Poker BIF Abrasive

It's been a lot of fun thus far. I wish everyone luck Sunday.

 

Where's a list of the antes?

 

In the future, we should list the BA's name, then a "/" and their PokerStars name. I don't know who some of the people above translate to on PokerStars.

Tonight's results were:

1st - richkrull
2nd - AgentZero
3rd - Retail1LO

 

What were the final standings, commish?

 

Looks to me like AgentZero (1st and 2nd) won with Retail1LO/Richkrull (1st and 3rd) tied for 2nd. London1o1 played great but just missed out.

 

I see at least two very good reasons to pay less than 12 points total:
1) It's easier to beat a field of 10 than 12. If only 4 people showed up, do we say a 4th place is just as valuable as when 12 people show up? The effect is smaller, but in no way less true for a field of 10 instead of 12. In fact, not to make it personal, but my girlfriend actually beat more people to get each of her 2nd places in fields of 12 than Rich beat to get his 1st place finish this week. (Sorry Rich -- really no disrespect meant, but I feel like I may be getting screwed out of beer here.)

and, more importantly, as I've argued for this whole series:
2) That's the way we set up the point scoring from the beginning. Taken directly from the quote from the PokerStars website, which Dave then posted as his point scoring system in the forum at the beginning of signups for this tournament: "The total points awarded for a qualified tournament are exactly equal to the number of players in the tournament." In this case, 10.

I don't really see why we would pay any more points in this tournament than the rules we set at the beginning dictate.

 

Not sure how you feel that you are getting screwed here. The 3 guys that placed in the series all won a game and placed in another. The outcome seems pretty fair to me. Obviously I am missing something.

 

Apparently. Going by the point system we had set up for this series, which awards a point total equal to the number of players in the tournament (in this case 10), broken down by percents as 38% to 1st, 28% to 2nd, 20% to 3rd, and 14% to 4th, the points for this tournament were:

1st - richkrull - 3.8
2nd - agentzero - 2.8
3rd - retail1LO - 2.0
4th - azdback - 1.4

Making the overall total for the series look like:

1st - agentzero - 7.36
2nd - london1o1 - 6.72
3rd - retail1LO - 6.56
4th - richkrull - 6.20
5th - azdback - 3.80
6th - mcnuts - 1.68
6th - jrags8 - 1.68
8th - davehack - 0
8th - fortsambo - 0
8th - cooperellis - 0
8th - supernova777 - 0
8th - injuredreserve - 0

 

OK, I'm not getting into this but certainly don't have a problem sending my beer to guys that actually won poker games and played their own cards. I would like to congratulate the winners whoever they might be. Also, props to Dave for the thankless job of running this thing with the incessant bitching and moaning. I had fun even though I took some tough beats and ended up playing shitty poker in the end.

I love the *idea* of a series, but it's clearly too much of a pain in the ass and the bitching ruined it for me.

 

I don't think that the finishers in game 3 should be penalized because people didn't show up for whatever reason. Whether they had stuff going on, or just didn't feel like playing because they thought they were out of it. The series and each tournament was set up for 12 people from the beginning, 12 people paid their "entry fees," and I think that points should be awarded accordingly as Dave pointed out above.

 

My brews are all ready for adoption, barring they go to a loving home.

 

I'd like to do it again. I think this run will have worked out the kinks, and with clearly defined things at the beginning I believe it would cut down on all the bitching.

I don't believe I have a dog in the fight for the scoring debate currently going on, but I'm good with whatever Dave decides.

 

Sadly, I have something to add. london1o1's argument makes sense, but his numbers are wrong.

london1o1 based his arguments on a payout that paid 4 places with 10 points based on the 12 person payout. Unfortunately, in a 10 person payout PokerStars only pays out 3 places in a 50%, 30%, 20% division.

You would get this scoring

1st - richkrull - 5 points
2nd - AgentZero - 3 points
3rd - Retail1LO - 2 points

And thus get this finish:

1. AgentZero - 7.56
2. richkrull - 7.4
3. london1o1 - 6.72
4. retail1LO - 6.56

I'm not saying that I support the 10 or the 12, rather that if london1o1 is arguing for using PokerStars point total and their distribution then this is the proper scoring. In the 3 scenarios offered up (all of which seem to have some good faith argument), each one puts a different person out of beer, and ironically a different person in 2nd and 3rd. Would the participants be amicable to either playing a three person game or splitting the 2nd and 3rd place prize 3 ways, either done in an effort to avoid further arguing and bad feelings?

 

Huh, this sounds interesting! I'm a huge fan of both poker and beer. Could someone clue me in about this? I have a general idea from reading everyone's posts but a summarized post and if you're accepting new players would be great.

 

Dave, this message is directed towards you, but for all to read:
Thank you for putting this together. It was truly ambitious, and I think I speak for everyone when I say "Thank you." Granted, things didn't go off without a hitch, and there are some kinks, only because it didn't occur to you (or us) to think of certain things until it was already underway. Chalk it up to a learning experience. I know from communicating with you that your level of frustration is through the roof. Take a deep breath...smoke a peace pipe...whatever. Just relax. No one is looking to burn you at the stake. No one's frustration is directed towards you, I can assure you. I, personally, will accept however you choose to conclude things without so much as another word.

For the rest of you:
I thoroughly enjoyed this start to finish. There are some damn fine card players among you, and it was fun battling it out over the last three weeks. I think we have some real strong players here.

Regarding where we're at:
This was designed for 12 people. The points dished out on a per game basis is based on the 12 people that signed up. Anyone who fails to appear for a game, forfeits, and finishes last. That SHOULD be pretty cut and dry. By saying "We're only paying based on 10 people because that's all that showed" immediately handicaps anyone who needed to make some kind of headway in the 3rd game. Also, it wasn't easier to score points in a 10 man game than a 12 man game, as a 10 man game only pays points to 3 people, whereas a 12 person game pays out 5.

Regarding AgentZero's suggestion:
I think we should take any players you stand to win beer across the three different scoring models, and play one more game. However that game finishes out, is how we pay out. We know who could/should be "in the beer", so let's play one more and see how it all shakes out.

One last thing:
No one made any beef with someone standing in for london1o1 at the beginning of the proceedings. So...in my opinion, it is what it is. Going FORWARD, however, I'd prefer we keep this among BA's, and NOT among BA's and whomever they happen to know that can play poker. If this seems unreasonable, feel free to say so. Meaning...get your woman her own BA account, london.

I have the utmost respect for everyone that played. It's been a real joy. Every endeavor in life has more than it's fair share of bumps, and hiccups. We're all adults. We'll get through this, life will go on, we'll all drink copious amounts of good beer...and play more poker.

 

I think it'll be better if we wait until WE have a clue...about all of this before we try to clue you in too. LOL We all had fun, we just have some tidying up to do. The only thing that really matters is Dave busted his ass to put this together and keep the wheels on it. And while I know he's thrown his hands in the air on a few occasions already, I hope he sticks around for another go. He had a good vision...we just encountered some heavy fog along the way.

 

I agree with this, thanks Dave.

I agree with this unless the suggestion is that I am involved in the final game (yes, I have a dog in this fight due to my personal interest in upholding my first place finish for obvious reasons). Under all systems proposed or argued I finished first. The three systems proposed each put Retail1LO, richkrull, and london1o1 at 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place once. I'm fine with the 3 of them playing a game for 2nd and 3rd respectively. I have no desire to risk my win as there has been no system suggested where I did not win, therefore nothing to resolve with respect to my finish.

Agree with this, if someone had a problem with it, they should have said so from the get go, too late to raise issue now. Also, she was better than most of us, which is pretty awesome in itself. Yes, get her an account.

Ditto, let's do this again, the next run will be much smoother.