Stevo985 Posted August 6, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted August 6, 2013 Mods, I know we have a poker thread, but this is more of a general question, despite the subject in hand being Poker. I was hoping to get answers not just from the people who look at the poker thread. Feel free to merge if necessary, but hopefully it can stay separate. Ok chaps, bit of a random thread, but I need the VT Brain trust's input. My friends and I play a regular poker game. Usually at least once a month. This year we've evolved the game into a league. I set up a league table, obviously based on results (certain amount of points to a game winner, slightly less to 2nd place etc down to 5th place), then if there's a tie decided by "medals", cash winnings etc. I even have a form guide My problem is, I don't know how to decide the winner. Sounds stupid, but bear with me. Not everyone plays every game. So at the end of the year we're going to end up with some people having played every game (so between 12 and 15 games probably) and some people might be as low as 3 or 4 games. Obviously, if we're going by total points, the guys who have played every game have an overwhelming advantage over the guys who have only played a few. So I thought about doing it by points per game, but then it goes the other way. We have one guy who's only played 3 games so far, but has come 1st, 2nd and 2nd. So his points per game is way above everyone else's. But does he deserve to win just because a few other people have "diluted" their ratio? So how would you guys decide a league like this? Should I just do it by total points and say "tough shit" to the guys who haven't played many games? I would say it doesn't really matter and it's all for fun... but we've each put £10 into the pot so there's over 100 quid riding on this! So the guys are going to take it seriously. We really should have sorted this out before we started Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PussEKatt Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 The only way that you can do it fairly really is by using percentages.I am not very good at percentages but the guy that played 3 games and got 1st 2nd and 2nd would have a percentage of something like 85% where as a guy that played 20 games and had 1st 2nd and 18 3rds is lower because although he has played more games he has not achieved results as good as player 1. Hope this helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted August 6, 2013 Author VT Supporter Share Posted August 6, 2013 The problem being, that guy might decide not to play again because it's unlikely anyone will better his win percentage. So he can just not play and pick up the money at the end of the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PussEKatt Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 Yes, but dont forget he has the best percentage so far and no one can argue about that.The only way to beat him is to get a higher percentage.That could be done in 2 ways.Get 2 wins and 2 seconds or get 1 win and 3 seconds. As you can see playing more games is not a disadvantage.If a player players just 1 more game he can be the winner as long as he gets a better score eg in this case 1 more win or 1 more draw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 Get everyone together and play one last game. Winner takes all , a la Superbowl . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 Strip snap play off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troglodyte Posted August 6, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted August 6, 2013 Maybe you could total the points, but then add some kind of system for negative points for lower placed finishes? So the guys who've played more games are able to accumulate more points (particularly the better players) but those who've simply participated in a lot but not done great won't be near the top? You could also add some kind of weighting depending on how many people were playing each time; for example, you get more points for winning a game between seven of you than you would for a game against three others - and the same for the negative points). Playing around with weightings should allow you to produce something that seems fair - you could maybe even discuss the way you're doing it with the participants before announcing the winner, if they're likely to call shenanigans. I'm tired and that probably doesn't really make sense, but there you go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunRickyRun Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 (edited) I'd have 3 points for the winner, 1 point for coming 2nd then -1 points for not finishing in the top 2 (after all, you would probably be down in a cash game). It would reward the players who particpated more (Which is fair) but also has a penalty for losing. You could make a variation on this, maybe 5,2,1,-1 if you get a lot of people turning up for a particular session or you could determine the winners points based on the number of people in a game (eg 8 points if 8 people turned up). I'd be disappointed if Levi doesn't post a page long statistical analysis of the fairest way to determine the winner Edited August 6, 2013 by RunRickyRun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted August 7, 2013 Author VT Supporter Share Posted August 7, 2013 Maybe you could total the points, but then add some kind of system for negative points for lower placed finishes? So the guys who've played more games are able to accumulate more points (particularly the better players) but those who've simply participated in a lot but not done great won't be near the top? You could also add some kind of weighting depending on how many people were playing each time; for example, you get more points for winning a game between seven of you than you would for a game against three others - and the same for the negative points). Playing around with weightings should allow you to produce something that seems fair - you could maybe even discuss the way you're doing it with the participants before announcing the winner, if they're likely to call shenanigans. I'm tired and that probably doesn't really make sense, but there you go! Does make sense. I might explore the negative points thing. As for the weighting, we do that already. 200 points available per player who's playing, and then the winner gets 50% of the points, Second gets 25%, 3rd 15% etc down to 5th I think (from memory) I am actually considering Brumerican's suggestion of a one game winner takes all. But your starting chip count would be the amount of points you have in the league. That way the leader still has a big advantage, but someone who's played less games still has a chance. Not sure all of the players will go for that though. There are a couple who are good at finishing in the top 3 or 4 players, so get lots of points, but rarely win. I'd be disappointed if Levi doesn't post a page long statistical analysis of the fairest way to determine the winner I was hoping for that myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyM3000 Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 I would just say tough shit to the people who didn't play a lot. Its upto them to get there, reward the loyalty players that keep the game going each week IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted August 7, 2013 Author VT Supporter Share Posted August 7, 2013 I would just say tough shit to the people who didn't play a lot. Its upto them to get there, reward the loyalty players that keep the game going each week IMO. I think that's what we're going to decide on. I had a word with a couple of guys today. We're having a game on Friday so I'm sure the subject will be hotly debated. To be fair, the guy leading at the moment is winning on total points and points per game, so as it stands there isn't really a decision to make Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 Do it by using a final table. Say top 6 in the league with a minimum number of qualifying games.... 10? Winner then takes all at the final table. If you listen(ed) to Fighting Talk on 5Live they do something similar for their Champions League episode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted August 8, 2013 Author VT Supporter Share Posted August 8, 2013 Do it by using a final table. Say top 6 in the league with a minimum number of qualifying games.... 10? Winner then takes all at the final table. If you listen(ed) to Fighting Talk on 5Live they do something similar for their Champions League episode. YEah as mentioned above that's an avenue I'm going to explore. Not sure some people will go for it though. The guy who's winning at the moment, for example, will probably push for it just to be done on total points, he wouldn't risk losing if he's already won. All good stuff though guys, cheers. It's gonna be a mess this year but it'll give us some good ideas to get next year's ironed out beforehand! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts