What's hot- what's not

[Garth Kay]

Everyone is really getting the impression that you love your new system Nathan, whilst I appreciate the input and initiative there is one slight flaw.

Example:
I play 20 games in a season.

I play 15 games with a field of 20 or less, I play my last 5 games at Roulettes which averages 120 players this season.

I achieve the final table 80% of the time in the small fields but never place in the points in the large fields. So 60% of the time overall.

My average finishing position is 3rd. I finish in the top 15 100% of the time in the smaller fields but never in the large fields. My average finishing position is 12.

So I have 600 Final Table points. I also have 375 minor placing points.

FT points(600)/Avg FT Placing(3) = 200
MP points(375)/Avg MP (3) = 125

Total Points = 325.
Average field size = 20

Therefore my points = 6500

Now do the math if I manage to just come third in one event with 120 players.

Just running through your system and working some macro's out, if I was a good player I would be heading into the smaller fields every single time. I am not punished for achieving no positions in the larger fields I am rewarded for consistent performance in a smaller field.

In your system, if we wish to get that complicated, we would have to take into effect: performance over a certain band of players (i.e: > 20, 21-30, 31 - 40, 41- 50, 51 - 70, 71+)

If it is to be a completely fair system you have to have some form of adding DNP scores into the average so it has a negative impact or negatively gear the system towards someone continually playing (not necessarily placing) in the smaller fields, but that then becomes detrimental to our regional players who do not have access to the larger fields that Metro players do.
My personal opinion is that a consistent 18th in a field of 120 + is a greater performance than finishing 4th out of 20 consistently.

Just my two cents.

[Garth Kay]

Also what happens if I play 100 games but only final table in ten?
What does your system create for me?

[David]

We don't need a new system!!

The current one is fine

[BigPete33]

it's mostly fine, but can be tweaked a little

[David]

My personal opinion is that a consistent 18th in a field of 120 + is a greater performance than finishing 4th out of 20 consistently

True - but if the idea is to win it could be the opposite.

[Goose]

My personal opinion is that a consistent 18th in a field of 120 + is a greater performance than finishing 4th out of 20 consistently.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
4/20 = 26pts
18/120 = 10pts

If you were consistent and averaged 4/20 you would finish in the top 5 and off to the finals
If you were consistant and finished 18/120 you would be way off the top 5 and never in the finals.

Sorry Garth had to pick the bones from your quote

[David]

In fact, finishing first at a venue with 20 people will get you 10 less points than someone finishing (let's change it to..) 15th at a 100 runner venue.

[Garth Kay]

My Statement was not in reference to any tournament size, not respective of NPL competitions. I can land in the money (top 4) of a 18 person sit n go 75% of the time. But I only manage to place in the money of 200+ tournaments 50% - 66% (at the best).
Just my personal opinion of what achievement is greater.

[Goose]

My Statement was not in reference to any tournament size, not respective of NPL competitions. I can land in the money (top 4) of a 18 person sit n go 75% of the time. But I only manage to place in the money of 200+ tournaments 50% - 66% (at the best).
Just my personal opinion of what achievement is greater.

I do agree there is more satisfaction playing well in larger fields than smaller fields

[Matty Norwood]

so when we all agree on a system that everyone likes and agrees upon, could we move onto an easier subject? World peace perhaps?

not real constructive i know.
matty