I have received several e-mails and PM's about what is the best way to rate the tournament players, both good and bad. My personel opinion has always been awarding points for the following: 1. Open event for all players is a must. 2. Points awarded fo reach round you advance in, starting from the first round. 3. Points are the same based on the number of rounds played, not entry fees or number of players. The arguements I have heard against the above formula is the over #3. Several players believe that the higher entry fees or more players entered in an event should make a difference. What do y'all think? My arguement is who's to say one player is better then other, just because one of them can afford to play in a higher entry fee event. Same with the number of player, if the same number of rounds are played in both a low and high entry fee event, why shouldn't the points awarded be the same? Actually it would seem like the lower entry fee events would have more players because of the cost. Personally I can't justify awarding 10 points for a winner of a $100 entry event with 100 players and 4 rounds and later that same week awarding more points to a player with 100 players and 4 rounds, just because the entry is $500. How does that change the skill/luck level? All I can see is it excludes those players who can't afford the higher entry. Why should any players be given an unfair advantage over the rest of the tournament players just because of the price of an entry? Look at pro sports teams, just because a team spends more for their players then a smaller market team, should they be spoted points or runs to level them out and make it fair? NO! The amount paid should have no bearing on how points should be awarded. This is just my opinion, but it's not about what Rick wants or likes. I want to know how the rest of the tournament players feel and what you want?
Just Me But, I tend to like the AC/LVA formula used in the now defunct BlackJack All-IN. And with accurate reports of tournament results, perhaps still to LVA, I don't see why it should change. The weighting in the LVA formula, seems to me, took care of entry fee variables. The final table point awards simplified and reduced points to their most meaninful, since anyone making a final table would have earned more points from previous round participation than anyone else. Accurate reporting of tournament results to one "base" willing to do the work to provide the rankings is the most important aspect. I guess there could be two or even three competing ranking systems, as in boxing, football polls, etc. But, I'd have to believe the results would be similar.
While I was one who initially was in favor of a ratings system and liked the All In system at this point I am AGAINST any BJT rating system and to be honest with you would decline any and all participating in such a system. WHY? Look what happened with the All In system – it was used AGAINST the players by, of all people – a member of BJT.com (yeah you know who you are!) I’m referring to the decision of Barona to not allow players who were listed on the All In Top 25 to play in the Barona invitational. Unfortunately there are lots of places that get PARANOID of any and all BJ players – be they AP or simply recreational players. I vote NO to having a ratings system on the simple reason that it can – and will – be used against those players on the list.
point system use a point systen, where you score points for advances, depending on how many at table and how many advance - for every table advanced through play - you get points calculated by #atTable/#Advanced - so if 2 of 6 advance - you get 3 points - very simple - points scored on all tables played - even if you wild card to that table - but - no points for the wild card - so if you wild card to the quarter finals - then advance the quarter final table to the semi - you get points for the advance to semi only - not for getting to the quarter final through a wild card - also points for the final table finish order - of course -
Multiple event rankings for the week. My fault, I wasn't clear about the ranking. What I am talking about is awarding points for the top five players over the four events I am working on in Oklahoma. These are not TBJPA/TBT events, I already have a point ranking system for the TBT events. This is similar to what was used in Tulsa (earning points for each event reguardless of the entry fees) and it when over GREAT. Everybody loved their "Player of the Week" award and it helped to pull in more players earlier in the week for all the events. I am trying to take it a step futher and award the top 5 players (if the casino agrees) and help draw in more players for the entire set of 4 tournaments instead of having players come in for only the $25,000 and $50,000 add-on events. Just stop and think about all the events that have been offered and failed, this is why I want these events to be as sucessful as possible, not only for the players, but the casino as well. These are not a year long ranking of players, but only for the top players for these 4 events. Perhaps I should just leave them alone and let the casino run them the way they first suggested to me. 1. 7 players per table 2. No re-buys 3. No surrender 4. 1 advance 5. Winner take all in all 4 events. 6. Different starting bankrolls and betting limits for each of the 4 tournaments. 7. Only 21 hands 8. Bets rotate, but cards start at 1st base every hand. These are not true TBJPA events, but I was asked to help with them and so I am going to do what I beleive is best. I am trying to get them to change several of the above rules with TBJPA rules. I'm trying to make something that will be a winner for everybody, including the casinos. My orignal post about the rankings was just to find out how the majority of the players would perfer awarding points for the weekly winner or winners, not if we should.
My response about the rankings still holds - anything that can by used by the casino's AGAINST players should NOT be encouraged PERIOD! Winners of a tourney are amply compensated for their efforts. If players wish to boast of their accomplishments - fine. Better yet have individual matches (i.e., heads up tournaments) Really? Please provide evidence, including numbers. WHY? We have been over this road in the past. BJT CAN be profitable for both players and host casinos. You know my position. We as players need to put up the money. However, if a location that is a stand alone, (meaning not a Vegas, Tunica, Biloxi, AC, Reno location with multiple casinos) they will need to provide a bigger incentive to attract out of state players so that travel expenses can be compensated. In addition with a dearth of shopping &/or entertainment nearby the liklihood of increased higher BR players decreases. Just a matter of fact. Rick in the future I would suggest that you query the players at the events rather that solely relying on the responses & feedback that you obtain from this board. I base this assumption on my personal conversations with other players who are recreational gamblers and do NOT frequent this or any other additional reference sites. Sometimes "inbreeding" can skewer our outlook.
Rick, the argument for offering more points for higher price tournaments is threefold: 1) In general, the assumption is that the higher the entry fee, the higher degree of difficulty in the competion. If you don't believe this, observe the first round of a $1 tournament on bet21, then observe the first round of the $100 tournament on bet21. 2) Given that the prize pool is the same whether the person earned points in a low entry fee event and a high entry fee event, the person who entered the high entry fee is playing for a smaller multiple of his entry fee that the person who only plays the small events. In your example, someone who perfoms well in the $50 and $100 tournament would be just as compensated as someone who perfoms well in the $300 and $500 tournament. But if they are both playing for a $10,000 first prize, one person has a chance at 60x thier original investment while the other player only gets 12x their initial investment. 3) Higher entry fee tournaments pay a higher fee to the house and are more profitable to the house. It makes sense from a business perspective to encourage play in those events. ---------------------- My scoring system would be the following: Each round is worth 10 points * round number * number of players / number of advancers * entry fee multiplier. An example multiplier might be: $50 = 1.0 $100 = 1.5 $300 = 2.0 $500 = 3.0 For example: Round 1 of the $50 + $5. 1 of 5 advance. = 10 * 1 * 5 / 1 * 1.0 = 50 points per advancer Round 2 of the $100 + $10. 2 of 6 advance. = 10 * 2 * 6 / 2 * 1.5 = 90 points for each advancer (plus the round 1 points earned) For the final round, points are distributed proportional to the prize structure For example: Winner of the Round 4 $300 6-player final table (earning 50% of final table prize pool) = 10 * 4 * 6 * 50% * 2.0 = 240 points (plus previous round winnings). ----------------------------------- That being said, don't expect travelers to go to somewhere like Tulsa 4 different times. If you do a monthly carryover, only locals would have a shot to win it.
Is the glass half full or empty? Different points for different events over a four tournaments makes no sence. If that was the case just award the winner of the $500 entry fee the over all player bonus because it would be almost impossible to over come. Why should players who can afford a higher entry fee also be awarded more points for playing against few players? Toonce pointed out that the quality of play is better in the higher entry fee events. This maybe ture over all, but wouldn't those same players be playing in the smaller events as well? So if anything the chances to advance would be greater in the smaller entry fee events since they should have more players and rounds, so should the smaller entry fee events award more points? What if the casino decides to not award “Players of the Week” prizes and just adds on $5,000 to each of the 4 events instead of adding the entire $100,000. We would lose out on $80,000. Would it be fair? Sure it would, why wouldn't it, it is all add money to the prize pool. What if the casino doesn't guarantee the add on, but instead guarantees the prize money for each event. That would mean instead of all the entry fees and re-buys, plus the add-on's we would only be playing for a set prize pool up until we reached enough players to make the guarantee. Would this be fair? Sure, this is how most tournaments are run anyway. If a casino is willing to add in $100,000 over the 4 events, including "Players of the week" awards how is it taking away from the players? First off they don't have to add anything if they choose not to. About the Tulsa events, I can't give exact numbers, but I can tell you that everybody I talked to up there enjoyed them including me and you can go back and read all the reviews from the past Tulsa events and see that everyone gave the events thumbs up. About the players who can't make it for all 4 events, is it fair to them? Yes it is why wouldn't it be? That's like having multiple events in Vegas, but a player can't make it to the first one or two events. How would that be any different, except that it puts them at a disadvantage for the "Player of the week" awards, which is a separate prize anyway? But since the money isn't coming out of the player’s entries and re-buys how is it not fair? I understand players concerns over getting kicked out of event's after the UBT TOC cancellation and what happened at Barona afterwards. But you have to realize that is the only place this has happened and Barona wasn’t thrilled about what happened and as a result disallowed ranked players from “All in” and there involvement with the UBT, or so I have been told. Now "All in" is out of business now so that was what they used as their guideline, from what I understand. If casino personnel read this site I'm sure they will find out which players won anyway, so should we never post congratulations to anyone ever again? I have to admit, I am surprised that so many players would get upset about awarding "Players of the week" awards when the casino willing to add-in $100,000 on top of all the entries and re-buys? It just seems selfish to me that players are not satisfied with a possible $100,000 add-on, but have to have it added on the way they want. I am worried about what will draw in players, but also keep the tournaments afloat for future events. I am sure we could just give away all the money over the 4 events, but how many players do you think will only show up for the last two big events? The players need to stop thinking about what they can get now and what is best for the future of tournaments and how we can build them back up. Any events I am involved with (TBJPA or other) will be designed with the best intention of continuing and not for just as a one time event. Hopefully these events will happen and they will be successful if only with the guaranteed added money (which would be some overlay), but like all tournaments we will need players to really make them a huge success.
I've avoided posting my thoughts on the bonus idea, because it's been made very clear to me that my current temporary situation of being unable to attend means that I should just keep quiet regarding tournament operations. OK - however..... Hold on, there, Rick. I'm not sure they were blasting your idea as much as offering opinions. The beauty of this forum is that folks can offer informed opinions without fear. Count to 10 and be glad they felt strongly enough to speak up.
Rick don’t be so naive about this. What about a person who makes final tables at the two lower levels and the semi-finals at the 3rd level? They would accumulate more than enough points to overcome the winner of the $500 event. Look at how Joe Pane was able to vault into first place as winner of a $500 event versus the leaders who had won $2500 events. It’s call risk to reward ratio – it’s simple and ROUTINELY done Now you’re being sarcastic and it’s unbecoming of you. When a casino adds money to a prize pool they can dictate that it’s for that prize pool. However if the casino wants a player of the week it’s a very simple process. Say that whoever plays in all four tournaments qualifies for a separate Player of the Week Prize worth whatever amount they deem. Taking prize money from each tournament to contribute to a Player of the Week is wrong. You see how you’ve contradicted yourself? Is the Play of the Week (POW) a separate money event or is it not? You ORIGINALLY said it would be 10% of the prize pool. When you start mixing prize pool add-on money, re-buy money and entry fee money – THAT’S where it becomes a gray area and that’s why I said it wouldn’t be fair. I’m surprised at YOUR reaction. You asked for opinions and both Toonces and I gave them. What happened at Barona and the ABUSE of the TBJ ranking list was and in inexcusable and the person(s) responsible should be ASHAMED of themselves. Was it a one time occurrence or could it be the beginning of a trend? Ask Ken Smith about his treatment at a Tunica event and how he felt. Just because we aren’t being YES men you blow a gasket and get all bent out of shape and become sarcastic with your last post. Well I guess we should all quit our day jobs and just join the TBJPA tour right? Oh I forgot there are NO MORE TBJPA events. (As you can see I can get defensive and sarcastic also!) Rick take a deep breath and think about this. There are ways of accomplishing this in a manner where ALL PARTIES – Casino & Players win. However, if you get defensive and sarcastic when people provide answers to your questions – well I can go to another BJ forum board for that.
Points vs entry fees Making the assumption an equal % of added money is deducted from each tournament for the "Players of the Week" awards ie; $1,000 from the $10,000 added event and $5,000 from the $50,000 added event and awards are based solely on rounds advanced, some consideration has to be made for rounds played per event to be fair. An example; If points per round advanced are equal irregardless of dollars contributed per event a player winning a 6 round $10,000 added tournament would accumulate 1 1/2 times the points a player winning a 4 round $50,000 added tournament although the $50,000 added event contributed 5 times the contribution of the smaller event to the monetary award. Equal points per round advanced would be fair if all tournament prize pool reduction contributions to the award were equal. Again assuming the lower entry fee tournaments will consist of more players and more rounds than the larger, an equal distribution of points received per round advanced vs. $ contributed favors the players that contributed the least to the overall fund. I agree the casino has the right to award added money as they see fit and what they perceive their best interest, just not convinced as proposed this formula will be viewed by participants as equal and fair to all.
OK, I'm not going to respond to everything...I considered most of your thoughts when I came up with the idea for my point system. That's why I offer a greater multiple, but not in direct proportion to the entry fee. $500 is 10x the entry fee but only 3x the multiplier. It's a compromise between overweighting and unweighting, and as Fred pointed out, several good showings will overweigh 1 top showing in the biggest event. Many bad players will only play the cheap events and won't risk big money for them. The only people that tend to risk the big money are those that have success and feel confident at that level. Good players may also blow off early tournaments of the money isn't enough to play for. Thus the increased level of difficulty. In my system they do. You get points for each round you advance. More rounds = more points. That's another reason to weight the big money event. Otherwise a winner of a 200-player $50 event would dominate the points over the winner of a 30-player $500 event. I'm a little confused, because at some point, this sounded like 4 once-a-month tournaments. That is far less fair to travelers that awarding a prize for 4 tournaments over 4-5 days. I'm far more cool with a "Player of the Week" than a "Player of the Year" The issue here is that I don't thing we should publish ratings that in any way imply that these 20 people are the top players on the "circuit", be it whatever circuit we are talking about (TBJPA, UBT, etc.). I don't think having a local player of the week is any greater risk than knowing the winner of individual tournaments.But anything towards a Player of the Year starts to get into dangerous territory. And offering a cash prize to said winners if far better than just offering up the list to enhance one's ego and feed the paranoid casino executives.
bottom line Rick - I like the Player of the Week thing - it's a nice touch - and I think it is reasonable to take some of the casino add-on prize money and distribute it this way - it is still a reward for good play that all players are competing for - just devise a reasonably fair way to rate players - and use a modest portion of the add-on - and go with it - I might suggest a player receive a bonus for scoring points in more than one tourney - so if you finish second in one tourney and third in another - instead of just adding them together - you would add the points then apply a multiplier - maybe an additional 10% - if points scored in three tourneys - add in an extra 20% - do not go with single advance tables and winner take all - that will kill your participation - quickly - I would think - I certainly would not travel to OK for such a tournament series - but very well might make it for a reasonable format - like the TBJPA format - also - I do not care where the dealing starts - if it is easier for the dealers to always start dealing with first base - that's fine - just so the betting and play start with the button -
