You're a Bunch of Factors

garth, when i was railing aaron, someone asked whether points were awarded for the top 15 in the gf qualifier, which had 347 odd runners. you replied that they did (unless i am mistaken)

please tell me that this isn't the case

that would mean for 347 runners, aaron would get 530.5 points!!!

the event is capped at 1000 runners. what if that cap fills up next week? that would mean that the winner gets 1510 points for first.

that would automatically give this person an average of 150 over 15 games, which means that all other games for the week are rendered useless.

i have made 4 top 15 results in freerolls including 3 final tables for nothing if thats the case.

the point of a qualifier like this is that its not a regular game for points, but that there's a ticket on the line. to give points as well is just not fair at all

+1.

I was surprised to find out the weekend events were counted in the Home LDB's (namely Dream Team, which is what I assume benny the cunt is referring to).

I can easily see the cap filling next week, and whoever wins will automatically be uncatchable on the LDB. As benny the cunt alluded to, the LDB should be rewarding consistency, not one luckbox game and 14 DNP's.

Not cool at all. Please remove points for this tournament please.

AceLosesKing wrote:+1.

I was surprised to find out the weekend events were counted in the Home LDB's (namely Dream Team, which is what I assume benny the cunt is referring to).

I can easily see the cap filling next week, and whoever wins will automatically be uncatchable on the LDB. As benny the cunt alluded to, the LDB should be rewarding consistency, not one luckbox game and 14 DNP's.

Not cool at all. Please remove points for this tournament please.

Who said anything about rewarding consistency? Why shouldn't a win in any of our big fields not be awarded with points?

If you play a great tournament and take down a big win, then this should be reflected in your LDB standings, consistency is not just about how well you do in your regular games, but also how well you do in big field pressure tournaments and all tournaments across the board.

I find your arguments are redundant at this time, and simply made to justify and protect your positions on any LDB. And might I add that many player's careers and tournament rankings are defined by one "luckbox" win. The player who wins the WSOP Main Event is widely recognizable and receives a lot of attention and sits atop some fantastic LDB's such as all time money winner lists as well as many tournament LDB and rankings for that year, they receive a huge amount of media attention for years afterwards and also receive some fantastic endorsement deals. All of this from one luck box win.

But something that should be stated is that we will only award points up to a field of 400. If the field size is larger than that the points are capped out.

sorry garth, but i don't think thats good enough

whats the point of having a leaderboard if you only need to play a single event on the weekend to make it high on the leaderboard?

if this event awarded points that were capped out at 200, then i wouldnt have a problem. but why should this event have a different cap than others, at least as far as points are concerned?

Garth Kay wrote:I find your arguments are redundant at this time, and simply made to justify and protect your positions on any LDB

to be honest, i think thats true - but don't you think that 3 final tables and one 13th in 120-190 runner fields is better than 1 luck box in a 400 runner field? i am making my comments because i have had a good start, but that doesn't make my commnets redundant

also, the leaderboards in NPL so far have always favoured players that play lots of games. this goes in the opposite direction.

once again, if the points were capped at 200 like any other field, even if 1000 are actually allowed to register, i dont see a problem with this - just dont see a need to make it different to any other tournament, especially since its a satellite also.

Garth Kay wrote:The player who wins the WSOP Main Event is widely recognizable and receives a lot of attention and sits atop some fantastic LDB's such as all time money winner lists as well as many tournament LDB and rankings for that year, they receive a huge amount of media attention for years afterwards and also receive some fantastic endorsement deals. All of this from one luck box win.

yes, but most of those leaderboards wouldn't be average of best 15 games, so consistency IS rewarded because even though some player might win the WSOP, another player might make 4 final tables in the same period and be high up there as well - maybe not first, but high up there.

bennymacca wrote:sorry garth, but i don't think thats good enough

whats the point of having a leaderboard if you only need to play a single event on the weekend to make it high on the leaderboard?

if this event awarded points that were capped out at 200, then i wouldnt have a problem. but why should this event have a different cap than others, at least as far as points are concerned?

Garth Kay wrote:I find your arguments are redundant at this time, and simply made to justify and protect your positions on any LDB

to be honest, i think thats true - but don't you think that 3 final tables and one 13th in 120-190 runner fields is better than 1 luck box in a 400 runner field? i am making my comments because i have had a good start, but that doesn't make my commnets redundant

also, the leaderboards in NPL so far have always favoured players that play lots of games. this goes in the opposite direction.

once again, if the points were capped at 200 like any other field, even if 1000 are actually allowed to register, i dont see a problem with this - just dont see a need to make it different to any other tournament, especially since its a satellite also.

I think it is a matter of perspective. For starters the Leader board that these results will impact on is the Dream Team scoreboard, it is titled that because it is not a leader board, rather it is a listing of players who have had impressive scores. I think FT a field size of 300+ is a tremendous effort, luckbox or not, and in comparison making four ft's from a field of 100 - 200 in one week is also impressive. Each of these results have their own individual merit. And I believe that we should regard these types of results as equivalent.

The reason we work on average is simply because we did not want players to register for every single online event and have 3000+ plus points before even placing.

In the poker world you limit the impact variance has on your performance simply by playing mass volume of tournaments. I still would like to reward mass volume but you need to reward individual performances once in awhile, especially in a big field, and I do not think these individual performances are identified enough.

In the end I am playing Devil's advocate here, I would like to see more arguments for or against before I decide on a particular path.

i agree that final tabling in the big tourney is a great achievement, and should be rewarded in some way

the main problem i have is that the tournament is different to the rest. i.e it is not capped at 200 runners, and it is a satellite to another tournament, not a regular event

Garth Kay wrote:Each of these results have their own individual merit. And I believe that we should regard these types of results as equivalent.

i agree, equivalent would be fine with me, but i think this tends to favour the FT runners from the bigger game

capping pionts at 400 runners seems ok though - originally i thought it would not be capping at all, and that wouldn't be fair.

ill suppose we can all wait and see whether it does affect the overall leaderboard placings much

Garth Kay wrote:Who said anything about rewarding consistency? Why shouldn't a win in any of our big fields not be awarded with points?

Because this particular tournament is a satelitte, and I don't see why points should be added for a satelitte at all.

Garth Kay wrote:If you play a great tournament and take down a big win, then this should be reflected in your LDB standings, consistency is not just about how well you do in your regular games, but also how well you do in big field pressure tournaments and all tournaments across the board.

I agree with this.

Garth Kay wrote:I find your arguments are redundant at this time, and simply made to justify and protect your positions on any LDB.

You did notice I wanted these tournaments removed from the DT LDB. I got something like 530 points, and that's going to be very hard to catch. Especially considering that points are capped at 400 runners.

bennymacca wrote:once again, if the points were capped at 200 like any other field, even if 1000 are actually allowed to register, i dont see a problem with this - just dont see a need to make it different to any other tournament, especially since its a satellite also.

Awarding points for placing anywhere other than 1st (or wherever prizes fall down to) in a satellite, wtf.

"Oh, I finished 7th better come back next week as I have a chance at States now... wait."

bennymacca wrote:if this event awarded points that were capped out at 200, then i wouldnt have a problem. but why should this event have a different cap than others, at least as far as points are concerned?

This!

Garth Kay wrote:I think it is a matter of perspective. For starters the Leader board that these results will impact on is the Dream Team scoreboard, it is titled that because it is not a leader board, rather it is a listing of players who have had impressive scores. I think FT a field size of 300+ is a tremendous effort, luckbox or not, and in comparison making four ft's from a field of 100 - 200 in one week is also impressive. Each of these results have their own individual merit. And I believe that we should regard these types of results as equivalent.

The reason we work on average is simply because we did not want players to register for every single online event and have 3000+ plus points before even placing.

In the poker world you limit the impact variance has on your performance simply by playing mass volume of tournaments. I still would like to reward mass volume but you need to reward individual performances once in awhile, especially in a big field, and I do not think these individual performances are identified enough.

In the end I am playing Devil's advocate here, I would like to see more arguments for or against before I decide on a particular path.

Hmm I was going to pick this post apart but after re-reading it a few times it makes sense.

AceLosesKing wrote:

Garth Kay wrote:Who said anything about rewarding consistency? Why shouldn't a win in any of our big fields not be awarded with points?

Because this particular tournament is a satelitte, and I don't see why points should be added for a satelitte at all.

bennymacca wrote:once again, if the points were capped at 200 like any other field, even if 1000 are actually allowed to register, i dont see a problem with this - just dont see a need to make it different to any other tournament, especially since its a satellite also.

Awarding points for placing anywhere other than 1st (or wherever prizes fall down to) in a satellite, wtf.

"Oh, I finished 7th better come back next week as I have a chance at States now... wait."

Tell me why points should not be awarded for Satellites, one off special events Qualifying finals and Satellites or the Semi Finals.

Explain to me how we can reward points for regular events, but when there is something of extreme value on the line, in a decent large field tournament structure we don't.

Which of these tournaments has more on the line and mean more to you as win - 150 person regular freeroll, 350 player tournament with $100 cash and a Grand Final seat up for grabs. What tournament winning means the more to you as an individual and that players would be more interested in hearing about?

As stated before the Dream Team Scoreboard is about big scores and players doing well in all facets of our competition. Whilst consistency and mass volume is the key; the fact that someone has a big score in a field in excess of 200 should be recognised as well and as such be present on the scoreboard.

Explain to me why you believe Satellite wins/placings should not be awarded points and your reasoning behind it?