Current Average System vs Old Average System

[Bob B]

it makes perfect business sense to me.

as stated somewhere in here, NPL is about fun, it's not a 'professional' platform for players to play on, though it is a stepping stone towards it.

of course the NPL should be rewarding those that support them the most, so it's easy to understand why the new system is in place.

but for those going on about being top 50 in the state leaderboard, but missing out on the new system, does it really matter? if you're as good a player as you say you are, you'll be able to make a top 5 somewhere and make it into the finals!

the new system is much better (though i'm not benefiting from it) as it attracts the players back to felt. how fun was it last year when the people with decent averages stopped playing after 25 games because they were in the leaderboard?

i'm sure most of the above has been covered, but i've only read the first page

AGREE

Hey GOOSE you look a whole lot better with the wig or the beard M8

[Bob B]

it makes perfect business sense to me.

as stated somewhere in here, NPL is about fun, it's not a 'professional' platform for players to play on, though it is a stepping stone towards it.

of course the NPL should be rewarding those that support them the most, so it's easy to understand why the new system is in place.

but for those going on about being top 50 in the state leaderboard, but missing out on the new system, does it really matter? if you're as good a player as you say you are, you'll be able to make a top 5 somewhere and make it into the finals!

the new system is much better (though i'm not benefiting from it) as it attracts the players back to felt. how fun was it last year when the people with decent averages stopped playing after 25 games because they were in the leaderboard?

i'm sure most of the above has been covered, but i've only read the first page

AGREE

Hey GOOSE you look a whole lot better with the wig or the beard M8

[Fitzy]

The old system is far better and allows players like me who have other interests and responsibilities outside of poker a chance to make the top 50 without having to play 70+ games in a season.

I would love to be able to play consistantly at one venue, but shift work prevents that as well.

The final reason I prefer the old system is the game was much tighter and more respect was given for raising and re-raising. I felt the true game was being played.......if this exists. The game as it stands now, has dissolved into a calling-stations dream with no respect for an all-in move and people playing any two cards in the hope of getting lucky. When they bust out, they jump in their cars and race off to another venue to see if they can triple up there on the first hand.

Maybe i just haven't found another venue as good as The Cathedral was?!?

See youse at the state final.

Fitzy
(from Fitzy's House of Poker)

[FYTSolo]

I sent this to the person in charge as a possible solution that would cater to frequent players as well as players with great averages, but who are unable to play as often. The charts below are from a couple of weeks ago, so some averages have now changed, but it helps to point out my argument.


To whom it may concern:



I am a current player in the NPL of South Australia. I enjoy it very much.

I would like to suggest what I believe would be a fairer way of giving a person a position on the State Leader Boards according to their results.

I do understand that having people use the top 15 games as their average is a great way to encourage players to play as often as possible.

Some of the top players have indeed played many games. This is a nice reward to them for their commitment to this great poker league.

However many of us who would also like to play as often as that unfortunately don’t have those luxuries due to family/work/etc commitments.

I would like to suggest that a table is created for top players that have played at least 15 (or whatever) games in a season, but the average is based on all of the games they have played and not just the top 15. This would give players with good averages a better chance as I believe this system is shutting out some of the really good players that can not play 30 - 80+ games in a season.

Perhaps with these two different Leader boards, the top 25 from each get to play in the finals. This benefits both players with great averages and those who fully commit to playing as often as they can.



Below I have copied the (top 25) current Leader board and have added a column at the end with the overall averages.

The second chart shows players in order of real percentage and with at least 15 games played.

There are only 3 players that make both lists.



Place Name Avg Pts Played Points Wins Avg
1 Steve Bell 67.65 48 1463.6 1 30.49
2 Jason Deakin 65.97 55 1580.3 1 28.73
3 Pinky (Damian Ieraci) 62.55 61 1611.5 3 26.42
4 Rocco Francese 61.39 50 1483 2 29.66
5 Nicholas Ash 60.15 76 1829.15 3 24.07
6 Robert Britvic 59.11 62 1548.15 1 24.97
7 Terry Hutchinson 58.34 57 1414.2 2 24.81
8 Todd Fullagar 57.87 57 1399.85 4 24.56
9 Tony Bickle 57.81 71 1776.25 2 25.02
10 Paul Sparks 57.77 55 1305.55 3 23.74
11 Coconut (Tazz Leapai) 56.89 46 1191.3 1 25.90
12 Andrew Sneath 55.93 68 1506.4 1 22.15
13 Brad Harvey 54.94 72 1624.65 1 22.56
14 Tony Ward 53.96 51 1305.5 25.60
15 Eugene Wong 53.86 81 1695.15 3 20.93
16 Matthew Guilleaume 53.2 60 1244 20.73
17 Steven Baulderstone 52.7 67 1373.35 1 20.50
18 Tom Calderwood 52.61 33 969.15 1 29.37
19 Kosta Economou 51.68 53 1319.45 6 24.90
20 Steven Nissen 50.98 54 1212.4 22.45
21 Scott Weir 50.85 38 982.7 1 25.86
22 Enzo Demizio 50.06 65 1240.85 1 19.09
23 Chris Bray 50.03 43 1020.4 1 23.73
24 Deano Kessner 49.99 44 1135.6 25.81
25 Tim O'Reilly 49.55 66 1361 20.62



Place Name Avg Pts Played Points Wins Avg
1 Lisa Bunting 36.36 15 545.35 36.36
2 Sam Hehir 32.83 15 492.4 1 32.83
3 Adrian Gravelle 33.41 16 511.2 2 31.95
4 mark mckenna 31.57 15 473.5 31.57
5 Patrick Falckh 31.24 15 468.65 1 31.24
6 Ross Dennie 31.06 15 465.95 1 31.06
7 George Gourzis 32.79 16 491.9 1 30.74
8 Steve Bell 67.65 48 1463.6 1 30.49
9 Ian Howarth 49.27 34 1028.4 2 30.25
10 scott martin 38.26 21 633.95 1 30.19
11 Stuart Cleverly 43.8 30 900.9 30.03
12 Carl Haigh 39.22 22 658.3 1 29.92
13 Brett Tarca 44.97 26 774.55 1 29.79
14 AJ (John) Piro 29.7 15 445.5 29.70
15 Rocco Francese 61.39 50 1483 2 29.66
16 Chris Morony 33.56 18 533.4 29.63
17 Matthew Weeks 42.5 25 737.55 5 29.50
18 Justin Hoad 37.27 21 619 3 29.48
19 Hamish Eske 38.47 21 617.1 29.39
20 Tom Calderwood 52.61 33 969.15 1 29.37
21 Tony Wood 29.25 15 438.75 1 29.25
22 Kristen Deane 45.19 28 816.8 1 29.17
23 Sam (Tsambikos) Kazonis 44.49 36 1044.5 1 29.01
24 Sheldon Lim 41.04 24 695.55 28.98
25 Matthew Kelly 30.11 16 461.65 1 28.85



Patrick Falckh for example has a great average, but is not in the top five of any pub and is not on the (top 50) leader board, but according to his average is outplaying all of the top 25 on the original Leader board. He may be precluded from the final, therefore losing a top candidate to represent this great State of South Australia.

Note: I do not know Patrick and/or anybody affiliated with him.

Please consider this and/or something to cater for these players, as this would be a better representation of the top players in the state.

[gundog]

All the ideas have merit BUT

What about the player who may have only 1 venue to play at or work/family committements he/she is no less committed to NPL than the player who can access over 100 tournments per season if they want to.

We offer a player the access to the state final via venue and regional leaderboards so why do we need a state leaderboard, all the state leaderboard acheives by what ever method used give the player who plays the more often with 15 good results entry to the state final for which they would have made through a venue or region anyway.

Consider using the state leaderboard to display the players average of all games played with a minimum of 9 games to qualify, therefore the player who plays 50+ game per season and only makes points 52% of his games will not have that great average because of their points misses. A position on the state leaderboard will not give you enrty to the state final, open more places from the regional leaderboards.

Currently top 5 in venues and regions gain entry to the state final, perhaps Top 10 at Regional and Top 5 at Venue gain entry to the State Final.

By this you open up the chances to play in the state final to those who have limited opportunities either by lack of venues and family/work committements.

[Garth Kay]

There will be 780 qualifiers this season. I do not want to open it up any more than that. Top 50 is a way of rewarding multi game players, those who support NPL above and beyond what we expect from our customers.
We are actually contemplating shrinking the qualification process so only 200 - 300 qualify for the State Final. How we do this is yet to be decided, and due to the popularity of the State Final and how successful it is for all businesses involved this will be a ways off.
All I am saying is that I wouldn't get settled with the qualification process the way it is right now. We are a fluid and evolving industry/business, we need to adapt and change our structures whenever it is required.

[AceLosesKing]

There will be 780 qualifiers this season. I do not want to open it up any more than that. Top 50 is a way of rewarding multi game players, those who support NPL above and beyond what we expect from our customers.
We are actually contemplating shrinking the qualification process so only 200 - 300 qualify for the State Final. How we do this is yet to be decided, and due to the popularity of the State Final and how successful it is for all businesses involved this will be a ways off.
All I am saying is that I wouldn't get settled with the qualification process the way it is right now. We are a fluid and evolving industry/business, we need to adapt and change our structures whenever it is required.

I'd be all for shrinking the state finals. This will be my first appearance, but 780 players... come on. I can't imagine the logistical issues for NPL, let alone anyone having a realistic crack at winning. Capping the entry levels at 300, maybe even 400, is a good idea.

But then again, how would you accomplish this without majorly pissing off players? If you remove the top 50 that's still 730 players. And removing the top 5 qualification from each venue... can't see that going down too well.

[Des]

Maybe regional qualifiers or something?

Top 5 from each venue play off in a regional final.

Top 50 from Regional Finals play off in State Finals.

Can still have top 50 leaderboard too, they could play off and the top 9 go through?

[Bob B]

[quote="FYTSolo"]I sent this to the person in charge as a possible solution that would cater to frequent players as well as players with great averages, but who are unable to play as often. The charts below are from a couple of weeks ago, so some averages have now changed, but it helps to point out my argument.


Very nice post FYT Solo.

As usual I have a story to tell and I hope it makes good reading for you and the other punters.

Your second list is how the first seasons winner Jerry Ison won the top 50. Jerry is a very close friend of mine and I'm sure he doesn't mind me saying the following.

When Jerry made #1 position and had played the required 25 games he stopped playing so he could retain his high 40.82 average. He was prepared to sit back and watch unless his lead was challenged.

As much as Jerry wanted to continue playing he was prepared to sit out the remaining weeks. As this was the very "First South Australian NPL Season" his incentive was to finish top.

Jerry's ability to resist playing was outstanding especially from his mates goading him to play just one more tourney, LOL.

You could have knocked him over with a feather when he was rewarded by way of a $1,000 cheque for his efforts. A trophy was all that was expected and the cheque put his missus in tears. (sorry Sandra I couldn't resist).

At a guess, I believe the powers to be, changed that format to the best twenty games average. By doing so, it encourage the punters to play more events, to gain better placings, to improve their best 20 games points average.

This really made great entertainment. For all of us who knew and played against the following guys had the best seats in the house. Enzo, old-man daryl and Terry, duked it out to the very, and I do mean very last venue.

Enzo had played 105 tourneys and was trailing old-man daryl by a very small percentage. It was funny because both old-man daryl and Enzo said they weren't going to play at Roulettes which was the last venue for the season.

LOL, yeah right!!!!!

They both turned up including Terry and it was down to the wire. Enzo the Magnificent, played his 106 tourney for the season and actually won it to knock old-man daryl off the top.

What a finish to a great and exciting season of NPL poker.

Now, in season 3 or is it season 1 for 2008? We have only 10 weeks for the season and the top 50 is now the best points average over 15 tourneys!!!!

So here we are again in the last week of the season and any one of the top 5 or so can take out the "NUMBER 1" position and take the cash.

Good luck guys and may the best man, (yep no gals there unless Pinky's had a sex change) win.

[shark]

The simplest and fairest way to shrink the field would be to say that you need to finish a season in top 5 or top 50 state leaderboard. If you qualify mulitple time then people don't get moved up and qualify and you are rewarded by playing against fewer players.

Do you know how many players qualified in a variety of ways last season? What sort of effect would this have on numbers?