Irish Poker Rankings

tm2204

I was wondering how points are allocated to any events that are deemed to be IPR events. Are the points weighted towards larger buyin larger field events or are they the same for any event deemed to be an IPR event?

Irish Iron

http://www.irishpokerrankings.com wrote:

How the ranking scores are calculated.

For 2009 it is very simple. 1500 points for the win in a qualifying event regardless of how many attended the event. If you happen to finish 54th in an event that pays 54 places then you will receive 5 points.

The breakdown for the points are as follows;

1500,1200,1100,1000,900,800,750,700,650,600,550,500,475,450,425,400,375,350,325,300,290,280,270,260,

250,240,230,220,210,200,190,180,170,160,150,140,130,120,110,100,90,80,70,60,50,45,40,35,30,25,20,15,10,5

In the event of a deal done at the final table the organiser will separate them up by chip counts to provide 1st ,2nd and poss. 3rd. Results reported can be disputed within 28days following the time of finish of the event. After then results are final.
It is a league that rewards attendance in Irish events and getting paid in the mid - large finishing in the top 10% of poker tournaments only in Ireland. It also means that unlike many other rankings it allows players who do more than win the Irish open to gather points to be Irelands number one. For many years whoever won the Irish open event generally got the most money in the year. Therefore they would be listed as Irelands number one.

These rankings look for the best player, playing in Irish regular events run by casinos and card clubs all over the country with a minimal buy in. Namely €200. See rankings criterion for further information.


Words in Red where added 20th July 2009

there you go

bohsman

What does the winner get?

tm2204

Surely the points need to be weighed according to the event to make the rankings more viable.

As things stand the winner of the PP Irish Open gets the same points as someone who wins an IPR event with a €200 buyin.

Surely if these rankings are to have merit then this must be so.

corkie123

tm2204 wrote: »

Surely the points need to be weighed according to the event to make the rankings more viable.

As things stand the winner of the PP Irish Open gets the same points as someone who wins an IPR event with a €200 buyin.

Surely if these rankings are to have merit then this must be so.

im not slagging the rankings off here because i believe he does seem to put a lot of effort in to this but ian really needs to put a small bit of thought into this for next year if he wants the rankings to be taken serious.

buy in number in events to be part of it but a wsop sat is not really a ranking event like he put in last may .

if he got the formula right i say that some irish poker site would love to have a irish poker awards night with the rankings been used like in other countrys

big_iain

bohsman wrote: »

What does the winner get?

&

corkie123 wrote: »

im not slagging the rankings off here because i believe he does seem to put a lot of effort in to this but ian really needs to put a small bit of thought into this for next year if he wants the rankings to be taken serious.

buy in number in events to be part of it but a wsop sat is not really a ranking event like he put in last may .

if he got the formula right i say that some Irish poker site would love to have a Irish poker awards night with the rankings been used like in other countrys

We are in talks with two large sites about sponsorship and offering a prize.
Watch this space.

Thanks for your comments about how they are calculated. I will be bringing up this issue later in the year as there are many ways that we need to improve for next year.

Comments good or bad are welcome

Iain

tm2204

I'm not knocking the rankings in any way or the big effort involved in compiling them, just that I think it would be a better system if the qualifying tournaments were weighed according to importance (buy-in or numbers). This would lead to a table where you could say that the player at no. 1 really is the best player in the country for that period of time.

big_iain

tm2204 wrote: »

I'm not knocking the rankings in any way or the big effort involved in compiling them, just that I think it would be a better system if the qualifying tournaments were weighed according to importance (buy-in or numbers). This would lead to a table where you could say that the player at no. 1 really is the best player in the country for that period of time.

I understand your not having a go.

The one thing that is of primary concern to how they are calculated is the fact that i do not want one win to put you top and have a large advantage over the rest of the field. Ie. If it was based on Money, then the winner of the ppp Irish Open would be up there every year. If it was on field size then the winner of the IPO would get huge points.

The rankings must reward the players of Ireland playing week in week out on these shores.

There should be some way we can maintain these principles and achieve a loaded points system.

Ollieboy

big_iain wrote: »

I understand your not having a go.

The one thing that is of primary concern to how they are calculated is the fact that i do not want one win to put you top and have a large advantage over the rest of the field. Ie. If it was based on Money, then the winner of the ppp Irish Open would be up there every year. If it was on field size then the winner of the IPO would get huge points.

The rankings must reward the players of Ireland playing week in week out on these shores.

There should be some way we can maintain these principles and achieve a loaded points system.

totally agree with both views, but the perfect fix is too have a maximum number of points for any 1 event and to win the rankings you have to play in 10 events or cash in 3 events etc.

Last year people were running to Letterkenny to play a 200 game so they could win the rankings, its a bit silly that a 200 game could decide the whole rankings.

DAMO72

Perhaps a scoring system that takes numbers into account . I dont know if it would work but if you based it on the number of players that is paid, ie. 10% of the field is the usual.
eg. 80 runners = 8 places paid , 1st=8pts > 8th= 1pt
150 runners =15 places paid, 1st= 15pts > 15th= 1pt.
This way it would show consistency across the board and reward the players that play a lot more on the circuit , rather than reward the player that only turns up for the IPC/Open/IPO.
Just a thought .

tm2204

big_iain wrote: »

I understand your not having a go.

The one thing that is of primary concern to how they are calculated is the fact that i do not want one win to put you top and have a large advantage over the rest of the field. Ie. If it was based on Money, then the winner of the ppp Irish Open would be up there every year. If it was on field size then the winner of the IPO would get huge points.

The rankings must reward the players of Ireland playing week in week out on these shores.

There should be some way we can maintain these principles and achieve a loaded points system.

Take, for example, the way the World Snooker player rankings are calculated. This is a rolling 2 year ranking system with the major tournaments only contributing towards the rankings (so the Masters invitational is excluded etc) and the points are weighed towards the larger events i.e. the world championships & the UK championships.

I can understand that you are concerned about awarding points purely based on money (PP IO) or numbers (IPO) but the thing here is to 'scale' the points based on the prestige of the event. It's not easy to get the blend/formula correct and it would require some input from players etc: but I think if it could be done it would make for a better more meaningful points system.

Take for example next weeks festival in The Eglington in Galway. Is it right that there is 6 or 7 ranking events on in 6-7 consectutive days? Say one of the top ranked players just cannot make this week (family/business commitments) should he be penalised so heavily?

One further point, are the ranking events decided in advance of the poker season and available to players to plan their playing schedules around?

tm2204

DAMO72 wrote: »

Perhaps a scoring system that takes numbers into account . I dont know if it would work but if you based it on the number of players that is paid, ie. 10% of the field is the usual.
eg. 80 runners = 8 places paid , 1st=8pts > 8th= 1pt
150 runners =15 places paid, 1st= 15pts > 15th= 1pt.
This way it would show consistency across the board and reward the players that play a lot more on the circuit , rather than reward the player that only turns up for the IPC/Open/IPO.
Just a thought .

Agree Damo, players that play consistently and cash consistently should be rewarded more but someone who wins the PP IO should not be getting the same points as the person who wins a €60 FO side event at a weekend festival. IMO that makes a mockery of the table.

And again thats my opinion but I feel that poker players would really like the IPR rankings to reflect the best players and not just the players who are able and willing to play every €100 or €200 qualifying game going and thats all down to the structure of the league

tm2204

BTW Iain, listened to your 4 radio shows last night and found them imensely enjoyable.

And Greg 'FBT' Mueller = Full Blown Tilt. Bit of a p!ss take on himself

theGIANT

maybe you could use a system something like this...

http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/tournaments/leader-board/explained/

onanist

tm2204 wrote: »

I'm not knocking the rankings in any way or the big effort involved in compiling them, just that I think it would be a better system if the qualifying tournaments were weighed according to importance (buy-in or numbers). This would lead to a table where you could say that the player at no. 1 really is the best player in the country for that period of time.

How do fellas,
quick question?

Does anyone believe in this ranking system?
I have one win and 3 points finishes in ranked tourneys and seem to have gone unnoticed ! By my reconing I have somewhere around 2000 pts and yet I'm not up? ??

JP Poker

I know your looking into making some changes to your scoring system on this so here's a few idea's.

Buy In
€100-€249 x1
€250-€399 x2
€400-€999 x 3
€1000-€1999 x4
€2000+ x5

Number of players
Similar to Damo's suggestion. If 10 players get paid 10th gets 1 point and 1st gets 10 points.

E.g.
PPP IO
Buy-in €3500 = x5
Say 750 players with 75 getting paid

1st would get 75 x 5 = 375

IPO
Buy-In €250 = x2
Say 1500 Players with 150 getting paid

1st would get 150 x 2 = 300

Ladbrooks Killaraney Festival
Buy-In €550 = x3
Say 800 players with 80 getting paid

1st would get 80 x 3 = 240

Just an idea:)

big_iain

Send an email to iain@irishpokerrankings.com send details of your cashes and events, and i will look into it for you. Are you a member? if you are then you can log into the IPR Forum(not as busy as here) and log a check.

I would check that you have cashed in ranking events though. The organisers who take part, are exceptionally good at returning the results of those who want to take part in the rankings.

If you are not a member then i suggest you become one. (please use propoer name to register as this will speed up processing. Obviously your real name is never match to your username unless you want to update your own bio.

I have had a case recently where someone was chasing me for ranking points from the Cork Silver springs game and they didn't even qualify for points as they never cashed. So check you results and take the approriate action above.

big_iain

JP Poker wrote: »

I know your looking into making some changes to your scoring system on this so here's a few idea's.

Buy In
€100-€249 x1
€250-€399 x2
€400-€999 x 3
€1000-€1999 x4
€2000+ x5

Number of players
Similar to Damo's suggestion. If 10 players get paid 10th gets 1 point and 1st gets 10 points.

E.g.
PPP IO
Buy-in €3500 = x5
Say 750 players with 75 getting paid

1st would get 75 x 5 = 375

IPO
Buy-In €250 = x2
Say 1500 Players with 150 getting paid

1st would get 150 x 2 = 300

Ladbrooks Killaraney Festival
Buy-In €550 = x3
Say 800 players with 80 getting paid

1st would get 80 x 3 = 240

Just an idea:)

You are not far our first proposal. We have logrithmic scales for number of players, buyin and position. We have also factored in the 10% of the field being paid and that in some touneys more than 10% are paid. I will send you an advanced copy as soon as it is finished.

DAMO72

very simular only you put it much better

JP Poker wrote: »

I know your looking into making some changes to your scoring system on this so here's a few idea's.

Buy In
€100-€249 x1
€250-€399 x2
€400-€999 x 3
€1000-€1999 x4
€2000+ x5

Number of players
Similar to Damo's suggestion. If 10 players get paid 10th gets 1 point and 1st gets 10 points.

E.g.
PPP IO
Buy-in €3500 = x5
Say 750 players with 75 getting paid

1st would get 75 x 5 = 375

IPO
Buy-In €250 = x2
Say 1500 Players with 150 getting paid

1st would get 150 x 2 = 300

Ladbrooks Killaraney Festival
Buy-In €550 = x3
Say 800 players with 80 getting paid

1st would get 80 x 3 = 240

Just an idea:)

dannydiamond

Fair play to Iain and all involved in getting this off the ground but does anyone actually give a sh1t about these rankings?
The only time I hear them mentioned is by Iain in his relentless promotion on every tournie thread,which is understandable tbf.

It all seems like a d1ck measuring contest to me and most of the decent players I've spoken to have little interest in it.
I know this sounds harsh but I have to ask what's the point of it?
Realistically it'll fall by the wayside like previous attempts.

big_iain

dannydiamond wrote: »

Fair play to Iain and all involved in getting this off the ground but does anyone actually give a sh1t about these rankings?
The only time I hear them mentioned is by Iain in his relentless promotion on every tournie thread,which is understandable tbf.

It all seems like a d1ck measuring contest to me and most of the decent players I've spoken to have little interest in it.
I know this sounds harsh but I have to ask what's the point of it?
Realistically it'll fall by the wayside like previous attempts.

lol, and i think 'doke' has the biggest one at the mo

CHD

big_iain wrote: »

lol, and i think 'doke' has the biggest one at the mo

You'd know

baz2007

there was a league like this a couple of years ago gjp ran it and they seemed 2 have a sound scoring system,jayminator won it i think and rob taylor was second.u cant have same points for different buy ins then u just have people traveling 2 galway for 100 frezze out just because its ranking and getting the same points as the guy who payed in and cashed in a monkey buy in the same week

big_iain

baz2007 wrote: »

there was a league like this a couple of years ago gjp ran it and they seemed 2 have a sound scoring system,jayminator won it i think and rob taylor was second.u cant have same points for different buy ins then u just have people traveling 2 galway for 100 frezze out just because its ranking and getting the same points as the guy who payed in and cashed in a monkey buy in the same week

Thanks Baz. It is our first year. The second will be better with buyins, finishing position and field size will all be taken into consideration.

Mellor

big_iain wrote: »

The one thing that is of primary concern to how they are calculated is the fact that i do not want one win to put you top and have a large advantage over the rest of the field. Ie. If it was based on Money, then the winner of the ppp Irish Open would be up there every year. If it was on field size then the winner of the IPO would get huge points.

The rankings must reward the players of Ireland playing week in week out on these shores.

There should be some way we can maintain these principles and achieve a loaded points system.

Well the obvious answer is to factor in both.
but doing so directly is still weighted towards high buy-in/fields.


JP's suggestion is pretty good however, the stepped grouping isn't ideal as close to limits, a few more people could mean -/+ alot of points.

A formula that take account of the elements would be best. Similar to pokerstars. They have a spread sheet available that does all the calc for you, why not copy it.

Pocket fives uses the prize pool and position. I like this model as the prize pool reflects the buy-in and the field.

A 100 man e400 game is rated the same as a 200 man 200 game. And so on. Obviously factor has to be applied to the pool so that twice the pool doesn't equal twice the points, I'd say sq square root or cubed root.

Same for position, square or cubed route.

This is easiest to manage, fairest and weights events in a reasonable manner.

dannydiamond

big_iain wrote: »

lol, and i think 'doke' has the biggest one at the mo

lol all you want, I stand by my comments and you clearly are unable to give a coherent response,and if this is the best you can do it only serves to prove my point.

big_iain

dannydiamond wrote: »

lol all you want, I stand by my comments and you clearly are unable to give a coherent response,and if this is the best you can do it only serves to prove my point.

What kind of response do you want me to give. I cannot help you if you do not follow them. I am sure that some of the top players don't either.

Fact of the matter is around 3000 unique people a month do. I do not pretend to myself that it will be everyones cup of tea.

TBH, if you don't, fine. Let others that do help in getting the factoring and weighting right for next year.

The 2009 winner gets $1000 into their Brucepoker account.

Those finishing in the top 50 to 8th will get to play off for a place on a final table with the top 8. The winner will get a sponsered pro package from Brucepoker.com. 2nd gets $500.

If you won that, i guess you still wouldn't be interested.

big_iain

Mellor wrote: »

Well the obvious answer is to factor in both.
but doing so directly is still weighted towards high buy-in/fields.


JP's suggestion is pretty good however, the stepped grouping isn't ideal as close to limits, a few more people could mean -/+ alot of points.

A formula that take account of the elements would be best. Similar to pokerstars. They have a spread sheet available that does all the calc for you, why not copy it.

Pocket fives uses the prize pool and position. I like this model as the prize pool reflects the buy-in and the field.

A 100 man e400 game is rated the same as a 200 man 200 game. And so on. Obviously factor has to be applied to the pool so that twice the pool doesn't equal twice the points, I'd say sq square root or cubed root.

Same for position, square or cubed route.

This is easiest to manage, fairest and weights events in a reasonable manner.

This is where we are currently

for buyin the factor is : log(10) of buyin - 1

so factors of 1 for €100, 2 for €1000 and 2.554 for €3500

for field size

the factor is log(10) of (field size/50)+1

so factors are :

50 players : 1
100 players : 1.3
700 players : 2.14
1400 players: 2.44

for position:
factor is : log(10) of (field size/10)/ position) + 1



The ranking points are now = (buyin factor) * (field factor) * (position factor) * 10


so for IO

3500, 700, 1st
= 153 points (we have multiplied by 10 to spread the points out)

ipo

180, 1400, 1st
= 96.6

brucepoker game

120, 50, 1st
= 18.3

fitz eom

270, 140, 1st
= 44.4


So you have to win ~3.5 fitz's games to equal one Irish open.

and 8 brucepoker games to equal an IPO


This seems to be the fairest formula as we do not want the luckbox who wins the IO to be the top player every year.


Comments required.

dannydiamond

big_iain wrote: »

What kind of response do you want me to give. I cannot help you if you do not follow them. I am sure that some of the top players don't either.

Fact of the matter is around 3000 unique people a month do. I do not pretend to myself that it will be everyones cup of tea.

TBH, if you don't, fine. Let others that do help in getting the factoring and weighting right for next year.

The 2009 winner gets $1000 into their Brucepoker account.

Those finishing in the top 50 to 8th will get to play off for a place on a final table with the top 8. The winner will get a sponsered pro package from Brucepoker.com. 2nd gets $500.

If you won that, i guess you still wouldn't be interested.

Youre right, I wouldn't.

Mellor

I think its a little over complicated, in fact some of the numbers are pointless. Now, its been years since I used logs, but i'm pretty sure that dividing the field by 50 is a constant. It's just the same as log(field size)-log(50)
Why would you make it overcomplicated, whats the point of taking away the same number, then adding on the same number to every factor???

How does position far up.
Can you compare 1st, 2nd, 4th and 8th in the same tourney (or give the factors like you did for field and buy-in)



Also, Field size is account for twice. Doubling the field increase the field bonus and the position bonus. (obvious winning a bigger fied is harder, but this is what the field bonus is). I think this is unnessecary.

The two most refered to ranking are poker stars and pocket 5s, star group postion and field together, while P5s group field and buy-in.

I think simpler option, with similar results is possible.

doke

Obviously pretty much everyone would agree that the current system which gives the winner of a ten man 100 Euro freezeout the same number of points as the winner of the IO or the IPO is a little silly so there's no point even debating that. Those were the rules from the start but it's good that Ian is changing them for next year.

I think the exact formula used is of relatively minor importance so long as it
(a) rewards larger buyins and field sizes
(b) but not to the degree that whoever wins the Irish open is more or less guaranteed number 1 in the rankings, or to render the smaller tournaments like club monthlies that are the bread and butter of the live Irish tourney scene completely meaningless.

I think the figures Ian quotes for what it would mean for different buyin/field sizes are intuitively sensible and achieve these aims.

I do think that logs are inherently the best way to reward at least larger field sizes, and also has the advantage that it reflects the fact that the deeper you go, the more significant each place becomes (when it gets 10 handed, you only need to outlast 10% of the field to make 9th, but when you get headsup, you have to outlast 50% of what remains). A lot of systems just have a flat 1 point jump per position or whatever that doesn't reflect this reality.

I think Ian deserves credit for stepping into the vacuum. Yes, there were other rankings in the past that didn't last, but that's not to say this one won't. At the end of the day, no ranking system is ever going to determine who the best live tourney poker player is (or any other mechanism: it's essentially indeterminable), and people are always going to scoff (and probably the farther down the list they are in relation to where they see themselves as players, the more they will scoff). However, I do think having rankings add value, enhances poker as a competitive sport rather than bingo, encourages people to participate in the local tournament scene, and that's good for all poker players. The fact that a sponsor is adding money is a bonus too: anything that brings added money into the game is good for players and should be welcomed.

big_iain

As requested here are some of the example factors

Buyin factors
50 0.698970004
100 1
150 1.176091259
200 1.301029996
250 1.397940009
300 1.477121255
400 1.602059991
500 1.698970004
750 1.875061263
1000 2
2000 2.301029996
3500 2.544068044



Field size factors
50 1
75 1.176091259
100 1.301029996
150 1.477121255
200 1.602059991
250 1.698970004
300 1.77815125
500 2
600 2.079181246
800 2.204119983
1000 2.301029996
1400 2.447158031

position factors
1 2
2 1.698970004
3 1.522878745
4 1.397940009
5 1.301029996
6 1.22184875
7 1.15490196
8 1.096910013
9 1.045757491
10 1
11 0.958607315
12 0.920818754

Position is based on a field of 100.

I must point out these are not steps just examples using the formula.

@Mellor, It is not the same log10.....-log 50---- the reason that is put in is so the factor of one would start at 50 runners. Less than 50 runners get a factor less than 1.


Another point. The position factors change depending on the size of the field and how many places are being paid. the factor 1 being for 10% place and the largest factor for 1st. obv.
But in this model, those doing a deal to get points for a bubble prize are given a factor of less than 1.


I will offer some points achieved for the same tourney


FitZ EOM Game July 270 buyin 140 runners

1st: 44.45points
2nd: 38.21 points
3rd: 34.57 points
4th: 31.98 points
5th: 29.9points
6th: 28.33 points
7th: 26.9 points
8th : 25.7 points
9th: 24.68 points
14th: 20.71
15th: 20.09 points

IO 2009 650 runners, 3500 buyin

1st: 151.28
2nd: 135.09
4: 118.9
5: 113.7
7: 105.8
10: 97.5
15: 88.03
20th: 81.3
30: 71.83
40: 65.12
60: 55.64


Does this help?

Ollieboy

big_iain wrote: »

As requested here are some of the example factors

Buyin factors
50 0.698970004
100 1
150 1.176091259
200 1.301029996
250 1.397940009
300 1.477121255
400 1.602059991
500 1.698970004
750 1.875061263
1000 2
2000 2.301029996
3500 2.544068044



Field size factors
50 1
75 1.176091259
100 1.301029996
150 1.477121255
200 1.602059991
250 1.698970004
300 1.77815125
500 2
600 2.079181246
800 2.204119983
1000 2.301029996
1400 2.447158031

position factors
1 2
2 1.698970004
3 1.522878745
4 1.397940009
5 1.301029996
6 1.22184875
7 1.15490196
8 1.096910013
9 1.045757491
10 1
11 0.958607315
12 0.920818754

Position is based on a field of 100.

I must point out these are not steps just examples using the formula.

@Mellor, It is not the same log10.....-log 50---- the reason that is put in is so the factor of one would start at 50 runners. Less than 50 runners get a factor less than 1.


Another point. The position factors change depending on the size of the field and how many places are being paid. the factor 1 being for 10% place and the largest factor for 1st. obv.
But in this model, those doing a deal to get points for a bubble prize are given a factor of less than 1.


I will offer some points achieved for the same tourney


FitZ EOM Game July 270 buyin 140 runners

1st: 44.45points
2nd: 38.21 points
3rd: 34.57 points
4th: 31.98 points
5th: 29.9points
6th: 28.33 points
7th: 26.9 points
8th : 25.7 points
9th: 24.68 points
14th: 20.71
15th: 20.09 points

IO 2009 650 runners, 3500 buyin

1st: 151.28
2nd: 135.09
4: 118.9
5: 113.7
7: 105.8
10: 97.5
15: 88.03
20th: 81.3
30: 71.83
40: 65.12
60: 55.64


Does this help?

excellant work Iain, but I think you will need to increase the factor on finishing positions. Getting 44.45 for first and 20.09 for creepying into the money is not really a big enough difference for the amount of money difference involve and the extra skill level etc. You could still end up with a player not having a win for the year and still winning the rankings, which is not good for the rankings in general. Also I think a players top 10 results should on count as this gives all the players a equal chance on not depending on how many events you play, but again the disadvantage against this option it increase the chance of the IO winner been the top rank player for the year.

YULETIRED

My 2 cents, I havn't read the thread so forgive if I'm repeating other viewpoints.
In my view the rankings should be top 5 only, you'll have enough out of top 5 players to make your list big enough anyway but if you include all you events and ALL your finishers you list will be HUGE by the end of the year. You also find it easier to maintain a smaller but select list. .