Splitting off this thread from another on the current promotion, I would like to address the leaderboards for MTTs. There are a few ways to include our fantastic new and casual players in the hunt for something more than just a particular MTT.
Warlock thru out percentages… The current Monthly Boards are for the maniacs. Those hardcore players that have tons of time. I will not say that you change this board, but I am asking if you could expand to 2-3 boards perhaps. Hardcore, Technical, and U-pick’em. The current play your heart out would be “hardcore”, a % based system ( with min MTT played somehow ) would be the “technical”, and you could do a U-Pick’em ( say 20-30 MTTs ) where you must declare ahead of time that this MTT is one of your allotted number of MTTs.
Both of these possible new leaderboards could be converted into promotions, but I agree with Warlock that Replay could do better… including xtras for the non-maniacs. I feel very sorry for any players that cannot do one of the Leagues… as I feel its the best, as far as tough competition. It would be nice, in the leagues, to have 1-2 days off a week somehow ya didn’t have to play, so those players could have a “real-life, lolol”. Yes I believe that something should be created for this segment of the overall playerbase here, the Casual-Recreational player.
I would support a quarterly ( 4 times a year ) promotion contest.
One way to level the field would be to use some sort of ticket based system. Let’s look at the medium MTT leaderboard as an example…
On the first of each month, you would be issued 40 Med MTT tickets. You would be free to play as many medium MTTs as you want, but only those where you both pay the entry fee AND use a ticket would count towards the leaderboard standings. This would make the leaderboards more about ability and less about volume.
Note that the high volume players would still have an edge. They could act as “spoilers” in those tournaments where they didn’t spend a ticket. For example, if someone who didn’t spend a ticket were to win a tournament, it would make it impossible for someone who did spend a ticket to earn maximum points for that tourney.
I don’t see this as a problem, however. It would still give the high volume players an incentive to play often, but the leaderboards would still be way more balanced than they are now.
What about a leaderboard based simply off the percentages, with just a small number of MTT’s required to get a decent sample size? Lets put the minimum at somewhere in the 15-20 per month range for each level, Low, Medium, High … The leaderboard would be based off of how each player fared in each of the tournaments they participated in.
To me, this gets rid of several problems/issues:
Makes it possible for the casual player to compete but does not penalize either the casual player or the high-volume player because number of MTT’s is not a factor over the minimum.
Establishes a ranking based on overall consistency of play and performance
Eliminates the “bingo” phenomenon because players who use this approach will likely have too many early bust-outs to place high on a leaderboard like this. If a player knows that all tournament entries will count and not just the highest ones, then he/she will have to play more carefully if they wish to compete.
No need to proactively select which MTT’s you want to count so less work for both Replay Poker and the players themselves. If you play, your results count. Once you hit the minimum required, your results can be ranked on a leaderboard. I like simple.
A system like this could be used for any segment of the MTT and/or SnG tournaments that Replay Poker desires. You can keep the Leagues as a category and eliminate the essential requirement that people play 2 a day, every day. If you bring the minimum down to 15-20, then a whole lot more players have a chance to compete without harming the chances of the more active player even 1 bit. I like a system that doesn’t favor frequency of play over quality of play.
Just something to kick about I guess. I know that for me this would be a great thing as it would allow me to compete with all the other players here based on a metric that is totally performance oriented. All of us would get a clear idea of how we did vs the other players in that category every month or whatever time period RP wants to use. In fact, this could be a really cool way for each of us to establish ranks within our specialties and/or bankrolls. I know that if my performance shows that I average top 25% in the MTT’s I play and the next player up on the list ranks at top 24%, I am going to try like heck to improve on my next tournament to overtake him/her.
Warlock, I had given this alot of thought before you said something elsewhere. Yes I agree, a % based system is more of a representation of playing vs top anything, with unlim entries. There is no “Bingo” problem in most MTTs, and to be quite honest its part of “no-limit”.
I do see a couple drawbacks just as any system has thats why I potentially said, diff types of monthly boards. I completely agree the current system is only geared to the ppl that play alot.
I’ll give you an Idea of how I sit as of now… I miss’d first few days of Asian, then kicked butt for 3 days, now I almost have to keep playing to stay in the hunt because you really do have to play every day both MTTs. That also gives me a base of MTTs that also qualified for low-med boards. Since I did much better in 5k than 15k, I have a serious shot at the low board.
I don’t like having to play every day tho… I get burned out. but when ppl say I only play “x” number of MTTs, well I kinda say this: even if you only play for a few hours, you can get 2 good finishes in, assuming you play multiple tables. so the casual player who wants to be on a board could just play a couple more each month. ( not the hardcore example ).
So basically me and Warlock agree on “technical” and me and SunPowerGuru both used the “U-pick’em” example… I still hope RP gives thought to “promotions contests”, lets really get input from the playerbase… hehehe
Sarah, thanks for all the ideas you have put forth and the responses to the ideas of others. Just wanted to address the “bingo” thing. I was responding to something JoeDirk mentioned in a thread related to this one that discussed the issue of only using top-scores and not all scores. It is this part of the leaderboard structure that I think he (and I) find problematic because it does incentivize additional variance. Sure, high-variance players are a part of the game but using the top, rather than average scores encourages more of that play, which is not a reflection of skill.
Say the leaderboard takes only the top 40 scores. In 1 case you have the casual player who only plays 40 MTT’s, therefore all of those scores count. That is fine. Lets assume that the average finishing position is top 20%. Now, what about the player who will join 160 MTT’s in the same category and knowing how the leaderboard is structured, takes an early-on bingo approach to either amass a big stack or go bust early? Lets say this player will seek to go all-in twice very early until he has quadrupled up or gone bust. Further, lets use the easy case and say this player succeeds in quadrupling up 1 in 4 times and makes deep runs off his large stack in 25% of the MTT’s he plays
OK, so he goes deep 25% of 160 MTT’s for good scores in 40 of them, say top 10%. These are the 40 scores Replay Poker is going to use to rank him against the guy who played only 40 MTT’s total. Replay Poker is going to ignore the 120 MTT’s the bingo player had where he busted out in the 1st blind level and only use the results of the 25% where he advanced beyond that early stage. In this example, the player who busted out 120 times in the 1st blind level is going to rank higher than the guy who played only 40 MTT’s despite having a drastically lower overall performance.
I am not saying bingo players should be eliminated. I am just saying that if we want to compare based on skill, then we have to move away from using the top-scores and towards using all-scores.
Man, I think I butchered this explanation pretty badly. Someone call SPG to clean this mess up. I’ve gone off caffeine for a few days now and its killing me. My writing has gotten sloppy and I’ve even been accused of being nice. This is unacceptable. I’m off to grab a triple espresso!
Warlock, I’d love to just chat but there is no chat system… obviously we are both on…
Let me take a whack @ it tho…
There is a post I wrote on bingo players, with a huge explanation. I will say, I have to agree that the strategy you listed actively goes on. Its also why winning a “league” is a huge win… there are a fixed # of MTTs, and most serious players play all 60 or as close as they can get. I run into that problem too, where the correct play is to push a hand, but if I lose and I’m not past 1/2 way I get 0 T-pts… should I bust out, and the person who waits a few more hands and makes top 50% does get T-pts. I suggested that there be no cutoff for pts because it does affect the approach a player takes to the early parts of the MTT. It also efffects any all-in a player might make before top 50%…This problem/effect is magnified in the Leagues vs Monthies.
In that thread Warlock, I showed why most all ins are anything but a “bingo”. No-limit is no-limit.
Warlock, I have also seen that any site where severe drastic changes piss’s off too much of the “regular playerbase”, so thats why I suggested 3 boards per level (L-M-H).
I been here about 7 months, and I have gotten one 2nd in monthly and won one of the Leagues. I’m not saying either is easy by any means, but none of the current boards ( Leagues/Monthlies ) are geared to the casual player.
In conclusion Warlock, put “bingo” where it belongs in another post… mainly because I could use a far different term to describe why , lets say , a player actively hunts ppl above him in the rankings or worse yet becomes a spoiler and specifically pushes ppl just to push them, hoping to drain off thier chips. Strategy as a whole, must adress any specific rules of any competition… so lets focus more on setup, and less on possible strategies players use. ( each month I play alot, I always see where I stack up after those 1st 40 MTTs.
Sarah - point taken. Again, I was simply using the terms brought up by someone else in another post. I will be happy to discuss what I consider a bingo player vs what you do. (Hint - A-rag shove for 100BB is bingo, no ifs and or buts about it). Not saying it is an illegitimate strategy at all though.
Every system has problems and advantages. Overall this is a pretty good site and the League games do sound to be the best. The fixed number is a benefit, assuming you can play all or nearly all of them. Since the subject of tweaking or adding to the leaderboards was brought up, I just wanted to interject my 2 cents worth.
As an aside - what do you think about opening a threat on strategies for accumulating tournament points as distinct from the overall tournament strategy? The points bubble is an interesting additional consideration here, if one wishes to compete on the boards.
Really do need to get that coffee. Be back in a bit. I don’t know if its ok or not but if you wanted to chat about something like this off the forums, I can either give you my email address or you can message me through the main site.
Warlock, the post in question was in S&F, title “Constant Bingo”, Aug '16… and has a list of 7 things in part of it, just so we are sure we are talking about the same post. Also has a block 2/3rds down of boldface.
Trust me… catch me in the 500 B&R, and I’ll show you a few shoves(bingos)… its funnnnn
As far as a thread on points… are you completely nuts ???
While basic strategies are easily and beneficial to discuss, I tend to think that there are some secrets that need to be learned-aquired thru playing… Why would anyone want to spend hours learning something, then just handing it to thier direct competitors for 0 work ??? I can say, I am reluctent to write posts that end up being… “how to beat Sassy_Sarah”… I think thats more of a discussion for players in a chat room situation, so you know who you are giving vital info to.
You wrote about %'s while I was thinking in depth on the subject. As you can see I had simmilar thoughts to you and SunPowerGuru, and all 3 at the same time basically. I was adding to your thought, not the other way around… and I agree with you. Having a healthy discussion about it can only benefit us all.
Sarah - I will be happy to read your other posts on bingo players. Always good to read what others think, well almost always. And just for the record, in certain formats, the shove is almost necessary to succeed while in others its a low-skill spoiler play by people who could not win the chips in any other way but through random events. Think the yahoo who calls off his whole stack on a J6 suited because 2 other players are all-in already.
Let’s see: I not only take time out of my life to play games for fake currency but I also want to spend time discussing how to engage in that activity with more proficiency … Yup, I’m completely nuts. Glad we cleared that up.
There are 2 schools of thought on theory and strategy, closed and open. You prefer the closed school as do many others. Totally valid and practiced by probably the majority of players out there. Then there’s the open school, currently best shown by pro player Fedor Holz. He’s freakishly good at the game and has been winning online and live for a few years now. He has an incredible intellect and passion for the game. You would think that someone who is competing for millions of dollars would want to keep everything he knows secret from everyone else but he instead spends a great deal of time openly going over strategy and theory.
I happen to enjoy discussing and developing theory and strategy with others. I find it to be a great mental exercise and helps me to improve my game. I do not think it in any way gives people a leg up on beating me though. In fact, I think I benefit more from this than I could potentially give away because it allows me to see different perspectives that I would not have thought of on my own. My game grows and becomes more skillful from it. We learn from and challenge each other, on the felt and off. Just a different way of looking at things. You will find this holds true for almost every field of sport, art or study.
Thanks again for your thoughtful responses. Whether or not we agree on a subject, I appreciate your points of view and thoughts. I agree that it can only be beneficial to us all to spend time looking for ways to improve both the platform and our games on it.
When we talk tournament strategy, we are talking about a framework.
Like any framework, be it a building or a boat or a poker tournament, the final result depends as much on the finishing details as it does on the framework itself.
Poker tournaments often come down to “situational exploits,” that go on top of the framework and give it shape.
For example, if you know someone is playing for leaderboard position in a league, you can assume they are playing a low variance, pot control, small ball, laddering strategy.
If you then get isolated with this player and the flop comes 9 or lower, you can shove any 2 cards knowing you probably won’t get called. Yeah, she, errr, “they” might say, “SUN!!! Grrr!” and give you the quivering pouty lip glare treatment, but hey baby, it’s poker!
The point here is that talking strategy frameworks doesn’t necessarily give away much of your actual game.
You see Warlock, SunPowerGuru is referring to me, as she. He is right, and yeah I give away more than I say I do. In some respects, I was… well being sassy… so sry.
to go with your 