Scratch,
I found “the” problem… ( not my problem or your problem )
Your " full points " = the points your total increased by.
My " full points " = the raw points earned.
Since the SnG Leaderboard page specifically says, after 90, points are calculated differently than just “raw pts earned” … I heard you to say, when you didn’t get full points, you meant … instead of getting 20,000 pts, you only got 9,890 … thats not getting full points…
What you meant to say is the following… after the 90th game, your total points for the month won’t increase by the full amount of points, earned in successive SnGs played…
having something " increase by " has nothing to do with actual points earned … its comparing apples to oranges…
I did not mean to insult you in any way, but its a semantical issue… you were semantically incorrect… no big deal, but I want others reading this to not make that mistake too, so I had to correct you.
1 Like
Hey Sass, You are the funnest of all; that’s for the effort to clear things up. I am truly perplexed by the insane rule.
Thanks again.
Scratch
1 Like
Scratch,
I know, and I didn’t want you to think I was trying to argue, just to argue…or trying to make things “personal” … which I was NOT … lol
I personally think both “best of” (MTT) and “ave of [capped]” (SnG) leave room for improvement.
I just look at the fact that 1 person wins 120 SnGs ( 1k buyin and 6 ppl tables ) and gets 1,175,640 points… while another person wins 120 SnGs ( 5k buyin and 9 ppl tables ) and earns 1,691,520 points … Thats a full 44% more points … thats also insane, isn’t it ???
In that case, why wouldn’t a player ONLY play 9 ppl and 5k , if they want to win the Low board ???
The same thing in MTT, just by being online @ the wrong times of the day, you’re @ a severe disadvantage if you want to win 1 of the leaderboards… because # of entrants is usually 1/2 that compared to more peak playing times… @least SnGs are a fixed # of entrants… so the difference is less… ( yes in MTTs it can be far more than 44% increase )
(edit) … its not 44% harder to play 9 ppl than 6 ppl, and that has nothing to do with whether or not you can afford the 5k or the 1k … roflmao
Sarah - not to go too far off the topic here but it might help you to think of these leaderboards as being more of a loyalty / rake-back program than anything else. Just my opinion of course but that’s what they strike me as. The flaws that you and I see in them are because we want them to be measurements based purely on merit. That’s kind of what they are packaged as. However, they are not and are not even close. They are so heavily weighted towards volume that I can only interpret them as programs to give back a percentage of rake to high-volume players. There are components of merit in them but I do not believe that is the primary focus.
To be noted - higher skilled players can offset a lot of the weight towards volume so don’t think I am bashing the good players who win bonus chips. They do so on the strength of their play. However, with few exceptions, volume makes up the largest component of any of the boards, IMO.
So, directly to your point - under this system, of course higher weights would go to higher stakes because of the higher rakes 
2 Likes
I agree completely with ya there Warlock…
1 Like
I’m so lost in this thread I can’t even comment lol.
I will re-read it for the fourth time now. 
1 Like
I am not sure I understand the main topic/issue of this post either. I also view the leaderboards as a kind of rakeback/rewards system because it enables players who may not be winning many chips in the actual SnGs to pad their winnings with a little bonus for having played many games and finished in the top half. It’s nice to win (and it was nicer when they mentioned the winners in the monthly email), but the prizes are relatively small, especially at high stakes.
I think the current system of giving tournament points to players who finish in the top half is great because it reduces bingo play at the beginnings of tournaments. It may encourage players to be tight and not take chances, but Replay could benefit from players trying to strategize more in general. I also think the way the current system averages in games played beyond a certain level is a nice compromise between rewarding volume and skill. It took them a few months of tweaking to land on this system. There are two ways of winning, to set such a good average after 60 (or 120, or 90) games that nobody can catch you, or to try to play more than 60 to improve your average (at the risk of lowering it). I think that’s a decent sample size to determine a winner.
At the same time, I think the SnG lobby needs a boost, somehow. I used to have more time to play the leaderboard back before the 120/90/60 game rule, when dusty_chaps was playing 200+ per month. Back then I was able to play 3 to 6 SnGs at once, but now it is difficult to start one, especially at high stakes. MTTs have the appeal of a defined start time and larger prize pools (although that comes with more variance). But SnGs are quick, fun, and can be profitable with a good strategy.
2 Likes
Joe,
It almost seem’d Scratch described something, and we then all waited for the " and "… A couple of Scratch’s comments also allowed the thread to then get sidetracked… There might be a case for all leaderboards having thier own oddities(good/bad) but I don’t see them as the preverbial catch 22.
It almost seem’d that this thread was a offshoot of another one that Scratch & Warlock were in, and part of that was brought to this thread. So the rest of us are kinda “lost”, hahahahaha.
1 Like
I agree with a lot of this other than the top 50% thing. You create an entirely different game when you introduce this feature. SnG basic strategy is pretty simple to learn and many people are familiar with it. The way the leaderboard is constructed by way of the points bubble has created a conflicting strategy within the same game.
In a normal SnG environment, the accepted strategy to achieve long term +ROI is through going for outright wins. Yes, there are bubble line considerations but because of the 50/30/20 payout structures, its all about the wins. Anyone who has played SnG’s for stakes understands this and likely has some version of a 3-stage strategy to achieve that goal.
Now, if the points bubble and the cash bubble were the same, all players would have the same basic goals. However, the 50% bubble line creates a game where many players are not playing to win but instead are playing not to finish worse than 5th. This results in players simply sitting out for as long as they can at the start or folding pretty much everything other than their BB’s and a bunch of other behaviors that are at odds with traditional SnG play. I don’t think you’d find a lot of people who think this has improved the quality of play in SnG’s here or of the experience of playing them.
SnG’s have a lot of appeal for a lot of reasons. To me, the negative impact of the points bubble has removed more from their appeal than added. This may be one of the reasons the SnG lobbies are emptier here than almost anywhere else I’ve looked (play chip and cash). SnG’s are known to be lively and quick and fun - here they can be fold-fests and frankly dull as dirt for the 1st 20 minutes or so.
I am probably not explaining myself well here but the difference between a game set up to be won vs a game set up not to be lost is night and day to me. I think that aligning the points and cash bubbles to match each other would benefit everyone, from the casual SnG player to the leaderboard players. I think more people would play because the games are more enjoyable and familiar to them and that this in turn helps leaderboard players fill games. Could it hurt to try?
Added: I guess it boils down to the question of whether the distortion that was created is beneficial and necessary. IMO, it is neither and so the remedy would be to eliminate the distortion. You lose nothing by doing this and restore the SnG lobby to a place more people would enjoy the games in. The leaderboards would still continue as normal.
1 Like
Sarah - I wrote half the content on this thread and I’m kind of lost too.
1 Like
Warlock,
Long ago , while trying to increase Bankroll, on a cash site… a 9 person SnG was the #1 way I found to achieve that… You are correct about the SnG lobby is dead’er than a doornail most times. You are also correct that the 50% rule changes the game, but even without it… lets take the Regionals… other factors there also push the don’t lose vs gotta win … mentality.
Personally the 50% rule we usually talk about will be finally eliminated, I’m hoping site wide… unless its in a specific 1-off promotion, but it does chg the game.
What I don’t understand Warlock is why more ppl don’t see that a SnG and a MTT are basically the same thing. What I also don’t get Warlock, is why, basically, all SnGs/MTTs qualify for a leaderboard in some way. ( with 1 exception, the freerolls ) So all of them to some degree have simmilar challanges… ie- 2 completely different strategies running concurrently, that usually clash.
I never played Ring here for almost 1 year, then when MTTs got boring… all that was left was Ring. We all know there’s only 1 way to “win” Ring games… thats to pass Unranked as the #1 player… thats no small order… But why are most of the ppl playing ring vs SnG/MTT, perhaps cause there is only 1 supposed strategy… iono Warlock.
And why for the love of god, do the freerolls attract 3-4x the entrants, than the 1k MTTs… Its far harder to win a 300 person Freeroll, than it is to win a 50 person 1k MTT , and the 1k has far better payout…
2 Likes
I agree with everything you said Sarah. I was talking specifically about SnG’s here because I was afraid to be scolded for going off topic again . Honestly, I have very little experience with, or interest in, the MTT leaderboards. Until the bonuses there can replace my income, I’m not quitting work just to be able to compete on them. Therefore, I haven’t spent any time thinking about how the points bubbles affect MTT’s.
My goal was to put forth an idea to simplify 1 part of the site and hopefully to increase the attraction of SnG’s here. When I see other sites having SnG lobbies filled and hear players on this site complaining about not being able to start a game, I have to ask why. SnG’s are almost universally popular because they are basically streamlined MTT’s that are available whenever you want to start playing one. Its great to be able to jump into a tournament without having to wait for a scheduled one to start. Just sign up and within a few minutes, the game should be off and running. Quick to get started, quick to play - what could be better for most people?
I am a simple guy and I look for simple explanations and solutions. Since SnG’s are basically the same everywhere, and popular pretty much everywhere, what’s different here? As far as I can tell, its the addition of a points bubble out of phase with the cash bubble. I myself do not enjoy the format here as much as I have elsewhere. I listen to other players complain about the same things. I believe that this feature has made the games less enjoyable for the 98% of players who don’t care a whit about the points thing. Therefore the simplest solution I can come up with is to eliminate the double-bubble and let people have the same experience here as they do everywhere else. The leaderboard people will still get to do their thing but no one else will even notice because all interests are aligned and in harmony again.
I play freerolls for the same reason you seem to enjoy the 500 with rebuys - the raw chaos and carnage of the game. When I want to take my inner maniac out for a play date, where better than a good old fashioned freeroll with a few hundred other maniacs?
1 Like
Just as another option that would work for SnG’s and MTT’s: Get rid of the points bubble altogether. Have leaderboards based on finishing positions where every spot has a point value so there is no hard bubble line created by them. I think it would be a good thing to reduce distortions and return the game being played to basic poker as opposed to whatever hybrid has been created. This can be done without any harm to the promotions or leaderboards IMO.
Anyone see a downside to trying something like this? Poker games would be run and function like traditional poker games. The promotions and leaderboards would still exist but their influence on the general play would be dramatically reduced.
2 Likes
Hahahaha, I’m still lost a bit but getting clearer 
1 Like
I put forth a viable optionthat would have done the same thing as you saying :
The problem becomes Warlock, breaking it down to the highest common denominator. Which also doesn’t even deal with buyin values. Sure maybe its not to hard to do this in the Champ MTT Promo, where there wasn’t supposed to be more than 60 ppl in any 1 given month and a fixed entry fee, but they screwed that up too.
Seriously what do you do about a 45 ppl SnG for 500, versus a 9 ppl SnG for 1000… both are " Low " aren’t they. Or even the difference between a 6 ppl @ 1k vs 9 ppl @ 5k… The only way I can possibly think to accomodate all possibilities, is for example to pay every MTT like there’s 1000 entrants, untill more than 1000 ppl start entering a MTT …
I am not in favor of replacing a unfair system, with a equally unfair system. I also see the natural progression of strategies even if everything was fixed. From Ring → 1 MTT → Mult MTTs → Champ MTT… I thought about this for a long time, I never saw your idea in the other topic post, but please… lay it on me Warlock, make sure it takes into account buyin/entrants…
1 Like
I don’t have a perfect solution for what they should be. Depends on what the site is trying to accomplish with them I suppose.
I’m looking at this from the angle of what they shouldn’t be - hindrances to playing a game of poker. Right now they are. How about at least getting the negative influences out of the game and then fix the things themselves later? Look at it this way: If you have a morbidly obese donkey stepping on your foot and crushing it, the 1st thing you should address is getting the damn mule off your foot, not what type of diet it should be on.
1 Like
There may not be, but I think there’s something close… and you’re right, get the damn donkey off your foot 1st… I hate finding fault in things, just went 10 rounds with my local TV station, took 4 calls, and talking to 10 ppl before they put the station mgr on … yeah I was that piss’d by that point.
I love Replay Poker, I don’t think its fix’d or rigg’d, in thier catagory I can’t find a better site, but there’s some glaring probs around here if it is supposed to be a legitimate poker site, and not just an entertainment site.
You’re totally right Warlock, SnGs should be closing in minutes, not 1/2 hr or longer… I mean really, why wait 45 minutes to start a SnG that will take an hour to play, when I can jump into a MTT and know its gonna take 90 minutes as is … either way my outlay of time is an hr & 1/2…
2 Likes
The more I read the more I see their is a few problems that need to be solved that doesn’t take a brain surgeon to fix.
What’s the hold up ? !!!’
Craig,
It really does factor in like Warlock said, what Replay’s goal is…
Here’s an example tho… limit SnG to 100 ppl or less ( per SnG… ie- 0/100 ) that would qualify for board… eliminate buyin modifier, ie- all Low pay the same, then simple … T-pts = ( 101 - finishing posistion ) * 100 … now Craig, you know ppl would still complain… I’m not saying this is the best solution, but it does fit the criteria Warlock and I are talking about.
Craig, I must say I’m getting tired of trying to help… I want to be a productive member of this community, but if its all gonna be just fluff then whats the point. Its not my site, and really I have no right to tell them anything… I’m still shocked I see no ads, and they turn a profit… But I have a pretty good idea how they are doing it…
1 Like