TSP Poker Club

[userque]

Might as well post the best of 8 rankings too. That's how the season will be decided:

 

[burrocrat]

how many games are in this season?

 

[userque]

sometimes I wish the spectators could see the cards, like when they show poker on TV. I think I played some of my best poker when it was down to 3. It didn't amount to anything, but it was quite impressive (& disappointing) to have stayed competitive that long with how terrible my cards were.

Lol...I figured you were playing fast and loose with rags.

 

[userque]

how many games are in this season?

17 so far. New season starts July I believe. 6 More games I believe.

 

[burrocrat]

hmmm. 8 games of 23? for the win?

maybe this could be discussed before next season?

i think that number should be 75%, not 25%.

i understand that some folks can't make it sometimes. but if you want to win you should compete most of the time.

that's my ten cents, my two cents is free.

 

[k0nkuzh0n]

We decided on top 8 of 13 I believe. Obv this 'season' is different

hmmm. 8 games of 23? for the win?

maybe this could be discussed before next season?

i think that number should be 75%, not 25%.

i understand that some folks can't make it sometimes. but if you want to win you should compete most of the time.

that's my ten cents, my two cents is free.

 

[burrocrat]

8 of 23 is 65%?

how about 9 of 13 is about 75%?

more representative of consistent play? anybody care to discuss?

 

[jpcavin]

If we are all throwing or two cents in, I like 10 of 13.

 

[userque]

hmmm. 8 games of 23? for the win?

maybe this could be discussed before next season?

i think that number should be 75%, not 25%.

i understand that some folks can't make it sometimes. but if you want to win you should compete most of the time.

that's my ten cents, my two cents is free.

A motion was made to extend the '8' for this particular since this season is 'extended.' It didn't pass. I had no problem either way.

Speaking of the rules.

Whereas: Last place should not be considered equal to someone that doesn't show up to the game, i.e. zero points.

Be it resolved that: For next and subsequent seasons, last place should receive points as well.

How say you all?

 

[jpcavin]

Does "no show" include people that register but sit out?

 

[userque]

Good debate.

The intent of the 'best 8' is to allow those that can't make every game to still have a fair chance of 'winning.'

Requiring 13 of 13 penalized anyone that misses just one game.

8 of 13 allows missing five games.

If someone can't make Sun or Mon on a regular basis, they will miss 6/7 games for that reason alone.

It can therefore also be argued that 8 of 13 is too stringent.

For those that believe skill can't be measured in 6-8 games, consider that we will be playing multiple seasons, not just one.

May the debate continue.

 

[burrocrat]

i think the number of games that count for the total in seasons should be at 75% or better.

when the 8 number was decided did anybody know that represented 1/3 of total games?

 

[userque]

Does "no show" include people that register but sit out?

Good question. As "I" see it. If you register, you can place and win points (as many have done)...so it counts. k0n would have to elaborate if he's doing something different.

Keep in mind that one poor game doesn't 'hurt' you any worse than not showing at all, as the 'best' of 23 are only counted.

 

[burrocrat]

if 8 is the standard, a person could play one in three, and never register again once they clock 8 good games and still be champion? as poker players, surely you can see the angle here? is this representative of strong consistent play? whether or not that is what happens is irrelevant, that fact that the angle is there to be exploited is of some import. i believe anyways.

 

[userque]

i think the number of games that count for the total in seasons should be at 75% or better.

when the 8 number was decided did anybody know that represented 1/3 of total games?

When 8 was decided. No. However, when a motion was made to extend the '8' when it became known that the season would be longer than 13 games; again, it failed.

When we had to change poker rooms, we believed the season would be about 4 mos. instead of 3 mos., amounting to about 17/18 games. Not significantly different from 23 games.

No subsequent motions were made once the length of the seasons became clear a while ago.

 

[burrocrat]

is your name paul ryan?

 

[burrocrat]

maybe we need a poll. who thinks how many games out of 13 should count for the next seasons?

there are twelve members at this point. how say they?

 

[userque]

if 8 is the standard, a person could play one in three, and never register again once they clock 8 good games and still be champion?

Exactly. Again. The intent is to protect those with working or other scheduling conflicts. Also, everyone else, in your example, has several chances to beat that person that only plays 1 in 3 games. If they can't, that person deserves to be champion.

as poker players, surely you can see the angle here? is this representative of strong consistent play?

It can be argued that it takes years to guage consistent play. We don't want our seasons to be years long. We want people to be able to join at the start of a new season without having to wait years.

Our intent, as I believe it to be, is not to be a benchmarker of consistent play, but instead is to have fun; while balancing work schedules, ability to welcome new players, and a way to measure performance.

whether or not that is what happens is irrelevant, that fact that the angle is there to be exploited is of some import. i believe anyways.

If one places 1st in their first 8 games, and then stops playing...more power to them. I see no exploitation. Sometimes you get rivered. Sometimes you river.

I am the only one ahead of you, we've played the same number of games. I expect to play every last game. I don't see this exploitation potential you speak of.

 

[userque]

maybe we need a poll. who thinks how many games out of 13 should count for the next seasons?

there are twelve members at this point. how say they?

I'm good with whatever to body decides.

Again, the intent was to protect those that can't make every game. If you destroy that protection, I believe you will find fewer players than we have now.

Instead of lessening the competition by taking advantage of those that can't make more games. (That...would be gaming the system). Read Slansky et al. to improve one's game.

Again, I have no dog in the fight. I'm winning by all metrics. However, I am speaking on behalf of those that can't make every game.

If it be the will of this body to penalize the working men of women of this forum, the men and women with real life kids and/or other duties and responsibilities; to their own personal advantages, make it so.

I Abstain, as I have no dog in this horrible fight.

 

[k0nkuzh0n]

As for the last place not getting points:

This was on purpose. When I created the points function, I forced it to give the last person 0 points on the theory that you shouldn't get points just for playing. I actually see not playing better than getting last place.

There is no special handling of people who are sitting out. They are counted as the position they end in.

I can change it if people disagree with my thoughts, but just an FYI, that it is how it is now, intentionally.