Any ideas on ranking players?

[ShannonRyu]

I am trying to figure out how to run a ‘league’ with about 30+ regular players. We play weekly, usually 14-18 players each time, NLH tourneys (sometimes with rebuys, sometimes without) and I want to be able to rank players based on finishes but I want to consider factors in the ranking like;
1) the buy in (sometimes it varies, and higher ones resulting better play)
2) number of players (more players in the game = harder to win)
3) awarding credit beyond the payouts (we pay top 25%)

I don’t know if it ok to give points for just showing up. We have some regulars… that suck. Should they be rewarded for attendance? I have tried various methods, each with its downfalls, so I figured maybe there was a common or ‘fair’ way to rank them. I use MS Excel to track everything.

Every month or so we like to have a ‘Champions Tournament’, so an accurate and fair ranking system would be nice. The ranking would be nice so we could have a cut off for eligibility, or even starting chip bonuses for the final tournament. We kick in extra cash at every event to build the pot for the championship night too.

One of the players (unfortunate the smartest, most liquored up guy I’ve ever met) keeps telling me to use Logarithms… and I am not wanting to re-live that chapter of my 10 year old college calculus text book. Any other ideas?
Thanks.

[psandman]

It seems to me the best way to rank players is simply by money won. It accounts for both the buy-in and the number of players. It doesn't account for finishs outside of the money, but really what is the point of ranking players differently for for finsihing 15th or 16th?

[ShannonRyu]

I've tried that method, which even transferes into the post tournament Cash Game also, however, in a 16 player tourney we pay 4 places, and we require credit to be given to the 5th place finisher... even 6th, 7th, 8th. It is designed to track and reward over the long term, and making the final table but failing to cash matters little in most cases, but I'm trying to find a reward system for consistant players... if that makes any sense.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
but I'm trying to find a reward system for consistant players... if that makes any sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

for what it's worth, here's my tourney system:

POINTS<font color="white"> </font>Tourneys of 4 or less get 10 points, +10 1st place
10<font color="white"> </font> Bottom 1/2 of non-cash
15<font color="white"> </font> Top 1/2 of non-cash
plus 5<font color="white"> </font> Make final table (only +2 if 2 tables, 0 if one) Bubble+2
25<font color="white"> </font> Cash place prize winners (4th +3 if 5+ places paid)
35<font color="white"> </font> 3rd (-10 for 3 places paid, -18 if 2 paid)
45<font color="white"> </font> 2nd (-10 for 3 places paid, -20 if 2)
60<font color="white"> </font> 1st (-10 for 3 places paid, -20 if 2)

The accumulation of points adds up to a bigger chip stack, so it rewards players who come often.

[ShannonRyu]

Thats what we want to do; have 8-10 games, pool some money, then play for it in a TOC with starting stacks depending on prior performances, but not allow too much of a spread. For example, 30 players, bottom 10 start with 10K, middle 10 start with 15K, top 10 get 20K, maybe even the leader gets 30K.

[BusterFlush]

My weekly home game averages 14 players with two tables. $100 buy in with $50 rebuys.
$25 is withheld from each week for the year end points race and will be distributed to the top 3 in a 50%, 30%, 20% structure.
Points are distributed as follows:
1st 8 points
2nd 5 points
3rd 3 points
4th 1 point
No other points are awarded.
One of the players even places odds during the year on the winner and takes wagers based on the odds.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
and I want to be able to rank players based on finishes

[/ QUOTE ]

Most important question- WHY do you want to rank players? Your champ tourney doesn't seem to match a need for rankings.


[ QUOTE ]
1) the buy in (sometimes it varies, and higher ones resulting better play)

[/ QUOTE ]

"better" play according to whom? I think you should be careful about adding the snob factor to the group... ?

[ QUOTE ]
2) number of players (more players in the game = harder to win)

[/ QUOTE ]

I can see this and agree.. somewhat. But, there's extra reward for beating more players as well- do you want to double-reward people, in a sense?

[ QUOTE ]
3) awarding credit beyond the payouts (we pay top 25%)

I don’t know if it ok to give points for just showing up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a BIG fan of this, personally. It depends on the question at the top.

[ QUOTE ]
We have some regulars… that suck. Should they be rewarded for attendance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you like them to KEEP attending?


If you have a bimonthly TOC, why do anything but include the winners of the weekly tourneys (or, first and second)? What need does this have for rankings?


[ QUOTE ]
or even starting chip bonuses for the final tournament. We kick in extra cash at every event to build the pot for the championship night too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do something similar, though mine is year-long. However, it's not a TOC, so EVERYONE is eligible if they invest and play.

As far as the logarithms… gods forbid.