Question on Dr. Neau's formula

[BigSlickTux]

   With my games we don't do add-ons or re-buys.  So what would you fill in for "c".  Because putting in the same amount for both "b" and "c" would cause a zero answer.  I would really like to use a formula for my next league.  It sounds much more fair.  Thanks for your help.

score = sqrt((a * b) * (b / c)) / (d + 1.0)


a = Tournament Buy-in Count
b = Player Buy-in Expense
c = Player Total Expense
d = Player Finish

[sunderB]

My understanding is that C= original buyin plus add ons and rebuys which would be the total expense, so with no rebuy's or add ons, b/c should always =1.

If you want to simplify it here was the response I received for a simplified Neau's formula

Points = sqrt( a * b ) / ( c + 1 )
where
a = # players
b = Buy-In Cost
c = Player Finish

[NLHEfanatic]

   With my games we don't do add-ons or re-buys.  So what would you fill in for "c".  Because putting in the same amount for both "b" and "c" would cause a zero answer.  I would really like to use a formula for my next league.  It sounds much more fair.  Thanks for your help.

score = sqrt((a * b) * (b / c)) / (d + 1.0)


a = Tournament Buy-in Count
b = Player Buy-in Expense
c = Player Total Expense
d = Player Finish

Your math is wrong.  if b = c then the formula is:  score = sqrt(a*b)/(d+1)

[BigSlickTux]

    Thanks that was pretty much my question.  My math wasn't wrong I just wasn't sure if you could totally drop "c" and get the same effect.  I like the simplified version.

[austin5string]

    Thanks that was pretty much my question.  My math wasn't wrong I just wasn't sure if you could totally drop "c" and get the same effect.  I like the simplified version.

Not to nitpick, but yes it was   If b=c, you don't get a zero answer.

EDIT: Unless it's a freeroll, I guess, with Buyin=0  LOL

[NLHEfanatic]

A different way to write the formula to avoid confusion is:

TP = sqrt((P*B)*(B/(B+A+R)))/(F+1)

TP = Tournament Points
P = # of Players
B = Buy-In
A = Add-Ons
R = Rebuys
F = Place Finished

[ChrisChip10]

    Thanks that was pretty much my question.  My math wasn't wrong I just wasn't sure if you could totally drop "c" and get the same effect.  I like the simplified version.

Not to nitpick, but yes it was   If b=c, you don't get a zero answer.

EDIT: Unless it's a freeroll, I guess, with Buyin=0  LOL

A5S is correct here.  Poininginging.

[BigSlickTux]

     Wow!  I stand corrected.  I am so dumb.  For some reason I had a brain fart and thought if you divide a number by the same number you get zero. lmao.  I need to go back to grade school.  No wonder I can't figure out pot odds, outs, etc.  Seriously though thanks for the replies.

[Jaxen]

For a freezout tourney (no rebuys or add-ons) you can REALLY simplify the formula:

Points = square root of the prize pool / (finish position + 1)

Now, here's a question for Neau: if you're having a rebuy tournament, is the (a * b) portion of the formula the total of the entire prize pool (buy ins + rebuys + add ons) or just the intial buy in * the number of players. I ask because our rebuy tournaments have a smaller initial buy in than our freezeouts, because nearly everyone does the add-on at the end of the rebuy period. A smaller figure for the "prize pool" would result in fewer points, making the rebuy tourneys less significant points-wise than the freezeouts. For that reason I think we're using the total pool for (a * b).

[tator2k]

a = Total # of intial buy-ins

b = The initial buy-in expense to entier the game.

c = The TOTAL amount of money you spent on the game (buyin, rebuys, addin)


As you can see if you only bought in and did not purchase any rebuys or add-ons the (b / c) equals one.

[NLHEfanatic]

For a freezout tourney (no rebuys or add-ons) you can REALLY simplify the formula:

Points = square root of the prize pool / (finish position + 1)

Now, here's a question for Neau: if you're having a rebuy tournament, is the (a * b) portion of the formula the total of the entire prize pool (buy ins + rebuys + add ons) or just the intial buy in * the number of players. I ask because our rebuy tournaments have a smaller initial buy in than our freezeouts, because nearly everyone does the add-on at the end of the rebuy period. A smaller figure for the "prize pool" would result in fewer points, making the rebuy tourneys less significant points-wise than the freezeouts. For that reason I think we're using the total pool for (a * b).

Jaxen,

I could be wrong, but I think the formula is needs to be applied on a person by person basis.  You don't just add in all of the rebuys/add-ons for a global reduction in Score.  It is calculated in to the score for each person that used the rebuy/addon.  I interpret it to be a "penalty" of sqrt(b/c) for using the add-on/rebuy

Example:  20 player tournament with $100 buy-in and $100 Add-on/Rebuy. 
Player A wins the tournament but used a Rebuy:  Score = 15.8
Player B finishes in 2nd but didn't have any add-ons or rebuys:  Score = 14.9

Even though Player A won the tournament he was penalized 6.6 points for needing to Add-on/Rebuy.

[Dr. Neau]

For a freezout tourney (no rebuys or add-ons) you can REALLY simplify the formula:

Points = square root of the prize pool / (finish position + 1)

Now, here's a question for Neau: if you're having a rebuy tournament, is the (a * b) portion of the formula the total of the entire prize pool (buy ins + rebuys + add ons) or just the intial buy in * the number of players. I ask because our rebuy tournaments have a smaller initial buy in than our freezeouts, because nearly everyone does the add-on at the end of the rebuy period. A smaller figure for the "prize pool" would result in fewer points, making the rebuy tourneys less significant points-wise than the freezeouts. For that reason I think we're using the total pool for (a * b).

Jaxen,

I could be wrong, but I think the formula is needs to be applied on a person by person basis.  You don't just add in all of the rebuys/add-ons for a global reduction in Score.  It is calculated in to the score for each person that used the rebuy/addon.  I interpret to be a "penalty" for using the add-on/rebuy.

Example:  20 player tournament with $100 buy-in and $100 Add-on/Rebuy. 
Player A wins the tournament but used a Rebuy:  Score = 15.8
Player B finishes in 2nd but didn't have any add-ons or rebuys:  Score = 14.9

Even though Player A won the tournament he was penalized 6.6 points for needing to Add-on/Rebuy.

Correct.  Since the number of players is already taken into account, also taking the prize pool into account is redundant.

The formula is focused on what YOU did.  How many players did YOU beat?  How much did YOU have to spend over the standard buy-in?

You might argue, "Well, but a player who wins a $40 20-player freezeout had an easier time than a player who won a $30 20-player unlimited rebuy tournament where everyone but that player rebought 10 times".  True, but you have to look at the full picture...in the rebuy example, everyone else will end up with a REALLY crappy score because they rebought so many times.

[sunderB]

It is a different question, but also based on Dr.'s formula. 

My buyin is $50 +$5.  The $5 goes to the points fund.  When calculating the formula (using my numbers as an example) after a tourney, do most people use $55 or $50 as the buyin?

[tator2k]

I would say $55. You just set the rake to $5.00 on the purchase of each buyin.

[GPennRef]

For a freezout tourney (no rebuys or add-ons) you can REALLY simplify the formula:

Points = square root of the prize pool / (finish position + 1)

Now, here's a question for Neau: if you're having a rebuy tournament, is the (a * b) portion of the formula the total of the entire prize pool (buy ins + rebuys + add ons) or just the intial buy in * the number of players. I ask because our rebuy tournaments have a smaller initial buy in than our freezeouts, because nearly everyone does the add-on at the end of the rebuy period. A smaller figure for the "prize pool" would result in fewer points, making the rebuy tourneys less significant points-wise than the freezeouts. For that reason I think we're using the total pool for (a * b).

Jaxen,

I could be wrong, but I think the formula is needs to be applied on a person by person basis.  You don't just add in all of the rebuys/add-ons for a global reduction in Score.  It is calculated in to the score for each person that used the rebuy/addon.  I interpret to be a "penalty" for using the add-on/rebuy.

Example:  20 player tournament with $100 buy-in and $100 Add-on/Rebuy. 
Player A wins the tournament but used a Rebuy:  Score = 15.8
Player B finishes in 2nd but didn't have any add-ons or rebuys:  Score = 14.9

Even though Player A won the tournament he was penalized 6.6 points for needing to Add-on/Rebuy.

Correct.  Since the number of players is already taken into account, also taking the prize pool into account is redundant.

The formula is focused on what YOU did.  How many players did YOU beat?  How much did YOU have to spend over the standard buy-in?

You might argue, "Well, but a player who wins a $40 20-player freezeout had an easier time than a player who won a $30 20-player unlimited rebuy tournament where everyone but that player rebought 10 times".  True, but you have to look at the full picture...in the rebuy example, everyone else will end up with a REALLY crappy score because they rebought so many times.

Thanks Neau for that example.  I had a guy in my tourney who cashed out in one more tourney then me, but my 1st place with with 15 and 3rd was with 9 players, whereas his first was with 9, second was with 9 with a rebuy, and third was with 7 with a rebuy.

[sunderB]

I would say $55. You just set the rake to $5.00 on the purchase of each buyin.

 

Stop making me feel dumb Tator.  I don't see a letter for rake in the formula.  My games don't have rebuys for what it's worth.

[ChrisChip10]

Stop making me feel dumb Tator.  I don't see a letter for rake in the formula.  My games don't have rebuys for what it's worth.

Why would you feel up a dumb Tator??? 

[miandsh2000]

i guess this question is directed at he dr.

what is the purpose of using buy-in to calculate scores?  is there an assumption that the field is more difficult to get through at a higher $ level?

a $100 event, first place finisher would get the same amount of pts as a $200 event, first place finisher.

[Dr. Neau]

i guess this question is directed at he dr.

what is the purpose of using buy-in to calculate scores?  is there an assumption that the field is more difficult to get through at a higher $ level?

a $100 event, first place finisher would get the same amount of pts as a $200 event, first place finisher.

If that's what *you* want to do, there's no problem with that.

In our league, we have tournaments of varying buy-in amounts...currently ranging from $40 to $60.  I wanted a formula that, given an equal number of players, awarded more points for winning tournaments with higher buy-in costs.

Why?

I feel that the higher buy-in tournaments are more important than the lower buy-in tournaments.

Your question actually prompted me to do a little research to see if any of the "professional" ranking systems consider this factor.  Here is what I found on http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/poker/columns/story?columnist=gordon_phil&id=2121942

Card Player's Player of the Year.  Parameters include: Amount of the tournament buy-in, number of entrants and place finished.

International Poker Federation World Rankings. Amount of tournament buy-in, number of entrants and place finished.

Tourney.com. Amount of tournament buy-in, number of entrants and place finished.

I feel pretty comfortable with my rankings system.

[miandsh2000]

i guess this question is directed at he dr.

what is the purpose of using buy-in to calculate scores?  is there an assumption that the field is more difficult to get through at a higher $ level?

a $100 event, first place finisher would get the same amount of pts as a $200 event, first place finisher.

If that's what *you* want to do, there's no problem with that.

In our league, we have tournaments of varying buy-in amounts...currently ranging from $40 to $60.  I wanted a formula that, given an equal number of players, awarded more points for winning tournaments with higher buy-in costs.

Why?

I feel that the higher buy-in tournaments are more important than the lower buy-in tournaments.

Your question actually prompted me to do a little research to see if any of the "professional" ranking systems consider this factor.  Here is what I found on http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/poker/columns/story?columnist=gordon_phil&id=2121942

Card Player's Player of the Year.  Parameters include: Amount of the tournament buy-in, number of entrants and place finished.

International Poker Federation World Rankings. Amount of tournament buy-in, number of entrants and place finished.

Tourney.com. Amount of tournament buy-in, number of entrants and place finished.

I feel pretty comfortable with my rankings system.

makes sense.  thx.

and i just noticed above that something got cut off or i forgot to finish the thought.  what i was trying to say was:

with your formula, a first place finisher in a $100 20 person event would get the same amount of pts as a first place finisher in a $200 10 person event.

[Dr. Neau]

with your formula, a first place finisher in a $100 20 person event would get the same amount of pts as a first place finisher in a $200 10 person event.

Correct.

Although, if you league varies that much...where you have tournaments with twice the buy-in and half the people...then I'd say you need to reevaluate your league.

[miandsh2000]

with your formula, a first place finisher in a $100 20 person event would get the same amount of pts as a first place finisher in a $200 10 person event.

Correct.

Although, if you league varies that much...where you have tournaments with twice the buy-in and half the people...then I'd say you need to reevaluate your league.

i'm not following why you say that -- but guess its irrelevant.  and im not saying that ive got twice the buyin and half the people tourneys.  im just trying to understand the formula -- not knocking it in any way.

i guess my thinking is that it would seem easier to get to 1 with 10 players than it would be to get to 1 with 20 players -- irregardless of the buy-in.

[Dr. Neau]

with your formula, a first place finisher in a $100 20 person event would get the same amount of pts as a first place finisher in a $200 10 person event.

Correct.

Although, if you league varies that much...where you have tournaments with twice the buy-in and half the people...then I'd say you need to reevaluate your league.

i'm not following why you say that -- but guess its irrelevant.  and im not saying that ive got twice the buyin and half the people tourneys.  im just trying to understand the formula -- not knocking it in any way.

i guess my thinking is that it would seem easier to get to 1 with 10 players than it would be to get to 1 with 20 players -- irregardless of the buy-in.

And that's why, for the same buy-in amount, you get more points for winning a 20-player tournament than you do for winning a 10-player tournament.

So, by your reasoning...and I'm asking seriously...should you get the same points for winning a $10 entry 1000-player tournament as you do for winning a $10,000 entry 1000-player tournament?

[LabRat]

Seems to me the cost of the buy-in should be irrelevent because a win over 999 other entrants is a win over 999 other entrants.  Level of the buy-in doesn't necessarily dictate the level of the competition.

[miandsh2000]

Correct.

Although, if you league varies that much...where you have tournaments with twice the buy-in and half the people...then I'd say you need to reevaluate your league.

i'm not following why you say that -- but guess its irrelevant.  and im not saying that ive got twice the buyin and half the people tourneys.  im just trying to understand the formula -- not knocking it in any way.

i guess my thinking is that it would seem easier to get to 1 with 10 players than it would be to get to 1 with 20 players -- irregardless of the buy-in.

And that's why, for the same buy-in amount, you get more points for winning a 20-player tournament than you do for winning a 10-player tournament.

So, by your reasoning...and I'm asking seriously...should you get the same points for winning a $10 entry 1000-player tournament as you do for winning a $10,000 entry 1000-player tournament?

i understand getting more pts for a tourney with a larger field versus a smaller one.

my point above was that with the formula, a first place finisher in a $100 20 person event would get the same amount of pts as a first place finisher in a $200 10 person event.   

i, personally, just find it easier to get to 1st with 10 players than to get to 1st with 20 players -- but yet you get the same amount of pts using the $100/$200 scenario above.   and only because of that was i questioning the formulas method.  just trying to find the reasoning.


as to the second question - i dont know but i dont think so.  im referring more to tourneys with like-size prize pools but differing number of player -- the example you game is opposite of that and has like-size number of players but a different size prize pool.  im never going to have that far of a gap in our games.  ours games only range from $100 to $200 for points tourneys. 


im not purposely trying to be an arse here.  i would just rather be able to explain it thoroughly if someone asks rather than just saying "i just pulled it off the net somewhere".

[Dr. Neau]

Correct.

Although, if you league varies that much...where you have tournaments with twice the buy-in and half the people...then I'd say you need to reevaluate your league.

i'm not following why you say that -- but guess its irrelevant.  and im not saying that ive got twice the buyin and half the people tourneys.  im just trying to understand the formula -- not knocking it in any way.

i guess my thinking is that it would seem easier to get to 1 with 10 players than it would be to get to 1 with 20 players -- irregardless of the buy-in.

And that's why, for the same buy-in amount, you get more points for winning a 20-player tournament than you do for winning a 10-player tournament.

So, by your reasoning...and I'm asking seriously...should you get the same points for winning a $10 entry 1000-player tournament as you do for winning a $10,000 entry 1000-player tournament?

i understand getting more pts for a tourney with a larger field versus a smaller one.

my point above was that with the formula, a first place finisher in a $100 20 person event would get the same amount of pts as a first place finisher in a $200 10 person event.   

i, personally, just find it easier to get to 1st with 10 players than to get to 1st with 20 players -- but yet you get the same amount of pts using the $100/$200 scenario above.   and only because of that was i questioning the formulas method.  just trying to find the reasoning.


as to the second question - i dont know but i dont think so.  im referring more to tourneys with like-size prize pools but differing number of player -- the example you game is opposite of that and has like-size number of players but a different size prize pool.  im never going to have that far of a gap in our games.  ours games only range from $100 to $200 for points tourneys. 


im not purposely trying to be an arse here.  i would just rather be able to explain it thoroughly if someone asks rather than just saying "i just pulled it off the net somewhere".

I'm really not sure what more you are looking for.  Honestly.

The formula is intended to reward people greater for:
- Winning over a larger field vs. a smaller field
- Spending less over the buy-in to achieve the same result
- Doing the same in a higher buy-in tournament vs. a lower buy-in tournament

[miandsh2000]

i understand getting more pts for a tourney with a larger field versus a smaller one.

my point above was that with the formula, a first place finisher in a $100 20 person event would get the same amount of pts as a first place finisher in a $200 10 person event.   

i, personally, just find it easier to get to 1st with 10 players than to get to 1st with 20 players -- but yet you get the same amount of pts using the $100/$200 scenario above.   and only because of that was i questioning the formulas method.  just trying to find the reasoning.


as to the second question - i dont know but i dont think so.  im referring more to tourneys with like-size prize pools but differing number of player -- the example you game is opposite of that and has like-size number of players but a different size prize pool.  im never going to have that far of a gap in our games.  ours games only range from $100 to $200 for points tourneys. 


im not purposely trying to be an arse here.  i would just rather be able to explain it thoroughly if someone asks rather than just saying "i just pulled it off the net somewhere".

I'm really not sure what more you are looking for.  Honestly.

The formula is intended to reward people greater for:
- Winning over a larger field vs. a smaller field
- Spending less over the buy-in to achieve the same result
- Doing the same in a higher buy-in tournament vs. a lower buy-in tournament

i dont see this objective being met:
The formula is intended to reward people greater for:
- Winning over a larger field vs. a smaller field


i will state it another way.

according to the formula:

MAKE IT TO TOP 1% OF FIELD
if i enter a 1000 person tourney for $1 and take 10th place, i will get 2.87 pts.

FIRST PERSON OUT
if i enter a 10 person tourney for $100 and got busted out first (10th place), i will get 2.87 pts


its harder to get to 10th out of 1000 people than it is to get 10th out of 10 people, yet you get the same amount of points -- 2.87.

for tourneys that vary their entry fee this could be a disparity.

as to the original question - is there an assumption that the field is more difficult to get through at a higher $ level?  i deduce that you think it is, based on the formula and your responses.

[Dr. Neau]

i dont see this objective being met:
The formula is intended to reward people greater for:
- Winning over a larger field vs. a smaller field

i will state it another way.

according to the formula:

MAKE IT TO TOP 1% OF FIELD
if i enter a 1000 person tourney for $1 and take 10th place, i will get 2.87 pts.

FIRST PERSON OUT
if i enter a 10 person tourney for $100 and got busted out first (10th place), i will get 2.87 pts


its harder to get to 10th out of 1000 people than it is to get 10th out of 10 people, yet you get the same amount of points -- 2.87.

for tourneys that vary their entry fee this could be a disparity.

as to the original question - is there an assumption that the field is more difficult to get through at a higher $ level?  i deduce that you think it is, based on the formula and your responses.

Well, like it or not, the formula does reward you for doing well over larger fields...but you can make it look like it doesn't if you adjust another variable enough.

And yes, my assumption is that a higher buy-in tournament attracts higher quality players, is harder to win and is therefore deserving of more points.
I see that online and I see it in casinos.
Online: Try playing a $20 800-player tournament, then try playing a $1 2000-player tournament and then tell me which one seems to have more skilled players.
Casino: Try playing a $50 tourament, then try playing a $300 tournament.  You'll see a difference in the quality of play.

So, you can adjust one variable one way by 100% and then reduce another variable by 50% and then say the formula isn't fair...or you could simply tweak the formula for your needs.

If you really are running a league where one week you'll have 20 players show up for a $20 tournament and next week you'll suddenly have 40 players stampede over because the buy-in is half as much, then maybe you need something different.  Maybe put less weight on the buy-in amount.

Maybe try the cubed root of the buy-in rather than the square root...but I don't agree with taking the buy-in out of the equation altogether.

[miandsh2000]

i dont see this objective being met:
The formula is intended to reward people greater for:
- Winning over a larger field vs. a smaller field

i will state it another way.

according to the formula:

MAKE IT TO TOP 1% OF FIELD
if i enter a 1000 person tourney for $1 and take 10th place, i will get 2.87 pts.

FIRST PERSON OUT
if i enter a 10 person tourney for $100 and got busted out first (10th place), i will get 2.87 pts


its harder to get to 10th out of 1000 people than it is to get 10th out of 10 people, yet you get the same amount of points -- 2.87.

for tourneys that vary their entry fee this could be a disparity.

as to the original question - is there an assumption that the field is more difficult to get through at a higher $ level?  i deduce that you think it is, based on the formula and your responses.

Well, like it or not, the formula does reward you for doing well over larger fields...but if you want to adjust other variables enough then I guess you can make any argument you want...

And yes, my assumption is that a higher buy-in tournament attracts higher quality players, is harder to win and is therefore deserving of more points.

wasnt saying i liked it or not.  just trying to understand it.

irregardless, im throwing in the towel.  i think your are missing my point. 

[Dr. Neau]

wasnt saying i liked it or not.  just trying to understand it.
irregardless, im throwing in the towel.  i think your are missing my point.

I understand that you're just trying to understand it.

And I completely get your point.  You're pointing out that if you skew one variable one direction (buy-in) and a related variable in the other direction (field size) that the formula doesn't seem fair.  You're pointing out that the formula puts equal weight on buy-in and field size...which it does.

My point...for my purposes (and probably for many who use the formula) that isn't really concern because their buy-ins and field sizes probably don't vary that wildly that it really makes a difference.

You're also claiming that the formula doesn't actually reward the winner of a bigger tournament more than the winner of a smaller tournament...but you're trying to back that up by changing the buy-in...and that's not a valid arguement.

The bottom line...any formula you can come up with that takes both buy-in and field size into account will, at some level of variable tweak, produce a result that might not seem fair to you.

My formula can really be boiled down to this...maybe this will help...

Points = "Field Size Factor" x "Entry Fee Factor" x "Financial Efficiency Factor" x "Placement Factor"

where

Field Size Factor = Square root of "number of participants" - the goal of this portion of the equation is to give more points for larger fields
Entry Fee Factor = Square root of "entry fee" - the goal of this portion of the equation is to give more points for higher buy-in tournaments
Financial Efficiency Factor = Square root of "entry fee" / Square root of "total player expense" - the goal of this portion of the equation is to penalize someone for rebuying or adding on
Placement Factor = 1 / ("finish" + 1) - the goal of this portion of the equation is to reward someone for finishing higher than someone else

I should also add that the other goal of this formula was to reward people for simply participating.  It was geared for a league where we wanted to encourage participation, so the formula needed to always give the worst finisher more points than someone who didn't participate.

If I'm hearing you right....and I think I am...you're saying that entry-fee should not receive as much weight as field size.
What I'm saying is if that's your concern, then do something to entry fee so that a change in it has less impact.  Note, however, that you can't simply divide it by some number...because that will just be a linear change.  You would want to do something more like the cubed root, the quad root (square root of the square root), etc.

Hell, here are a few more for you...

Scenario #1:
Player A comes in 2nd in a 100-player $100-buy-in tournament without rebuying.
Player B wins the same 100-player $100-buy-in tournament but rebought twice.
Who should get more points?

Scenario #2:
Player A comes in last in a 100-player $100 buy-in tournament.
Player B comes in last in a 10-player $100 buy-in tournament.
Who should get more points?

[miandsh2000]

wasnt saying i liked it or not.  just trying to understand it.
irregardless, im throwing in the towel.  i think your are missing my point.

I understand that you're just trying to understand it.

And I completely get your point.  You're pointing out that if you skew one variable one direction (buy-in) and a related variable in the other direction (field size) that the formula doesn't seem fair.  You're pointing out that the formula puts equal weight on buy-in and field size...which it does.

My point...for my purposes (and probably for many who use the formula) that isn't really concern because their buy-ins and field sizes probably don't vary that wildly that it really makes a difference.

You're also claiming that the formula doesn't actually reward the winner of a bigger tournament more than the winner of a smaller tournament...but you're trying to back that up by changing the buy-in...and that's not a valid arguement.

The bottom line...any formula you can come up with that takes both buy-in and field size into account will, at some level of variable tweak, produce a result that might not seem fair to you.

My formula can really be boiled down to this...maybe this will help...

Points = "Field Size Factor" x "Entry Fee Factor" x "Financial Efficiency Factor" x "Placement Factor"

where

Field Size Factor = Square root of "number of participants" - the goal of this portion of the equation is to give more points for larger fields
Entry Fee Factor = Square root of "entry fee" - the goal of this portion of the equation is to give more points for higher buy-in tournaments
Financial Efficiency Factor = Square root of "entry fee" / Square root of "total player expense" - the goal of this portion of the equation is to penalize someone for rebuying or adding on
Placement Factor = 1 / ("finish" + 1) - the goal of this portion of the equation is to reward someone for finishing higher than someone else

I should also add that the other goal of this formula was to reward people for simply participating.  It was geared for a league where we wanted to encourage participation, so the formula needed to always give the worst finisher more points than someone who didn't participate.

If I'm hearing you right....and I think I am...you're saying that entry-fee should not receive as much weight as field size.
What I'm saying is if that's your concern, then do something to entry fee so that a change in it has less impact.  Note, however, that you can't simply divide it by some number...because that will just be a linear change.  You would want to do something more like the cubed root, the quad root (square root of the square root), etc.

Hell, here are a few more for you...

Scenario #1:
Player A comes in 2nd in a 100-player $100-buy-in tournament without rebuying.
Player B wins the same 100-player $100-buy-in tournament but rebought twice.
Who should get more points?

Scenario #2:
Player A comes in last in a 100-player $100 buy-in tournament.
Player B comes in last in a 10-player $100 buy-in tournament.
Who should get more points?

who should?  with your formula, player a in both cases.  i would contend that both players in scenario #2 should receive the same. 


BINGO - this explains the logic behind it :

My formula can really be boiled down to this...maybe this will help...

Points = "Field Size Factor" x "Entry Fee Factor" x "Financial Efficiency Factor" x "Placement Factor"

where

Field Size Factor = Square root of "number of participants" - the goal of this portion of the equation is to give more points for larger fields
Entry Fee Factor = Square root of "entry fee" - the goal of this portion of the equation is to give more points for higher buy-in tournaments
Financial Efficiency Factor = Square root of "entry fee" / Square root of "total player expense" - the goal of this portion of the equation is to penalize someone for rebuying or adding on
Placement Factor = 1 / ("finish" + 1) - the goal of this portion of the equation is to reward someone for finishing higher than someone else

[Dr. Neau]

wasnt saying i liked it or not.  just trying to understand it.
irregardless, im throwing in the towel.  i think your are missing my point.

I understand that you're just trying to understand it.

And I completely get your point.  You're pointing out that if you skew one variable one direction (buy-in) and a related variable in the other direction (field size) that the formula doesn't seem fair.  You're pointing out that the formula puts equal weight on buy-in and field size...which it does.

My point...for my purposes (and probably for many who use the formula) that isn't really concern because their buy-ins and field sizes probably don't vary that wildly that it really makes a difference.

You're also claiming that the formula doesn't actually reward the winner of a bigger tournament more than the winner of a smaller tournament...but you're trying to back that up by changing the buy-in...and that's not a valid arguement.

The bottom line...any formula you can come up with that takes both buy-in and field size into account will, at some level of variable tweak, produce a result that might not seem fair to you.

My formula can really be boiled down to this...maybe this will help...

Points = "Field Size Factor" x "Entry Fee Factor" x "Financial Efficiency Factor" x "Placement Factor"

where

Field Size Factor = Square root of "number of participants" - the goal of this portion of the equation is to give more points for larger fields
Entry Fee Factor = Square root of "entry fee" - the goal of this portion of the equation is to give more points for higher buy-in tournaments
Financial Efficiency Factor = Square root of "entry fee" / Square root of "total player expense" - the goal of this portion of the equation is to penalize someone for rebuying or adding on
Placement Factor = 1 / ("finish" + 1) - the goal of this portion of the equation is to reward someone for finishing higher than someone else

I should also add that the other goal of this formula was to reward people for simply participating.  It was geared for a league where we wanted to encourage participation, so the formula needed to always give the worst finisher more points than someone who didn't participate.

If I'm hearing you right....and I think I am...you're saying that entry-fee should not receive as much weight as field size.
What I'm saying is if that's your concern, then do something to entry fee so that a change in it has less impact.  Note, however, that you can't simply divide it by some number...because that will just be a linear change.  You would want to do something more like the cubed root, the quad root (square root of the square root), etc.

Hell, here are a few more for you...

Scenario #1:
Player A comes in 2nd in a 100-player $100-buy-in tournament without rebuying.
Player B wins the same 100-player $100-buy-in tournament but rebought twice.
Who should get more points?

Scenario #2:
Player A comes in last in a 100-player $100 buy-in tournament.
Player B comes in last in a 10-player $100 buy-in tournament.
Who should get more points?

who should?  with your formula, player a in both cases.  i would contend that both players in scenario #2 should receive the same. 


BINGO - this explains the logic behind it :

My formula can really be boiled down to this...maybe this will help...

Points = "Field Size Factor" x "Entry Fee Factor" x "Financial Efficiency Factor" x "Placement Factor"

where

Field Size Factor = Square root of "number of participants" - the goal of this portion of the equation is to give more points for larger fields
Entry Fee Factor = Square root of "entry fee" - the goal of this portion of the equation is to give more points for higher buy-in tournaments
Financial Efficiency Factor = Square root of "entry fee" / Square root of "total player expense" - the goal of this portion of the equation is to penalize someone for rebuying or adding on
Placement Factor = 1 / ("finish" + 1) - the goal of this portion of the equation is to reward someone for finishing higher than someone else

This is actually explained on my league website: http://home.comcast.net/~twincitiesunderground/TwinCitiesUnderground05-06.htm

I'll add more.

In our league, each one of these factors really comes into play.  For instance, in a rebuy tournament near the end of the season, someone will really fret or whether or not to rebuy because if they rebuy they could actually end up with less points than if they simply walked away.  In some cases, people have to finish two spots higher to get the same amount of points after a rebuy.

[tator2k]

<<<<----- See Tator Last Season.  I got KO'ed rebought, KO'ed again w/o passing anyone and then dropped at least one spot in the standing....

[BigSlickTux]

    The way I interpreted this formula was if I finish 1st and re-bought, lets say, two times and player B finishes 2nd or 3rd and didn't have to re-buy at all we should have roughly the same amount of points.  Thats how I intend to use this formula.

[Dr. Neau]

    The way I interpreted this formula was if I finish 1st and re-bought, lets say, two times and player B finishes 2nd or 3rd and didn't have to re-buy at all we should have roughly the same amount of points.  Thats how I intend to use this formula.

That's about right.  Penalize the donkeys!!