Regional and State leaderboards

[queen9]

My husband and I drove 2 1/2 hours to play against the state leader, Alf Morley, just because he was the state leader. when we got to the venue, the td asked if we knew that the state leader player there, that this was his venue and we told him that is why we came. He was rapt.

having the amount of state leaderboard winners come from the same metro west, play mostly at one venue, but sometimes at both (2 venues run 5 nights between them), one would think that either the venues would think, or perhaps npl could have suggested, that it might be a good drawing card.

I discussed this with the manager of one of the venues, and the comment was that it could put me off my game and they didn't want to do that.

I would have sacrificed my whole season in order to help build numbers. I would have let them use what I did in any way they wanted to help them increase their players and promote npl. I am 53 years of age, a grandmother to now 8 grandchildren, not your typical gambler or probably even poker player, yet I have won this trophy twice - what a great publicity opportunity being wasted. and without being sexist, so far I am the only woman to have won it at all.

NPL said it would not work, it would not draw any more people.

so I promote our venues where ever we go, no matter how far away we are, I promote. I helped to build Q Magic up from an average of 16 players to 40 within 3 weeks, just by word of mouth and promoting the venue. I still do, contrary to some beliefs. but when it comes to having the best advertising right in front of you, sometimes people can't see the wood for the trees. Q9

[BigPete33]

Good to hear you both did your part, if only everyone put in the effort that you obviously did.

And you are both correct.

Which further highlights pretty much having to live with it.


It's a little bit like asking for a discount on something because you happen to live a bit far away from where it's being sold.

I'm not trying to be deliberately harsh, far from it, I'm merely trying to suggest it's a bit unrealistic.

I must confess though, if it was suggested to me to go and play at any venue in SA (no matter where it was) because the 'winner of the state leaderboard' was playing there... I honestly and truly would laugh. Having said that, there's absolutely nothing wrong with suggesting new things to try and that's one of the good things about this forum.

[queen9]

bacon ... that is fine for the once or twice a week player - venue leader is a great achievement ..well done .. but a step up from that should be 'regional leader' as a challenge to bettering yourself, playing a few more games and getting better results.

Our issue is that we will go anywhere there is a game (how long does it take to drive to s.a.???) and so we often go outside our venue to play somewhere else, and sometimes that is in a different region ... we can go on holidays to ocean grove for example, approx 1.5 -2 hours from here, and still play poker almost every night of the week and still have our points count.

a few weeks ago, we had cause to go to caulfield, we planned it so we would make it to the london taverner in time to play poker .. .. so the points we achieve come from playing everywhere, not just against the same bunch of people once or twice a week, but from the challenge of fronting up to an unknown field of players ... by the way, I came 2 at the london ...

when we drove to bendigo, we made final table together for the first time, and I came 7th and my hubby came 3rd ... oh, and by the way, the 'then' state leader didn't make the points ... sorry alf ... lol ...

[BigPete33]

So again, what you are really asking for is a leaderboard that is actually a leaderboard and where a real (rather than an artificial) average is used. Consistently placing at a smaller venue would really only lose out to someone consistently placing at a larger venue. I'm sure you will see that is completely fair and reasonable.

Garth has already intimated that such a thing seems to be on the way. I don't believe Steve is that useful - but I've been wrong before I have no idea if it's going to be used for anything leaderboardish, but I live in hope.

[queen9]

bacon ... from going to play against the state leaderboard winner, I learnt a lot ... I learnt that Alf Morley is one of the nicest people we have ever had the honour to meet, we learnt that Bendigo welcomes vistors with welcome arms. we learnt that there are more than one way to skin a cat and I learnt that anything is possible.

I also learnt that the state leader is human, just like me and at a time where I was doubting myself, I could draw on a newfound passion for this great game and achieve great things.

so, please give us some creditbility and respect, as we do you ... and set yourself a challenge .... come play ... let me take your chips too ... lol ...

[queen9]

big pete, I think that the other point Garth was trying to make was that the chances of winning at a smaller venue outweighed winning at a bigger venue, as it would be to point ... In order to point at a venue with 100 players, you have to wait til 85 of them go out ... that is 85% of the players, at a venue with say 50 players, only 35 have to go out and you are in the points .. much easier ... lol .....

if we went back to the old system where you got the same points for a win or a placing, regardless of the number of players, we would all play at small venues ... correct????

[Garth Kay]

The problem is this - average points will always be the best way to assess how good a player is.

I agree with that.
I understand your way of thinking now Garth.
But the problem still remains, is there another way around it then that will give the smaller venues a fair chance?

My point is that with the leaderboard I am suggesting it is those who play in a larger venue regularly that will be disadvantaged. A skilled player will pull down big points sporadically in a large venue, whilst the same skilled player will regularly make points in a smaller field. Go check out the "true" averages of players on the State leaderboard now. One player I would like you to check out is William McBride (Gippsland Player), Ben Russell (Geelong), Alison Boram (Gippsland) all players that play in regional areas with field sizes varying from 20 - 80 maximum. They consistently place and have phenomenal averages. These three would be situated in the top 10 of a "true" leaderboard. And that was just after a quick view.

I can see where Garth is coming from, the only point here is that once you have achieved your 20 games, those who play at smaller venues can't increase their average by as much as those who play in larger venues. In fact, making it to 10th in a larger venue is sometimes just as good as a win in a smaller venue.

Under a "true" leaderboard your average can still decrease and increase after your 20 games is reached depending on performance.

the state final is the result of one game on one day, which given the right amount of luck, one person can win $10,000.

The State Final is a result of ten weeks consistent play. The fact that anyone is playing in the State final is due to ten weeks of hard work and consistent performance. Everyone who has qualified for this event has a right to be there as they have all struggled and stressed as much as anybody else throughout the ten week season. It is not just about playing well on the day but playing well for ten weeks and then playing well and getting lucky on the day.

the state leaderboard used to offer a prize of $3000, it was reduced to $1000 in season 3 last year, and as of season 1, 2009, it will be reduced to $1000.

so now there is no incentive for us to play and go through the stress (trust me, it is stressful), we may as well just go to one venue, play with our friends, if we make points we do, and if not, bad luck.

And as a company we have sought to move those funds to generate more interest in other areas and to attract a wider scope of players. It may be of note, and probably something I shouldn't discuss, but through recent market research 0.2% of our regular playing base care about the State Leaderboard. The common perception amongst players is that it is unwarranted and the majority of mega gamers do not spend as well at one regular venue than a one or two game player does. Does that make sense? Also in Victoria our business model is not based around how many players we attract to the venue as it is in SA but more heavily reliant on venue spend by punters.

Hence why State Leaderboard funds are been directed in another direction and we are looking to offer more events based around FT appearances in set time periods. This in itself generates activity we believe.

having the amount of state leaderboard winners come from the same metro west, play mostly at one venue, but sometimes at both (2 venues run 5 nights between them), one would think that either the venues would think, or perhaps npl could have suggested, that it might be a good drawing card.

I discussed this with the manager of one of the venues, and the comment was that it could put me off my game and they didn't want to do that.

I would have sacrificed my whole season in order to help build numbers. I would have let them use what I did in any way they wanted to help them increase their players and promote npl. I am 53 years of age, a grandmother to now 8 grandchildren, not your typical gambler or probably even poker player, yet I have won this trophy twice - what a great publicity opportunity being wasted. and without being sexist, so far I am the only woman to have won it at all.

NPL said it would not work, it would not draw any more people.

so I promote our venues where ever we go, no matter how far away we are, I promote. I helped to build Q Magic up from an average of 16 players to 40 within 3 weeks, just by word of mouth and promoting the venue. I still do, contrary to some beliefs. but when it comes to having the best advertising right in front of you, sometimes people can't see the wood for the trees. Q9

Interesting concept, it may be good as a marketing tool to females and new members but as a concept to get regular players to attend another venue it wouldn't be that successful. As stated previously 0.2% of membership only care, I see that it may be a good tool to sell NPL as an "anyone can do it" type of thing and how good it is for the "aussie battler" but as a draw cards for poker players - possibly not. But I am willing to give anything a go with the right scope, thought and direction and the least it costs the better.

if we went back to the old system where you got the same points for a win or a placing, regardless of the number of players, we would all play at small venues ... correct????

No, only the points chasers would seek out smaller venues.
Many players (make that a LOT of) still play at their regular venue for the sheer enjoyment of having a social game of cards with people they know and enjoy "hanging out" with. Prizes to these players are a secondary or tertiary thought.

[queen9]

garth, I was taking nothing away from those who make the state final by way of qualifying through any other means that the state leaderboard, but we all go through 10 weeks of (sometimes) stress to get where we are, and that one day, one game, can win you $10,000.

I have also lobbied for regional and venue prizes in victoria for about 18 months now, this way the one nighters, once a week get rewarded as venue leaders, those who play at different venues in their region, instead of just one, are rewarded for their efforts regardless of where they play, and so do those who make it onto the state leaderboard top 10, and play anywhere they want.

In fact, Ivan has changed my way of thinking with the state final, the one I didn't think was a good idea in as far as directing prize money to, was the $150K final.

so at the end of all this, no matter how you qualify for a final, if you are top of that field, I agree there should be some reward. as far as 0.2% of people caring about the state leaderboard, if they understood more about how it worked, how to get there and it was attractive enough, your one gamers would turn into 2-3 gamers, that would put bums on seats and no matter what state you are, that must bring in more money for the venue.

[Garth Kay]

so at the end of all this, no matter how you qualify for a final, if you are top of that field, I agree there should be some reward. as far as 0.2% of people caring about the state leaderboard, if they understood more about how it worked, how to get there and it was attractive enough, your one gamers would turn into 2-3 gamers, that would put bums on seats and no matter what state you are, that must bring in more money for the venue.

Average of best 15 games. $5,000 in prize money. I think it was about as attractive as you can get it.

Not all players feel the need to play more than once or twice a week, many of the heavy contributors on this forum are members of this one a week club.

The State Leaderboard is just not as attractive, in it's many varied formats, to our core demographic and market. It's as simple as that.

Of course many players do feel the same way as you, and they are a minority when you look at the total amount of members playing.

On this matter it is not a case of miscommunication or education but rather a redundant and slightly flawed promotion that requires work. But I will not contribute more of the prize pool budget to a promotion that only affects are small minority of our membership base.

[Bob B]

How is an average not a total of all combined results?

Total points scored doesn't necessarily dictate a good winner as well.
Take PGCC $1,000 game for example - 300+ runners. Have a lucky night and win 300 points from one game. No offense Porky just using it as an example.

I'm already a third of the way to total points accumulated in a season by our mega gamers.

I like total average from total games played. Minimum of 25 games for State and 15 games for regional.

Or I like a Mega gamers leaderboard and Elite leaderboard as well as a true leaderboard.

Not enough room on the webpage unfortunately.

I'd also like to see a true percentage of games played or at least an average over a minimum of 25 games for the metro boys & girls who can play at multiple venues within a half hour of each other.

Assuming the city players had to play a minimum of 25 to qualify for say a state final or whatever you want to call it seems fair. By doing so it may encourage more players to venture away from their sole club or pub (10 games in most cases) which they support weekly.

I believe it will encourage the overall numbers for the season rather than relying the selected few who are chasing venues one after the other to improve their percentages over their best 15 games.

Garth, I was also wonder what the comparisons would be like if you could compare the stats from say last seasons total attendances (games played) per player in the Metro and say compare that with a minimum of 25 games per player. The results might be surprising!

I specifically chose last season because there wasn't any double points involved. I realise there was a special tourney for winners on the last four weeks which may not have had a huge bearing on blowing out the stats.

I like the regionals needing 15 games to qualify which should also encourage them to play at an alternative venue to qualify.

Unfortunately some player will be effected by both limits 25 in the metro and 15 in the regional areas due to location or ability to play more games or venues due to various circumstances. And a lot of punters don't really care about the finals etc, they just play for the enjoyment.