TP Cash League-idea crapshoot

[THINKmcfly]

Alright. I don't expect this to fly out of the box, please hold laughter and mockery to a minimum because I've already talked to 5 buddies or so via AIM and they all love the idea of this cash game league and my preliminary scoring system (at least the CONCEPT of it).

The main idea is that we will try to reward people as poker does. Longterm success is great but there are short runs and downfalls as there will be with this scoring system. The contest should last 4 weeks and weeks will run Monday through Sunday. Points will be tallied every Monday afternoon. The idea is to reward people on how many hands they play multiplied by their winrate in pt bb/100.

Now, you're thinking that these winrate multipliers will have to be adjusted by the limits you're playing, which happens in a certain way with this system. Weekly, the limits will not matter. Because people play much fewer hands on a weekly basis, variance should play in enough (I would think) to disregard the limits being played (assuming most will be playing 100nl-1000nl) up front.

Here's a preliminary numbers system:
Hands per limit
0000-1999 25 points
2000-3999 50 points
4000-5999 100 points
6000-7999 175 points
8000-9999 250 points
10000-12499 350 points
12500-14999 500 points
15000-17499 650 points
17500-19999 800 points
20000-22499 1000 points
22500-24999 1225 points
25000-27499 1450 points
27500-29999 1700 points
30000-34999 2000 points
35000-39999 2500 points
40000-49999 3250 points
50000+ 4500 points

and these will be multiplied by
BB/100 + -
0.0 - 0.49 0.50 0.45
0.5 - 0.99 0.58 0.40
1.0 - 1.49 0.65 0.35
1.5 - 1.99 0.72 0.30
2.0 - 2.49 0.80 0.25
2.5 - 2.99 0.88 0.20
3.0 - 3.49 0.95 0.10
3.5 - 3.99 1.00 0.05
4.0 - 4.49 1.10 0.00
4.5 - 4.99 1.20 --
5.0 - 5.99 1.35 --
6.0 - 6.99 1.50 --
7.0 - 8.49 1.70 --
8.5 - 9.99 1.90 --
10.0+ 2.25 --

So, for example. This week I played 7291 hands of 400nl and my bb/100 was 2.19. I would take the 175 points of my amount of hands and multiply it by 0.80 (or 80%) for a score on that limit of 140 points. Scores will be recalculated and counted cumulatively, wiping clean every week so you could have a great week and earn a lot of points and the next you could run bad and not make much progress.

Now, there will be bonuses at the end of the month based on things such as:
Most hands played
Best winrate over the entire month
If maybe over 3 different limits your bb/100 was 5+ or something you would get a bonus
# of hands played over certain limits
Any other ideas you may have


WHAT I THINK NEEDS ADJUSTED:
How will we deal with different tables such as full ring, 6 max, and ESPECIALLY what do we do with HU? I figured maybe we could take all HU results and cut them down by 1/3 because they get so many more hands in an hour, but their variance is definitely higher so I am definitely open for suggestions.
I want peoples input on these numbers and how we can tweak them to make the system better reward longevity and winrate but not destroy those who can't afford to put in the insane quantity of hours.
What should the base bb/100 be? I chose 3.5-4.0 but this is definitely negociable.


If theres enough interest we would split this into two leagues, middle stakes and high stakes, but I doubt that happens especially right away. I really want to know you guys' feedback on how we can tweak these numbers.


I intend on putting up anywhere from 600$-1000$ of my own money as a bonus to try and generate spin/talk/get people to come over here and be a part of our community. Please help me with this if you think you have some good ideas/plans/comments/suggestions/anything at all.

PS/Disclaimer: I didn't really critique this/reread the message much before submitting, please don't get too frustrated with typos, english errors, and blatant stupidity.

[THINKmcfly]

Also, what would be an appropriate buy in and pay out structures?

[Talking Poker]

This is really awesome. It's a great idea, and you've laid a great foundation. It's a lot to digest, so I don't want to comment on too many specific details just yet. I really do like the idea though, and I think we should be able to get this off the ground. We've had month long prop bet types of things here before, but never anything that could encompass varying limits. And I think this might be able to do just that. I say we shoot for an August start (July 30th at the earliest). That will give us plenty of time to work out the details and get people interested.

You're right that we need to somehow adjust from 9 max, 6 max, and HU. I'd say to use 6 max as the base, give a small bonus multiplier to the 9 max hands (maybe 20%?), and adjust the HU hands down a bit (25-40%, maybe?). The numbers can be decided later, but we'd need to do something to normalize the results a little bit.

We may also want to put in some sort of adjustment based on the limits people are playing. A lot of people here play < $100 NL, and I'd like them to be able to participate (this sort of goal setting and grinding is especially beneficial for low limit players looking to build their rolls, IMO), but obviously it's WAY easier to beat a $25 table than a $1000 table. Again, I'd say we could set a baseline of a certain limit (probably 1/2 or 2/4), and then adjust a little bit up for the people playing higher and a little bit down for the people playing lower - maybe based on your average limits played for the week ((Hands * limit)/Total Hands). Again, just my initial thoughts.

Lastly, and most importantly... for a guy who has been here for less than a week to believe in this community enough to not only come up with this excellent idea, but to offer to put up significant money from his own pocket... Man, I don't even know what to say. This is very, very generous of you. Of course, I'd be willing to chip in some extra dough for this as well. I don't know about the amouts you are talking about, but we'll see.

Would there be an entry fee for this? If so, would it be a flat fee, or maybe some multiplier of the level that people are playing? Maybe like 1/2 a buy in for the level you plan to play the most? This would be a good way to help boost the prize pool as well, so you (and I any anyone else who feels like contributing) don't need to come up with as much cash out of pocket.

Lastly, I assume we'd post Poker Tracker screenshots each week, and just go by the honor system that people are accurately reporting their hands and posting for all limits played, etc.

[Wes]

I would do this, but only if its comparable limits and games with other people. Like the skill level between 100NL and 1000NL is just so completely different that the people playing 100 NL are at a much bigger advantage than the other people playing 1000 NL.

I would suggest doing this by stakes. So, the people on here should prop bet with other people at their comparable stakes. Like...

below .5/1 - micro stakes prop
.5/1-1/2 - low stakes prop
2/4-3/6 - mid stakes prop
5/10+ - high stakes prop

And plus the prop bet between each person would have to be all full ring, all 6max, or all HU because the shorter handed it is, the higher the winrate should be expected.

[THINKmcfly]

Storm-I was thinking that since results are recalculated on a weekly basis that the variance involved in the game itself is going to be enough to compensate for some of these differences you are talking about. Of course I think in a longer contest these things should be much more meticulously accounted for, but week to week the bb/100 is pretty varying no matter what limits you're playing. It's a reasonable arguement to think that at lower limits its just as easy to run bad vs the flush chasers and gutshot nailers and have an awful bb/100...

Plus, first round go it may be more reasonable to split stakes such as 5nl-100nl, and 200nl++ for the groupings..

I would gladly offer some overlay for the micro stakes players who would like to participate if we get a group of them together, and would definitely want a buy in for the other league as well...

[THINKmcfly]

SUBQUESTION: how about a bad beat jackpot?

[THINKmcfly]

side note: looking to start Monday Aug 6th and run the four full weeks ending September 1st.

[Wes]

Variance really has nothing to do with anything I was talking about. Since 100 NL players are going to be playing exceptionally worse competition than 1000NL players, 100 NL players are at a much bigger advantage taking this prop bet since they most likely can have much bigger winrates. Changing it by daily/weekly/monthly will not change the advantage that the lower stakes players have.

[Talking Poker]

One more thing I thought of... This needs to be changed:
0000-1999 25 points

While I don't think anyone would do this, there is nothing to prevent someone from playing 10 hands and calling it a week with some sick 150 bb/100 score. We need a minimum amount to qualify - probably 500, or better yet, 1000 hands. People should be able to get in 1000 hands in a week, I would think. Anyone should be able to do 500, anyway, even if you are just one tabling.

I agree with The Storm about the different limits, which is why I suggested coming up with some sort of multiplier to normalize the results. For example, we could multiply the $25 table results by .5 and the $1000 and higher table results by 1.5... or something like that. I'm just making numbers up here, but I think it's reasonable to say that one's expected BB/100 rate at $25 should be three times that of the $1000 winrate. I dunno. I think we should do this for all limits in order to level the playing field. We'll pick a base level and then agree on multipliers for every other level. I think the minimum table people should be allowed to play for this is $25, so we could do something like this:

$25 - .5
$50 - .7
$100 - .8
$200 - 1.0
$400 - 1.2
$600 - 1.3
$1000+ - 1.5

That's just my first stab at numbers, but I actually think they are pretty decent. I'm sure we can agree on something that's fair for everyone.

I like the BBJ idea too. We could come up with qualifying criteria and let it continue to build until someone hits it.

My final suggestion: I'm cool with starting the week of August 6th (in fact, I think that's just right), but if we do, I think we should have a "practice week" the week before, with maybe one extra day thrown in between for any last minute tweaks. That way, we'll have some results to work with and can make sure the rules are fair and adjust anything that needs adjusting.

I'd like to get some input from the lower level players who are interested in participating. Surely you guys are going to want in on this, right? I would think this would be the most +EV for the low limit guys, based on the discussions so far. And it's great inspiration to grind out a lot of hands too.

[THINKmcfly]

i really like TPs idea for this, tell me what you think of something like that storm and if you think it will work effectively?

[Talking Poker]

Every time I come back to this thread, I'm surprised to see how few new responses there are. This is the type of thing people in this forum would have jumped on in the past...

Anyhoo.... I thought about this some more last night and realized a few things. Namely, there is no need to overcomplicate it. Like, take this for example:

At first I thought this looked good and all, but really, what's the need for it? BB/100 is a perfectly good number and the most representative of one's win rate. So why bother grouping it like this? Why not just leave it as is?

So that leaves the points system for hands played per limit (and I think "per limit" is key here):

First, if that is a weekly chart, I think it goes too high. I'd much rather cap it at like 10k hands or something... I guess 20k, if some of you are REALLY playing a shitton, but I think JD's 55k played last month was about the most anyone has played around here in a long time. Also, I dont want the people who play 4000 hands per month to think they don't have a chance here. THOSE are the guys who should really get into this and strive to get more hands in.

I haven't thought about the points much, but I think the numbers above are too skewed. I mean, play 50k hands at .5 BB/100 and you get 250 points. That means, to tie, the guy playing 1999 hands (in one week, mind you) would need to be playing at 10 BB/100. Whoa... That's just too big of a difference. We should definitely reward playing a lot of hands, but not this dramatically. So we'll need to look at that more closely, IMO...

So, all of that said, I think the point system should simply be (for EVERY limit played):

BB/100 * (Hands Played Points) * (Table Size Multiplier) * (Limit Multiplier)

Add up your numbers for every limit played for the month, and tada.... you get your final score.

[THINKmcfly]

A buddy came up with a good idea and suggested we just use fractions like setting the base at 3.5 and using that fraction. So if your winrate was 2.19 you take your quantity # by 2.19/3.5.... or if the bb/100 was 11.3 you take the points for quantity of hands by 11.3/3.5, something like this... let me know what you think

ps: obv all the numbers are up for massive tweaking... the concept was what i wanted set up, now as long as we all work together on numbers and agree for the most part we'll have a system we can lean on for time being and then collectively rework the finer parts of it with each passing month

[Talking Poker]

Right... and I think the general system is great. We just need to tweak the numbers. I actually think the ones I suggested for the levels are decent, and I think the ones I suggested for game type aren't bad either, but we probably need to scale down the HU tables even more. Like you said, we can figure out those details later.

I don't really like the 3.5 thing though, because I don't see what it accomplishes, other than changing all the results by a multiple of 3.5 Relative to each other, they will still all be the same.

[THINKmcfly]

A) I dont know how I feel about allowing negative points, esp if you're -1.15 bb/100 over 15K hands
B) There must be a max bb/100 I think... At a point it shouldn't matter if you have 14 bb/100 or 29 bb/100, there should be a cap to not make the numbers ridiculous. Maybe if you ran 29bb/100 over 15k hands that should be offered a reward, but over 1k-5k hands if you run 25 or 15 I don't know there should be that huge of a difference in points? Obv open to debate

[Talking Poker]

I should have been more clear in my post... I absolutely agree that we should cap the high end of the BB/100 scale (10 seems like plenty), and I also agree that people shouldn't be docked for negative BB/100. If we do dock them, it would be way too easy for people to cheat and filter out their losing limits, anyway. This way, if someone is running particularly bad at one limit, they won't feel the need to "play out of it" and can just move on to a different (hopefully lower) limit and start fresh.

[Wes]

I think I could play 50k hands in a week. Who wants to prop bet me?

[stormswa]

so you can play low limits with this thing? if so Im in.

[Talking Poker]

Have you read any of the posts above yours at all? Just wondering.

And yes, you can. That's the whole point of this discussion.

[Nikita]

I'm probably going to get my money in on this, but I don't expect to do well. I don't have a lot of time to get in more than a couple thousand hands per week and I'm playing $50NL, but it's all for fun anyway and who knows, the competition could have a run of bad variance.

[Invigilator]

I like this idea a lot, but I hope it does not kill the possiblilty of an MTT league any time soon.

If it was a choice between the two, I'd go with the tournament format.

I'd probably be in for both together.

[Talking Poker]

Any more thoughts on this from anyone?

How about you, McFly - given any more thought to the details (namely, buy in and points for various hands played ranges)?

[de-coder]

I haven't been posting on this, but I've certainly been thinking about it. Overall I think I prefer a MTT league, but this is an interesting idea.

With regard to handicapping the levels and games (6-max, HU, FR - limit, no limit?) - I think it would be beneficial for those of you who have enough hands in each category (or even just more than 1 category) to do some checking and see how you make out at the different types. We should be able to use the data we have to properly handicap them. I'm not sure what to do about the limit level - on the one hand I can understand that it, in theory, should be easier to double-up at lower limits I'm not sure thats reason enough to handicap based on limit. Players at higher limits should be there because they are better players - the chances of doing well should be roughly the same. BB/100 is supposed to be a measure that works across limits for exactly that reason. On the other hand I understand that it might just be easier to find fish at $10NL than at $200NL - again, I'm not sure one way or the other.

We'd also be taking quite a lot on faith that people are recording and reporting everything correctly. Apart from that there are sometimes technical problems out of our control that result in the


For me I know I'm away for a while in August and won't be playing as much as I'd like - that would also make it hard for me to sign up for this.


It's an interesting idea though - I'm curious to see how it turns out.

[Talking Poker]

Regarding this... I think you answered your own question in there. Yes, of course as you move up the games get tougher. Think about it like this:

Do you think the average 10/20 NL oplayer will be able to beat 1/2 NL? Of couse he will. Now - do you think the average 1/2 NL player will be able to beat 10/20? This is much, much less likely.

So yeah, while we have people here would are beating the 5/10 NL game, it's not fair to complare their results to someone playing in a .25/.50 NL game. If it was, what would prevent said 5/10 player from moving down in stakes and absolutely crusing the lower limits, in order to win the contest?

The limits need to be normalized somehow. These numbers are up for dabate, but I still like my original suggestion of using some sort of multiplier to normalize the results:

From my experiences, I think these are pretty reasonable guesses, and I think they err in favor of the lower limits, if anything. Like I said, they are open to suggestions though.

It's the hands played thing that I don't know how to address. Certainly we should reward people who play a ton of hands and win (since they will be making the most real life poker money), but there are some people here who play more in an average day than other people play in an average week, and we need to level that playing field a bit as well. Otherwise, the only people with a fair shot of winning money will be the guys who play for a living.

[Talking Poker]

Unfortunately, it seems as if McFly's enthuiasm for this forum was short lived, and this idea seems to have died out. I thought it had a ton of potential, but I think our community just isn't quite big enough to get something like this off the ground..... oh well. Maybe some other time.