Those breastfeeding books aren't for guys *******.
Hey Poker Players, Let's Start A Poker League!
- Thread starter Gameface
- Start date
Those breastfeeding books aren't for guys *******.
You're such a woman.
Maybe because of the *** raping I gave you this last time? Just a guess.
So, would having a league make it less likely for you to want to play from time to time? Essentially there would be no difference in what you would have to do, etc.
There isn't going to be a registration process or any need to sign up for anything. Any and all players who play will effectively be "in the league" but again, it requires no action and is not an obligation to play in future games.
If the existence of a league discourages people from participating then I'll have to reconsider the idea.
Don't reconsider strictly based on the fact that Archibald doesn't get it. Just come play, but know that if you win it all, a small portion of that goes into a side pot for the end of the year tourney. But we all know that AM isn't going to win jack ****, so why does it matter?
Just agree and stop being a pain.
I've already talked to a few friends and I have at least +1 for this venture.
Just agree and stop being a pain.
I've already talked to a few friends and I have at least +1 for this venture.
And if you do take 1st in any league game you'll be in good position to get to the championship game with only a couple more decent finishes.
Sweet on possibly finding more players.
I do have some reservations on the whole point system though. I see that if the last tourney would've been set up like this, I would've walked away with 3.33 points for a 5th place finish, while four places higher gets 10. But the first guy that busts gets almost a full point. There just seems a little bit of a screw job for the guy who gets all the way to the final table to get a few points more than the loser who busted first. I guess what I'm saying is I think the top 5 to 10 ought to get a few more points, while the bottom 5-10 should get less.
So if I am understanding this correctly, basically you're best 7 scores count towards the championship game? Am I allowed to find additional players? My dad has come to a couple games and he might be interested. Plus I've got one other friend who'd probably want to come.
BluesRocker
Banned
Im going to be there is my wrestling outfit. Im not bluffing either
I hear you. I can't link to the discussion on the point system that led me to look at Dr. Neau's formula, but the argument in favor is that it is much harder to win a tournaement than it is to finish in the top 5 (no offense, lol) so the point distribution reflects that.
With this point sytem a couple top 3 finishes combined with decent finishes in a few other games will probably cement your place in the final game. With a more linear point system someone who shows up every game and finishes 12th every time will have a good shot at getting into the final game over someone who got 1st twice and busted out first every other time.
The method I used many years ago was 1st out gets 1 point, 2nd out gets 2 points, etc. Then 1st place got 5 additional points, 2nd 3 and 3rd 1.
The current point system is not set in stone, but let me get you a link to discussion on the subject by Dr. Neau himself...once I'm off work.
As far as the buy-in. I'd like to keep things as close to what they've been as possible. So, I'd like to either go with a $20+5 where $20 goes to the prize pool for the current game and the additional $5 goes to final game; or a $15+5 because that will keep the buy-in at $20, but the prize pool will be kind of small. I also wouldn't mind a $20+10 or $25+5.
Personally I'm open to a pretty wide range of buy-ins and portions that are withheld, so I'm trying to work with what we've been doing to keep the players that have been showing up already. If people want to buy-in for a little more it wouldn't bother me, but I don't want the buy-in to prohibit people from playing just to get out and have fun for a night.
Just to project things out, if we have exactly 10 or exactly 20 players every game and the withheld amount is $5/per and there are 10 games we'd have:
10 players / 20 players
500 / 1000
We'll assume if $5 is the amount withheld our number will fall somewhere between those two numbers.
That amount will be divided up for the final table and I'd like for every person at the final table to win something.
Buy-in amount and portion withheld is my biggest concern as it's hard for me to know what other people's comfort level is. I'd really like any feedback (here or via PM) anyone has on this issue.
Personally I'm open to a pretty wide range of buy-ins and portions that are withheld, so I'm trying to work with what we've been doing to keep the players that have been showing up already. If people want to buy-in for a little more it wouldn't bother me, but I don't want the buy-in to prohibit people from playing just to get out and have fun for a night.
Just to project things out, if we have exactly 10 or exactly 20 players every game and the withheld amount is $5/per and there are 10 games we'd have:
10 players / 20 players
500 / 1000
We'll assume if $5 is the amount withheld our number will fall somewhere between those two numbers.
That amount will be divided up for the final table and I'd like for every person at the final table to win something.
Buy-in amount and portion withheld is my biggest concern as it's hard for me to know what other people's comfort level is. I'd really like any feedback (here or via PM) anyone has on this issue.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's what I'm going with for now. I want to allow a good number of dropped games so that missing a tournament here and there doesn't sink your chances of making it to the final game and lets everyone count their best games towards their final score.
You are allowed and encouraged to find additional players. You dad is always welcome!
People can play if they want to participate in the league or not. Guests will be allowed. But because I will be withholding a portion of all buy-ins anyone who plays will be considered to be "in the league." I don't know if it has the legal distinction I'm going for, but I will never take a rake or fee or any form of compensation for hosting, nor give myself any "house advantage" over my guests (such as not paying the same buy-in as everyone else). That would put my game in a different legal category that I don't want. If I took a portion of the prize pool form players who were prohibited from qualifying for the final game it might be interpreted as a rake or some form of house advantage. I hope that makes sense.
Last edited by a moderator:
We don't need to be locked in to one buy-in and/or one type of tournament, either. We could mix it up with a rebuy tournament or a bounty tournament.
Long post, sorry.
1. Archie's concern: Dropping 3 games should help a lot. 7 games in 9 months isn't bad, and, if you win one you could most likely miss an extra game, easily.
2. Trout's concern: My tournament game focuses on making the final table but not winning. The progressive nature of this system helps aleviate safety playes like me. It is a tournament after all, and winning 1st should be the goal theoretically. An adjustment may be necessary but I think you'll find a guy who can easily average 5th or so might not deserve a championship spot like the guy who tries to win every game. This also provides a nice cushion to a player who has a bad run losing to two outers and such.
Also, you could have skated into the money by picking spots instead of playing every hand. You played to win and would have earned some points for doing so. Another option is awarding points for ranked finishes only.
3. I'm pretty sure I could get at least two others to sign on to a league even if I don't throw my hat into the ring.
4. I wouldn't mind seeing variations in the buy-in amount even though I'm a cheapskate. It would keep the bigger games in demand and the smaller ones as well as members would need to make up for a bad place in the biggie.
5. This will provide nice added money (FREE) to members of the league paid by those not in.
6. I trust Gameface with the money, points, everything, but I think hammering out details and things like informing non-members of the withheld money is crucial as others may end up having problems with it. It is important everyone knows exactly what their buy-in does.
1. Archie's concern: Dropping 3 games should help a lot. 7 games in 9 months isn't bad, and, if you win one you could most likely miss an extra game, easily.
2. Trout's concern: My tournament game focuses on making the final table but not winning. The progressive nature of this system helps aleviate safety playes like me. It is a tournament after all, and winning 1st should be the goal theoretically. An adjustment may be necessary but I think you'll find a guy who can easily average 5th or so might not deserve a championship spot like the guy who tries to win every game. This also provides a nice cushion to a player who has a bad run losing to two outers and such.
Also, you could have skated into the money by picking spots instead of playing every hand. You played to win and would have earned some points for doing so. Another option is awarding points for ranked finishes only.
3. I'm pretty sure I could get at least two others to sign on to a league even if I don't throw my hat into the ring.
4. I wouldn't mind seeing variations in the buy-in amount even though I'm a cheapskate. It would keep the bigger games in demand and the smaller ones as well as members would need to make up for a bad place in the biggie.
5. This will provide nice added money (FREE) to members of the league paid by those not in.
6. I trust Gameface with the money, points, everything, but I think hammering out details and things like informing non-members of the withheld money is crucial as others may end up having problems with it. It is important everyone knows exactly what their buy-in does.
franklin, thanks for the feedback. It is greatly appreciated.
The points breakdown is very similar to many prize breakdowns. They are heavily weighted towards the top. This points system awards points to every player, though and they start to get spread a little thin towards the bottom. But 5th place getting 33% as many points as first and over 3x what the 20th place finish gets sounds about right to me.
I think a consistent player who doesn't get into the top spots very often as well as a risk taking player who often busts early and sometimes wins both deserve a spot at the final table, and I think both types of players could make it.
That would be awesome.
I was thinking a late season bigger game would be an opportunity for people to move up in the standings.
Don't forget, everyone who plays is "in the league." But yes, for those who make the final table all the money paid in by those who did not make the final table is free money. In a sense it is no different than it is once someone is eliminated from a tournament, the money they paid in will now be going to someone else based on performance in the game.
I agree. I will never hide the fact that money is withheld. In order to RSVP players will have to acknowledge that they understand what is being done with their buy-in. There will be a league binder with as much info as I can think to put in it, and that will probably never be read (when I was a child I aspired to grow up and write instruction manuals). The books will be open.
I don't have a grand plan for keeping the money safe. Anyone knowledgeable in such matters I would appreciate your advice.
I hope so. Without casual players filling in spots the games themselves will suffer. Besides, if a casual player sees their name towards the top of the standings their competitive instincts might just take over.
The points breakdown is very similar to many prize breakdowns. They are heavily weighted towards the top. This points system awards points to every player, though and they start to get spread a little thin towards the bottom. But 5th place getting 33% as many points as first and over 3x what the 20th place finish gets sounds about right to me.
I think a consistent player who doesn't get into the top spots very often as well as a risk taking player who often busts early and sometimes wins both deserve a spot at the final table, and I think both types of players could make it.
That would be awesome.
I was thinking a late season bigger game would be an opportunity for people to move up in the standings.
Don't forget, everyone who plays is "in the league." But yes, for those who make the final table all the money paid in by those who did not make the final table is free money. In a sense it is no different than it is once someone is eliminated from a tournament, the money they paid in will now be going to someone else based on performance in the game.
I agree. I will never hide the fact that money is withheld. In order to RSVP players will have to acknowledge that they understand what is being done with their buy-in. There will be a league binder with as much info as I can think to put in it, and that will probably never be read (when I was a child I aspired to grow up and write instruction manuals). The books will be open.
I don't have a grand plan for keeping the money safe. Anyone knowledgeable in such matters I would appreciate your advice.
I don't know if this discussion will be interesting to anyone, but this Dr. Neau posts on that site regularly, so one could ask him a question.
https://forums.homepokertourney.com/index.php/topic,16576.0.html
https://forums.homepokertourney.com/index.php/topic,16576.0.html
Not sure what you mean here. Are you talking about the money left from each game that doesn't get paid out? If so, if you have a strong box or safe in the house, that should work. If not, short of putting it in a bank, I got nothing.