MTT Leaderboards, Number of Games

Suggestions & Feedback
1

I know you want to encourage players to play as many tournaments as possible, so I am not suggesting that you restrict the number of games that count towards the leaderboard, but rather that you increase the number that count towards the point total to better match the number of games that people are actually playing. For instance, I am the only player in the top 50 of the high stakes MTT board who has played fewer than 30 tournaments. Based on the number of tournaments for most players, it seems like the number that should count towards the high stakes board should be about 40.

While it may seem counter intuitive at first, raising the number of games that count towards the cap actually helps players who can’t play as many. For example, Wrongler has played 140 games to get his best 20, while Bigtimer11 has only played 60 games. If the cap were 40 games, Wrongler would still want to play as much as possible to improve his position, but Bigtimer11 would have a better chance because his per/tournament average is likely to be higher, and this would reduce the advantage of players who play all the time.

I would recommend 40 games for high stakes, 90 for medium, and 120 for low.

2

We’re testing new numbers with SnG numbers right now with scratch’s excellent suggestions, so it does seem likely we could experiment here next. I’ve passed it along to the rest of the crew.

As things stand right now: MTTs: Low - 40, Medium - 40, and High - 20.

Would love to hear more throughts! We’re definitely open to trying new things. =)

3

Aloha Guys,

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 great 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, after the win 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. Todays situation is extremely frustrating. Its like getting to the final table of the big tournament, competing for first place, and being told you’re not allowed to play. Hope you can find a better way.

Best, Bucksarge

4

I guess it goes both ways Bucksarge. On the low SNG for Feb I chased Satchypaul all month and finally caught and passed him at 8PM on the 27th. I had 940,728 for 120 games and he had 933,300 for 126 games. I did the math as well like you mentioned and realized that if I played even 1 more game and didn’t place it totally reopened the door. He came back the next day and played but didn’t place and slipped to 925,952. I was more worried about Hitlow a NZ new player who I had been watching and was coming up very strong but like me was “TIME ZONE CHALLENGED”. So I sat and twiddled my thumbs for 2days and didn’t play. Sure enough almost right at the deadline Hitlow got 2 games in an passed Satchypaul for second. So in this case sitting out payed off for me but I would rather have been playing for the 2 days.
TIME ZONE CHALLENGE…with little exception the Leader Boards are dominated by North American based players. If I was to play strictly on Thailand daylight hours it would be more like SIT and Wait and Wait and Wait for a 9 place table to fill or get to 8 and then drop back to 5. Perhaps RP would consider running a parallel board for non NA time zone players as they do with the Asian and European Leagues . Say between midnite EST to 10 AM. Make it open to anyone so if a NY player wants to get up at 4AM he can be competitive as well. I am just hoping that it may attract more players to SnG. Just my 2cents.

5

Hi Buck, I think you made a slight miscalculation there. As long as you get more points than your average, it will rise. Don’t place and you’ll drop… a lot! Just like Tabarry’s experienced with Satchy. By the way, congrats Tabarry on the win in low leaderboard!
In November or December I also played an extra game, 121 instead of 120. Placed very high on a 45-player tournament and got points way above my average. I gained one place thanks to that.
Buck, in your example. Your average was 7.888 after 91 games. A win (15.434 points) would give you 7.546 extra points or a total of 717.548, which is 7.972 average.

Regarding the total games played. I think 90 games is maybe too much for medium leaderboard. Only 10 people completed them all. Only 22 (of 1.932) players played more than 60 games.
And high leaderboard: only 6 players got more than 70 games, 2 did the full 90. I would change that back to 60 or maybe even 50.

6

About the mtt leaderboards.

The intention is not who played 100 tournaments and won the most points, it is all about your top 40 played tournaments for low and for medium and top 20 played high tournaments.

In each level there are crowded tournaments and less crowded tournaments, some players have more time to spend on Replay Poker and some players want to spend more time on Replay Poker. There is a daily schedule and it is up to the players how often they play and which games they play. Winning a less crowded mtt is easier than winning a crowded mtt. Regular players will play both, players who play only 2 games a day can choose for one of the leagues (American, European or Asian League)

With this structure players can choose for a leaderboard what fits them, even when you play for the high mtt leaderboard you not have to play many games a day, your top 20 mtts determines your ranking.

SnG leaderboards.

For the SnGs there is another structure, based on average after the cap, and to be honest i not like that.

Most SnG leaderboard players see the number of the cap as min and max number of SnGs to play per month.
The cap for the medium and high leaderboards is 90 games a month, based on the preferece of a very small group of players, for most of the players it are too many games per month. And when you play 40 games a month it is not interesting to play for the leaderboard.

When you have played 90 SnGs and in the next one you not win points you go down in points, a lot of players not want to take that risk when you have a good result already.
But when you set the cap on 40, a lot of good players will stop when they played 40 games, than end of the month much less SnGs will run.

Leaderboards must be attractive for all regular players, no matter if they play 200 games a month of 50 games a month.

My suggestion is play series, for example for the high SnG leaderboard 30 games is a serie, when you played 30 games the total of the won tournament points determines you ranking on the leaderboard, players can start with a new serie of 30, when they have completed the 2nd serie your best score will determines your ranking, players can play 1 serie or 10 series, your best score (completed) will determines your ranking. That way it would be attractive for much more players.

2 Likes
7

Currently the amount of games to be played before a penalty is extracted for playing more than the prescribed amount is 90 game in Medium and High. Medium attracted more players than every before. High attracted the third highest amount.

Satch won High this past month because he played the prescribed amount at the best average per game.

We still have a problem in High SnG. Not enough low buy-ins are played. The answer, curiously, is in an oversight when originally constructing the three levels. Note there is no 40K buy-in amount yet it is alluded to in Medium SnG, in that it seems to be a natural step up from 30K. But it was never put into operations. Whether it is now opened in Medium or High, it doesn’t matter, because when it is put up it will allow more Medium players to naturally move up to High. It would likely correct High by putting the 40K there immediately, but it will still eventually send people to the 50K, which has always been grossly underused.

Once that is done the only remaining problem is adjusting the formula for games played after the maximum to make it a tad more competitive, allowing those in Sarge’s position a fighting chance.

8

Yes a few more players played 1 or more high stake SnG, in January only 10 players played 60 or more high games, in february only 6 players played more than 60 games, so that is less.

9

There were two problems with SnG High and one of them is corrected.

A significant mark of success of an SnG tournament is how many people play. In the past year, three out of the four times when players could play 90 games or more, the amount of players topped 600 in high. During the other 8 months the average monthly attendance was under 500 players. The amount of games should remain the same.

The remaining problem is there is a 20,000K increase in the buy-in between the Medium games and the High games. Compare that to the 3,000K step up between Lo and Medium.

Adding a 40,000K 6 player and 9 player game in either Medium or High will entice the better players and allowing a smooth flow upward as the skill levels get greater.

Not soon, but maybe in a few years the SnG experience will be so profound there may be a need for even a higher level of play. As for now I think the 40,000K is the ticket to making the SnG Leaderboards as good as it gets.

10

I think the problem is the structure of the SnG leaderboards, not the buy-ins, the 100K and 200K SnGs are more often played as the 50K SnGs.

And a lot of the regular players who played the 100K and 200K SnGs i not see there any more. Why are they stopped?
If 100K and 200K was to much they would have played the 50K, so that is not the reason they stopped.

You just can not expect all players (who want to play SnGs for the leaderboards) can and want play the same number of SnGs. And you can never find a number SnGs to play which is good for everyone.
Also players must be able to improve their score, very important.

It is ridiculous players must play 90 games (or other number) a month for competing on the leaderboard, it is 3 games a day, but when you not played 1 or 2 days the next day you must play a lot of games to catch up, or when you played 90 games in 3 weeks and you have a good score you can not play any more because you can go down. Both is wrong.
No one can decide for others how much games they must play to compete on the leaderboards.

When only 20 players compete for the medium leaderboard and less than 10 players for the high leaderboard there is something wrong.

Therefor my suggestion is to play series. Everyone can play how many games they want, much more attractive for many more players. And players not have to play 90 games, but if they want they can play 100 or more without being punished, and they can compete when they play less.

For me the players not have to play a lot of games to compete on the leaderboards, competing must be possible for all regular players, no matter if they play a lot of games or less games.

1 Like
11

I think there were many more than ten or twenty players who competed. Just looking at the list of players in High I know for sure that half the fifty people played to win the monthly. They may have dropped out because Sarge took such a commanding lead, but the fact is they were competitive. I know aldin166 was on top for the first ten days but he had a bad streak and busted out altogether; he was playing the 200K buy-in (go without winning in six or eight games and busting out is easy).

Of course we’ll have many more aldin666s if there aren’t more 40K and 50K games to start off with. A problem with High all along has been that high stakes players were attracted to the 200K and by-passed the more sensible 50K. The goal is to get a foundation of players playing the lower buy-ins and to do that is to put a new 40K level in SnG and assign it to Medium or High.

12

If sng tournaments not popular, then just drop it. Concentrate on other things for now.
Somhow, I can see a change on the starts, something realy make them sng…
Now looks like one table tournament to me. NOT a sng. sng means sit and go, NOT register and wait then sit and go. That would be RWSNG or OTT (one table tournaments)
ATB

13

High level has already been reduced from 100K to 50K (we started with 100K, 250K and 500K in the high level)

Of course when medium level is 10K and 20K and high level 30K and 50K there will be more players in the high level, but that is investing in quantity rather than quality.

If players feel comfortable playing the medium level SnGs it is oke for me, when they see their bankroll increase with playing the SnGs they will try the higher level. And yes, 20K more investment to play the lowest high level SnG and than 50K more to play the 100K SnG, so what? It is high level. When they end up in the prizes the prize is higher also.

My problem is all players must play 90 (120) games to compete, for many players too many games per month, for others too less.
So only a few players can compete for ranking on the leaderboard. Totally not attractive in my eyes…

15

I disagree with Happiness about how to make the buy-ins for the games. She seems to want to keep it as is. I want to add a grade so that there will be a natural flow through the different leagues. True, I am focusing on a 40K game that was never placed, but I think it will be great when we reinstitute what defines each level and makes the choice for improved players easy to step up.

I agree that Happiness does have a potential solution that will meet the needs of people to play a few games or hundreds of games per month and still be competitive. I support her idea for a series of 30 games, with no limit to the amount of series is played in one month, with the highest series counting.

That eliminates the god awful change of math that occurs that has harmed many players who are inclined and want many games. It also meets players who can only play a game a day.

It is a brilliant solution.

1 Like
17

I do have a small concern… we will need to expect people playing multiple games at once, and as people are trying to finish off a bad series many will play very aggressively with a lot of all ins. Still, at least it does level the playing field.

18

I don’t participate in the leader boards since I don’t have time to enter SnGs but I’ve been following this thread and I believe as Happiness suggested and as you approved that the series is a very good way to have more people participating and being competitive. I also think that the aggressiveness of people trying to close out a bad series will be countered by good players since it will be very obvious after a few hands.

We can even try to reward regularity by carrying on the worst result of the previous series to the next. Your first series of n SnGs finished, the next one you’ll still play n games but only the n-1 best will be taken into account and the worst of the previous series will count as if it happened in this new series (or if during the new SnGs series there was an even worst place it will be factored in and not the previous one). Could that work?

19

till last month didnt follow up or figure out which tournies gives how much and how its calculated for that matter i dont think i still get it.i am at no.1 position on the MMT high stakes but i know wont be able to sustain it as i dont think i can play cosistently everyday as i play as and when possible day or night or early morning without keeping track of the tourney timings.i lost out on 3rd place i think in the last few hours to 12 midnight.
To say the more the person plays and more likely to be in the top yes he has the luxury to and maybe we dont so really to say its unfair would not be correct.If time does permit him i see no reason for him or her to be at the top as they can and maybe we cant.last 45 days was slow for me as was undergoing treatment hence was able to play a lot of tourneys as now given up playing anything less than the 50k as its a joke and end up frustrating with the calls.Ive played on other sites before and generally its the same the more you play you come out on tops and if you good you remain there.
firstly its not easy to hit the final tables most times you play and if you do then you deserve to be there as you cannot donk your way thru each time.
Seen the usual suspects final table 7 out of 9 are the same top 15 players.
top 15 not in terms of chips but game play,we know who are good and so does the rest.
Also you need to understand who play more doesnt make it easier for them to hit the final table and be in the money there are many who play who dont even make the top 30 mmt list but they play,you wont see them on the final table.
So its not a given a good player and consistent player will make the final table
i missed out on the money in atleast 30 tourneys inspite of being no.1 final table.
it happens if you card dead what you going to do?play stupid poker on 103 offsuit and earn the respect of the other players?no we dont do that.we respect the table and the players and do call the bluff if one can.
So bottom line playing a lot and being good i guess deserves you to be in the top 3/5 players.you cant blame someone because he has more time than you.
Hell im travelling soon dont think im going to be able to play much but a few and if i do well my percentage of play will be up but wont be in the extreme top its acceptable.
My point is that if there is a change dont deviate too much from the existing situation.peace to alll…jazzzz

20

90 games works for a few players not the masses. The numbers will tell the story. The formula used to calculate points if a player chooses to exceed the monthly quota needs to be revised or cut out. A player should be able to play his quota of games for the month and once he or she gets to the cutoff point they should be able to continue playing and their point tally should remain the same not go up or down. Players want to be competitive but they do not want to spend an excessive amount of time accomplishing that feat.

Voice of the masses.