APAT WCOAP Team Event Post event reflections

[zzBlizzardzz]

Some excellent points well made. Ill reserve my comments for a later date bar one. We all played to the same format this year but Wales did it better than the rest. Well done lads, enjoy your victory.

[gerry5421]

Ahh, ok - point and virtual hug accepted

Des....remove your hand from my ass please

He was only trying to get your wallet out your back pocket, must have worked as he was spotted at the bar with money!!

[Pempi]

Bad Timing on your thoughts me thinks ?

Like I said - the conversation is relevant now. It won"t be relevant in six month"s time. 

I don"t understand why my contribution to the discussion is considered to be a knock against the Wales team - they won it and I have applauded them. I just happened to have asked a question about the general structure of the event, and would have asked the same question whoever won, including England.

So sorry for having an opinion.


I dont think You should be... its a point for that should be up for discussion and i dont think the Welsh Team (Rudders, Paul i hope both know that two years running i wholeheartedly congratulate them on winning becasue they won on merit) should be upset over this discussion, but in case they do then I would like to refer everyone who has an opion to a post from before the tourney i made below where in my notes i already raised the point (pasted below) of the MTT weight. So the topic was already wide open before the tourney and therefore cannot be sour grapes!

As far as i am concerned the team who win are the Champions, and i will never dispute it or belittle their win because i dont agree with the structure - we all had the same shot. But that does not stop me from expressing an opion about the structure. Pre - or post event. And i am still in agreement with my pretourney comment.
For the record possibly the Welsh would have still won if the idea of 18 scorers in the MTT went through so even then it would have been possible to win from 2nd last just a tad harded

GO THE WELSH!

Quote from: Chipaccrual on August 20, 2011, 10:54:11 am
Team Event - Points Allocations
(...)
Total points allocated for Day 1 = 548
Maximum Team points for Day 1 = 80
(...)
Total points allocated for Day 2 = 547
Maximum Team points for Day 2 = 126

Notes
(...)
The MTT will only alllocate points to the top 26 finishers (50% of the field).  We will run hand for hand at 27 (3 tables of 9 players)

Just for consideration - would it not be fairer if both days were a bit more even in terms of the points a team can maximally score rather than total points? Awarding points to only top 18 in the MTT would mean max for a team on day 2 is 94. The current structure is set up towards making sure a lot of teams are in the running before the MTT kicks off, in fact probably all of them, which adds excitement i agree but also probably eliminates a lot of the "good work on day one" factor.
This is not criticism in any way - just hoping to open up a discussion.
(...)
Thanks
Michael

Cant wait for the event guys, great work organising and reorganising!!!!!!

[rudders]

Just for the record (again!) Steve and I have no ill feelings - all sorted in a 10 second conversation whilst playing the omaha. I have had many discussions about the format and had suggested changes after both the last worlds and the home nations ( as I am sure Leigh would bear out). My only gripe was the opening of the discussion on a thread where everyone was posting their congrats - and as far as we are concerned done dusted etc.

A few thoughts - stts become turbo ish quite quickly reducing the play and perhaps skill factor - however the time constraints probably dont allow for for more chips or longer levels

The omaha definately needs more chips- raises tend to be bigger (rightly or wrongly), and the ability to play streets is lost very quickly- which I believe is a huge part of the game. Trust me bigger stacks will be lost quicker in omaha than a smaller one in nlhe.

Is there really more emphasis on the mtt than the stts? Or are we being mislead by a freakish ( or outstanding) result where a team gets three people to the final table of a 52 man mtt. If you win 3 stts you can max score 27 points- these take 2 to 2 1/2 hour generally generally so perhaps a total of 6 3/4 hours approx if you win all three. A minimum of zero points. If you won the mtt in this event you were finishing over seven hours after the start- points collected- 26.

The mtt scoring was changed after the home nations so that not all were awarded points- this actually had the reverse effect to the intended- the germans scored no points in this element whereas if all had got points they would have finished higher. Again the changes where made after a freakish result where a team got all four team members to the final table. This is the equivalent of getting first and seconds in all stts-not likely but could happen- would we be saying that there was too much emphasis on the stts if a team had scored 60 plus point in the stts? ( 66 would be an even mix of firsts and seconds)- 41 was the highest points scored in the stts by any 1 team.

Perhaps we should only give point to the top four in the stts? although we then run the risk of a team ending the competition was zero points.

The rolling heads up comps worked really well- although leigh was working his butt off- well done.

I thought tightys comments were fairly much spot on for what it is worth
I have played 3 different formats in four competitions and enjoyed them all. The atmosphere has been great at all of them definately enhanced by the inclusion of the mtt.

The organisation and running of this competition was top notch many thanks again.

[TheSnapper]

Some observations, solely with a view to learn, improve the formula and in no way having a pop at any team or individual.

The MTT aspect delivered many changing strategic dynamics and as a whole, added to the event. The Dan Owston, John Murray spot was pure theatre imho. On the other hand, a team was warned at least three times for discussing their best option during the play of a hand yet no penalty was applied.

The points allocation is and has been the main talking point and I have to say my initial reaction was that with 4 of 5 rounds of the event played, the bottom placed teams having under-performed by a large margin versus the field, should not be in a position where they can still win the event, even if it would take a supreme effort to achieve that.

Looking at the various teams' performance in EV terms to work out their points haul as an ROI and using there points equity as a buy in.
EG: 8 players in Stt with 28 points available, each player has a points equity of 8/28 = 3.5 points. Players buy in is 3.5 points.

Shows some interesting results...

Top EV performance in a session

Wales 237% ROI in MTT
England 179% ROI in PLO Stt
Italy 171% ROI  in NLHE Stt 1
Republic of Ireland 167% ROI in HU matches
Scotland 150% ROI in NLHE Stt 2

Best Average score over all 5 events

Wales
Scotland
Republic of Ireland

All on 119% ROI


Interestingly, all of the medallists....

Wales +30%
France +14%
Portugal +13%

Performed above their average score in the Mtt where 33% of the total points were awarded.

[AMRN]

Some observations, solely with a view to learn, improve the formula and in no way having a pop at any team or individual.

The MTT aspect delivered many changing strategic dynamics and as a whole, added to the event. The Dan Owston, John Murray spot was pure theatre imho. On the other hand, a team was warned at least three times for discussing their best option during the play of a hand yet no penalty was applied.

The points allocation is and has been the main talking point and I have to say my initial reaction was that with 4 of 5 rounds of the event played, the bottom placed teams having under-performed by a large margin versus the field, should not be in a position where they can still win the event, even if it would take a supreme effort to achieve that.

Looking at the various teams' performance in EV terms to work out their points haul as an ROI and using there points equity as a buy in.
EG: 8 players in Stt with 28 points available, each player has a points equity of 8/28 = 3.5 points. Players buy in is 3.5 points.

Shows some interesting results...

Top EV performance in a session

Wales 237% ROI in MTT
England 179% ROI in PLO Stt
Italy 171% ROI  in NLHE Stt 1
Republic of Ireland 167% ROI in HU matches
Scotland 150% ROI in NLHE Stt 2

Best Average score over all 5 events

Wales
Scotland
Republic of Ireland

All on 119% ROI


Interestingly, all of the medallists....

Wales +30%
France +14%
Portugal +13%

Performed above their average score in the Mtt where 33% of the total points were awarded.

My head hurts!