you should not be charged with playing.

5

Thanks for the suggestion @bucksarge, I think it sounds fair and reasonable. So basically what you’re saying is ONLY if you don’t play a single hand in a tournament, it shouldn’t count towards the leaderboard at all… ie, as if you never played the tournament. But if you play just one hand then it counts as before?

6

We had a chat amongst the team about this, we can see it might be occasionally unfair if you get called away through no fault of your own, and can’t play, but the consensus was that it could encourage bad play, ie. registering for lots of tourneys, no showing, then players choosing to start playing depending on how other players had played. I think for now then we’ll leave it as is.

7

Paul,

Mahalo for your response. Must say, however, that it makes zero sense to me.

You really think that someone is going to be “registering for lots of tourneys, and no showing”?
That would mean that they would be sacrificing their entry fees to “lots of tourneys”. Why would someone do that?

And you really think that they are going to sit around and monitor the tournament to see
how the other players are doing? Its already set up that players are booted from the tournaments
after the first three levels of blinds if they don’t show up. How much is a player going to learn in the
first three levels even if he were willing to just sit and watch the tournament for twenty minutes or so.

I’m sorry, but I think you guys have missed the bus on this one.

I’m wondering what happened to the first response that I received from you below that expressed that the
suggestion “seems fair and reasonable”?

This might be worth a little bit of further consideration.

Best, Bucksarge

8

Thanks for the reply bucksarge. Always good to get constructive feedback.

I still think the suggestion is fair and reasonable, for the arguments you’ve made. Especially if it only applies to tournaments where you haven’t played a single hand. If it applied to tournaments where attendance was say below x% then you could just throw the game if you did particularly badly early on.

The counter argument to the change would be the potential to game the system as I mentioned, which may not be an issue for the reasons you stated, although these days nothing would surprise me :slightly_smiling:

Also there’s the question of how big a difference it would make, given that everyone is equally disadvantaged by the current rule if they don’t show up. Over time, it should average out, unless somebody for whatever circumstances is particularly prone to missing tournaments, although it’s difficult to think of a situation as so.

The final counter argument, is simply one of added complexity to the system, every added rule or exception to the rule, requires that extra bit of work, and then that extra bit of ongoing maintenance forever more. So it’s not simply a question of whether on balance a change is preferable, but whether it’s preferable enough to be worth the cost of doing it.

Now I could be wrong, and in fact it is worth doing. It would be useful to get a few more players opinions too. We could still add a rule that relates only to leaderboards that have a cap to not count tourneys that are complete no-shows. None of this is set in stone, but if you and others feel particularly strongly about this, then that carries weight and we’ll listen for sure.

9

Aloha Paul,

In respons to your first paragraph…sounds like we’re in agreement on the “fair and reasonable” nature of my suggestion.

Second paragraph…don’t think there is really a way to “game the system” with the recommended change. No one will be willing to sacrifice entry fees.

Third, Since, as you suggest, everyone is equally “disadvantaged” by the current system then my suggested change would benefit everyone by eliminating the disadvantage for everyone.

Your fourth paragraph…If it comes down to a business decision for you regarding the cost of time and energy to make the change, then I can fully understand and appreciate not making it if it is just too complex. However, it feels like it should be a relatively simple modifications since replay is already set up to eliminate players who don’t show after the first three levels of blinds. But you guys would know better than I.

In terms of other players feedback, it might be helpful if you just polled each of the players who actually place “in the money” on last months (or last couple of months) leaderboard since they are the ones who would be affected by the change.

Okay…thanks again for your openness and willingness to consider suggestions. Much appreciated.

Best, Bucksarge

10

Aloha Paul,

      Here we are at the last day of the month. I'm currently in second place on the High Stakes SnG leaderboard. An hour ago I was in first place but Satchypaul just passed me to take over first place. After a fun month of competition It would be fun to be able to compete for the top spot on this last day. However, I just did the calculations. I've played 91 games and my point total is currently 710,002. There is a six seat 200K SnG table filling up now. BUT, if I were to play in it and take FIRST PLACE, I would win 15,434 tourney points. HOWEVER, according to your formula, my tourney point total on the leaderboard would drop by 337 points down to 709,665. 

     So, this current system, instead of allowing for a fun final day to compete for the top spot, makes it impossible to compete even if I play and win.

     Is this really how you want it to work????  I've been writing about this for two months now and being told its under consideration. As you can see in this forum you never responded to my last comment. Todays situation is extremely frustrating. Its like getting to the final table of the big tournament and being told you're not allowed to play.  Hope you can find a better way.

     Bucksarge
11

Hey buck,

Paul may have an answer for you too, but I wanted to make sure you saw the replies in this thread as well – there’s some seriously great discussion going on! Happiness gets into her thoughts, and we get some good insight from Scratch, christG, and other toos. =)