Format and Structure
in Poker Games
I'm having trouble with all this new crap they've done to the forum, so if I'm being redundant, I apologize.
Dan and I were talking about a point Bus Driver brought up, which had to do with the format of the TOC. Dan was saying that he agreed with the point that the TOC should be just that, and Tournament of Champions.
I also agree, and would suggest taking a look at how Zithal runs his league structure.
The TOC at Bristol has a restricted number of seats. The priority in which people are given seats is as follows:
1) individual game champions from the current season
2) wild card seat winner
3) points leaders not qualifying under either the latter or the prior
I like this structure very much. It forces peopel to earn their place in the TOC.
The major conflict with this structure and that of Ching Hill I brought up with Dan was the portion of the buy-ins set aside for the TOC. If you take people's money and put it into the TOC pot, legally they have to be allowed to play in the TOC. I would suggest that, should people be serious about changing the requirements for the TOC, we consider separating the buy-ins for the tournaments and the TOC.
Bristol, for example, requires a buy-in for the TOC; you do not earn your buy-in when you win a qualifying tournament.
Two ways in which I see this being done are: 1) keeping the current $50 buy-in for games 1-12, and introducing an additional buy-in for the qualifying players in the TOC, or 2) reducing the buy-ins for games 1-12 by the amount that had been previously set aside for the TOC, and thus requiring TOC qualifiers to pay the missing amount as their buy-in for the TOC.
I am keeping in mind that we could always solve the debate by just renaming the TOC to "Season's End Tournament" (SET) or something like that. I did enjoy the TOC and how the buy-in structure was set up. It was nice to feel as though I was only paying $40 to win over a grand. (I know, I know, I'm fooling myself because I had clearly paid much more than that, but self-delusion can be a wonderful thing.)
An alternate suggestion could be creating a TOC that is played annually. Qualification would be based on:
1) placing top 3 (or something around there) in a SET
2) wild card game winner(s?)
3) points leaders not already qualified under the latter or the prior
I'm tired of writing now.
I'll see everyone tomorrow.
Dan and I were talking about a point Bus Driver brought up, which had to do with the format of the TOC. Dan was saying that he agreed with the point that the TOC should be just that, and Tournament of Champions.
I also agree, and would suggest taking a look at how Zithal runs his league structure.
The TOC at Bristol has a restricted number of seats. The priority in which people are given seats is as follows:
1) individual game champions from the current season
2) wild card seat winner
3) points leaders not qualifying under either the latter or the prior
I like this structure very much. It forces peopel to earn their place in the TOC.
The major conflict with this structure and that of Ching Hill I brought up with Dan was the portion of the buy-ins set aside for the TOC. If you take people's money and put it into the TOC pot, legally they have to be allowed to play in the TOC. I would suggest that, should people be serious about changing the requirements for the TOC, we consider separating the buy-ins for the tournaments and the TOC.
Bristol, for example, requires a buy-in for the TOC; you do not earn your buy-in when you win a qualifying tournament.
Two ways in which I see this being done are: 1) keeping the current $50 buy-in for games 1-12, and introducing an additional buy-in for the qualifying players in the TOC, or 2) reducing the buy-ins for games 1-12 by the amount that had been previously set aside for the TOC, and thus requiring TOC qualifiers to pay the missing amount as their buy-in for the TOC.
I am keeping in mind that we could always solve the debate by just renaming the TOC to "Season's End Tournament" (SET) or something like that. I did enjoy the TOC and how the buy-in structure was set up. It was nice to feel as though I was only paying $40 to win over a grand. (I know, I know, I'm fooling myself because I had clearly paid much more than that, but self-delusion can be a wonderful thing.)
An alternate suggestion could be creating a TOC that is played annually. Qualification would be based on:
1) placing top 3 (or something around there) in a SET
2) wild card game winner(s?)
3) points leaders not already qualified under the latter or the prior
I'm tired of writing now.
I'll see everyone tomorrow.
Comments
My favourite idea at this point is having the TOC become an annual event...
The winner could get a trophy to take home...
Me like trophies.
I still think we'll need to do something to limit the number of people attending the SET....(either increasing the # of games attended requirement, or having a points level requirement or something....like top 16 point earners?). As for the buy-in, I'm all for reducing the weekly tourney fee and then paying for the SET at the end.
1) individual game champions from the current season
2) points leaders not qualifying under the latter
As this is all becoming increasingly complicated, here is my proposed glossary of terms:
Game: a single day event open to all league players, acting as a qualifier for a corresponding Seasons End Tournament, limited to 24 players
Season: A series of 12 games played weekly, culminating in a Seasons End tournament, played on the 13th week
Seasons End Tournament (SET): a single day event open only to qualifying league members, acting as a qualifier for a corresponding Tournament of Champions, and limited to...14-16 players (? this would be up for discussion and subject to AJs whims =P)
Tournament of Champions (TOC): a single day event open only to qualifying league members, played annually, open to **Xnumber** of players
All of this is purely for the purposes of discussion. I heart AJ very much and enjoy how he runs the league. *kisses*
I still like the idea that in order to qualify to play in the SET, you must play X number of regular season games, PLUS the SET portion of buyins for missed games as your buyin to the SET. We have discussed increasing the level of games played to qualify from 4 to 6, and I think this too is a good idea. Or we could cap the number of qualifiers for each SET based on points, and have each player buyin complete for it. Still like the $50 buyin per game, and we could play for the entire pot instead of the 80%.
I also like the thought of a TRUE TOURNAMENT OF CHAMPIONS. An annual game where all Champs (Money and Points, from all prior seasons), plus the SET Champs, plus wild card players, face off to determine the TRUE CHAMPION OF THE LEAGUE!! We can make the buyin for this a minimum of say $100 per player and maximum of 16 players.
Some great ideas here, Amanda, and I'm sure we can make the changes immediatley for Season 4, and everyone will be here tomorrow to agree to it. We'll discuss briefly prior to game time, and also during the first couple of levels to break...by break, I think we can all agree to whatever change of format works best.
Thanks.
We are a growing league, and new players don't always arrive at the beginning of a season, but their play more than merits them a spot in the SET. We've also seen how peoples real lives get in the way and they can't always make it out. Sometimes people have to paint their houses, its understandable.
Personally, I would not have any problem paying a buy-in for the SET were I to qualify, even if it were more than the regular $50 buy-in. The additional cost is justified by the winnings earned in qualifying for the SET.
My personal opinion is that qualifications for SETs should be based on, firstly, winning a game, and then the remaining spots be designated based on a combination of points and games attended. I like the sounds of increasing the games attended to 6.
Ex. We increase the number of games required to 6. Someone, we'll call her Jane, comes out for 5 games and places 2nd for all 5 games. She would probably have a good shot of qualifying for the SET based on points, but she is disqualified because she has only attended 5 games.
Were she to have placed first in one of the five games, she would have earned herself a spot in the SET even though she hadn't attended 6 games.
This sounds reasonable to me...
The point of doing things like this is to ensure that the SETs, and most importantly the TOC, are a true contest between the players who have been outplaying those of us who have been coming out to donate money.
If things were to go the way they went last season, most of the spots would be given out based on points/attendance anyway *coughEltraincough*.
You must have to EARN a spot in the SET game. By placing First in each weekly game, you qualify. Remaining seats to be awarded based on points earned.
It would also restrict someone who has a dismal season clean up at the Season Ender (ie, myself or Justin).
By having to qualify for a seat, you EARNED the right to play. Earning the right means you played well, and you should therefore be rewarded. Playing poorly would (hopefully) send you back to the books again, learning, and then earning your spot once again.
Me like!!! Won't take long to change the format to suit. We can start right away.
I'll add my 2 cents worth. As long as I win a few tourneys whatever changes you want to make sound good to me. Easy had some very good points and I agree with them. The one thing that concerns me is for all the Bristols I"ve ever played I suck there. Don't change it so much that I suck here too.
Don't worry, I've sucked at Ching Hill, so all of my suggestions are coming from a completely unbiased pov.
I would think that the SETs and TOC would be open for unqualified players to show up and play side games or whatever. There could potentially be an "I don't completely suck" losers TOC open to players not good enough to qualify for the real TOC, lol.
oops...too late
All the proposed changes I think are for improving the league, and I'm all up for that. I think everyone will be quite pleased with what Amanda has proposed.
!!Easy for Commissioner of Good Times!!
Also I think we should have the players play in a minimum of 4 games to play in the Championship game.
So you may have won a game or two but if you never showed up after that then there would be no Championship game for you, where the player who shows up every week and places with in the top 6 will be in the Championship game.
I would also suggest that maybe a fixed amount from each game goes into the final prize pool for the championship game. Maybe $100 each week (so the total prize pool for the final game would be $1200).
I think this would work if we keep the point’s format the same as it is now this would also encourage players to play solid each week to try ensure they get enough points for the Championship game.
For the Championship game we could do something like have it on a Saturday afternoon and increase the time the blinds go up from 20 minutes to 30 minutes, giving a little more play to the game.
Then at the end of the season we could have a Tournament of Champions where only Champions are invited (former and current seasons) and have the buy-in like $100.
Just a few ideas.
I think we should try and get this sorted out before tonight’s game.
I'm thinking that skimming the pot every week is probably not a bad idea, and a bill is what I was thinking as well.
We can discuss whether or not seats to the SET will be awarded by either total season point finishers, or by winning a regular weekly game, or a combination of both.
The new annual TOC format can be discussed over the next little while as we will have ample time to sort it out.
The ideas so far are great guys. It will take the league into the next evolution.