Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Earning points - good or bad?

There was an interesting discussion on Hoy's blog regarding BBT points and whether that was a good thing or not in terms of encouraging participation. Apparently, long before I ever joined this blogging community, there was a discussion about how having a point system (where you earn points based on how you finish) could eventually hurt these tournaments where initially, it was supposed to be set up just so bloggers could donk around and have some fun... ie play socializing, drink beer, chat it up, type of poker vs paying attention, playing tight, intense poker... So, I guess, the question becomes why do you play poker? Or what do you play poker for?

Do you just play for fun and entertainment? I mean is it the same to you as it is playing craps or roulette? Thrill of winning money but knowing that generally the odds are against you? Or do you play because you love the game itself? Or do you play just to make money? I think all those are very important questions to ask yourself as well as identifying the other players and why they play.

Anyways, back to points. I think the issue was partially brought up because in these blogger tournaments, you can almost fold to points. In other words, play uber tight, catch a few hands here and there and most likely, you'll be in the points. If you do that consistently, then even if you're not the type of player to win the tournament, you will find your name high on the leaderboard. That may give you a sense of accomplishment or it may not. Well, the argument against having points is that once the leaders are finalized, there's a chance that attendance for these tourneys will drop because if people start thinking they don't have a chance, why play in these tournaments if they could find others that may yield more money or are softer, etc. In other words, why choose to play in a tournament where the players actually take poker seriously?

Well, I personally like points. That's just how I am. In Hoy's post, I left a comment about how I may have eaten more vegetables growing up (like my mom would have liked me to) if they assigned points. Like in a given day, if I got to 150pts, I could use those points for a dessert or something. Here, let me illustrate. Let's say I have these choices for desserts... slice of cake, 100pts. Ice cream, 150pts. Kit kat, 50 pts. So, now if I wanted a slice of cake for dessert (because kit kat's too small), I have to earn a 100pts... by eating salad (50pts), side of carrots (15pts), broccoli (20pts) etc, until I get to 100pts. Let's say to encourage a balanced diet, I still get points for meat (10pts) or whatever, but doubling up doesn't count (so you can't just eat insane amount of meat and get it to a 100). I swear, that probably would have made me eat more veggies.

I'm just a scoreboard kinda guy. I remember some people saying "how bout we play poker with chips but no real money involved?" Um... how bout we watch a game of basketball where they don't keep score? I guess in my mind, what's the point? Our home game, PAPT, also has points. Last year, Sia ran away with it and towards the end, there was no point in keeping track of the points in terms of who won the side pot. However, there was still some friendly competition between JT and Tyke on who took second place. I guess it just depends on whether you are for it or not. But it would be very hard for me to continue to play in games where the competition dies out and we just do it for "fun". That's just not how I'm wired. I'm always very competitive and I want to win in everything I do. So, I'm all in favor of the BBT points, even if that may not necessarily indicate who the best players are, it's just a fun way of keeping track. Hoy did make an interesting point, saying that because of the way BBT points are allocated, he only uses amount of money won as an indicator of how well people are playing. And I would have to think that in the end, they will be extremely similar. I don't know how long the BBT thing goes on but I'd have to assume that if it goes on all year, at the end of the year, I'd say the top 5 of points will generally be up there in terms of the money earned as well.

3 comments:

SirFWALGMan said...

"Hoy did make an interesting point, saying that because of the way BBT points are allocated, he only uses amount of money won as an indicator of how well people are playing. And I would have to think that in the end, they will be extremely similar. I don't know how long the BBT thing goes on but I'd have to assume that if it goes on all year, at the end of the year, I'd say the top 5 of points will generally be up there in terms of the money earned as well."

With only one exception that seems to be true so far...

I like the Mookie a ton and play that every week points or no points.. the other ones I might or might not play depending on how I feel.. with the points thing and the freeroll afterwards I am more inclined to play them all..

lj said...

"Um... how bout we watch a game of basketball where they don't keep score?"

hahahahahaha. quote of the day for sure!

Instant Tragedy: Just Add Sean said...

Unfortunately, the points bonus system just increased the cost of transferring those points to anything worthwhile.

Instead of 50 pts for a Kit Kat, it is 5000. Good luck.

Points are good, but are the players who cash the most $ the ones you have to watch out for? I for one, being at the low end of cash and not able to play in the bigger tournaments don't and haven't cashed in the bigger tournaments. Does that make me a weaker player? I'd like to see the points and cash broke down in the tournaments. Maybe if I get bored in Maui (Fat Chance) I'll do it myself.