As requested here is my point system for the Tournament Blackjack Tour (TBT). I will post a poll for the two options, but really I would perfer you post what you like and dis-like from each of these point (Ranking) systems so we can make the best possible tournament ranking system. How the points will be awarded for the TBT. Example: 0 - points for playing 1 - points if you make 2nd round 2.25 - points if you make the 3rd round (quarterfinals) 4 - points if you make the 4th round (semifinals) 6 1/2 - points for 6th place (Finals) 7 - points for 5th place 7 1/2 - points for 4th place 8 - points for 3rd place 9 - points for 2nd place 10 - points for 1st place NOTE: The number of rounds may vary from 3 to 5 in the monthly tournaments, but the starting points for round one will always be two and one point added per round you advance in (except by Wild Card). The finals will start with 6 1/2 points for 6th place regardless of the player’s turnout. NOTE: The points are awarded by what round you end up in or position. Should wild cards be needed the wild card winners are not awarded points for further advancement, however the wild cards may win prize money. NOTE: The points will be added to their total each month and may be viewed at the TBJPA web site. Please allow 7 to ten days after each tournament for the current standing to be posted on the site. NOTE: fractions will be add to the number of tournaments you divide into your point total for each event you miss. The amount will be based on the number of missed monthly events. Example: Miss 1 – 4 tournaments and .25 will be added for each event. Miss 5 – 8 tournaments and .50 will be added for each event and miss 9 - 11 tournaments and .75 will be added for each event. Example: Lets say 8 monthly tournaments have been held and you have played in only 3 of them. You earned 4 point in your first one, 2.25 in your second, and 6.50 for your third tournament that is a total of 12.75. Now you would normally divide 3 (number of played tournaments) into your point total of 12.75 = 4.25, but because you missed 5 events you would add on .25 for the first 4 events = 1. and .50 for the 5th event you missed for a total of 1.5. Add the 1.5 to your number of played events (3) = 4.5. Now divide your point total of 12.75 by 4.5 = 2.8333333 for your actual point standings. By losing a portion of your points for not playing should help keep players interested in playing more events and stop any players with a high point totals from stopping and riding out there points till the end of the year. Beside awarding a “Player of the Year” award at the end of the year, I would like to award the high point total with around $5,000 cash prize as well in the “Tournament Blackjack Tour” (TBT). I am more than willing to listen to any idea and suggestions from other players on how this system can be improved on. Please don't take the poll until Joep posts his ranking system so you can compare the two. Thanks Rick (TXtourplayer)
Points system Don't understand why you are wanting to 'average' the points earned - just accumulate them - if you don't play - you don't get any points - you're not encouraging people to play more - by averaging - just penalizing those who are sensitive to travel costs - also - don't think number of players should matter - its how many tables/players you have to win through to get to the money that's important - and you can take care of that by giving the points for advancement - more tables to advance through - the more points you can earn - maybe an extra point for advancing through the higher rounds?
I agree completely. Just accumulate points, don't average them -- that just adds a completely unrelated variable into the equation. If someone nails first place twice in a row, great -- but if someone else nails 5th place 10 times in a row, they'll naturally overtake the 1st place winner in terms of the greater number of total points they'll accrue. So your attempt to promote consistent participation across multiple events is ALREADY factored in to the accumulative-point equation, which demands constant vigilance to add new points in order to maintain high standing. you don't need to add in some form of averaging or penalization for lack of play over several months to maintain player interest. also, this system does not seem to take into account tournaments with different player pools & differing levels -- ie not all tourneys will have the same # of rounds. Plus, you have no way of taking into account higher or lower buy-ins -- a $20 weekly tournament with 100 players will have a much weaker field, on average, than a bigger $500 event. So i don't see how blindly assuming that every tournament players enter will have the same number of levels and same skill level of players (as measured against buy-ins, since obviously better players will not waste their time flying to Shreveport for a low-stakes tourney) will produce any kind of accurate portrayal of player rankings. sorry to be a debby downer on this one, rick, and obviously i haven't seen joep's version yet to compare it to, but these are my honest first impressions. bottom line is, the poker player rankings are a pretty good model to draw from, and i don't see how deviating too much from that formula as you have will produce better results. Primary factors to consider should only be what place finished vs. how many people, with what buy-in, in qualifying open events, period. just my 2 cents... -hd.
I cant find Joes point system If you could link it I would appreciate it. But, this is Ricks tour he is the father, I think it is up to him to devise the system altho using Joes ideas and all other opinions is a good way to outline it. I think you need to break the country into divisions similar to baseball. Each division will have required tournaments to play. For example, I will have to play Washington State, Nevada twice, Arizona or California once for 4 chances. If I miss one thats my fault. If I miss two thats to my demise because it brings my chances of scoring points down. Then at the end of the season I will play at a western semi final. Then three regions, west, mid west, and east, will get together in Vegas for a final. I dont think its fair to put pressure on players to travel coast to coast for the regular season. Some of us still work, some of us are on fixed income, etc. Just some thoughts, B
Accumulative point system? To accumulate points over a year does nothing more then give a big edge to the players that get to attend every monthly event. The propose of a point sysytem for ranking players is to see who the best is at the end of the year, not who got to play in more tournaments. Any point system will have to have plus and minus in it to make it fair for all. I am wanting to pay out a cash prize for the "Player of the Year" in the "Tournament Blackjack Tour" (TBT) at the end of the year. If I didn't have the plus/minus system any play that wins the first monthly event would guarantee themself a tie for first place piont average at the end of the year and "Player of the Year" honors by just not playing again the rest of the year. Are you starting to see the flaw in this type system? I want to know (we all should) who the best players are, not who can go to the most events. RKuczek talked about the size of the events should really matter, well he is correct. These event will be open to all the players so if we have 50 to 500 players everybody had an equal chance to play in them so it shouldn't matter. Now as far as the tournaments being equal, they will be! One of the points of my Tour is to start a national set of tournament rules and format that will be used at every host property, so for example playing a TBT in a Vegas casino will offer the same rules ad format as the host property in Tunica, Laughlin, Shreveport, Biloxi, and Tulsa (Please note: these locations were just used as examples and may not be actual TBT host locations). Barney brought up the point about several players who can't make every tournament and also about travel expense. Again I am trying to host the monthly events around the country so it will help all the players with their travel expenses. Will I get one location in everyones home state, NO, but I am trying to get them closer to everyone anyway. As far as not making it to every tournament, I understand that and that is why I designed the point system this way. If you don't or can't show up you will lose a faction off your average, but a player that shows up may lose a full point off if they don't advance. I think this system is the fairest way to go. Can it be improved on, probally and I am willing to make changes, but we have to start somewhere. Now to Hollywood, once again I have to disagree about the accumulative point system as being the best. Lets use UBT as an example: If UBT offered a point system based on accumulative points how could you, AC, or Kennye be concidered as a top player based on your end of the year point total? Your part of Team UBT and get paid or at least have your way paid to go play in all the UBT events while the rest of us are just hoping to win a seat at one of them. Now I would think that with y'all playing 12 or more events for UBT (All paid for) vs, the rest of us that only getting to play in maybe one event, if that (and either have to win a satellite or pay for the entry ourselves). With y'all playing 12 events to our 1, how is that fair way to rank the players? If y'all didn't have more points than us that would make y'all look bad. Now please note the above is just an example and I don't even know if UBT even has a ranking system but if they do I couldn't see how any team UBT member could be allowed to have a ranking having a free ride vs the rest of us who has to pay our own way. The same with the VIP events, we can't use any tournament that doesn't allow "ALL" the players a chance to play in the event. My point system is based on everyone having a equal shot at winning the year end point total even if you only play one event or all 12 + the championship. I thank everyone for their feed back, ideas, and suggestions.
Add on The only way an accumulative point system would work is if there was a required number of tournaments that the players would have to play in to qualify, lets say 6 of the 13 scheduled events. Any players wanting to be ranked should play in at least half the events anyway. Since I am trying to avoid this (for cost reasons) and make it fair for all the players is why I feel my system would be the fairest for all the players since they could still be ranked by only playing in one event.
