You should be sending a player to Vegas with the best chance to win, not somebody who can merely outlast half of the field -- and your chosen points system should reflect that.
I really dislike a linear points distribution (10-to-1 for 10 players, etc.) because a) it doesn't adequately reward above-average performance, and b) it tends to promote tight/timid play throughout the event, since each jump on the point scale is equal to all others. In addition, many logarithmic systems fail to properly balance the awarded points across top combined finishes (often rewarding two 2nd-place finishes over a 1st and a 3rd, for example).
Although I've long been a proponent for only awarding points to the top 30% of the field size, I have no issue with awarding token points to the balance of the field, although differentiating between two low(er) finishes is not really necessary or even logical imo. In reality, token points very rarely affect the top three or four finishing point standings, but they do provide a positive psychological impact for players.
There are two point systems I generally recommend for a 10-player league with a fixed 10-game schedule:
- 10-6-3-1 for the top four players (zero for all other finishes) -- this system rewards above-average performance, with significant points awarded only to the top 30% of the field size. Maximum score = 100, minimum score = 0, average winning score = 35-40 points.
- 16-11-7-4-2-2-2-1-1-1 (zero for no-shows) -- this system also rewards above-average performance (significant points awarded to the top 40% of the field size), while still providing token points for non-stellar or below-average finishes. Maximum score = 160, minimum score = 10, average winning score = 55-65 points.
Most leagues using either system will typically be won by a player with three wins, or occasionally by two wins combined with two or more other top-4 finishes. Most seasons finish with at least two or three players having a chance to win going into the final event, and often several with a chance to break into the top two places. And more importantly, a player with five or more finishes in 3rd-to-5th place will never finish first overall using this system (as it should be, imo), unlike many more linear-type systems. If necessary, point ties in either system are broken by 1) # of wins, 2) # of 2nd-place finishes, and finally 3) # of 3rd-place finishes.
The same points schedule is used regardless of field size (within a narrow range), although for the first system, I never award points to 50% of the field (so an 8-player field would not award points to 4th place, only to 1st-3rd).
The first $500 of each tourney goes toward the end of season freeroll.
to try to double up early or get into another event. This gives them some "bad beat" cushion without investing a ton of time. For many of them, it's first or nothing for the Main Event. That's really hard to replicate at home.
