Tournament Blackjack Tour (TBT)
- Thread starter TXtourplayer
- Start date
Fair Plan
I don't believe that its my place to make the decision to reveal the entire point system here.The player ranking system will soon be put in place for all to see and for that matter ,when we were hatching this idea Kenny and I asked anyone on the radio show if they had any ideas or formulas that they wanted implemented to please send us an email or call us and lets us hear your ideas.
If you are interested in knowing how many ideas or suggestions we received to make this the best player ranking system .The answer was ZERO
So without any player input what were the 4 of us to do except try to make this the "Fairest" point system possible using our knowledge of tournaments. The ranking system will be open to all sanctioned tournament that are non invitational.
A sanctioned tournament is any tournament that is being held that the host casino or tournament company is willing to report accurate semi final table and final table results and the tournaments have to be open to all who want to play
There will be no points awarded for showing up
There will be no points deducted for not showing up
There will be points awarded for Semi Final Table Appearances
There will be points awarded for Final Table Appearances
Every Tournament will be rewarding different amounts of points based upon buy ins and number of players entered into each Tournament
This is only fair as if you were to beat 500 players and still receive the same amount of points as someone who beat 250 players this would create an unfair player ranking system.
There are some people who just rush things and then have to make adjustments to their initial plan
We are trying to cross all the T and dot all the I before this is made public
Joep
I don't believe that its my place to make the decision to reveal the entire point system here.The player ranking system will soon be put in place for all to see and for that matter ,when we were hatching this idea Kenny and I asked anyone on the radio show if they had any ideas or formulas that they wanted implemented to please send us an email or call us and lets us hear your ideas.
If you are interested in knowing how many ideas or suggestions we received to make this the best player ranking system .The answer was ZERO
So without any player input what were the 4 of us to do except try to make this the "Fairest" point system possible using our knowledge of tournaments. The ranking system will be open to all sanctioned tournament that are non invitational.
A sanctioned tournament is any tournament that is being held that the host casino or tournament company is willing to report accurate semi final table and final table results and the tournaments have to be open to all who want to play
There will be no points awarded for showing up
There will be no points deducted for not showing up
There will be points awarded for Semi Final Table Appearances
There will be points awarded for Final Table Appearances
Every Tournament will be rewarding different amounts of points based upon buy ins and number of players entered into each Tournament
This is only fair as if you were to beat 500 players and still receive the same amount of points as someone who beat 250 players this would create an unfair player ranking system.
There are some people who just rush things and then have to make adjustments to their initial plan
We are trying to cross all the T and dot all the I before this is made public
Joep
Barney Stone
New Member
You cant have a fair system
without limits on the number of games people can play. For example, in an open playing field a player could play every week if he had the means. He could travel around the country and play a couple a week and accumulate big points. This points system would represent the wealthy and professional gamblers, not good profile of the playing field and do little to draw "ordinary people" to compete. In a way it would represent the invitational player. Ricks system would rein in the players to match face to face. The only way to prove who is best is to match them in same games and total those scores. Otherwise the ranks will represent an upper class of players. Not a fair field.
I think anyway,
B
without limits on the number of games people can play. For example, in an open playing field a player could play every week if he had the means. He could travel around the country and play a couple a week and accumulate big points. This points system would represent the wealthy and professional gamblers, not good profile of the playing field and do little to draw "ordinary people" to compete. In a way it would represent the invitational player. Ricks system would rein in the players to match face to face. The only way to prove who is best is to match them in same games and total those scores. Otherwise the ranks will represent an upper class of players. Not a fair field.
I think anyway,
B
RKuczek
Member
for pros
there is no such thing as a fair field Barney - Rick - set up a ranking system that will work and be fair for the top tier pro players - as those are the ones who will be competing for the points - and if any of the rest of us score a few points and rank - then we can be considered as 'pros' from then on - and feed our egos for a while with our pro ranking
there is no such thing as a fair field Barney - Rick - set up a ranking system that will work and be fair for the top tier pro players - as those are the ones who will be competing for the points - and if any of the rest of us score a few points and rank - then we can be considered as 'pros' from then on - and feed our egos for a while with our pro ranking
TXtourplayer
Executive Member
Actually
My point idea is to try and be fair to all the players, but I do want a system to show who the most consitant players are over the year.
It isn't the winner of the tournament that I think decides the best player (over a years time), but the player who always advances in most of the tournaments.
As far as my point system I had a good suggestion tonight. I was told to increase the points to be awarded and then minus in whole numbers instaid of factions. It seems like a pretty good idea to me.
Like I have said just because I came up with this idea doesn't mean I wouldn't be willing to change it if a better suggestion or idea either came to me or was give to me. There is always room for improvement, but we have to start somewhere.
Now I can understand about Joep not wanting to post the point system if it isn't all his, but Joep why did you even say anything about it if you can't talk about it now?
My point idea is to try and be fair to all the players, but I do want a system to show who the most consitant players are over the year.
It isn't the winner of the tournament that I think decides the best player (over a years time), but the player who always advances in most of the tournaments.
As far as my point system I had a good suggestion tonight. I was told to increase the points to be awarded and then minus in whole numbers instaid of factions. It seems like a pretty good idea to me.
Like I have said just because I came up with this idea doesn't mean I wouldn't be willing to change it if a better suggestion or idea either came to me or was give to me. There is always room for improvement, but we have to start somewhere.
Now I can understand about Joep not wanting to post the point system if it isn't all his, but Joep why did you even say anything about it if you can't talk about it now?
Last edited:
London Colin
Top Member
Are the two ranking systems designed for the same purpose? It seems to me that a system designed to find a winner for a 'season' is a very different thing from a system designed to identify the best players (and perhaps be used as one of the criteria for who gets to go to any invitational tournaments).
The latter should ideally look back over more than one year. In some ways we are back to the luck v skill debate, and the definition of the 'long run'. In a single year, luck will still play a significant role, even under a system designed to reward every advancement from a table, rather than just final and semi-final appearances.
For a generalised - who are the current best players? - ranking system, I'd go for something like the accumulated points total over the last N tournaments which they entered, where N is a suitably big number to define the long run (maybe 100?). To stop people retiring on top and staying there, it'd have to be the last N tournaments held within the last M years. For active players, there would be a rolling process - each new tournament they play bumps the oldest one out of their set of qualifying tournaments; if they did better in this one then their points total goes up, if they did worse then it goes down.
Obviously there'd be the question of what happens if you don't have N qualifying tournaments under your belt (as would be the case during the startup of such a system, or for someone who hasn't played recently and often enough to maintain the 'N tournaments in M years' qualifying record). In that situation, I suppose you either simply don't have a ranking, or it is in some way flagged as 'provisional'.
The latter should ideally look back over more than one year. In some ways we are back to the luck v skill debate, and the definition of the 'long run'. In a single year, luck will still play a significant role, even under a system designed to reward every advancement from a table, rather than just final and semi-final appearances.
For a generalised - who are the current best players? - ranking system, I'd go for something like the accumulated points total over the last N tournaments which they entered, where N is a suitably big number to define the long run (maybe 100?). To stop people retiring on top and staying there, it'd have to be the last N tournaments held within the last M years. For active players, there would be a rolling process - each new tournament they play bumps the oldest one out of their set of qualifying tournaments; if they did better in this one then their points total goes up, if they did worse then it goes down.
Obviously there'd be the question of what happens if you don't have N qualifying tournaments under your belt (as would be the case during the startup of such a system, or for someone who hasn't played recently and often enough to maintain the 'N tournaments in M years' qualifying record). In that situation, I suppose you either simply don't have a ranking, or it is in some way flagged as 'provisional'.
fgk42
New Member
Barney Stone
New Member
I think there is, if you have a designated number of tournaments to play. For example, NASCAR races about 40 a year. The NASCAR Busch run about 30 something. They dont add all these together even tho the same teams run both. Each is a separate group of races. Tex has the right idea in having a specific circuit. It limits the number of events while giving chance or forcing all the competitors to go head to head. It also allows Rick to keep score which would be hard for a free for all open field. Of course the totals from Rick's tour could be used to make scores in other events and use Joe's accumulation as well because really Rick's tour is an individual circuit separate from other casino events. But Rick's will show more proof because you will know each player was playing in same events. Im sure the pros, whatever a pro is, will be qualifying in Rick's events as well.
Barney
fgk42
New Member
Barney,
How does the NASCAR compare to the PGA?
What I don't like about TX's system is the averaging part! That sucks. Just have totals. If you've got 20 events state that you've got to play in a minimum of 50% to qualify for the money. You can still be in the rankings but lets be serious.
If you play every week in a 5.00 buy-in with 50 people it shouldn't be given the same weight as a 100.00 buy-in with 250 people should it?
Different leagues have different rankings. For example you've got the PGA and a second tier/lower paying league too. The rankings are for the individual leagues and they don't co-mingle.
So TX's ranking applies to TX's circuit. Period. End of discussion. I may not like it but in America I'm free to not play or participate right?
Personally I'll support anyone who takes the time and effort to increase the number of tourney events and takes the players side. Go get em TX.
Let's Rock 'n Roll
Just my thoughts.....
As far as the points system goes: We are not all going to agree 100% with Rick's rules. That's probably one thing we can all agree on. But, we need to start somewhere and what Rick has come up with is a great starting point. What I wouldn't like is to change the ranking system mid-season. Once we start the season we use that ranking system for the whole year. When the season is over, the ranking system is evaluated and changes can be made for the next year.
As far as the tournament rules go: Last month we used the TBT rules on the blackjack tournament cruise. The only two differences to the rules that I know of where husbands and wifes could ask to play at different tables in the first round and the second rule difference was if a player gets sea-sick another player could fill in for the sick player. Let me tell you the rules worked out extremely well including the use of the infamous surrender card (even SWOG admitted to it working well). Yep, I heard it with my own two ears.
In my opinion: I'm looking forward to playing TBT without all the carnival game rules. Don't get me wrong though. I do enjoy playing WSBJ style tourneys with knockout cards and Burger King power chips. I do enjoy playing UBT style tourneys with mutiple elimination rounds like on Ultimate Bet and Bet21. I do enjoy playing at the Las Vegas Hilton with muligans and free Aces. But when is all said and done I enjoy blackjack tourneys without all the carnival game rules much more. I fully understand some of the carnival game rules are added for TV ratings or casinos to make more money.
I'm really looking forward to the TBT starting up and hope it does by early 2007. I think January would be a great starting time if Rick can get the casinos coordinated. Thanks all for listening.
Just my thoughts.....
As far as the points system goes: We are not all going to agree 100% with Rick's rules. That's probably one thing we can all agree on. But, we need to start somewhere and what Rick has come up with is a great starting point. What I wouldn't like is to change the ranking system mid-season. Once we start the season we use that ranking system for the whole year. When the season is over, the ranking system is evaluated and changes can be made for the next year.
As far as the tournament rules go: Last month we used the TBT rules on the blackjack tournament cruise. The only two differences to the rules that I know of where husbands and wifes could ask to play at different tables in the first round and the second rule difference was if a player gets sea-sick another player could fill in for the sick player. Let me tell you the rules worked out extremely well including the use of the infamous surrender card (even SWOG admitted to it working well). Yep, I heard it with my own two ears.
In my opinion: I'm looking forward to playing TBT without all the carnival game rules. Don't get me wrong though. I do enjoy playing WSBJ style tourneys with knockout cards and Burger King power chips. I do enjoy playing UBT style tourneys with mutiple elimination rounds like on Ultimate Bet and Bet21. I do enjoy playing at the Las Vegas Hilton with muligans and free Aces. But when is all said and done I enjoy blackjack tourneys without all the carnival game rules much more. I fully understand some of the carnival game rules are added for TV ratings or casinos to make more money.
I'm really looking forward to the TBT starting up and hope it does by early 2007. I think January would be a great starting time if Rick can get the casinos coordinated. Thanks all for listening.
fgk42
New Member
TX,
Please explain to me why there has to be an average?
PGA - no averages
NASCAR - no averages
MLB - no averages
NFL - no averages
Even in Bowling ranking - no averages
Set a minimum number of tourneys to play in and have points. So what if someone plays every month? If you only give points for final tables and the monthly player only hits the final table once in 12 months it will show.
Giving people points for showing up - nah!
Whiney points - cute for a end of season gag gift
I just don't understand why we try to design systems that please everyone and don't raise the bar. If you build it - they will come!
Please explain to me why there has to be an average?
PGA - no averages
NASCAR - no averages
MLB - no averages
NFL - no averages
Even in Bowling ranking - no averages
Set a minimum number of tourneys to play in and have points. So what if someone plays every month? If you only give points for final tables and the monthly player only hits the final table once in 12 months it will show.
Giving people points for showing up - nah!
Whiney points - cute for a end of season gag gift
I just don't understand why we try to design systems that please everyone and don't raise the bar. If you build it - they will come!
TXtourplayer
Executive Member
Just trying to make it work for all...
Yes I agree that a minimum number of tournaments would be the best way to handle qualifying for ranking, but the cost of travel, entry fees etc... along with not being able to just take off when ever you want effects several player by putting a minimum number of tournaments a player has to play in to qualify.
That is way I belive my system is fair for all, it allows those players who can't get off or that can afford to play in as many tournaments as offers a chance to still get a player ranking.
This system is not designed for the season player over the newbie or vise-versa. I am just looking for teh fairest way to rank all players.
Another important fact about my piont system (for ranking players), it is only going to be used in teh TBT event anyway. So the points will be awarded in a fair way for all teh players since the format and rules will be the same for every tournament and "ALL" players will be allowed to play in them.
As far as other sports it doesn't matter how or what they do or how they rank their players, (they are "Pro's) and they get paid for playing not like us hoping to win to make money. We have to use a different type of point system, none of theirs would work for us.
I am not going to penilize any player that can't make a certain number of tournaments, now that wouldn't be fair. You might as well tell every player that can't afford to play or can't get off work that their not good enough to have a ranking, it would be the same thing.
Yes I agree that a minimum number of tournaments would be the best way to handle qualifying for ranking, but the cost of travel, entry fees etc... along with not being able to just take off when ever you want effects several player by putting a minimum number of tournaments a player has to play in to qualify.
That is way I belive my system is fair for all, it allows those players who can't get off or that can afford to play in as many tournaments as offers a chance to still get a player ranking.
This system is not designed for the season player over the newbie or vise-versa. I am just looking for teh fairest way to rank all players.
Another important fact about my piont system (for ranking players), it is only going to be used in teh TBT event anyway. So the points will be awarded in a fair way for all teh players since the format and rules will be the same for every tournament and "ALL" players will be allowed to play in them.
As far as other sports it doesn't matter how or what they do or how they rank their players, (they are "Pro's) and they get paid for playing not like us hoping to win to make money. We have to use a different type of point system, none of theirs would work for us.
I am not going to penilize any player that can't make a certain number of tournaments, now that wouldn't be fair. You might as well tell every player that can't afford to play or can't get off work that their not good enough to have a ranking, it would be the same thing.
fgk42
New Member
TX,
I believe you'v got the best of intentions here, truely I do. However, is this the best way to rank TBJ players or just the "fairest".
Fairest isn't usually the best. Just assign points and let the cream rise to the surface.
If the goal is to find the best players - remember Field of Dreams? "If you build it they will come?"
Averages give too much weight to the past and not the present. Just make it a point total weighted towards winning. Don't get too fancy. Have a minimum number of events to qualify for the prize money.
Rating systems
TXtourplayer:
Seems like ALL IN magazine has some type of rating system (see below). Would that affect yours? How many other organizations have a rating system? Which is the most recognized?
From LAS VEGAS ADVISER:
TXtourplayer:
Seems like ALL IN magazine has some type of rating system (see below). Would that affect yours? How many other organizations have a rating system? Which is the most recognized?
From LAS VEGAS ADVISER:
David's (Matthews) been the Web Site Director for LasVegasAdvisor.com for three years now, but he's also a top tournament-blackjack player, currently ranked #6 in the world by All In magazine.
Hollywood
New Member
Then look for the current issue, with David Williams on one cover and Team UBT on the reverse cover. It rocks...
Kisses from Aruba, bitches!
-hd.
Bitches
Damn Hollywood, you almost made a complete post without using a word your mother would object to. Maybe I'll check out your web site now.
noman
Top Member
Toolman1:..Hollyweed's site:
Go there if you must. But so far all he wants to do is play Jim Rome. Lot's of future promises. Book still coming.......
I know Hollyweed, kind of. I know Cerritos. I know and understand the man behind the personality.....but....so fa, all the site wants to be is a "smack down to dumb A**ses wanting to get involved in such a thing.
Go play poker on line and you'll get a million a minute of like kind.
Kind of funny in a way, that a mensa mensch would want to play a Jerry Springer duesch. and other pretenders such as myself, look to the higher level.
Go there if you must. But so far all he wants to do is play Jim Rome. Lot's of future promises. Book still coming.......
I know Hollyweed, kind of. I know Cerritos. I know and understand the man behind the personality.....but....so fa, all the site wants to be is a "smack down to dumb A**ses wanting to get involved in such a thing.
Go play poker on line and you'll get a million a minute of like kind.
Kind of funny in a way, that a mensa mensch would want to play a Jerry Springer duesch. and other pretenders such as myself, look to the higher level.
Hollywood
New Member
Awww noman, didn't know that 2 minutes we spent together 6 months ago in the Rio lobby made such an impact on ya.... how sweet of you!
As for the trash-talking site, its definately building. For now you'll have to be content with the blog, rants, and chance to get trained by me for the UBT...and for those who aren't so familiar with me yet, the pix/bio/etc. A set-in-stone release date for my book will be announced very shortly (like in the next few weeks), as well as some surprise new additions to the site that i think everybody'll really dig! shhhhhh.... more soon.
okay, its off to take a stroll down the boardwalk, pop in to the Radisson, and help launch the UBT's first ever open week of tournaments here at the Ultimate Bet Aruba Classic! Rock on --
-hd.