What would YOU do??

[Garth Kay]

Muzzington,
Aren't they already reflective of field size?

[muzzington]

Sorry, I meant places paid/that get points.

[Garth Kay]

Ah I get it, now we are talking about something difficult.

It would be extremely hard to implement a sliding scale of points as well as a system that has a certain number of placings dependant on runners.

[muzzington]

Yeah, I thought so. I guess if there was a way it'd already be implemented.

[David]

Yeah it would be nice...

I mean 16th out of a field of 150 is far better than 15th out of a field of 20.

But the thought of changing the database/site/software/whatever would be huge!

[rcon]

I mean 16th out of a field of 150 is far better than 15th out of a field of 20.

Couldn't agree more.

But the thought of changing the database/site/software/whatever would be huge!

Would be good however - what about even just an "honorable mention" for x places in fields over some arbitrary number (for example 75, or 100).

Say runners from 16 - 32 in fields of 100+ get 20 points. All runners would need to receive the same number of points else the TDs work load would be too huge I'd imagine, however once you get to 4 table of 8, everyone write their name on the list, points proceeds as normal.

Might be easier to implement something like this than reworking the system for a proper sliding scale of points places

note: I like the idea of points for more places in large fields, but I think my idea is reasonably weak - but I like the concept

[AceLosesKing]

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.

I agree with this statement.

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!!!!

I think we have a different idea between folding your way to points and playing to win. In my experience, folding to points means you're only playing premium hands - and if you've got a short chip stack, this is what you're doing anyway. Deal anyone AK suited or AA and ask them to fold preflop. And if anyone is getting dealt good hands, or good odds to call (dealt mid pockets in the SB, fold when half their chips are in the pot, or KQ and table folds around to them) they shouldn't be playing poker (yes JD, I folded those 9s, shut up).

Now, playing to win? Playing to win would be following your game. Pushing on Q8 from the SB when entire table folds around to you, bluffing, etc.

Just the other day I played AA and got smashed. I finished 7th, I needed 6th (at the time I thought I needed 4th) to take 1st in the region. Now, if I had known I had to take 6th, I would've thought about folding... for about 10 seconds (I had to play anyway, was all in BB in 2 hands).

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.

Changing the points structure to say, give the top 5 a bigger bonus is a good idea, I think. Making it more top heavy will have more players going for the win - bigger and better prizes would, too. But the reality is you're always going to get players "folding down" for points.

I too like the idea of points in large (you'd have to make it 100+) fields. My best finish in the largest field I've ever played in was bubble from 93. Not a happy camper then

[BigPete33]

Garth, I think there's 2 situations being treated the same with your idea.

single tourney (eg: state final) = OF COURSE go for the win.

a season made up of <x> number of tourneys where you get points for where you finish and those points at the end of the season determine if you progress = MAYBE go for the win depending how you're doing on any given night. If you are shortstacked, it's just one of those things you need to decide on.

The Blue Gums example of mine isn't how I play now. I think Bruce is the only one still doing that It was an example of how using your brain to try and get yourself the most amount of opportunities to stay in the tourney (AND still have a shot at winning given the blinds/luck factor) can be applied.

I used that example to further highlight the reason I gave as to why I think benny the cunt could maybe have folded in the situation he presented. If in his example he said 'it was state finals' or 'it was Berri deepstack' I'd more than likely have completely agreed with you.

I happen to agree that you could probably adjust the top 2 or 3 positions for points spread. Anything more than that though and I honestly think your player retention at the end of each season will suffer.

I guess that's one of things that you get to decide.. 'do we want to focus that little bit more on the poker?' or 'do we want to make sure as many players as possible keep showing up every week of the season?' I was basically just being mindful of that balance I know you try and keep.

[Jase Kemp]

Your getting the right amount of money on ur bet
paying 3k into a pot of 12k
and your cards a live, pocket connectors.
Also being short stacked this is an instant call.

[maccatak11]

People can certainly fold their way to points, but does that really matter? i think the real question is, can you fold your way to state finals?

How many people who finish top 5 in a venue havent had at least a win and/or numerous top 5 finishes? Wouldn't be many. I think the point system is great.

Whats better, finishing 4th, 5th, and 9th, or finishing 1st, 13th, DNP. You would hate to think that a re-vamped points system would reward the second player and not the first.