It didn’t seem fair of me to ask about the resolution of ties and not offer at least one way of making a ruling. The following should be seen as a suggestion rather than something I’m committed to (it's not my house game). Any ruling, outside of having the players settle in a difficult to schedule elimination game, is going to be somewhat arbitrary.
I would suggest ranking the tying players by tournament placing. Award the seat to the player with the highest placing in any of the three games. If there is still a tie compare their second best and, if needed, the third.
Here’s an example with a five way tie. All have 12000 chips but only one can be ninth.
Player One has 2nd, 14th and 15th finishes.
Player Two has 5th, 5th and 5th finishes.
Player Three has 2nd, 15th and 16th finishes.
Player Four has 3rd, 7th and 8th finishes.
Player Five has 3rd, 7th and 8th finishes
In this case Player One would get the seat.
If there were two seats to decide (a tie for 8th and 9th) Player Three would also get a seat.
What if there was, in this case, a tie for 7th, 8th and 9th? This still leaves us stuck with Player Four and Player Five still tied. To resolve this unlikely case we could weight the games “value”. Week Three would beat Week Two which in turn would beat Week One.There is already a precedent for this in making Week Three’s payout higher than the two previous. I would also rationalize this by proposing that the weeks get harder as players learn more about each others game.
If this additional criteria were to be used, we would compare Player Four's and Player Five’s 3rd place win to see which was in the later week and award that player 9th place. 7th and 8th place remain the same, Player one and Player Three, as they were resolved in the first step of comparing rankings.
To summarize, first check rankings and if there is still conflict check the week.
It didn’t seem fair of me to ask about the resolution of ties and not offer at least one way of making a ruling. The following should be seen as a suggestion rather than something I’m committed to (it's not my house game). Any ruling, outside of having the players settle in a difficult to schedule elimination game, is going to be somewhat arbitrary.
I would suggest ranking the tying players by tournament placing. Award the seat to the player with the highest placing in any of the three games. If there is still a tie compare their second best and, if needed, the third.
Here’s an example with a five way tie. All have 12000 chips but only one can be ninth.
Player One has 2nd, 14th and 15th finishes.
Player Two has 5th, 5th and 5th finishes.
Player Three has 2nd, 15th and 16th finishes.
Player Four has 3rd, 7th and 8th finishes.
Player Five has 3rd, 7th and 8th finishes
In this case Player One would get the seat.
If there were two seats to decide (a tie for 8th and 9th) Player Three would also get a seat.
What if there was, in this case, a tie for 7th, 8th and 9th? This still leaves us stuck with Player Four and Player Five still tied. To resolve this unlikely case we could weight the games “value”. Week Three would beat Week Two which in turn would beat Week One.
There is already a precedent for this in making Week Three’s payout higher than the two previous. I would also rationalize this by proposing that the weeks get harder as players learn more about each others game.
If this additional criteria were to be used, we would compare Player Fours and Player Five’s 3rd place win to see which was in the later week and award that player 9th place. 7th and 8th place remain the same, Player one and Player Three, as they were resolved in the first step of comparing rankings.
To summarize, first check rankings and if there is still conflict check the week.
Dave.
Jeesh, r u bored or what.. Did that take a while to come up with? Good thoughts tho... Oh and to think we'll learn more about each others games as the weeks go on? We've played each other so much there's not much else to learn.. They're all donkeys (especially that hobb guy) and I'm the most solid player ever..
Jeesh, r u bored or what.. Did that take a while to come up with? Good thoughts tho... Oh and to think we'll learn more about each others games as the weeks go on? We've played each other so much there's not much else to learn.. They're all donkeys (especially that hobb guy) and I'm the most solid player ever..
Jeesh, r u bored or what.. Did that take a while to come up with? Good thoughts tho... QUOTE]
Thanks for the compliment, but it really only took time for the typing. I use to run game conventions and tournaments, so I've had to decide "victory conditions" many times in the past.
I was bored last night when I calculated and compared all 32768 possible chip score combinations for thirty-two players after Week Three. I have to use that Access certification for something after all. And it is very likely there will be a tie.
Anyone want to talk about the value of going for tenth place in the event all players get into the bubble pool?
Ties should go to the tallest player with further ties being decided by whomever can name 5 cereals the fastest. Cheerios or Rice Crispies would count as -1.
Not only am I one hundred percent for this ruling, I think we should skip the game and just give the prizes to the tallest players. I am looking for prop bets on this. No ringers, only players already listed.
And Rice Krispies and Cheerios wouldn't count anyway. They are not cereals, they are breakfast cereal brand names. Wheat, rye, oats, rice, and corn are cereals.
That was pretty much what I had in mind for breaking ties. For absolute ties I was going to suggest a flippament.
Now.. I also just realized I've fubar'd myself a bit as I committed to something months ago for the final Wednesday (the 25th) and I won't be able to reschedule it. My apologies.
So, I've created a poll to find the next best date to hold this. Please head on and vote...
Ties should go to the tallest player with further ties being decided by whomever can name 5 cereals the fastest. Cheerios or Rice Crispies would count as -1.
I vote for bare knuckle boxing amongst same sex tie-ers and a dance off for intersex ties.
Just a heads up that Friday the 27th is looking extremely likely based on poll results, so save night. Since it is a Friday, players that don't make it are welcome to come by for either a second chance mini tournament and/or cash games.
Based on KingMob's comments, I've built a simulator to run scenarios and, with the number of players we have, I'm not happy with how things are turning out. In most cases, if the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd players in each tournament is distinct, those will be the nine players that make it to the finals.
Been playing with the numbers a bit, and I'm liking a more linear payout of chips (vs. the current exponential payout of chips)
Here's the difference.
An Exponential payout rewards players that make single high finishes, where linear rewards more consistent finishes.
Here's a good scenario to explain the internal debate I'm having...
Who deserves a spot in the "November Nine" more from a field of 24: Player A (1st, 18th, 23rd) or Player B (5th, 7th, 13th)?
Just a heads up that Friday the 27th is looking extremely likely based on poll results, so save night. Since it is a Friday, players that don't make it are welcome to come by for either a second chance mini tournament and/or cash games.
Based on KingMob's comments, I've built a simulator to run scenarios and, with the number of players we have, I'm not happy with how things are turning out. In most cases, if the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd players in each tournament is distinct, those will be the nine players that make it to the finals.
Been playing with the numbers a bit, and I'm liking a more linear payout of chips (vs. the current exponential payout of chips)
Here's the difference.
An Exponential payout rewards players that make single high finishes, where linear rewards more consistent finishes.
Here's a good scenario to explain the internal debate I'm having...
Who deserves a spot in the "November Nine" more from a field of 24: Player A (1st, 18th, 23rd) or Player B (5th, 7th, 13th)?
Thoughts?
Don't really have a problem with the top three from each week scenario....but I guess that would make for a large chip disparity in the final game? Whatever you work out is cool. Linear is better if you want to have the 9th place finisher actually have a chance to win etc...but if you're trying to replicate WSOP...the chips you earn are the chips you earn. Huge disparity at the final table is no prob.
Who deserves a spot in the "November Nine" more from a field of 24: Player A (1st, 18th, 23rd) or Player B (5th, 7th, 13th)?Thoughts?
I have mixed feelings about this. Part of me wants to reward a strong consistent play, but that might be a reflection of my own play - generally consistent*. It would be frustrating to hit the bottom money (5th?) three weeks in a row and not get into the finals.
But with only these two players, I would have to go with Player A's 1st place spot. Poker tournaments have a top heavy reward structure and I think this should be reflected in our final table selection. It might seem harsh that one good day can get you in, but that's tournament poker. I would hope that Player B's performance, while not better than A's, would still have a shot at getting in the top nine, beating out players who placed slightly higher once only. For example a 3rd, 20th and 30th.
By the way, someone mentioned a prop bet on the bubble. I would like to see one for best overall, a Player of the Month. One point for every player you outlast each week. One of the final nine would probably win, but with a fourth week win only worth eight points, others would still have a shot if they placed high in the first three weeks.
Sorry about the extra work Rob.
* Before anyone calls me on this, I know I played like ass on Sunday. I didn't say my game is strong, just consistent.
In the current setup if you finish 7th/7th/7th, you would lose to someone who finished 3rd in the first tourney and then didn't show up for tourney #2 and #3.
I think if you finish 7th in all 3 you should have a pretty good shot at making the top 9, especially over someone who finishes 3rd/15th/24th (for example).
So my suggestion would be:
1st 10500
2nd 8500
3rd 7000
4th 6000
5th 5000
6th 4000
7th 3500
8th 3000
9th 2500
10-12 1250
13+ 1000
This gives a bit bigger boost for making the top 9 (final table) in any of the tournaments, and is not as top-heavy as the original payouts.
7/7/7 would be 10,500 chips.
3/15/24 (or 3/24/24) would be 9,000 chips.
I was looking at my last post and I'd like to clarify it a little. I think I somewhat overstressed the value of a weekly high finish.
While in the particular example Rob gave I would pick the Player who scored a first place, I am not advocating the top three each week being the only ones to move on, like little satellites. This would be contrary to Rob's goal of simulating the chip accumulation of a longer tournament leading into a final table. I just think that a Player who had a First, Middle and Last finish (technically an average performance) should do better than a player who makes three Middle finishes (an average performance).
A) Original
Average FT Chipstack: 14k
Average FT Range: 21.5k -> 9k
Notes: 1st, 2nd from each week always make finals. 3rd almost always.
b) Mike's
Average FT Chipstack: 13k
Average FT Range: 19k -> 9.5k
Notes: 1st always makes finals, 2nd almost always, 3rd likely.
c) New Schedule in this post
Average FT Chipstack: 16.5k
Average FT Range: 22k -> 13.5k
Notes: 1st almost guaranteed, 2nd very likely, 3rd good chances.
I'm currently leaning towards c), but I'll continue to run numbers.
I like option C. B and C give very similar top-9 results but C gives more chips at the final table so I am good with that.
I like that under options B/C someone who finishes 3rd/19th/24th is unlikely to make the final 9, whereas under option A they are almost guaranteed final 9.
Option C works well in my simulation. More chips at the final, overall performance is more valuable than one good week, but everyone usually still has a chance to catch up on week three no matter how poorly they did previously. Ties for ninth are still probable, but not as much as before.
Don't worry about getting consensus Rob, I'm sure I speak for all when I say you are still the master tournament designer around here. We're ok with whatever you decide on, although it's nice that Mike and Dave have put some thoughts and ideas forward. Oh. and I think that the highest finishing Rock should automatically be in the final 9.
Thanks for working this out guys! It'll be great to play (ok donk) poker at Bristol Street again. Nov 4th is going to feel like the 1s day of school for sure :P
Is it November yet??? I am stoked to get back to live poker at Bristol again!
Rob, in your second post you are still assuming that 16 players sign up...you might want to update that to 24 players and associated payouts if it means that top 5 pay out (not sure where you draw the line from 4 to 5 payouts). Looks like we are headed for 22-26+ players unless things change dramatically before Nov 4th.
Thanks for working this out guys! It'll be great to play (ok donk) poker at Bristol Street again. Nov 4th is going to feel like the 1s day of school for sure :P
Comments
It didn’t seem fair of me to ask about the resolution of ties and not offer at least one way of making a ruling. The following should be seen as a suggestion rather than something I’m committed to (it's not my house game). Any ruling, outside of having the players settle in a difficult to schedule elimination game, is going to be somewhat arbitrary.
I would suggest ranking the tying players by tournament placing. Award the seat to the player with the highest placing in any of the three games. If there is still a tie compare their second best and, if needed, the third.
Here’s an example with a five way tie. All have 12000 chips but only one can be ninth.
Player One has 2nd, 14th and 15th finishes.
Player Two has 5th, 5th and 5th finishes.
Player Three has 2nd, 15th and 16th finishes.
Player Four has 3rd, 7th and 8th finishes.
Player Five has 3rd, 7th and 8th finishes
In this case Player One would get the seat.
If there were two seats to decide (a tie for 8th and 9th) Player Three would also get a seat.
What if there was, in this case, a tie for 7th, 8th and 9th? This still leaves us stuck with Player Four and Player Five still tied. To resolve this unlikely case we could weight the games “value”. Week Three would beat Week Two which in turn would beat Week One.There is already a precedent for this in making Week Three’s payout higher than the two previous. I would also rationalize this by proposing that the weeks get harder as players learn more about each others game.
If this additional criteria were to be used, we would compare Player Four's and Player Five’s 3rd place win to see which was in the later week and award that player 9th place. 7th and 8th place remain the same, Player one and Player Three, as they were resolved in the first step of comparing rankings.
To summarize, first check rankings and if there is still conflict check the week.
Dave.
Jeesh, r u bored or what.. Did that take a while to come up with? Good thoughts tho... Oh and to think we'll learn more about each others games as the weeks go on? We've played each other so much there's not much else to learn.. They're all donkeys (especially that hobb guy) and I'm the most solid player ever..
Dementia?!?
Not only am I one hundred percent for this ruling, I think we should skip the game and just give the prizes to the tallest players. I am looking for prop bets on this. No ringers, only players already listed.
Dave.
Now.. I also just realized I've fubar'd myself a bit as I committed to something months ago for the final Wednesday (the 25th) and I won't be able to reschedule it. My apologies.
So, I've created a poll to find the next best date to hold this. Please head on and vote...
Doodle: Bristol Street November Nine Final
I vote for bare knuckle boxing amongst same sex tie-ers and a dance off for intersex ties.
Just a heads up that Friday the 27th is looking extremely likely based on poll results, so save night. Since it is a Friday, players that don't make it are welcome to come by for either a second chance mini tournament and/or cash games.
Based on KingMob's comments, I've built a simulator to run scenarios and, with the number of players we have, I'm not happy with how things are turning out. In most cases, if the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd players in each tournament is distinct, those will be the nine players that make it to the finals.
Been playing with the numbers a bit, and I'm liking a more linear payout of chips (vs. the current exponential payout of chips)
Here's the difference.
An Exponential payout rewards players that make single high finishes, where linear rewards more consistent finishes.
Here's a good scenario to explain the internal debate I'm having...
Who deserves a spot in the "November Nine" more from a field of 24: Player A (1st, 18th, 23rd) or Player B (5th, 7th, 13th)?
Thoughts?
Don't really have a problem with the top three from each week scenario....but I guess that would make for a large chip disparity in the final game? Whatever you work out is cool. Linear is better if you want to have the 9th place finisher actually have a chance to win etc...but if you're trying to replicate WSOP...the chips you earn are the chips you earn. Huge disparity at the final table is no prob.
I have mixed feelings about this. Part of me wants to reward a strong consistent play, but that might be a reflection of my own play - generally consistent*. It would be frustrating to hit the bottom money (5th?) three weeks in a row and not get into the finals.
But with only these two players, I would have to go with Player A's 1st place spot. Poker tournaments have a top heavy reward structure and I think this should be reflected in our final table selection. It might seem harsh that one good day can get you in, but that's tournament poker. I would hope that Player B's performance, while not better than A's, would still have a shot at getting in the top nine, beating out players who placed slightly higher once only. For example a 3rd, 20th and 30th.
By the way, someone mentioned a prop bet on the bubble. I would like to see one for best overall, a Player of the Month. One point for every player you outlast each week. One of the final nine would probably win, but with a fourth week win only worth eight points, others would still have a shot if they placed high in the first three weeks.
Sorry about the extra work Rob.
* Before anyone calls me on this, I know I played like ass on Sunday. I didn't say my game is strong, just consistent.
In the current setup if you finish 7th/7th/7th, you would lose to someone who finished 3rd in the first tourney and then didn't show up for tourney #2 and #3.
I think if you finish 7th in all 3 you should have a pretty good shot at making the top 9, especially over someone who finishes 3rd/15th/24th (for example).
So my suggestion would be:
1st 10500
2nd 8500
3rd 7000
4th 6000
5th 5000
6th 4000
7th 3500
8th 3000
9th 2500
10-12 1250
13+ 1000
This gives a bit bigger boost for making the top 9 (final table) in any of the tournaments, and is not as top-heavy as the original payouts.
7/7/7 would be 10,500 chips.
3/15/24 (or 3/24/24) would be 9,000 chips.
While in the particular example Rob gave I would pick the Player who scored a first place, I am not advocating the top three each week being the only ones to move on, like little satellites. This would be contrary to Rob's goal of simulating the chip accumulation of a longer tournament leading into a final table. I just think that a Player who had a First, Middle and Last finish (technically an average performance) should do better than a player who makes three Middle finishes (an average performance).
Dave.
1st 11000
2nd 9000
3rd 8000
4th 7000
5th 6000
6th 5500
7th 5000
8th 4500
9th 4000
10-12 3500
13-15 3000
16-18 2500
19+ 2000
Here's how the tournaments compare:
A) Original
Average FT Chipstack: 14k
Average FT Range: 21.5k -> 9k
Notes: 1st, 2nd from each week always make finals. 3rd almost always.
b) Mike's
Average FT Chipstack: 13k
Average FT Range: 19k -> 9.5k
Notes: 1st always makes finals, 2nd almost always, 3rd likely.
c) New Schedule in this post
Average FT Chipstack: 16.5k
Average FT Range: 22k -> 13.5k
Notes: 1st almost guaranteed, 2nd very likely, 3rd good chances.
I'm currently leaning towards c), but I'll continue to run numbers.
I like that under options B/C someone who finishes 3rd/19th/24th is unlikely to make the final 9, whereas under option A they are almost guaranteed final 9.
Good luck getting everyone to agree Rob!
Mike
Dave.
Friday the 27th is the popular choice for the finals, and I've adopted Option C above as the chip payouts.
Thanks to those that offered input!
Rob, in your second post you are still assuming that 16 players sign up...you might want to update that to 24 players and associated payouts if it means that top 5 pay out (not sure where you draw the line from 4 to 5 payouts). Looks like we are headed for 22-26+ players unless things change dramatically before Nov 4th.
Mike
+1!
I call dibs on the RB drums when I get hammered and bust out immediately each night.
Edit: Is there going to be a chance of side games
Lookin forward to it for sure!
stp