Global-Player point system

The point system over at Global-Player for their Sit and Go tournaments is off I believe. The current system is:

1st = 4 pts.
2nd = 1
3rd = 0
4th = -1
5th = -1

To much reward for 1st over 2nd and not enough off for 5th.

I am suggesting the following changes for their ponit system, this will also level out the weekly totals and reward the players who actual have a winning percentage to stay with those players who get 60 or more games in per week with no more penlty then -1 point for last place.

A tournament should try and bring out the best in players, not who plays the most. this new point system would force players to play smarter and not gamble everything a way on the last few hands as they do now.

My new point system is:

1st = 4 pts.
2nd = 2 pts.
3rd = 0 pt.
4th = -1 pt.
5th = -3 pts.

This is just my opinion, let me know what you think? I submitted it to Global-Player today.

 

4-1-0-then -1 -1 is Good

In a short handed tournament like Global's 15 handed tournaments. Aggressive play is usually the right play especially if you are going to have bad betting position on the last hand.So punishing the player for playing it correctly by deducting 3 points for a 5th place finish is not fair.Losing one point I believe is more than fair.

Having 4 points for first and 1 point for second is also fair as it rewards you for winning the tournament,giving 2 points for second might encourage players to play for second which is a bad training tool.These small entry fee tournaments are excellent training tools for the new players and great stuff for the experience players who wants to keep their game sharp.

 

Yes and No!

I don't see how losing the same for 4th and 5th place is fair or a good training tool. Nor do I agree with the top heavy points for 1st place (over 2nd that is). I believe in spreading the points a little more even and I think that will make for better play as well.

As the tournaments stand now you are right that it forces the players into an aggressive style of play, and yes playing to win is good, but shouldn't a training tool be used to help the players learn how to be better players instead of forcing them into what they should do!

Plus the new point system would make the weekly leaderboard a lot more competitive then it is now.
Which again would be of a learning tool for the players.

Now if the players had to start deciding what to do and when to do it (for earning points) vs. All in and DD whatever, every single event I think they would learn more from the Sit & Go tournaments.

And a plus for Global-Player is I believe they would get more action from the Sit & Go events. Of course you would have to have a minimum amount of games that must be played each week to qualifier for the weekly bonus, lets say 24 games per week (little over 3 games per day) to qualify for the bonus.

 

Screw The Points

Every blackjack tournament that I ever played in has always been top heavy, not that I'm saying that is correct but that is what it is. So if these sit & go's are in fact used as training tools they they should mirror live land based events.

I believe there is to much being made of these weekly point standings. Global has its present policy designed to encourage more games played. Just like in real life the casinos are going to do what they see fit to do that will benefit their bottom line .We all should be happy that we have a place to play everyday just about anytime we want.

Screw the points win the money isn't that what we really all play for. If there is going to be a fair point system and player rankings it's not going to be a casino that does it that for sure. Our goals are different than their goals.

If we were to finally get a fair ranking system then and only then will the player selection for TV blackjack tournaments be FAIR and based upon performance and not how much you can bullshit the producers who are not in the gaming business and can be easily fooled.

 

But Joep....

Joep you just said on last weeks radio show that you were wanting to start up a new point system to rank players, why not start here?

Of course it would just be for online ranking, but it is something to start with.

And as far as the top heavy tournaments I thought we were trying to get away from those as well. Have we not learned anything from the success poker is having?

Global-Player has lowered their prize structure from what we normally see at land based tournaments. Even on my Super-Mini events or Cruise tournaments I spread out the prize money and everybody seems to enjoy it better, so why not with the points?

You commented on the way things are, I thought we were trying to make things better? Yes, this is the way we have always done it, but it time we get with the program and start following in the foot-steps of poker. Hell Sit & Go tournaments started with poker so why fight it, lets just go with the flow.

With the new point system I believe that Global-Player would even get more play, I am sure players would play more if they knew they were getting rated and had a fair chance at winning the weekly bonus.

 

Things Will Be Fixed Real Soon

Rick I'm always for the better way just like you are. But if you or I sit and wait for the casinos to make things better for the players we will be sitting for a long time . Global payout are not any different that any other casino .Second place payouts are half of what first place pays which is the norm for land based casino's. Global ranking system encourages players to play as many games as possible if you want any chance to be one on the top 3 players for the week. This is what you must do. Trust me I love playing in blackjack tournaments but I'm not about to sit in front of my computer for 50 hours a week to attempt to be player of the week.

You and I along with a few others have been asking Global since last April when these sit & go's first came on line to restructure their weekly rankings to reward the players with the highest win % with a fixed amount of minimum games played. These request have fallen on deaf ears .If you check the leader-board most of the weekly winners are in fact losers for the week. I play a limited number of games per week and when I do play I play to win the money and not worry about how many points I have because I know I cant play enough games to win the weekly prize.

You know when Global will finally make the changes that you and I and others have been requesting. When everyone is off playing the UBT sit & go's .There is nothing like competition to get people off their asses.

 

Bottomline

Yes Joep, we are now getting on the same page.

But what I have done is tried to workout a point system that still allows the casino (Global-Player) to still enjoy a larger amount of games played weekly.

If my new point system works the way it should then not only will the full time (40 hour plus) players still enjoy playing, but the smaller players can still enjoy playing for the money and possibly the weekly bonus.

The full time player will still have an advantage, but not as large as it is now. If the qualifying number of games was at 21 games (3 games per day average) I think more players would play more games if they felt like they had a chance to win the weekly bonus.

Plus Global-Player could then offer a yearly tournament based on the weekly winners and possible the best winning percentage players for each week. That would be a possible 104 players if no repeat winners.

Then host a special winners tournament where all of the winners are comp-ed into a tournament for the
"Global-Player Tournament of Champions"!

Now by playing for the money and points we need a very important change at Global-Player.

"Doubling down for less" & "Insurance for less"!
Without them the tournaments lack a very important part of the games strategy.

I think all the land based tournament players will agree 100% with me on those changes.

Hell I’ll even get Joep to agree with me on this point…LOL!

 

Highest win percentage for play should determine the "best" (sorrry BP) for the week, for the month, for the year, for enternity........If one thing numbers can do is to equalize themselves.

 

point system

For some players my analysis of Global’s point system will seem apparent but maybe I can shine a bit of light for a few less experienced players.
What are we looking for? The best player (weekly, monthly, whatever)? Who is the best player, the biggest money winner, win to entry fees ratio?
We can set these parameters in many ways based on what we would like to put the emphasis on.
Life is not about money, but unfortunately/fortunately bj tournaments are. Okay, plus, of lesser significance, a few details, like who got third, fourth, and fifth.
Good players maximize their return on investment by taking risk of dropping down more spots (and sometimes before the end of the round) than claiming up. Final results are not in a linear relation. For example, you would rather finish second than third (one place better) at the risk of dropping two places from third to fifth, right?

To check skill level, we have a perfect system already in place – money result. For Global, last time I checked there were only $15 S&G active with $1 vig, it would be:
1st place – plus $34
2nd place – plus $09
3rd through 5th places – minus $16
Just change dollar amounts into points.
We could also try to reduce it to more manageable smaller numbers, trying to preserve the point ratios between places.
One could argue that the first place winner should get extra “pride” points for being the best. But it’s already there, twice the money and twice the points.
When we add up all the points the sum will not equal zero because casino keeps the vig. In such system the average player, one that, for example, in one hundred tourneys would place twenty times at each place, first through fifth, – would end up with a slightly negative balance. This would be just the opposite effect than what casino would want in order to encourage maximum plays.
This is easily fixable by adding points to all the places. If we add one point, then the winner would get 35, second 10, and third through fifth minus 15. This is nicely reducible to:
1st +7, 2nd +2, and 3rd through 5th minus 3
We can also spread apart last three places by making it: 3rd minus 2, 4th minus 3, and fifth minus 4.
As strange as it may seems to some, this is not so different from what Global has -just divide it by two.

If casino wants to reward frequent plays they could establish a separate category but it wouldn’t be the same. Some people may know that they would never be in the top five players for most games played, nevertheless, to some extend, they benefit from every additional game they play.
Perhaps a compromise could be work out where multiplays are rewarded but not detrimental to the final list of best players.
In the present system (4,1,0,-1,-1), average player would end up with plus sixty points (and minus $100) after playing one hundred games. This is worth extra sixty second places, or fifteen first places, or twelve extra first and second places. The imbalance is 3/5 (extra points to positive points).
Is it too much? - Some of us think so. How much should it be?

Let’s look at the skilled players. I would guess that the top 20% of all players would have a twenty percent return on their entry fees (not including the vig). How could they achieve it? If you win extra twenty percent more first and second places then you would have 24 first and second places; a bit less than average third places, let’s say 16; and slightly less fourth and fifth- about 18 each. Such a player would end up with about 84 points. So a “good” player, to show his or her superiority, has to play at least three-quarters of games the average but frequent player does.
What I don’t like about the present system is how close second and third places are – only one point apart, while one wins net $9 and the other loses $16.
This could be fix by spreading points for second and third place (which would push all other numbers, too) and lowering the imbalance by making the sum of points being less positive, and/or increasing points for first and second.

a) 5, 1,-1, -2, -2
b) 6, 1, -1, -2, -3
c) 8 or 9, 2, -3, -3, -3
d) 9, 2, -2, -3, -4
e) 10, 3, -3, -4, -4
All of the above (and there are of course other combinations possible) would work for me.
The d) combinations has imbalance of 2/11, which would make for the average player forty points in one hundred games. The “top twenty percent” player could overcome this handicap by playing a bit more than third of games the average player played.

S. Yama

 

Thanks Yama

The problem with the current point system is the points are meaningless for evaluating the talent and skill of the players. And if the weekly highest percentage player won the weekly bonus with the current point system it would kill the current number of games being played now.

The points are a token justure of Global-Player to increase the number of games played by awarding whoever plays the most a weekly bonus. If you look back at the past winners you will find that the so called winners LOST MONEY for the week, (some even counting the $100 weekly bonus).

This week is the first time in a while that a player with a winning record could actually win the weekly bonus. Walt H. has a GREAT winning record for the week, (about twice the number of points vs games played).

Now what is really sad is Walt is in 2nd by about 6 points and he hasn't played 1/3 of the games the leader has.

For business (Global-Player) I am sure they want as much play as possible, however I think by making the points more valuable that it would actually increase their business on the Sit & Go events.

What I am trying to say is we need a point system that works for both Global-Player and is fair for the players. I believe that my point system would do this, at least be an imporvement over the current point system.

 

Fwiw..

I think Yama's method is best. That is, use dollar amounts. It gives the correct ratio and you'll always know your financial results by looking at your points. Extremely simple and efficient.

Sorry Rick, but your method severely penalizes a player that tries to win, while rewarding those that just "hang out".

 

For a single game

I agree Walt for a single game, however we're talking about several games over the course of a week.

Take this past week, you can't tell me that RD had a better record than you because he won more money.

He played 2/3 more games then you and while you won $413 + $50 bonus for the week he lost over $200 (at least he won $100 back for his bonus).

We need more feedback here, only Joep, S. Yama, & Walt have taken the time to post, what do others think?

Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying "THAT MY SYSTEM IS BEST", I am only suggesting another option.
It come down to what the players want and without your feedback we don't know what you want.

I first came up with this new point system because of complants on the Global chat, where are all those players now? If you want changes speak up so far those that have posted don't want a change.

 

Money earned or profit?

Yes, I agree money won is a great way to rank players if you are going by winning percentages. Now just ranking a play such as what we have now is saying a player that is losing money is the better player.

Global-Player doesn't mind this current point system because it pulls in the players willing to play outrageous numbers of games weekly. However I feel it can be improve on.

Even if my point suggestion isn't the answer there has to be a better system, the current one SUCKS!

 

New to tournaments

A quick introduction my name is RD(RD344) Guess I'm kind of the blame for all this point system talk. I have started playing at GP only 2 weeks ago and came in first both weeks. I'm not trying to buy the weekly points I'm just trying to learn to play and I guess it's a new thing for me so I played alot
( most likely will slow down in furture cause I do have a life). I do have agree with Walt that his point system would be more fair but I also have to say that I have tried to play the last rounds a little less agresive maybe betting $10 while the other players bet big and hope the dealer wins. this I found works sometimes but I end up in last doing this most the time cause of the big betters who double and split with bad hands and get lucky. I have found that being the last to bet on last round I can win or come in 2nd most the time. Also I like to play for second place cause I have found that if you do this you can often get into a heads-up with the leader.

I enjoy playing with you all and hope to build a future freindship as I learn more about tournments. RD

 

Welcome aboard

I'm sorry your the one we have been using as the example. This has been a complant for several months now, it is not you.

I am glad to get new players that have the same passion about tournament play that I do.

It would please me if you join us for my cruise tournament today (at Global-Player). And if you want to start playing land based events that would be great also.

Thank you for posting and for joining part of the our tournament family.

Please don't be a stranger and feel free to ask any of us any question you may have.

 

Remove The Foot

The right thing to do here Rick is to comp him into today's Cruise tournament. After all the things that you have said about this nice man it might soften the hit somewhat. Man you were caught with your foot in your mouth AGAIN :laugh:

 

He did good on his own!

RD made the finals today on his own. I'll update his final results after the round.

 

Having been in both Walt's and Rd's Shoes

Rick, I agree with you that the current system needs changing at Global- Casino. I've been playing sit and go's since last November and have been first for the week and made money, first for the week and lost money, finished in the middle and both made and lost money. Usually when I finish first for the week there are players with less games and a higher winning percentage. I've been all over the board. Bottom line- The fair thing is to go with winning %. I like your idea of 21 minimum games to qualify. That way somebody doesn't come in play a few games and blow everyone away with a high winning percentage. I know I would enjoy the competition more if I was trying to beat somebody's winning percentage opposed to grinding out alot of games just to get more points.

I don't know if changes will happen at Global but do hope the UBT online qualifying will be done with either tournaments set up similiar to your cruise tournaments or everybody has to play the same amount of sit and go's. I appreciate your asking for input and have enjoyed the discussion on this thread. I also like your idea of a yearly tournament at Global. I need to put more thought into the points question. Thanks, thrasht

 

Point systems

The system with points value: 4, 2, 0, -1, -3 would be a good one if there were no prize money involved. It heavily favors frequent players almost as much as the present Global’s system. I could list many specific disadvantages of it but this wound not be productive.

There are three aspects we need to look at for point systems, and they are, to a degree, mutually exclusive.
1. The best ratio of winnings to entry fees
2. The most money won.
3. The most games played.

The third point is of least importance to “skilled” players but most important to the game facilitator.
The second point would make player A winning x dollars per game a better player versus player who wins twice as much $ per game but plays less than half games player A played.
And the first point would give a preferential treatment to players who got lucky in a few games and then stopped playing.

We can’t have a good point system with a conflict, where a player must choose between optimal play for points by letting go prize money, or play to win as much money as possible but sacrificing points.

Square root could come handy once again for some of the possible formulas. But it will be always a personal and contentious opinion how much reward should be issued to frequent players.

We could take a square root of games played multiplied by the win ratio (net money won divided by money spent on entry fees). This would emphasize the results: good players would get their good number bigger, so would get the weak players but with negative numbers. It would reduce the variance, thus eliminate high score for players who got lucky only a few times and then stopped playing.

I am assuming $16 entry fee and $ modeled on Global Casino tourneys.
Player who won four games in a row would have: sqrt4 x (136-64)/64 = 4.25
To match this, someone who played nine games would have to have score bigger than:
sqrt9 x (X-144)/144 = 4.25 X = 348 ,
which means he would need to win more than $348 to better the score of the other player.
For thirty-six games it would have to be a win of more than $984.
For the player who played one hundred games it would have to be: sqrt100 x (X-1,600)/1,600 = 4.25 X = 2,280 , which means he/she would have to win more than $2,280 to better the score of the other player.
So, the four players being equal in this system would have brutto win ratio at 3.125, 2.08, 1.71, and 1.425 but played respectively four, nine, thirty six, and one hundred games.
For your reference, last week walt_h’s fantastic score would be at least 4.6 (if he didn’t play smaller than $16 games).

And casino should analyze their data and come up with separate bonuses for every individual player to motivate them to play more games than they did in previous weeks, and/or keep their high number of weekly games steady

S. Yama