Dr Neau's Formula

[BCR_9er]

Code:

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

     where
     a = Number of Players
     b = Buy-in Amount
     c = Total Expense (Buy-in + Re-buy)
     d = Player Finish 

Why do you square root points? IMO, The points are too close together when you square root it. Is that why it favors the players who come more often? Or am I misunderstanding it?

Here is an example with 10 players $10 buy-in. (Am I using it wrong?)

Code:

1st-7.07
2nd-5.77
3rd-5
4th-4.47
5th-4.08
6th-3.77
7th-3.53
8th-3.33
9th-3.16
10th-3.01

Without squarerooting

Code:

1st-50
2nd-33.3
3rd-25
4th-20
5th-16.6
6th-14.2
7th-12.5
8th-11.1
9th-10
10th-9.09

[NLHEfanatic]

You are missing something.

The way I read it, you take the square root before you divide by (d+1).

Also, your example of 10 players with $10 buy-in is too small to get a true representation of the formula.

Using Your example:

1st - 5
2nd - 3.33
3rd - 2.5
4th - 2
5th - 1.67
6th - 1.43
7th - 1.25
8th - 1.11
9th - 1
10th - 0.91

[Junior]

Those numbers are only close together because the buy in number is lower.  We do a $30 buy in at ours and his formula works out well.  It's all the same once you look at the broad spectrum of scores.  Your first calculation you missed something.  If you take your second example, fanatics example and mine also and divide the 10th place # into the first place #, you'll find that they are all 18% of the first number. 

Code:

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

     where
     a = Number of Players
     b = Buy-in Amount
     c = Total Expense (Buy-in + Re-buy)
     d = Player Finish 

Why do you square root points? IMO, The points are too close together when you square root it. Is that why it favors the players who come more often? Or am I misunderstanding it?

Here is an example with 10 players $10 buy-in. (Am I using it wrong?)

Code:

1st-7.07
2nd-5.77
3rd-5
4th-4.47
5th-4.08
6th-3.77
7th-3.53
8th-3.33
9th-3.16
10th-3.01

Without squarerooting

Code:

1st-50
2nd-33.3
3rd-25
4th-20
5th-16.6
6th-14.2
7th-12.5
8th-11.1
9th-10
10th-9.09

Your listing doesn't show any re-buys either and you won't know what that value is until you host the tourney.  If there are no re-buys like my tourneys it would look like this....

SQRT 1000 ( (that's 10 pl. x $10 buy in) x ( $10 value (assuming no re-buys))

sqrt 1000= 31.62 / position + 1

1. 15.81
2. 10.54
3. 7.91
4. 6.32
5. 5.27
6. 4.52
7. 3.95
8. 3.51
9. 3.16
10. 2.87

In any of these three examples, the spread is the same when finalized.   

[Dr. Neau]

NLHEnut is correct...BC had the formula slightly wrong.  There's actually a calculator here: http://home.comcast.net/~twincitiesunderground/

The reason for the square root becomes more obvious when you expand beyond the scope of one tournament and compare a 20-player tournament to a 10-player tournament.

Without the square root, the winner of the 20-player tournament gets nearly twice as many points as the winner of the 10-player tournament...and that ain't right.

[Jaxen]

so if I have the parenthesis sorted out right the correct formula is ...

square root of  [    (a * b) * (b / c)


divided by


d + 1


tell me if I'm wrong, because at first I thought it was

(a * b) * (b * c)
divided by
d + 1
then take the square root of the whole thing

[Junior]

you don't sqrt the whole thing.  The sqrt is inside the parenthesis before the divide.  You total your (a*b)*(b*c) and then sqrt that, then divide by placement + 1.

[Dr. Neau]

you don't sqrt the whole thing.  The sqrt is inside the parenthesis before the divide.  You total your (a*b)*(b*c) and then sqrt that, then divide by placement + 1.

Correct.

[BCR_9er]

so if I have the parenthesis sorted out right the correct formula is ...

square root of  [    (a * b) * (b / c)


divided by


d + 1


tell me if I'm wrong, because at first I thought it was

(a * b) * (b * c)
divided by
d + 1
then take the square root of the whole thing

That's What I thought. I think this because the sqaureroot is in the outside parethesis. And there are two parenthesis at the end of the formula and one before the square root. I know how it goes now, but I don't know why it goes that way. So Dr. Neau, will you show me how the parenthesis are suppose to go (Do a different color of font for the matching parenthesis). Thanks in Advance.

[austin5string]

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

[BCR_9er]

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

But why would there be two sets of parethesis before you square it? The blue and red parethesis are both the same. Wouldn't it be pointless to have both?

[Jaxen]

Good enough for me. We may incorporate a version of this.

[austin5string]

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

But why would there be two sets of parethesis before you square it? The blue and red parethesis are both the same. Wouldn't it be pointless to have both?

Yep, it would.  I wasn't paying much attention to that.  Just matchin' 'em up.  But you're correct. 

[BCR_9er]

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

But why would there be two sets of parethesis before you square it? The blue and red parethesis are both the same. Wouldn't it be pointless to have both?

Yep, it would.  I wasn't paying much attention to that.  Just matchin' 'em up.  But you're correct. 

And I just realized, that there were 2 parenthesis at the end.

[austin5string]

And I just realized, that there were 2 parenthesis at the end.

I changed it slightly from the original, actually.

Try this one   (SQRT( (a*b)/(b/c)) ) / (d+1)

You could also use    b*(SQRT(a/c))/(d+1)

Or you could just use the calculator on DrNeau's site.. lol

[Dr. Neau]

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

But why would there be two sets of parethesis before you square it? The blue and red parethesis are both the same. Wouldn't it be pointless to have both?

The formula was auto-generated by my program.  Pointless, yes.

[Yankee]

I've only got one mathmatics degree from MIT so you are going to have to explain that to me again

[Wedge Rock]

Head up the block and get your law degree from Hahvard...  then start playing black jack...

[Trips]

Those numbers are only close together because the buy in number is lower.  We do a $30 buy in at ours and his formula works out well.  It's all the same once you look at the broad spectrum of scores.  Your first calculation you missed something.  If you take your second example, fanatics example and mine also and divide the 10th place # into the first place #, you'll find that they are all 18% of the first number. 

Code:

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

     where
     a = Number of Players
     b = Buy-in Amount
     c = Total Expense (Buy-in + Re-buy)
     d = Player Finish 

Why do you square root points? IMO, The points are too close together when you square root it. Is that why it favors the players who come more often? Or am I misunderstanding it?

Here is an example with 10 players $10 buy-in. (Am I using it wrong?)

Code:

1st-7.07
2nd-5.77
3rd-5
4th-4.47
5th-4.08
6th-3.77
7th-3.53
8th-3.33
9th-3.16
10th-3.01

Without squarerooting

Code:

1st-50
2nd-33.3
3rd-25
4th-20
5th-16.6
6th-14.2
7th-12.5
8th-11.1
9th-10
10th-9.09

Your listing doesn't show any re-buys either and you won't know what that value is until you host the tourney.  If there are no re-buys like my tourneys it would look like this....

SQRT 1000 ( (that's 10 pl. x $10 buy in) x ( $10 value (assuming no re-buys))

sqrt 1000= 31.62 / position + 1

1. 15.81
2. 10.54
3. 7.91
4. 6.32
5. 5.27
6. 4.52
7. 3.95
8. 3.51
9. 3.16
10. 2.87

In any of these three examples, the spread is the same when finalized.   

MIT or Harvard or John Tyler Community College 10x10 =100 not 1000

The numbers are wrong

[austin5string]

Those numbers are only close together because the buy in number is lower.  We do a $30 buy in at ours and his formula works out well.  It's all the same once you look at the broad spectrum of scores.  Your first calculation you missed something.  If you take your second example, fanatics example and mine also and divide the 10th place # into the first place #, you'll find that they are all 18% of the first number. 

Code:

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

     where
     a = Number of Players
     b = Buy-in Amount
     c = Total Expense (Buy-in + Re-buy)
     d = Player Finish 

Why do you square root points? IMO, The points are too close together when you square root it. Is that why it favors the players who come more often? Or am I misunderstanding it?

Here is an example with 10 players $10 buy-in. (Am I using it wrong?)

Code:

1st-7.07
2nd-5.77
3rd-5
4th-4.47
5th-4.08
6th-3.77
7th-3.53
8th-3.33
9th-3.16
10th-3.01

Without squarerooting

Code:

1st-50
2nd-33.3
3rd-25
4th-20
5th-16.6
6th-14.2
7th-12.5
8th-11.1
9th-10
10th-9.09

Your listing doesn't show any re-buys either and you won't know what that value is until you host the tourney.  If there are no re-buys like my tourneys it would look like this....

SQRT 1000 ( (that's 10 pl. x $10 buy in) x ( $10 value (assuming no re-buys))

sqrt 1000= 31.62 / position + 1

1. 15.81
2. 10.54
3. 7.91
4. 6.32
5. 5.27
6. 4.52
7. 3.95
8. 3.51
9. 3.16
10. 2.87

In any of these three examples, the spread is the same when finalized.   

MIT or Harvard or John Tyler Community College 10x10 =100 not 1000

The numbers are wrong

Except it's 10x10x10, which is 1000.

[Junior]

Thank you A5s.  Someone didn't put their glasses on before reading the thread! lol

[Martini]

OK, my spreadsheet doesn't support colored parentheses. Can I still use the formulas?

Actually, this is all good stuff. It's coming time to implement a multi-week point structure for a couple of the games I run.

[halfnelsen]

My 8th grade math teacher would be so proud that I recalled his math operations saying Please Pet My Dogs And Sharks. Parentheses Powers Multiplication Division Addition Subtraction. I know its stupid but I think of it everytime I see a long spreadsheet formula like that.

[Martini]

I never heard of the Please Pet My Dogs And Sharks one before. It's unfortunate that the mnemonic has two items that start with the same letter though I guess it doesn't make a difference in the end.

[Trips]

How can it be 10x10x10 when the last 10 is really a one. Ie buy in divided by buy in plus rebuy  10/10 = 1 that makes it 100. My glasses fit fine.  Although yours may need some adjustment.

[bgriego]

 

[Junior]

How can it be 10x10x10 when the last 10 is really a one. Ie buy in divided by buy in plus rebuy  10/10 = 1 that makes it 100. My glasses fit fine.  Although yours may need some adjustment.

I see what you're trying to say Trips.  Where you're messing it up though is here where the (b / c) comes in......

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

     where
     a = Number of Players
     b = Buy-in Amount
     c = Total Expense (Buy-in + Re-buy)
     d = Player Finish

The forumla i calculated for him was assuming there are NO rebuys, therefore your total expense is just $10 and there would be no / c !  There........confusion solved.  

[Trips]

SAY WHAT???

c= buy in + rebuys

There fore there must be a C equal to the buy in, and anything divided by itself is 1 not 10.

Call me crazy if you want but that is the way it is.

[bgriego]

The forumla i calculated for him was assuming there are NO rebuys, therefore your total expense is just $10 and there would be no / c !   

Isn't the Total expense (C) Buy-in + Re-buy which would be 10?

Total Expense = C = Buy-in (10) + Re-buy (0)
Total Expense = C = 10

So A=10, B=10, and C=10

(a * b) * (b / c)

(10*10) * (10/10)
(100) * (1)
100

Is this right or am I missing something?

[Junior]

i'm done.

[Trips]

Well done. 

[Addicted]

I had this same conversation on Dr. Neau's forums.  There, we confirmed that the denominator is not within the square root calculation.  I've been using the formula for the last few months in my league and it really works well.  The best players are rising to the top of the standings while the steady players who normally finish in the middle tier are within striking distance of the top.  With a top finish, they will move close to the top. This has made for some fun moments as players try to knock out the players who are close to them in the standings.

The formula works really well if:

(1) You want to reward the top players who go very deep in tourneys.  This is because the denominator functions to to give more marginal points to the top two or three players who go deep in the tourney.

(2) You use re-buys or add-ons in your tourney and want to reward players who don't purchase a ton of re-buys and add-ons.  (Note:  If you don't use rebuys or add-ons, just get rid of the b/c portion of the formula).

(3) You don't want to over-penalize players who have real jobs or kids that force them to miss a poker night once in a while.  This is because the formula doesn't award a ton of points for the middle and bottom finishers.  Therefore, if you miss a night, you didn't do that much worse than a player who finishes in the middle tier.

Much thanks to the good doctor for publishing the formula.  It's really helped my league.

[Junior]

Well done. 

Thank you.

[Dr. Neau]

Back when I was a SysAdmin, we had FrameMaker...I remember FrameMaker had the ability to create equations in a very readable manner (as you'd see in a math book...rather than what you see in Excel).

Is there a similar add in for Word that I could use, or am I just better off scribbling on a piece of paper, scanning it and posting an image of the scan?

[Trips]

Dr. Neau I like the formula, I plan on using it. I think we have worked out the "()" bit and the definitions of the variables. We just had some of the numbers wrong in the examples.

[Trips]

Well done. 

Thank you.

You like being cooked to a crisp??

[Dr. Neau]

This should help: