Any ideas on ranking players?

[ShannonRyu]

[ QUOTE ]
If we have 40 players there, then 1st gets 40 pts, 2nd gets 39 pts, 3rd gets 38 pts... and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]I like rewarding the top 10, but I do not like giving the 2nd place finisher 1 point less then the winner. Heads up victories should count for more than 1 more point.

[crackerjack]

I agree on that... that's why I'm currently looking at options on reqarding money spots.
But this way HAS worked for me over the past 3 years. It's always the best players that make the tournament of champs in the end. Our only difference right now is that we give everyone who make the tournament of champs the same starting chips... 1st gets the same amount as 10th. Nobody currently wants to change it because its always the same top 3.

[ShannonRyu]

This is the model that I think I am going forward with, let me know what you think; top half of players receive points (round up) and the top finisher receives the number of points equal to the number of players plus 25% and each other player in the top half receives two less points per spot. Example:
Fifteen players
1st: 20
2nd: 14
3rd: 12
4th: 10
5th: 8
6th: 6
7th: 4
8th: 2

And I'm also looking at a multiplier for the buy in amount and a way to penalize rebuyers in the point standings. I'd be looking at 10 weeks with varying formats and costs too.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
and the top finisher receives the number of points equal to the number of players plus 25% and each other player in the top half receives two less points per spot. Example:
Fifteen players
1st: 20
2nd: 14
3rd: 12

[/ QUOTE ]

I must not understand your formula, because your example 1st place should get 19 points, 2nd 17 points, and so on.

I'll make one statement about giving out points based on each position below the top 3 and NOT giving points to the bottom: AK vs AQ get all of the chips in on the first hand of the tourney, when two Aces flop. River Queen makes the suckout winner big enough that he comes in 3rd.

.... and 0 points and 17 points is a fair assessment of the relative tourney skills of the two players?


[ QUOTE ]
And I'm also looking at a multiplier for the buy in amount and a way to penalize rebuyers in the point standings. I'd be looking at 10 weeks with varying formats and costs too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with the message that rating on bankrolls sends. And why do you penalize rebuys? It's HARDER to win a tourney from the rebuy spot, depending on stack sizes and blind levels....

Just because Timid Tim nits like a rock and squeezes into the money with a run of cards, that makes him a BETTER player than Tremendous Tina, who lost with the AK hand above and rebuys as a short stack, working her way back up?

Your structure may be all well and good for the "better" players who score points, but are you worried about the ego or about your game's survival?

[ShannonRyu]

All very good points. Thanks for them.
[ QUOTE ]
I must not understand your formula, because your example 1st place should get 19 points, 2nd 17 points, and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]The winner gets the 25% bonus, the 2nd place finisher does not, less 2 points.[ QUOTE ]
and 0 points and 17 points is a fair assessment of the relative tourney skills of the two players?

[/ QUOTE ]Over ten events I hope to get a fair assesment of skill. I understand your point. I typically either go out VERY early in a tournament or get 3rd or 1st (I don't lose heads up [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. [ QUOTE ]
I disagree with the message that rating on bankrolls sends.

[/ QUOTE ]A long running debate in our circle, but even those who feel the buyin does not dictate the level of play will, at the end of the night of a larger buy in tourney, comment on how much tougher the play is. The fact is, in our circle, when the stakes are raised the players step up their game, therefore I'd like to weight those events with more points.[ QUOTE ]
And why do you penalize rebuys? It's HARDER to win a tourney from the rebuy spot, depending on stack sizes and blind levels.

[/ QUOTE ]I can't argue with that. I now agree.

Thanks. Any other perspectives on ranking players?

Another dilemma faced is when a player, say after 6 events, is mathatmatically guaranteed to reach whatever level is needed, what incentive is there to play in the remaining events? I like to start out TOC with chip bonuses. Our last TOC had begining stacks that ranged from 10k to 35k (16k average) and the winner started with 13k.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
Another dilemma faced is when a player, say after 6 events, is mathatmatically guaranteed to reach whatever level is needed, what incentive is there to play in the remaining events? I like to start out TOC with chip bonuses. Our last TOC had begining stacks that ranged from 10k to 35k (16k average) and the winner started with 13k.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, it sounds as if you've answered your own question- give extra chips for each additional point.

[ShannonRyu]

BRILLIANT!!!