Tourney New incentive idea for my league games...feedback? (1 Viewer)

[HiveKueen]

Tourney Players and Managers,

I'm considering adding an incentive to my league games that rewards points for rebuilding a short stack back to average stack.

This idea fits really well into the league being all about competition, playing your best and improving your game (and having fun is the 4th priority).

Would getting extra points for rebuilding a short stack (defined as <= ??bb) incentivize you as a player?

If so, how should I define short stack?

Next question, would this incentivize you to try to keep the short stack from rebuilding (an unwanted side effect for sure)?

For implementation, at first blush I don't think TD would help me with this (it doesn't track individual stack sizes during the game,) which isn't a deterrent. I'm envisioning having a white board where when someone gets short stacked, their name goes up on the board and then a star added if the player rebuilds to average stack. I can envision more than one player accomplishing this in a game. Each player that does so would get 5-10 extra points, which in my league can make the difference between qualifying for the season championship and not.

I thought up this idea an hour before my game last night and, as it turned out, I became short stacked in the game and was able to rebuild to above average stack. Doing so is part art, part luck and part skill. I felt pretty good about the accomplishment but I could be just freaky enough that I'm the only one in poker land who would be motivated by this!

Feedback, thoughts?

PS - what interesting incentives to compete and improve do you offer in your league?

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

Personally I wouldn't like my name going up on a board when I don't have many chips, puts a bigger target on my back and its just something else for a tournament host to track.

"Hey Steve, I know you're below average stack but are you at XX blinds?" Last thing my apes want to do is let me know when they've got no chips, they're using all their brain power on string-betting, and acting offended when I ask them if they want to raise as the big blind.

Boom, nearing the end, blinds increase, and 4 of the 8 people left are below your XX blind threshold. Do you write them all up? When they double up, do they get a gold star?

Fine if done on an online format and does it all for me I guess, but for my game a chip and a chair will just be a good story. Congrats on the comeback.

 

[Machine]

I'm not really a tournament player, but I don't think its broke. The object isn't to get short stacked and then wait for to push (typically)

I think the bell curve would see people trying to improve. If you think short stack is a typical happenstance in your game, you may try adding time to the rounds and progress the blinds less. The cost is the length of the tournament. Even increasing the starting stack, people will become short stacked, it is the very nature of the game.

It seems as though you'd be enticing action. I make more points if I get low in chips, so I should call more to get low in chips then if I win I'll have a bigger lead!

It IS a zero sum game, meaning what you + to one aspect removes from another. By incentivizing short stack people you are in nature dis-incentivizing playing well from the start.

Maybe keep track of the person who has the greatest range of the season and offer a flat 5 points.

Jim was down to 25, and was able to make a comeback and place second with 30k in chips. Again this will be hard to track, let the players know and let them know you have to validate, so call out when they want to be on record.

 

[HiveKueen]

Personally I wouldn't like my name going up on a board when I don't have many chips, puts a bigger target on my back and its just something else for a tournament host to track.

"Hey Steve, I know you're below average stack but are you at XX blinds?" Last thing my apes want to do is let me know when they've got no chips, they're using all their brain power on string-betting, and acting offended when I ask them if they want to raise as the big blind.

Boom, nearing the end, blinds increase, and 4 of the 8 people left are below your XX blind threshold. Do you write them all up? When they double up, do they get a gold star?

Fine if done on an online format and does it all for me I guess, but for my game a chip and a chair will just be a good story. Congrats on the comeback.

I'm pretty sure that my players notice when a person gets short stacked, white board be damned.

No gold star, points. Tripling or quadrupling up is usually what is required to get to to average stack (which is a piece of info included on my TD game clock screen).

I'm taking away from this feedback that I need to allow people can opt out if they choose.

 

[HiveKueen]

I'm not really a tournament player, but I don't think its broke. The object isn't to get short stacked and then wait for to push (typically)

I think the bell curve would see people trying to improve. If you think short stack is a typical happenstance in your game, you may try adding time to the rounds and progress the blinds less. The cost is the length of the tournament. Even increasing the starting stack, people will become short stacked, it is the very nature of the game.

It seems as though you'd be enticing action. I make more points if I get low in chips, so I should call more to get low in chips then if I win I'll have a bigger lead!

It IS a zero sum game, meaning what you + to one aspect removes from another. By incentivizing short stack people you are in nature dis-incentivizing playing well from the start.

Maybe keep track of the person who has the greatest range of the season and offer a flat 5 points.

Jim was down to 25, and was able to make a comeback and place second with 30k in chips. Again this will be hard to track, let the players know and let them know you have to validate, so call out when they want to be on record.

This feedback is helpful. What it tells me is that I need to make sure that the points at stake for rebuilding from a short stack are not enough to incentivize purposefully getting short stacked.

So, if I set the incentive points just right, anyone who tried this one time would quickly learn that you screw yourself probability-wise - by purposely getting short stacked - relative to your chance of finishing one place higher if you simply play your best every hand (i.e. fold that gut shot on the turn!).

And now I'm thinking that the time frame for this incentive needs to be limited to from when re-buys end to Level X (tbd) to avoid the fact that everyone is short stacked after a certain point in the game.

Thanks!

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

I'm pretty sure that my players notice when a person gets short stacked, white board be damned.

No gold star, points. Tripling or quadrupling up is usually what is required to get to to average stack (which is a piece of info included on my TD game clock screen).

I'm taking away from this feedback that I need to allow people can opt out if they choose.

Ayo, you're the one who mentioned the star lol I just colored it in. And my point stands about end of the tournament but I see you've addressed it above. Players notice lots of things, doesn't mean we write it up on a board.

Best of luck, just honest about it having no place in my game and requiring extra note-taking mid tournament.

 

[AutoDonk5000]

I think this would incentivize bad play. When your short you should mostly be playing push fold.

 

[AutoDonk5000]

Doing so is luck.

Fix'd

 

[MrBoosh]

I agree with @NotRealNameNoSir on this one. I would hate to have to spend the time needed to track all this while I am also playing in the tournament. It would be near impossible to keep track of everyone else's stacks unless I was just running the tournament and not playing. How low does the stack have to get to qualify? What happens later towards the end, when the blinds get high and most players are short stacked? At that point, just winning the blinds a couple times could move you from the short stack to the big stack. Now if that player wins, they are getting a huge point advantage over someone who has played well and earned their chips and kept up with a large stack from the get go. I would argue that the player who plays closest to perfect and makes the fewest mistakes while building their stack should receive more points than someone who gets short stacked and then builds it back.

I feel that there are too many flaws and what-if scenarios for this short stack idea to work out, be fair, and positively impact the tournament and league.

If you can make it work and your players enjoy it then more power to you. I feel like it is way more work than I personally would want to take on while playing and running a multi table tournament.

 

[BGinGA]

You are attempting to fix a problem that doesn't exist. And just 'building back to average' hardly merits extra points imo.

Best way to approach it would be to track players who get felted and subsequently win. To be down to zero chips and build back up to all of the chips is a true accomplishment. Requires either a re-buy or re-load structure.

 

[HiveKueen]

You are attempting to fix a problem that doesn't exist. And just 'building back to average' hardly merits extra points imo.

Thanks @BGinGA .
I should have mentioned that we have a few (too many) players who get dejected when they get short (take a bad beat) and just throw in their remaining chips with junk and then go home. Indeed, we are not pros! Given this, my incentive idea is specifically intended to give these players something to shoot for so they will keep trying no matter. The folks in my league are all in various stages of "getting better" and I'm always looking for ways to foster a desire to get better. None of them play in casinos, and most don't play anywhere else. So, yea, this incentive idea is pretty targeted to the realities of my league. Didn't think to mention this in the op.

 

[HiveKueen]

I agree with @NotRealNameNoSir on this one. I would hate to have to spend the time needed to track all this while I am also playing in the tournament. It would be near impossible to keep track of everyone else's stacks unless I was just running the tournament and not playing. How low does the stack have to get to qualify? What happens later towards the end, when the blinds get high and most players are short stacked? At that point, just winning the blinds a couple times could move you from the short stack to the big stack. Now if that player wins, they are getting a huge point advantage over someone who has played well and earned their chips and kept up with a large stack from the get go. I would argue that the player who plays closest to perfect and makes the fewest mistakes while building their stack should receive more points than someone who gets short stacked and then builds it back.

I feel that there are too many flaws and what-if scenarios for this short stack idea to work out, be fair, and positively impact the tournament and league.

If you can make it work and your players enjoy it then more power to you. I feel like it is way more work than I personally would want to take on while playing and running a multi table tournament.

Thanks @MrBoosh. You and the others are right, I don't want a lot of extra work during the game! There might be ways to address your concerns which posting here made me think of. I would make it up to the players to opt into this and to get their name "on the board" - so I really wouldn't have much extra work to do. Also, I'd establish a cut off in the later blind levels when everyone is short. next, the points awarded would be pretty minor, yes enough to get you into the championship versus not but this would be verrryyy rare - trying to "take advantage of" this incentive as a road to league success would in fact be a road to ruin from a probability perspective.

Keep those issues coming so I can really anticipate what I'm in for.

 

[HiveKueen]

The feedback has been quite helpful in thinking this incentive through and addressing the problems it could cause.

Indeed my idea is pretty targets to the players in my league, as I note above in response to @BGinGA's feedback.I think I'm going to try it out as an experiment in my next season (to start in Feb.). If it ends up working (encourages people to keep trying, doesn't have any surprise unintended consequences) I'll keep it, if it ends up not working, I'll not only not continue it but will re-calculate points for that season taking out the "rebuild" points anyone earned! TD makes this really easy to do. I will also report back here (April-ish next year) about how it went.I would note again, I'm considering this for selfish reasons. The better my players play, the better I have to play to beat them and the better the reputation my league gets in the local poker scene thus attracting better players!!. It's all about me!!

Thanks all.

 

[HiveKueen]

Fix'd

https://blog.gtowizard.com/short-stacked-play-in-mtts/

 

[HiveKueen]

Well it turns out that the feedback above was even more helpful than I originally thought.

When I went to figure out how to implement this my balloon deflated. I didn't want to award so many points that it had the effect of moving a player up even one rank. Well, 5 points doesn't do this for first to second or second to third but 5 points is way more than the points awarded for a one spot higher finish for every rank after 3rd place! Next I figured out how to build the points awarded into the exponential part of the calculation (sqrt(Players/Rank) by adjusting the rank by a fraction, so (sqrt(Players/Ranks - 0.50). This worked as far as preventing unfairly awarding too many points *but* now the points awarded is fractional for most ranks. I'm guessing that the possibility of winning fractionally more points won't be terribly motivating.

So, now I'm considering some sort of revolving token for bragging rights.
Thanks again!