Maybe... I dunno, I really think that if the participants are actually interested in playing, then it will happen.

Our group really isn't such a disaster, although MVP hasn't played any matches to my knowledge. But in group 2, I think only 1 match has been played total. I don't really know what the deal is there.

I think scheduling problems in different time zones and such can be resolved just by posting here--as Godlike kindly did and has actually finished more matches than anyone.

If people don't even respond to inquiries, I can only assume they're not really interested as a general rule (barring unavailability of computer, extended travel, etc.).

People may also be worried about "losing face" or something if they don't do well in this thing. But really, at least in my view, the only valid skill ranking HU would result from a very long-term league with a lot of participants where you'd eventually get some kind of vague stability around one group or another. There's obviously so much variance in these things that even winning none of 8 games is really pretty meaningless in the scheme of things. I've definitely lost at least a fair number of HU matches back-to-back before (and had similar winning streaks). I just get the feeling that part of it may be that people may fear losing when the wins and losses are in a more public context.

But, if we could keep it going with some sort of stable group of participants, I think average ranking over a year's time would have some kind of meaning--in addition to allowing more detailed analysis of one's own game and getting more detailed reads on opponents.

Finally another match!!!

I'm playing MVP tonight at 11:00 Stars time.

Also, I think Bosox idea of reduced buy-in for the future might be good in combination with an advance prize pool.

Here's how it might work: Buy-in for matches is as low as possible (at Stars, you can't do a private tourney for less than $5), but everyone pays in $100 at the beginning of the season in order to participate.

The TD would hold the money until the season is completed. Alternatively, we could see if Dutch Boyd would be willing to do so (just kidding...).

Then, the prize money would be divided WITHIN EACH GROUP, whether the groups are rated or not. And the increment would be constant.

For example, if group 1 has 5 participants (like now), then the prize pool would be $500 for that group. Anyone who doesn't complete at least half of the required matches simply loses the buy-in. Now, let's say that 4 out of the 5 participants in group 1 complete half their matches. The players are then ranked according to the scheme I outlined in setting it up: Win points take priority, but in case of a tie, whoever has more play points gets ranked higher. If it's still a tie, then the players split for that particular place. Last place gets nothing.

So, let's say that in our group Bosox is ranked first, MVP and Godlike are tied for second/third, hard2tel has only played 2 matches, and I'm last. We then have 3 places paying. So, we divide the prize pool by 6 to get the increments (n*(n+1)/2). 500/6 = 83.33.

Hence, normally 3rd would get back 83.33, 2nd 166.67, and first 250. But MVP and Godlike are tied, so they split the different for 2nd and 3rd and each get $125. Bosox gets $250.

A couple of thoughts: Once rated groups exist, this would make it rather disadvantageous to be in group 1, which is going to be the toughest. One COULD skim a certain percentage off of the other groups (like 5% or 10%) to compensate for this, but I really don't think that would be such a good idea.

For one thing, these are really effectively low buy-in matches. $100 plus $5 for each match means that over 8 matches, you're only paying about $18 per match, which I don't think is exorbitant. Moreover, this scheme reduces the effective rake (Stars only get .50 per match whereas we get back everything else).

For another, dividing up the prize pool places a certain mathematical burden on the TD already, and it gets even more complicated if you have to skim off the given percentage.

Third, the HU leage at these stakes really isn't a way to make any kind of serious money but more of a presumably break-even way of improving one's skills without putting a lot of money at risk to play good players. I mean, if you're truly a HU monster, then you should really just be sitting waiting on some site at a $1,000 up HU table in order to make money rather than sitting around in the league playing low-stakes matches against a field that is certainly better than the buy-in would suggest. So, what we're really talking about here is not making lots of cash directly but getting better at low cost and with a certain prestige component for those who do well in it.

Those would be my reasons for not sweetening the prize pool for the top group or groups.

Well, this all assumes that the league is something that will actually continue. But I thought I'd run that by you guys if some are still interested.

Oh, one more thought: Let's say that we had that scheme but no one in group 2 completed at least half of the required matches. Then, I think the whole of the prize pool for that group should be divided equally among the remaining groups. And if only 1 player in a certain group completed at least half of the matches, that player would get only half of the total prize pool back (like $250 out of the $500 having bought in for $100), and the other half would be divided among the other groups.

There are also some further details to be worked out here, and I'd be happy to do it if we still have a league.

Well, I thought I was going to play MVP, but he didn't show...

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAH... YOU IMPATIENT BASTARD... I GOT THERE AT LIKE 11:00... 000000000000000001 AND IT SAID IT WAS CANCELLED...

COME BACK AND PLAY TONITE... MIDNIGHT... 1AM... YOU CHOOSE SIR...

I have AIM, my SN is orhms