30 replies to this topic

[Randy Reed]

Okay, this innaugeral poker league was a blast. For being thrown together quickly and for the first time it went off with only minor glitches. The teams were amazingly close and many got better as it went. Alot has been said about off season changes and i've given much tought to this so let me know what you think.The NFL has far and away the best model for a league and it constantly maintains a competitive balance. I am using there structure and rules as a model and we are set up in that format anyway so there isn't many changes to be made. As Daniel says, he wants to keep it consistent and fun so that the league stays around for years.The issues.Schedule. Much talk has been given to length of schedule with suggestions of going up anywhere from 21 to 45 games. In my honest opinion this is too many to maintain a competitive balance over the long haul which keeps teams interested to the end. Teams down by 8 games with 3 left won't give their all and are more likely to default.Multiple games in a day. I think that is going to pose problems for many as well. The fact that you're at most out an hour of your weekend and the flexibility in our ability to re-schedule games keeps down the defaults and keeps it fun vs a chore or burden on your time. This league was very fun, but given the play is on Sundays it is imperitive not to try to make it more involved than what it is. An hour out of the day is fine, but it is Sunday and if we start making it 2,3 or more hours of play I can see it becoming a problem with those that have families, or getting in the way of the large tournies since alot here play them.Saturdays should be an option for a time change but not scheduled. Many of us joined a Sunday poker league because we work Saturdays and would be unfair to change it on us now.Start times. Most East Coasters love the 1 pm est start time which leaves your Sunday Open the rest of the day for other events. I think West Coast teams should get an automatic 4pm est start time as a 10pm morning start would be a burden and unfair. This could easily be accomplished along with liberal time changes for games to accomodate all. I don't remembering anyone refusing to reschedule if asked in advance.I propose a one game increase to 16 games just like the NFL, and model their scheduling as follows.Each team plays home and away against its three division opponents, which accounts for six games on the schedule. • Each team plays four teams from another division within its conference on a rotating three-year cycle, which accounts for four more games. • Each team plays four teams from a division in the other conference on a rotating four-year cycle, which accounts for another four games. • Each team plays two intraconference games based on the prior year's standings. For example, the first-place team in a division will play against the first-place team from another division within the same conference. The second place team in a division will play against the second-place team from another division within the same conference, etc... This would allow for those in the Spades conference to at least get an opportunity to face Daniel every third year and every team eventually.Start times. We should re-align the divisions and conferences as much as possible to accomodate the West Coast and there desire to play 4EST matches and the East Coast for there 1 EST matches.A good time for the league would be a start date of April 8th and the Super Bowl would end on Aug 19th. Most college student will be almost out of school and the season ends before the NFL regular season starts since many, many of the league participants are pro football fans and want to watch their teams play on Sundays.Tiebreakers shouldn't be that hard if we follow the NFL rules which are....DIVISION WINNERS1. Head-to-Head2. Division Record3. Common Games4. Conference Record5. Strength of VictoryDefinition: A part of the NFL's tiebreaking proceedure, strength of victory is figured by calculating the combined winning percentage of the opponents a team has beaten. Examples: If two teams end with identical records, combine the records of the opponents in each of the team's wins and calculate the total winning percentage. The team whose opponents have the higher winning percentage wins the tiebreaker. 6. Strength of Schedule7. One game playoffIf three or more teams in the same division finish with identical records, the following tiebreakers will be used, in this order, until a champion is determined.1. Head-to-Head2. Division Record3. Common Games4. Conference Record5. Strength of Victory6. Strength of Schedule7. One game playoff*If two clubs remain tied after a third is eliminated during any step, the tie breaker reverts to step 1 of the two-team format. WILD-CARDIf two or more teams finish the season tied for one of the two Wild-Card berths, one of the following scenarios will apply. If the tied teams are from the same division, the divisional tie breaker above is used. If the tied teams are from different divisions, the following tiebreakers are used: Two Teams1. Head-to-Head2. Conference Record3. Common Games (minimum of four)4. Strength of Victory5. Strength of Schedule6. One game playoffThree or More Teams*If two clubs remain tied after a third is eliminated during any step, the tie breaker reverts to step 1 of the two-team format. Start by eliminating all but the highest ranked club in each division by using the divisional tiebreaker above. After the field has been narrowed to no more than one team from each division, the following tiebreakers are used: 1. Head-to-Head2. Conference Record3. Common Games (minimum of four)4. Strength of Victory5. Strength of ScheduleWild-Card tie breakers are also used to determine home-field advantage. Playoff matches. Will be a best of 5 series with no one game lead for a team. 7 games in a day seems a bit much to me and the one game advantage has been widely disregarded as unfair. The first season teams with the advantage went 4-0. But why do they need an advantage? They get the seeding advanatage like any other sport plus the extra money for being division champs. That should be more than enough incentive to want to win during the season and be rewarded. NO OTHER sport has some unfair advantage by way of points or wins and we shouldn't either. It should be fair to both participants playing.Defaults per Daniel-Defaults- I don't want to have to kick ANY of the teams out from season one. This league will grow stronger and stronger if we can keep all of the teams in tact. So, on that note, here is what I propose:For all teams that had defaults in season 1, they will have a chance to participate in season 2 if they deposit an extra $100 for each default into the league prize pool. If they have no defaults in season 2, they will get a FULL refund for their deposit. If they have any defaults in season 2, that money will go to a prize pool for non-playoff teams with perfect attendance.If a team defaults for two consecutive seasons, they will be kicked out of the league with no exceptions. I would like to add that emergencies do happen and that any team with consecutive MULTIPLE default seasons be expelled. I would also like to add another rule. Teams must consist of at least 3 players. If you look at the defaults this past season it was almost solely teams with only one or two players on the roster. Teams with at least 3 rarely if ever defaulted since they had it covered.Again, not many changes and keeps it simple and fair. I guarantee this would work out for everyone, be competitive and fun. I think i've covered most if not all issues and would be willing to help sluethis with any scheduling or assistance he might need. Thanks for reading and suggestions welcome. Randy

[Theraflu]

welcome to the 3rd (4th? 5th?) suggestion thread. why not just post in daniel's; everyone is going to read it anyways. its feels like we keep saying the same thing over and over again in a different thread.also, the point of the 1 game advantage is because in the NFL you get home field advantage, which is pretty huge. the patriots won like 22 straight at home until last year, and its not a coincidence. a 1 game lead in a best of 7 series that takes place over 2 days is the best option in my opinion.

[Randy Reed]

Thanks I appreciate your response, but if it goes 7 games you could likely be playing for 7 hours with breaks in a day. Is everyone up for that?Does everyone really want to get into a 2 day playoff either? I say keep it simple. We play one game matches all year.Again, home field in the NFL is huge but unfortunately we don't have that in poker so if more money and better seeding for the playoffs isn't enough, well, then I don't know what to say.

[Theraflu]

Randy Reed, on Monday, August 7th, 2006, 11:52 AM, said:

Thanks I appreciate your response, but if it goes 7 games you could likely be playing for 7 hours with breaks in a day. Is everyone up for that?Does everyone really want to get into a 2 day playoff either? I say keep it simple.Again, home field in the NFL is huge but unfortunately we don't have that in poker so if more money and better seeding for the playoffs isn't enough, well, then I don't know what to say.

all the teams that won have already made $1000. all the 1+2 seeds have won $750. im not saying that the bye isnt worth $250, because it is, but your "more money" argument isnt there for me.it would be 6 games maximum played (since home team has a 1-0 lead). if you give each set of teams a full week to play all the games, with 3 on one night and 3 on another night (or day), i think it would work it out ok. Zim and nutz played 4 games in 25 minutes. Mcpickl and gostags played 3 games in just over 2 hours. these things go either way, but if you decide to play a 3 and 3 on 2 seperate days, or agree to play for like 2 hours and get as many games in as possible, then finish up the series on sunday, i think it would work out.

[Randy Reed]

Theraflu, on Monday, August 7th, 2006, 11:59 AM, said:

all the teams that won have already made $1000. all the 1+2 seeds have won $750. im not saying that the bye isnt worth $250, because it is, but your "more money" argument isnt there for me.it would be 6 games maximum played (since home team has a 1-0 lead). if you give each set of teams a full week to play all the games, with 3 on one night and 3 on another night (or day), i think it would work it out ok. Zim and nutz played 4 games in 25 minutes. Mcpickl and gostags played 3 games in just over 2 hours. these things go either way, but if you decide to play a 3 and 3 on 2 seperate days, or agree to play for like 2 hours and get as many games in as possible, then finish up the series on sunday, i think it would work out.

Think anything is possible but this is also alot more involved, I say keep it simple. And your saying the $500 for winning the division and seeding isn't enough incentive to try and win your division?

[Theraflu]

Randy Reed, on Monday, August 7th, 2006, 12:03 PM, said:

Think anything is possible but this is also alot more involved, I say keep it simple. And your saying the $500 for winning the division and seeding isn't enough incentive to try and win your division?

its $750 to win the division, but the its the bye that really matters. having a week where you cant get eliminated is key. i really dont give that much a **** in the end

[Randy Reed]

Theraflu, on Monday, August 7th, 2006, 12:18 PM, said:

its $750 to win the division, but the its the bye that really matters. having a week where you cant get eliminated is key. i really dont give that much a **** in the end

good point though, a bye is another huge incentive.

[zimmer4141]

Randy, I've already stated that I think the 1 game lead in a 7 game series is fair. That has a maximum of 6 games playable. Your format, which you say will take much less time, has a max of 5 games playable. Not that big of a difference.I like a schedule with a greater amount of games personally, and I don't think 2 games per weekend should be too much. It would take max an hour and a half, and most matches are over before that. If we open up both Saturday and Sunday for matches, I'm sure that if you play one and a teammate plays one, it shouldn't be too big of a burden.As I've said before, I think this schedule would make the league run very smoothly.3 games against each division rival1 game against each in-conference team not in your division1 game against each team from a division in the other conference.This assures a few things.Almost no division races would go to tiebreakers that aren't head to head.There can be very few complaints about the schedule of teams you play because everyone plays everyone in their conference at least once. (This won't prevent me from complaining about my division )The greater amount of games played will allow better teams to rise to the top.

[Randy Reed]

I don't have to much of a problem with it, but again the more complicated you make it the more likely there will be problems arise. If there was difficulty for some teams playing one match, then there will be double the problem scheduling 2 in one weekend. I'm not saying I don't like it or wouldn't do it. Also if you play a 24 game schedule there will be teams out of contention with 6 or 7 weeks to go playing only for the no default rule. By keeping it at 16 almost everyone was in contention till the very end which makes it exciting, like the NFL.With the explicit tiebreakers i've outlined that shouldn't be an issue either. The extra game will help as well.

[Bizzle]

Alright, before I comment here, I just want to say that I agree with the majority of what you put above, especially the scheduling part. The tiebreakers aren't a big deal-we used the exact tiebreakers that the NFL uses, modified appropriately to account for things like we can't measure the points in the league. So, I agree with all that jazz.

Randy Reed, on Monday, August 7th, 2006, 3:36 PM, said:

Playoff matches. Will be a best of 5 series with no one game lead for a team. 7 games in a day seems a bit much to me and the one game advantage has been widely disregarded as unfair. The first season teams with the advantage went 4-0. But why do they need an advantage? They get the seeding advanatage like any other sport plus the extra money for being division champs. That should be more than enough incentive to want to win during the season and be rewarded. NO OTHER sport has some unfair advantage by way of points or wins and we shouldn't either. It should be fair to both participants playing.

See, this is where the argument goes off track for me. I agree that a 1 game lead in a 5 game series is massive, and I've also agreed that a 1 game lead in a 7 game series is about right. However, you seem to think that the NFL doesn't award anything to a high ranked team. They get homefield advantage. How big of a deal is this? Here are the home records for the NFL regular seasons for all teams combined the last 3 years:151-105 58.9%145-111 56.6%157-99 61.3%Thus, the home team has about a 20% advantage when it comes to the playoff game. (Note: Rough and limited set of data. But it feels about right.) A 1 game lead in a series of evenly matched teams makes it 68.75% for the higher ranked team in a 5 game series and 67.18% for the higher ranked team in a 7 game series. Thus, the advantage is greater than what the NFL gives, but not completely out of whack.

Randy Reed, on Monday, August 7th, 2006, 3:36 PM, said:

If a team defaults for two consecutive seasons, they will be kicked out of the league with no exceptions. I would like to add that emergencies do happen and that any team with consecutive MULTIPLE default seasons be expelled.

I disagree. Defaults leave the league balance out of whack-a 35% chance of winning versus a 0% chance of winning is a massive massive difference.

Randy Reed, on Monday, August 7th, 2006, 3:36 PM, said:

I would also like to add another rule. Teams must consist of at least 3 players. If you look at the defaults this past season it was almost solely teams with only one or two players on the roster. Teams with at least 3 rarely if ever defaulted since they had it covered.

Another one that will be worked out over time. I am hoping to get a team for next season and I am unsure as to what I want to do in terms of teammates. I would really rather not go with 2 other teammates because I would like to play the majority of the matches.

[The Czar]

I will have one teammate next year, which seems sufficient. A third player would simply be someone I'd have to share the prize money with win I win

[zimmer4141]

The Czar, on Monday, August 7th, 2006, 1:19 PM, said:

I will have one teammate next year, which seems sufficient. A third player would simply be someone I'd have to share the prize money with win I win

There are other ways to do this. I have 2 teammates (only one has played). I payed the entire buyin, and agreed to pay my teammates a small portion of the winnings, we'll determine what is fair. That way I get to keep most of my winnings for me doing most of the work, but I can avoid defaults by having other players available to play.

[Theraflu]

zimmer4141, on Monday, August 7th, 2006, 1:34 PM, said:

There are other ways to do this. I have 2 teammates (only one has played). I payed the entire buyin, and agreed to pay my teammates a small portion of the winnings, we'll determine what is fair. That way I get to keep most of my winnings for me doing most of the work, but I can avoid defaults by having other players available to play.

i smell mutiny if their financial thirsts are not met

[Randy Reed]

Okay, did some checking. There were 7 teams with defaults.L- 2 people ( 2def)U- 1 person (1 def)C- 2 people (1 def)D- 1 person (1 def)C- 3 people (1 def) (got mugged)B- 1 person (2 def)T- 1 person (2 def)So I believe there is definately a cooralation between teams having at least 3 on the roster vs less as far as defaults go.Bizzle, i understand and you make good points about home field advantage for a football team. Are you in favor of playing a 7 game playoff on one or over two days? Are you i favor of carrying this over to all rounds except the championship?zimmy, you are suggesting a 12 game schedule with 2 games each weekend then?

[zimmer4141]

I'm suggesting a 25 game schedule with 2 games per weekend, and 1 game the last week.3 games against each division opponent (9 total)1 game against each conference opponent not in your division (12 total)1 game against each team from 1 division in the other conference (4 total)

[The Czar]

Randy Reed, on Monday, August 7th, 2006, 2:23 PM, said:

Okay, did some checking. There were 7 teams with defaults.L- 2 people ( 2def)U- 1 person (1 def)C- 2 people (1 def)D- 1 person (1 def)C- 3 people (1 def) (got mugged)B- 1 person (2 def)T- 1 person (2 def)So I believe there is definately a cooralation between teams having at least 3 on the roster vs less as far as defaults go.Bizzle, i understand and you make good points about home field advantage for a football team. Are you in favor of playing a 7 game playoff on one or over two days? Are you i favor of carrying this over to all rounds except the championship?zimmy, you are suggesting a 12 game schedule with 2 games each weekend then?

I understand your point, but I disagree. I feel like I would be getting punished for the mistakes of others.

[Randy Reed]

The Czar, on Monday, August 7th, 2006, 3:38 PM, said:

I understand your point, but I disagree. I feel like I would be getting punished for the mistakes of others.

you might feel that way up and until the storm hits and your internet connection isn't there and you have no teammate to call. zimmy did a deal with a partner for a backup share and anyone could do the same.I'm curious how everyone feels about the tiebreaker scenario. Is everyone kapish with it?I'm also curious if anyone else thinks that a 25 game schedule will lead to more defaults at the end.I'm curious how everyone feels about it being 2 games every weekend and are they double worried about scheduling and timing conflicts.I believe that since it is online, keeping it simple is the best chance of the league surviving and thriving. It worked very well this year and drastic changes could ruin it.discuss....

[Bizzle]

Randy Reed, on Monday, August 7th, 2006, 6:23 PM, said:

Bizzle, i understand and you make good points about home field advantage for a football team. Are you in favor of playing a 7 game playoff on one or over two days? Are you i favor of carrying this over to all rounds except the championship?

In all honesty, I think going 5 or 7 is negligible. As I said above, it is a very small statistical difference. Most people seem to think a 7 game series is fairer, so I'll agree with them as long as we keep the 1 game advantage.In terms of timeline, I think 1 day is better. If the home team takes a 3-0 lead and the rest of the games are the next day...let's just say as the away team I wouldn't be super duper motivated to come back.

Randy Reed, on Monday, August 7th, 2006, 8:18 PM, said:

I'm curious how everyone feels about the tiebreaker scenario. Is everyone kapish with it?

I'm curious about this as well, mainly because to me I couldn't tell whether people disliked the tiebreakers or dislike how the tiebreakers were brought about. (Once again, I apologize for any hard feelings I created )

[Randy Reed]

Bizzle, on Monday, August 7th, 2006, 4:26 PM, said:

In all honesty, I think going 5 or 7 is negligible. As I said above, it is a very small statistical difference. Most people seem to think a 7 game series is fairer, so I'll agree with them as long as we keep the 1 game advantage.In terms of timeline, I think 1 day is better. If the home team takes a 3-0 lead and the rest of the games are the next day...let's just say as the away team I wouldn't be super duper motivated to come back.(agreed+ again more scheduling conflicts) But you only have to look at my first experience with the 5 game playoff and 1 game lead to know my distaste for how it went. Being tied 2-2 and my opponent hit 2 or 3 outers 5 times to eventually win it s.ucked big time. Especially since we took the league serious, showed up every week, started out 0-4 and battled back to get there. Losing to a tie was very rough.I'm curious about this as well, mainly because to me I couldn't tell whether people disliked the tiebreakers or dislike how the tiebreakers were brought about. (Once again, I apologize for any hard feelings I created )

Gotta admit, had you in mind and finally took the time to find and post it. I am strongly in favor of having written, clear cut rules here and it would have avoided many conflicts and questions.

[chaosnhavoc]

Theraflu, on Monday, August 7th, 2006, 12:46 PM, said:

welcome to the 3rd (4th? 5th?) suggestion thread. why not just post in daniel's; everyone is going to read it anyways. its feels like we keep saying the same thing over and over again in a different thread.also, the point of the 1 game advantage is because in the NFL you get home field advantage, which is pretty huge. the patriots won like 22 straight at home until last year, and its not a coincidence. a 1 game lead in a best of 7 series that takes place over 2 days is the best option in my opinion.

I would have to agree, another thread wasnt needed but you did make some good suggestions, I will tell you which ones when I am sober enough to type all of them out.