Champioship Rewards

[shadowspawn]

I have my own league with a points system. We get anywhere from 14-20 players each week.. At the end of the season I am going to give out a trophy or braclet to the player wth the most points and certificates to the other top 3 or so..  the buy in is $30 but we take an additional $5 for a championship tourney at the end of the season.. The players in the top point standings want extra chips for the final game as a reward for their good play.. I am oppsoed to this because I feel the good players dont need extra chips. They feel the point system is meaningless without some reward besides the trophy / braclet/ bragging rights (which is more than enough for me) ..  Going in to my next season I want to hash out a plan to reward players who do well in the standings but not give anyone an unfair advantage going in to the championship game.. Just cause some of the non-skilled players show up every week and donate their buy in money doesnt mean they should be punished for it.. any suggestions?

[The Shovel]

Not sure how your point structure works or your chip counts but, you could give $1 per point.  For example if all players start the championship game with 5k in chips and everyone gets $1 for every point earned throught the season the top point getter might have 6k in chips and the bottom guy $5200.  That way it is a reward but it is not drastic.  But it all depends on how you structure your points.

[BigBlind]

The way I have my league set up just the top four chip leaders get bonus chips.  The starting chips value is 1000 and I'll give out only 6000 bonus chips total.  Bonus chips distribution is determined by the percentage of points each chip leaders has compared to the total number of points for the 4 chip leaders.  Right now my chip leaders are looking to start the final game with 1585, 1560, 1470, and 1385.  Not a bad little bonus yet still in reach for all other players not getting the bonus chips.   

[Kyle Smith]

This is my first post and I am really impressed with this site.  I started a poker league 4 years ago and ran into the same problem of rewarding players who show up every time and do well versus  those who show up randomly.  I use a simple fomula of:  first is 18% of 10 times the number of players, second 16%, third 14%, 12%, 10%, 8%, 7%, 6%, 5%, 4%.  This rewards the players who win a 17 player tourny with more points than a player who wins a 12 player tourney.  Each player puts in a mandatory additional $10 each tourney.  After 10 tourneys the championship game is held.  First place gets 18% of the kitty plus their buy in and so on.  Only the top ten get to play in the champoinship game.  This does three things: first you reward the player who shows up every time and plays well,  you keep people interested the whole season and you allow the occasional player a chance to win big.  We play a $100 buy in plus $10, once a month and a season lasts one year.  In example, if you have a kitty of $1000 first place starts the game with $280 while tenth place starts the game wih $140.  Tenth place is not a suicide mission, it gives the player plenty of time to move up and allows him a chance to win around $1200.   This setup has made for very competitive seasons, and makes tenth place in a regular season tournament valueable because only the top ten inishers recieve points.  Please email  for word doc. explaining this system better.

[Martini]

I can't think of any other league where the championship gives an advantage to one person/team over another. The NFL does not give the team with a better record more points in the Super Bowl. NASCAR doesn't give the points leader a head start in a race. Kentucky Derby doesn't let any horses out of the gates early. etc.

Personally I think it makes a lot of sense that the players at the top of the standings at the end of the season get rewarded with cash/prizes but that the final championship game starts everyone with even stacks.

That said, everyone should set up their league the way they want but they should make darn sure that everyone knows the ground rules before buying in.

[Dr. Neau]

I can't think of any other league where the championship gives an advantage to one person/team over another. The NFL does not give the team with a better record more points in the Super Bowl. NASCAR doesn't give the points leader a head start in a race. Kentucky Derby doesn't let any horses out of the gates early. etc.

In pro sports, the team with the better record gets home field advantage.

In pro football, you might even get a bye in the first round.  In the early 80's, pro basketball gave a bye in the first round...until they went to 16 teams.


That said, I agree that the poker championship should have all qualifiers start with equal stacks.

[BigBlind]

In Poker superstars format they reward higher point leaders with additional chips in the playoffs.  Is it right or wrong who knows.  All I am trying is keep the higher point leaders returning so they keep putting part of their money in the championship fund. 

[Dr. Neau]

In Poker superstars format they reward higher point leaders with additional chips in the playoffs.  Is it right or wrong who knows.  All I am trying is keep the higher point leaders returning so they keep putting part of their money in the championship fund. 

I really think you could accomplish the same goal and still have the same starting stacks for each player in the championship.

The fact that only the top 10 get to play in the championship should be enough reason to keep coming...otherwise they risk not getting in.

Just speaking from three years of experience doing it...



Now, regarding your point system.  I have two comments:

1) Multiplying the number of players by 10 is redundant.
2) I fear your point system is perhaps a bit too linear.  I'd recommend a system that's more exponential.  For instance, 1st gets 50% * # of players, 2nd gets 25% * of players, 3rd gets 15%, 4th gets 10%, 5th gets 7.5%, etc.  That puts a LOT more weight on doing better.

[Martini]

I can't think of any other league where the championship gives an advantage to one person/team over another. The NFL does not give the team with a better record more points in the Super Bowl. NASCAR doesn't give the points leader a head start in a race. Kentucky Derby doesn't let any horses out of the gates early. etc.

In pro sports, the team with the better record gets home field advantage.

In pro football, you might even get a bye in the first round.  In the early 80's, pro basketball gave a bye in the first round...until they went to 16 teams.


That said, I agree that the poker championship should have all qualifiers start with equal stacks.

Very good points, Dr. Neau. Though I think nothing quite compares to the clearly measurable advantage within a single competition of extra chips.

How about this for an idea of a compromise that is more subtle like a home field advantage, seating position based on seed.
* Every player at the championship table gets a card with their name on it (could add seed number too optionally) for seating a virtual table.
* Lowest seed just puts their card out on the table anywhere.
* Next higher seed can put their card to the left or right of lowest seed.
* Next higher seed can put their card to the left or right of anyone else, including in between two other players.
* Repeat until the highest seed picks who they want to sit to the left or right of.
* Top seed also gets their pick of seat at the physical table and all others must sit around him/her.
* You can also let top seed be Button for the first hand for further advantage.

The reason for doing it with cards first is to avoid everyone having to stand up and move around the table while players jockey for position. I think picking relative seat position rewards higher seeds without giving such obvious advantage as extra chips.

Self-threadjack: In the NFL, the championship game is at a neutral field. And in the NBA, I think the 2-3-2 format for the finals actually gives the home field advantage to the weaker team. If the series goes four games, weaker team gets last game at home. Five games, weaker team has played more home games. By a sixth game, the weaker team has played just as many home games as the stronger team. Only by the seventh game does the stronger team regain a numerical home court advantage for a final game of the series.

[PMJohnson9]

I can't think of any other league where the championship gives an advantage to one person/team over another. The NFL does not give the team with a better record more points in the Super Bowl. NASCAR doesn't give the points leader a head start in a race. Kentucky Derby doesn't let any horses out of the gates early. etc.

Personally I think it makes a lot of sense that the players at the top of the standings at the end of the season get rewarded with cash/prizes but that the final championship game starts everyone with even stacks.

That said, everyone should set up their league the way they want but they should make darn sure that everyone knows the ground rules before buying in.

I'll definitely be keeping on eye on this topic...

I had this very same thought a while back, although I am obviously not going to change the ground rules that have already been established for my league's championship.  Fortunately, this is just our first season and I think everyone involved will be willing to make adjustments for next season.

An idea I have thought about is to change from giving bonus chips based on points standings (as we are doing this season) to having everyone start with equal chip stacks, yet have a discounted buy-in based on order of finish.  For example, if we are setting the championship buy-in at $50, then everyone's buy-in would be adjusted from there - last place pays the $50, first place gets in for free and everyone else is somewhere in between.

Any thoughts on this idea?  Keep in mind that my group is only 12-15 strong and is comprised of a group of friends and friends-of-friends, so it's not like I'm trying to sell this idea to strangers.  It is also a low-budget league since none of us are independently wealthy yet!  Most of our tourneys are $20 buy-in with 25% going to the championship, so having a buy-in for the championship as well is just our way of making the pot that much more significant than any other tourney...

PMJ

[Dr. Neau]

I'll definitely be keeping on eye on this topic...

I had this very same thought a while back, although I am obviously not going to change the ground rules that have already been established for my league's championship.  Fortunately, this is just our first season and I think everyone involved will be willing to make adjustments for next season.

An idea I have thought about is to change from giving bonus chips based on points standings (as we are doing this season) to having everyone start with equal chip stacks, yet have a discounted buy-in based on order of finish.  For example, if we are setting the championship buy-in at $50, then everyone's buy-in would be adjusted from there - last place pays the $50, first place gets in for free and everyone else is somewhere in between.

Any thoughts on this idea?  Keep in mind that my group is only 12-15 strong and is comprised of a group of friends and friends-of-friends, so it's not like I'm trying to sell this idea to strangers.  It is also a low-budget league since none of us are independently wealthy yet!  Most of our tourneys are $20 buy-in with 25% going to the championship, so having a buy-in for the championship as well is just our way of making the pot that much more significant than any other tourney...

PMJ

Our championship is a freeroll.

[Martini]

Most of our tourneys are $20 buy-in with 25% going to the championship...

Wow. 25%? How long is a season? The championship game would seem to be much larger than a normal one at that rate. If you have that much money going in to the pot already, doesn't seem like you'd need to have anyone contribute any buy-in. Still, adjusting buy-ins seems like a reasonable compromise also. Point leaders get an advantage but not such an overt one as a larger starting stack. That idea is fairly similar to cash prizes at the end of the season assuming that everyone plays in the championship.

[BigBlind]

That is interesting concept with the buy in.  In my league the championship game is a freeroll as well.  However with the normal buy in being $20 why are you jacking up the championship game to $50?  The championship game should be much more significant just because of the skim alone.  In my 2nd season I plan on having just the top point leaders get a freeroll and charge everyone else except at the usual buy in.    

[Dr. Neau]

I think people tend to pay too little attention to this fact:  Poker players like to win.

I really don't think you need to jack-up or even have any entry fee for the championship.  Don't forget that in addition to the money, players are playing for bragging rights and the title.

Speaking from experience, I won our league championship last year.  I value that title and the little trophy a hell of a lot more than I do the $500 I got for winning.  I want respect!!!

Making it a freeroll is our way of rewarding the top players.  How about playing with nothing invested.  You've invested a lot all seaon long to get there...


Finally, regarding points.  I don't think you need to dink with buy-in amounts or starting stacks to get people to keep coming to the regular season tournaments.  Are you really afraid someone will get just enough points to qualify and then stop coming??  If they are that regular, they will keep coming.

Again...speaking from experience.  This seaon, we've had 9 tournaments (10th is next weekend).  43 different people have played.  4 of the top 6 players have played all 9.  The other two have played at least 7.

Another thing to consider.  If you put all of these "keep playing" incentives in place, you're essentially punishing anyone who doesn't start playing with tournament #1 and dis-incenting them to even play at all until next season.

[Kyle Smith]

Yes the 10 times the number of players is redundant.  It was added just to inflate the number of points, to make the totals higher.  Getting 32.5 points for winning a 18 player tourney just sounded better than 3 points.  I wasn't trying to discourage players from playing if they had missed the first few tournaments I just felt it wasn't fair to let a player who played in only one tournament and paid $10 towards the kitty to have an equal shot at the championship versus someone who had played all ten and put $100 in the kitty.  As far as discouraging players it hasn't been an issue as the payout for a regular tourney is enough that they play anyway after explaining what the extra $10 is for.  The relatively linear percentage scale was done intentionally to keep the points totals close and competitive. 

[Dr. Neau]

I just felt it wasn't fair to let a player who played in only one tournament and paid $10 towards the kitty to have an equal shot at the championship versus someone who had played all ten and put $100 in the kitty.

Another way around that is to give a minimum number of points out for each tournament.

For our tournaments, it works out that the first person out usually gets 1 point, while the winner gets around 17.

[PMJohnson9]

I'll definitely be keeping on eye on this topic...

I had this very same thought a while back, although I am obviously not going to change the ground rules that have already been established for my league's championship.  Fortunately, this is just our first season and I think everyone involved will be willing to make adjustments for next season.

An idea I have thought about is to change from giving bonus chips based on points standings (as we are doing this season) to having everyone start with equal chip stacks, yet have a discounted buy-in based on order of finish.  For example, if we are setting the championship buy-in at $50, then everyone's buy-in would be adjusted from there - last place pays the $50, first place gets in for free and everyone else is somewhere in between.

Any thoughts on this idea?  Keep in mind that my group is only 12-15 strong and is comprised of a group of friends and friends-of-friends, so it's not like I'm trying to sell this idea to strangers.  It is also a low-budget league since none of us are independently wealthy yet!  Most of our tourneys are $20 buy-in with 25% going to the championship, so having a buy-in for the championship as well is just our way of making the pot that much more significant than any other tourney...

PMJ

Our championship is a freeroll.

Yes, ours is a freeroll this year with the adjusted chip stacks.  I was just trying to think of an idea to still maintain advantages for the better season performers without making the championship tourney itself lopsided as I fear it will be when we have it in June.

Most of our tourneys are $20 buy-in with 25% going to the championship...

Wow. 25%? How long is a season? The championship game would seem to be much larger than a normal one at that rate. If you have that much money going in to the pot already, doesn't seem like you'd need to have anyone contribute any buy-in. Still, adjusting buy-ins seems like a reasonable compromise also. Point leaders get an advantage but not such an overt one as a larger starting stack. That idea is fairly similar to cash prizes at the end of the season assuming that everyone plays in the championship.

The plan for the 2nd season is for 12 events plus the championship.  My calculations would put the average tourney at about $225 for the kitty and yes, would make our championship over $1000 after any buy-ins for that event... around $900 without.

That is interesting concept with the buy in.  In my league the championship game is a freeroll as well.  However with the normal buy in being $20 why are you jacking up the championship game to $50?  The championship game should be much more significant just because of the skim alone.  In my 2nd season I plan on having just the top point leaders get a freeroll and charge everyone else except at the usual buy in.    

Your idea is also interesting.  I will have to bring up that one as well to the group.  Maybe freeroll for the top 9 or 10 (enough to fit a "final table"), and then have a buy-in for anyone finishing 11th or worse if they wish to participate.  Of course, in this instance I would definitely NOT stick with jacking up the amount to $50!

I thank everyone for their insights - like I said, I am trying to set up a league system that we can stick with and enjoy.  We got a late start this first season and as such I want to nail it down for the second and beyond.  I run a fantasy football league for a different group of friends (going on 13 years now!) and want the poker league to become as fun for this set of friends.  Thanks again and keep the good info flowing!!!

PMJ

[shadowspawn]

Thanks for the ideas guys.. Im definatley revamping things for next season.. This season Im sticking with everyone who contributed the extra 5$ per event (for 10 events)  being $50 toward their Buy in for one of the 2 championship games.. The Top 8 will half to kick in an extra 50 for the $100 buy in "Skill Players Event" and the remaining 10-15 players will have thier $50 buy in covered for what we are affectionately calling "The Donkey Open"  ..  Both are winner take all.. This season the $5 was optioinal but next season I think it will be mandatory or I will just just chop 10%-15% from the prize pool weekly.. That way they it comes from everyone and they dont really notice it..