What's hot- what's not

[David]

SOOO! What that means is as the players average progress over time either they need to secure better postions then previously required or play in tournaments with more players that currently averaging. For example: Enzo, number one in the state last season. His average finishing over 60pts. He would need to win an event with more than 61 runners to increase his average from that point. finishing in 2nd place would acheive nothing.

So understanding that, yes his average for the entire season under the old system would have been appoximatly 25 but under the current system for his average to reach the 60's as it did. He had to constantly improve on previous results. anything less than a win in a large tournament would see him stay in the same spot.

Does anyone disagree with this logic?

Yes

It depends on his scores.

If Enzo's average is 60 and his has a DNP - then ANY points will INCREASE his average.

In fact if he has a score of say, 20 in there... then any score over 20 will increase his average, even if it's 60 at the moment.

What you're suggesting is how it would be in the old system, where any score is included, hence a score less than your average means your average would go down (which is, an average).

[Nathan Butler]

If you have a look at Enzo's event history, you'll see that by that stage of his season there were no DNP's included in his best 25 games. Which meant that he had to better his worst, best score to increase his average.... at that stage his worst best score was 48pts... he would need to win an event with greater than 40 players to do so, or final table an event with say 90... you always have to improve on you worst, best score.

[David]

Exactly....
I hadn't checked his scores but that's what I said.

My point was you don't have to score above your average to make the average go up.

[G__]

i totally disagree aswell. I'm not bored enough to spend an hour writing a thesis , but if you cant see that for most people (maybe not enzo playing 100 games) that the system hurts players that only just make the 25 games then god help me!

At least garth is stating reason that the system is in place due to rewarding addicts not that its any good!

[David]

Why not increase the final to 650 people then

Have the top 5 from every venue, plus the top 50 averages, plus the top 50 averages over 25 games...

It won't be 650 though, it must means it might be more accurate! People are still being rewarded.

Some would say the people playing 50 - 100 times a season are getting an advantage anyway, in that they have more venues to finish top 5 at.

I know a lot of people who play various venues and then continue to play the one(s) they score points in. People playing once a week can't do this.

Just a reminder to people; the leaderboard doesn't mean the best! Or, the most successful. It's just a list...

[Nathan Butler]

Once again. I only hear critisism instead of construction.
No one has yet to provide an appropiate solution becuase the the basis of every single system you could ever think of will = The more games you play the more chance you will have.

So far all that has been said could be interpereted as; stop those who play alot from having those extra chances, its unfair. Well unfortunatly. Its not unfair.

[Ondie J]

Mmmm.... construction.

[David]

Once again. I only hear critisism instead of construction.
No one has yet to provide an appropiate solution becuase the the basis of every single system you could ever think of will = The more games you play the more chance you will have.

So far all that has been said could be interpereted as; stop those who play alot from having those extra chances, its unfair. Well unfortunatly. Its not unfair.

No no, I suggested something

I think it's quite reasonable, actually...

State Final:
Top 50 Averages
Top 50 Averages over 25 games OR total points
Top 5 from each venue

If the current format has 600 people then the new one (above) wouldn't have more than 650, and I would think 625...

[Garth Kay]

Hi Dave,
We had 790 qualifiers for the last state final, top 50 and top 5 from EVERY event that ran throughout the season, even if it was for the minimum four weeks.
I think we will rename the leaderboard then, the system won't change. Especially now that we are offering cash for the top 10 positions on this leaderboard.

[Darren B]

Why not increase the final to 650 people then

Have the top 5 from every venue, plus the top 50 averages, plus the top 50 averages over 25 games...

It won't be 650 though, it must means it might be more accurate! People are still being rewarded.

It would have meant an extra 7 people at the state finals cos the lists were basically the same names......proving the system as it stands currently is not unfair to the 90% majority