Current Average System vs Old Average System

[Rickster]

I like the new system. I am not a good NPL player so I was never going to make top 50 average anyway regardless of how many games I play, but the new system certainly encourages (1) playing more games and (2) play more venues.

I played over 10 games a week last season at a number of different venues and except for two regular venues (including Woolshed, where I qualified from) I played all over the map. If anything, the old system made me change my routine to play only my two regular venues this season (Strathmore and Bridgewater) before I knew the system would change. As David wrote, the reward is to play more NPL and the old system would not have given me that reward without the incentive of qualifying.

The disparity between points earned at big venues and small venues will always be there. I think the solution is not to change the system but rather do more to encourage more players at those smaller venues so that more points are up for grabs. I thought the Adelaide Hills would not be able to do this but I know that numbers are well up at my old hunting grounds of Hahndorf and Bridgewater!

I notice also that a competing league changed their state leaderboard to be based entirely on points rather than averages this season. While it has the effect of encouraging players to play as many games as possible, it also meant that it produces a leaderboard that may not contain the best players but just those with more spare time than others.

So I am all in for the current system and agree with Garth that, indeed, he is not stupid.

[Ondie J]

I've been quite the advocate against the new system since I found out what had been changed and how the 'averages' now worked and I really got my back up about it all, however, after reading through all of what's been said in recent times and giving it some thought, I've personally come quite content with how it works now and can accept it.

As it has been explained in many posts over the last few weeks, the top 50 ARE wildcard entries into the finals and the emphasis is really on the top 5 at a particular venue. The new system, as seen in practice, does a wonderful job of getting players to play and it does give a much greater variety of players a chance to experience an NPL final.

I can now actually hang up my anti-top50 hat and join Dave in taking some of his happy pills.

[Rickster]

Whatever those happy pills are, it is time to share.

[David]

I've been quite the advocate against the new system since I found out what had been changed and how the 'averages' now worked and I really got my back up about it all, however, after reading through all of what's been said in recent times and giving it some thought, I've personally come quite content with how it works now and can accept it.

As it has been explained in many posts over the last few weeks, the top 50 ARE wildcard entries into the finals and the emphasis is really on the top 5 at a particular venue. The new system, as seen in practice, does a wonderful job of getting players to play and it does give a much greater variety of players a chance to experience an NPL final.

I can now actually hang up my anti-top50 hat and join Dave in taking some of his happy pills.

Ondie - You've already taken them buddy
Ricky - you don't want them, look what happens

Andre_Too_Much_To_Drink.jpg (76.72 KiB) Viewed 549 times

[Darren B]

What???
No photoshop needed??
Now ur just showing off!!

[David]

What???
No photoshop needed??
Now ur just showing off!!

That is with Photoshop!

[Rickster]

Good one - didn't need Photoshop too!

I do need them though, I have night team tennis finals this week (drats, no NPL poker ... boohoo), need all the happiness and performance enhancing drugs I can ingest, swallow, snort and shoot-up on!

[Darren B]

I meant no modding required Mr. Murrin sir!

[Ondie J]

<Chuckle> Oh I've quite obviously got some skills.

[BigPete33]

I think you're all a bunch of 'yes men'... but maybe I'm just cranky cos I actually had to do some work today lol

If you changed 'top 50' to 'those who have the most free time/spare money and got the luckiest the most' I'd be content

A 'leaderboard' should be just that.

A 'rewards board' (?? just made that name up) should also be just that...there could perhaps be a clearer distinction as to which one the 'top 50' is actually supposed to be. Although it's clearly leaning very far towards the 'rewards board'.

I'd have no problem with there being one of each.... have stated before that those who continue to heavily support the NPL and it's venues absolutely should get some sort of reward.

Just chucking out an idea here but...

It could be argued that 'average' is a rubbish stat to begin with - largely because of the differing size of venues and crowds in them. So... maybe look to include something along the lines of what you see mentioned everytime there's a player profile at WSOP.... ie number of cashes for the year and number of final tables and number of wins (and state from how many tourneys that was for). Some stats that are more meaningful and apply to a leaderboard that's actually supposed to be a leaderboard would be a good idea I think. Not even too fussed if it counted for anything or not.