What would YOU do??

[Bob B]

Hi there AK. Yes NPL is all about point and here are some reasons why we have them. To create competition and encourage some of us to chase the magic numbers to win the dollar$$$$$$$

I'm not sure which is better. Play because your enjoying your night out with your mates or try and win the top fifty prize money. I know when Jerry Ison won it the first season he didn't play a game over the last 3 weeks to keep his average in tact.

That season from memory you had to play a minimum of 20 or 25 games and the best average won the money. So after he played the 20 or 25 games Jerry had around 40.4 average and sat on it. Others were chasing 40, 50, 60, 70 games to get the points and couldn't catch his average.

Obviously this wasn't good for business or putting more money over the bar so NPL changed the conditions for qualifying from memory it was the best 20 games average.

Wooohoooo, Enzo played around 140 plus games and ended up taking it out on the very last late night game. He and the 2nd place player old-man daryl or Darren played at Roulettes and decided they weren't going to go to the later game. But guess what? They both turned up,

From memory (again LOL) Enzo finished on the final table ahead of Darryl/Darren and took out top position. Now wer'e down to best average over 15 games and the average (I can't find them now) was around 80 points I think and god knows how many games were played.

I'm sure someone else has the correct numbers as I know they must be wrong. But the point I'm trying to make is this. "OUR TOP 50" prize money is based on playing as many games as possible to get the best result and the best average over 15 tournaments. And most of all create a bigger and better turn out.

[Garth Kay]

Sorry Bob,
It's late for me, but I'm just wondering, are your psots in favour of or against an increase in the scaling of points?

And what does Pete have to stop?

I'm a little lost?

[Garth Kay]

And also Bob,
The changes we are looking at are not a reflection of our thoughts on any Leaderboards, just that players deserve more points for a win.

And I think with the scaled points system expanding a bit more it would actually mean the majority of venue leaderboards would be much tighter, unless someone managed to win that same event two or more times in one season.

[Bob B]

Sorry Bob,
It's late for me, but I'm just wondering, are your psots in favour of or against an increase in the scaling of points?

And what does Pete have to stop?

I'm a little lost?

Just saying that our tourneys and finals are based on making points and the system is working fine. In a cash game your points are the actual chips. Get them all and you win, yes?

I'm happy the way it is M8. Old saying if it ain't broke why fix it???

[Garth Kay]

It might be your opinion that it isn't broke.
But it is something in discussion, folding to the points just isn't poker nor the way ANY tournament should be played.
Players should not walk away feeling that making the points continually is the ULTIMATE goal.
Winning tournaments is a good goal, irrespective of leaderboards and prizes, come State Finals you don't want to be folding your way to a cash. YOU WANT THE $10,000!!!!

But we will continue to discuss it, and there are many factors involved and as we evolve and adapt the product, so must the players adapt their playing style.

[Bob B]

And also Bob,
The changes we are looking at are not a reflection of our thoughts on any Leaderboards, just that players deserve more points for a win.

And I think with the scaled points system expanding a bit more it would actually mean the majority of venue leaderboards would be much tighter, unless someone managed to win that same event two or more times in one season.

Garth your in the position to gauge what you feel is the best for not only the top punters but also the little guys like myself.

I try to play at 3 venues and support them by spending my dollars. Hopefully I can play my way throught to a top 5 position on my own again LOL.

I'm not ragging your thoughts or changes I'm simply giving other views and reasons for changes to those who may not have been with you since the beginning.

This forum is the closest you will get to a melting pot of fresh or different ideas and some will be positive and of course there will be some negatives.

It's all good M8, all good. I have s hit loads of ideas some are good and some are bad. Your in a position to put it on the forum and gauge the response and that's good.

[Bob B]

M8 I wish I bloody folded last night LOL. Around 5 minutes before the second break and I deal myself AA. UG said if I dealt him to reasonable cards he'd go allin with his $2k. He does and Sou calls the guy on my right also calls.

I count my chips and push straight in with $5,900 thinking I'll only be up against the UG allin. Small blind says he know's if I'm raising I must be good BB says the same UG says oh sh-t and Sou, well we all know Sou. She goes allin with $100 more the myself and the other guy has a total of $4k goes allin.

Me AA, UG KQc, Sou Q9d, last guy KJo.

We all looked at Sou and say what were you thinking??? She says they looked pretty and I felt lucky.

YEP you guessed it!!!! She flopped 2 diamonds and another on the turn. And that's poker LOL

[maccatak11]

I thought the reason that made NPL special compared to the main competitor was that we rewarded consistent play over an entire season, rather than entry to a seasons end tourney being granted with just a single win.

If its all about the win, why have points at all?

(btw im not seriously suggesting this, as i believe the points system rewards both the people that go for the win and the consistent top 15 finishers)

[rcon]

The changes we are looking at are not a reflection of our thoughts on any Leaderboards, just that players deserve more points for a win.

And I think with the scaled points system expanding a bit more it would actually mean the majority of venue leaderboards would be much tighter, unless someone managed to win that same event two or more times in one season.

Garth - I'd like to express support for the idea of making the points structure more top heavy.

I think the leaderboards would be tighter, and possibly more reflective of "better" poker players as I feel a win requires more skill than consistently limping into the points with passive play(possible only at smaller venues). You need to show you can handle a shrinking table size (I'm sure there is a better term for this), heads-up and you've already shown the consistent play needed to get to the final table.

Personally I like the idea of going for the win and think that is what it the focus should be. I do understand tho that others will have differing ideas regarding this.

[muzzington]

I'd like the points awarded be relative to the amount of runners.