Cash League Formats - Please Share

[whipsawmike]

Years ago, this site was very helpful to me in setting up my tournament poker league.   What we are finding is that our games are starting to feel more like a game of war.  We have had this league for 7 years, know each other so well, and due to time constraints can't play in deep enough tournaments to overcome the feeling that our games are only slightly better than an online turbo sit n go.  We had some great success, but are thinking of changing to a cash league format, as a way of reducing the luck factor.  Any cash league formats out there people can share?

[Martini]

Check out this thread: http://forums.homepokertourney.com/index.php/topic,28467.0.html

If you're looking to mix it up I would add in Omaha and O/8. You can also to shootout or heads up formats to spice things up. Or do HORSE. There are plenty of tournament options available.

[whipsawmike]

Martini, I went through this link, and I totally agree with you that is has to off the net profit.  But our plan is to set up a league which plays 12 games a year and anoint our best cash player on the year with a prize. Not everyone can make every game.  So let's say player A comes 12 times, and makes $2000 over the course of the year, but player B only comes 6 times and makes $1800.   So maybe I missed this, but how do you determine who is the best player over the course of several games when not everyone is playing the same amount of games?  An average profit calculation doesn't work as it runs into the same problem you address - if a player has one big night, he might not come back.

[Martini]

Personally, I would set it up just like tourneys where each night is its own event. Whoever ends up with the largest net gain will get 1st place points for that night. Whoever ends up with the next largest net gain will receive 2nd place points. So on and so forth. Doesn't matter if 1st place ends up with $1 more than 2nd or $500 more than 2nd, he would still just get 1st place points just like in a tourney.

Tournament chips don't carry over from one event to the other and I wouldn't have cash game chips do that either. If you had the season be one long cash game then you'll probably find that the fish will give up and quit once they get too deep in a hole. Not only will they be too far behind but they will also have quantification of how much money they are donking off in cash games which could dry up your action from them overall as well. By using only rankings and not net amounts it will keep the league more competitive since any player could have a big night and scoop up 1st place points to get back in it. It will also keep bad players from realizing their exact dollar losses and keep them clumped together in the point standings even though some may have lost significantly more money than others.

[whipsawmike]

Like it...do you have a points formula schedule you like to use?

[Mac_09]

I use Dr. Neau's formula for tournaments and would apply it to cash games as well - 

score = sqrt(# of players * minimum buy-in) / (rank + 1.0)

[Martini]

I would use Dr. Neau's formula as well.

[whipsawmike]

I am familiar with Dr. Neau's formula and use a variant of it for our league, but in a cash game why is the number of players relevant?  Tournament I get, but logic doesn't extend to cash game in my opinion.  Why should your results in a cash game be a function of how many people sitting at the table?  Am I missing something?

[Martini]

It's going to be harder to outperform 20 other players than it would be to beat 5 other players. The larger the field, the more points you should earn.

[Wedge Rock]

It sounds like you are thinking about doing an unlimited rebuy/unlimited addon tourney where the blinds don't increase and you can end your tournament whenever you want with whatever chips you have in front of you.

Do I have that about right?

[Martini]

More or less. But people would leave with their winnings though. So it's not just "Hey I finished first, here are all my chips back." It's "Hey, I finished first and ended up $200 that I get to keep *and* get first place points."

You could think of it as a tourney that you described. I would think of it more as awarding points for ranked performance of a standard cash game session.

[Wedge Rock]

What it a quadruple up on the first hand and leave?

Is someone that grinds it out for four hours and plays solid the whole time, and only adds 30% or 40% to his chipstack a better player than the guy that shoves PF on the first hand and hits a miracle flop?

That's a rhetorical question.  But when people learn that grinding it out for several hours will give you a double-stack at best, they might be willing to shove PF (or call if someone shoves in front of them) holding less-then premium hands.

Happens all the time on low-stakes PS tournaments.

[Martini]

In other posts I suggested that everyone starts with the same stack. If someone can quadruple up a standard buy in (at any time of the night) then as I'm concerned they deserve to get all the points they earned no matter how much they want to play. I would say that regular etiquette rules apply and people can call him out for a hit and run but if it's within the rules he can quit whenever he wants.

Now if you're talking about someone buying in short stacked and quadrupling up then it wouldn't matter much since I would base the standing on net amount, not percentage gain.

To answer your question, the results of a tournament do not always reflect the skills of the players involved. There is chance involved and cooler can happen as well. That said, I would say that a cash game session will in general reflect the playing skill better than a tournament since a player can bust out on a fluke suckout early in the evening and end up with very few points despite being an accomplished player.

As for the scenario, if someone shoves PF on the first hand they are unlikely to get action and if they do get action they will probably only double up at most. I don't see why player would play substantially different than a standard cash game. If people thought that shoving pre was EV+ they would do it all the time in normal cash games. Again, this is assuming that the format is that everyone is playing for real cash stakes that they normally play for (basically a typical cash game session but keeping track of net gain/loss for points).

[Detroitdad]

To answer your question, the results of a tournament do not always reflect the skills of the players involved.

[Mac_09]

You could also implement a rule that players cannot cash out until the first or second break unless they are felted.  I assume most players expect to play at least a few hours anyway, ike they would in a tournament.

[whipsawmike]

This is all really helpful., even the Gary Coleman clip  A time limit might be a good idea, but if I guy quadruples up on first hand, and doesn't want to jeopardize his stack, he might just muck until the time limit is up.  i would hope the people  playing would still be motivated by profit and not points, and would like to continue playing poker for the duration of the night.  At the end of the day,  I think a lot of us just want to play more poker and reduce the luck element of a short stacked tournament.  Could alleviate that a little with side cash games, but i find those are sporadic as people don't want to wait around until you get a quorum.   

[Wedge Rock]

Ideally, you need an extra table not used for the tournament.  If you have room for three tables, run a 2-table tournament and as soon as there are 2 people out, they can start playing a cash game.

[sunderB]

A friend of mine just switched to a format you are looking for and held their first game in January.  I did not attend and I do not have all the details of the format they went with, but I will try to find out specifically what they did for you.  Just like any format, I am sure there will be flaws, but as long as everyone agrees on it, it should not be a big issue.

[Martini]

You're going to have to decide if you want to run a cash game for points or, as Wedge describes it, an unlimited add-on/rebuy tourney where the blinds don't go up. Personally, I would play it as a cash game. If someone wants to cash out early after running his stack up to 400% of his buy in then so be it. I wouldn't begrudge him doing so any more than I would want so force someone who go stacked 4 times to have to keep playing. And as whipsawmike pointed out, if he just sits and folds for the rest of the night then is it even worth keeping him around?

Just make sure you decide ahead of time how the game is going to be run and make sure everyone knows before they sign up to participate. Can people come late/leave early? Can they sit out? Do their blinds still get posted if they sit out? Are straddles allowed? Can people run the board twice or make deals? Nail down all the details.

[sunderB]

A friend of mine just switched to a format you are looking for and held their first game in January.  I did not attend and I do not have all the details of the format they went with, but I will try to find out specifically what they did for you.  Just like any format, I am sure there will be flaws, but as long as everyone agrees on it, it should not be a big issue.

Talked to my friend and they had much the same feel.  The whole reason for their game is to have a guys night out once a month and for the camaraderie behind it.  The buyin is not huge and payout scale is flatter than most.  This league was not created as an opportunity for a few to get rich, but for a night of hanging out with friends playing a great game.  My interpretation is that of the old time "bridge nights" many of our parents played.  Well after 7 years, it always came down to the same thing, many would bust out early after the rebuy period ended and you wouldn't have the time to spend with those guys.  Then near the end of the final table, the blinds just naturally became so high that it no longer resembled poker, but more of who got lucky at the end of that particular night.  They discussed this as a group and came up with the below together in order to come up with a game that almost everyone could make it through the whole night, but without the real life "swings" that can be typical for a regular cash game.  I am sure many here will find faults with it, but it works for them and they had a great time using it their 1st month.

New League Rules (Tourney/Cash Game Hybrid):

1. Set start and end time. The game starts at a designated time and has a hard stop at a designated time. I just set a timer for 6 hours. Players can take a break whenever they want, but the timer is never paused. When the timer goes off, the game is over.

2. Buy-in. Our buy-in is a set dollar amount, with a portion going to the monthly pot and a portion going to the year-end pot. Similar to a standard tournament, the chips players receive for their starting chip stack are not equal to their buy-in. This allows us to play with deep stacks, while keeping it affordable for everyone. For us, it’s more about the camaraderie and competition and less about the money.

3. Starting chip stack. Everyone starts with the same chip stack (no carry-over from previous month). Our starting chip stack is 100 times the big blind.

4. Blinds. Big Blind starts out at 1% of starting stack.  The blinds double after 3 hours and then increase by another 50% 1.5 hours after that. Ending blind is still only 3% of starting stack.  This gives us the consistency of typical cash game blinds, with two small increases in the last half to encourage action. The main benefit is to eliminate the part of the game where the blinds are extremely large and the game becomes an all-in fest. In my opinion, increasing the blinds (tournament style) shifts the skill/luck balance toward luck. Again in my opinion, this blind structure will reduce some of the luck required to win and increase the skill required.

5. Re-buys. Players must be out of chips to re-buy. Players receive the same amount as the starting chip stack for their re-buy. The player will also have that amount deducted from his chip total at the end of the game for each re-buy. This allows players to play as long as they want, like a cash-game. But it also does not give them any advantage because the additional chips they bought will be deducted from their total at the end of the game.

6. Players must stay until the end. You cannot double up and leave. Our league is about hanging out and playing cards with friends. I acknowledge that the correct cash game strategy may be to walk away after building up a big chip stack, but this is a hybrid structure. Yes, you can fold for the rest of the night, but then this league is not for you. Exceptions are made for emergencies and the player is blinded in for the rest of the game.

7. Re-draw for seats. At the half-way point, we re-draw for seats. This adds some randomness to the game by mixing up players with differing skills and chip stacks. It also adds variety socially.

8. Payouts based on ending chip count. The monthly payout is based on players’ chip count at the end of the game. The tie-breaker is number of re-buys. The top 6 chip stacks get paid (payouts similar to a tournament). I use percentages, since you never know how big the pot will be because of re-buys.

9. Standings based on chip count. Points in the standings will be based on each player’s end of game chip count. For example, if we have 20 players, the top chip count gets 20 points, the second biggest chip count gets 19 points, etc. I have compared this to the Dr. Neau point system. For us, the added precision was not worth the added complexity. Note that several players will be tied with 0 and several players will have negative points, since we deduct the amount of your re-buys from your ending chip stack. The year-end payout is based on players’ cumulative points for the year. I considered basing the standings on each month’s ending chip count. This would probably be the more accurate way to determine the best player at the end of the year, but it could create large separation in the standings and likely reduce attendance as the separation became too great. A successful league has to keep it competitive for all skill levels.

10.Drop lowest score. We allow players to drop their lowest score. This allows players to miss one of the 12 games with no penalty. You could increase this to 2 or 3, but we have good attendance, so this works for us.

[Martini]

7. Re-draw for seats. At the half-way point, we re-draw for seats. This adds some randomness to the game by mixing up players with differing skills and chip stacks. It also adds variety socially.

This sounds like a reasonable idea for a social game especially since it's only monthly. Takes some extra time but if social is the focus then it sounds like a worthwhile trade off. They would probably be even better off though with assigning tables (but not seats) to ensure that everyone plays with everyone else over the course of the season if they really want to.

As for the point system, I would say that a non-linear system like Dr. Neau's would do more for keeping interest in the game since it will allow a 1st place finish to have a more marked effect on a poor performer and thus keep more interest in the league for those at the bottom of the leaderboard. That said, I think it is less bad of a choice for a cash game league compared to a standard tourney league.

[whipsawmike]

Coming to the conclusion that some point system to track league results other than net proceeds is the way to go for basically the same reasons Martini outlines.  But while I like Dr. Neau's formula for tournaments,, not sure it works here for cash.  Let's say we have 20 people, $300 buy in 1/2 cash game.  Top player nets $500, 2nd nets $480.  Using Dr. Neau's formula, 1st place nets 55 points (rounding) and 2nd place nets 45 or a 22% difference for only 4% cash difference.  If i am understanding the formula correctly, that sounds like too big of difference given profit difference.  Think it needs a less drastic schedule or perhaps something as simple as Sunder's point system. 

[Mac_09]

No, for a 20 person tourney with a $300 buy-in, 1st would get 38.73 pts and 2nd would get 25.82.  You don't have to use 300 as your buy-in variable.  If your buy-in is always the same, you could just plug in a lower buy-in amount in the formula to lessen the gaps.

Intrigued by the hybrid system Sunder posted.  May give it a try.

[whipsawmike]

Still, big difference in points for what may amount to small differences in profit.

[Martini]

Well if you are going to compare points to chip totals then tournaments are *way* off because everyone ends up with zero chips except for the 1st place guy.

If you are just going to make points related to winnings then why even use a point system? You can just use cash values. Why even have a league at that point? Why not just play cash games and not keep track? Just be award that keeping track of everyone's losses can scare away fish.

If I'm making a league, I want to use a point system that gives out points like Dr. Neau's system precisely because it doesn't reflect dollar values. I've given reasons earlier in the thread.