The time has come for me to dismount my Clydesdale and weigh in on BBT scoring.
Under Current Scoring System, bragging rights are mine and mine alone. I figured out how to exploit the scoring system, then published my-bbt-guidelines for all to see. I am pretty sure I scored the most points in BBT from date of publication of guidelines to the end of BBT. I am also quite sure that as late as June 10 I was a slight money loser in BBT events. As I told Columbo at MGM during WPBT I have to play every event because OOSSUUU was playing every event.
Scoring system clearly favored a patient style because it is really trivial to only play premium hands to get into top half of a blogger tournament. I am also quite accustomed to playing with a smaller stack so don't generally worry about being short as long as I have enough chips to get blinds to fold. I also think those of us on West Coast have a natural advantage during end game as we are fresher (at least those of us with normal workday jobs). Playing Riverchaser's was more of a challenge but fortunately my work does not block poker sites.
The longer we wait to have a BBTwo the longer my reign as BBT Champion continues, waiting a while before next one seems prudent. My bankroll benefitted from BBT so starting next one soon is also good.
I think a freeroll at end of series that everyone who meets a threshold for events played is good, it did encourage participation as Riverchaser's, Mookie and Big Game all saw record number's of entrants during BBT.
Tournament of Champions is also an interesting idea and does seem like a more fitting way to end the series.
It did seem silly that the scoring system for BBT had a ~30 point step for making top half of field but only 5-8 point premium for cashing vs. cash bubble. Poker is always scored in money (or rare exceptions clothing). Only problem I see with going with pure money is that looking back at past series 14 people cashed in the 3 Big Games, 11 of them made the Top 14 on Profitability chart. There is a legitimate argument to saying that winning Big Game is tougher due to "tougher fields" but having 3 tournament results dominate a 39 tournament series is introducing a lot of variance. It would take winning Mookie 5 times to offset one Big Game victory and I would contend 5 Mookie Victories in 13 attempts would have been a much more impressive feat.
Would therefore propose that if a scoring system based on money was introduced some scaling would be in order. Numbers are not intended to be firm but say Mookie/1, Riverchasers/1, RC Horse/2, MATH/2 and Big Game/(3-5) would reduce some of the Big Games impact while still valuing the higher buy-in victory more. Can sympathize with those whose situations don't allow them to play poker online as much as I do, I suppose a best "X" number of events could be used for scoring or average once a threshold is made. Obvious solution to be allowed to play in more events is for each of you to win a fine Poker trip for family. Two weeks in Australia can do wonders for a families tolerance, I would guess a week in Aruba would have similar impact.
Mookie, Hoy & Al did a fine job bringing the BBT to our little community, now stop bitching, the prizes were FREE, a bonus, out of FullTilt and PokerOnaMac pockets!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Bayne, I think you are on to something. A TOC along with the freeroll would've allowed profitable players (TOC) and steady players (freeroll), individual prizes.
As per my post, you said that you and Hoy don't fit into any of my three categories. That's because you were in the elite Winner subcategory, players who were profitable and placed high on the leaderboard. Braggard!
Why not a money scoring system that pays [x] for [x] place finished. Possibly weighted for number of entries since in theory surviving 100 people is harder than 30..
So only points for finishing. But fixed points not based on the amount of money you won possibly weighted by how many entrants.
Can I still get poker lessons at the going rate when I initially asked? Before your reign of terror began?
I like the idea of obtaining the ending point totals from a fixed number of events. Much like Pokerstars does their weekly points challenge--I believe only your top ten points totals are tallied for the weekly event.
If we make this a rule, I believe the players who have twenty "in the money" finishes--but who rarely ever cash, will be appropriately valued.
And I don't necessarily like the weighing system, because in all honesty, I think the increased money is enough of an incentive without any extra weight in the BBT tally. Some of us with slim-at-best bankrolls, just can't afford the Big Game, and can't always obtain a token to play. We probably shouldn't be punished further (a weighted system) for not being able to play in those Big Games.
And, I'm sure if you asked the winners of the Big Game if they would take a multiplier to their BBT points, or the cold hard cash from winning the Big Game, I think they'd all give the same answer. As to whether it is a harder field... it seems like a lot of the same players to me? And I'd definitely agree that 5x Mookie wins should be much valued much higher than one Big Game win.
MHG,
I think you missed point entirely on weighting Big Game. I was proposing a divider to lessen the impact.
I reread my post on your blog, Bayne, and I can see how you thought I misinterpreted the point you are making. Actually, I understood your point, and was agreeing with it... albeit in an impossible way to understand. I was agreeing with you, and trying to show that those who think the Big Game and MATH deserve more BBT points, should just be happy with the extra money--and I'm sure many are.
I'm also sure there are a few bloggers who don't think it is fair for those who play the most events to have such a higher chance of winning the BBT. That doesn't prove that you are any good at poker, it proves that you have a lot of time on your hands--and also understand how the points system works.
Will you trade poker lessons for baloney sandwiches? Just kidding, I was pretty much just joking around about the lessons, and trying to point out that I knew how good you were before "the second coming" occurred.
Post a Comment