Postby Brett Kay » Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:13 am
NPL NSW is using the old points standard, It doesn't differentiate between large venues or smaller venues. So for a better/smarter player is to attack the smaller fields to get a good average for state leaderboard. For a consistent player find a venue that you can play good at.
It used to have a combined points leaderboard. But when someone in Sydney can drive to 3 or 4 venues in a night, makes the poor country person who place 12th miss out. If you don't believe me Check the APL stats for a Paul "the Traveller" White (APL055155). One 3 month season made 215 games do the numbers (215/91 = 2.4 Games a day) . He has slowed down now.
As to the point at hand. There was a survey handed out last year.
Whether you wanted it easier or harder to qualify for state finals.
Did anybody fill these out? Include any suggestions?
I am going to put in my vote here.
Everybody agrees that the point system for a game is fair? More points for rewarding the larger venues, whilst lesser points for those that play at smaller venues. On an even sliding scale as well?
Ok, so now we go into state finals qualification. Who do we reward?
Well people that come first in a venue obviously because they won it. The next 4 as well, since they have performed consistently over the course of the season?
So that is top 5, we are rewarding for their efforts over the course of the season. Which i think we all agree is fair. that is 130 venues. 650 players.
Now we go into regional leaderboards. No one qualifies from here? How come? If they have played well over the season in one region, shouldn't they have a chance to participate in the state final as well, following from the reason before, they have played consistently, just at different venues?
But how many do we reward at the regional. 13 regions, top 10 or top 20? Gives a lot of people extra chances to get in that way. Lets make it top 10. For ease. another 130 players.
But what about those travellers. Who are truly the interesting sorts in poker. They travel around playing many a different game, in many a different region, but the thing is, they do well, but never to qualify into state through the above methods. So how can we include them into the finals. Well two ways, one would be a top 25 or top 15 games average. Or we could do an accumulated points total. But at what point does the accumulated points become a joke? If they play 140 games in a season (10wks*7=70 x 2 games) they get 1400 points for turning up. If they can place in 15% of their events (by no means not that difficult, how many people can place in 3 events out of 20?)
So there 1400 is increased by an extra 21 games. Let say avg venue is 50 ish. The spread is uniform, I.E equal chance of 1st to 15th. therefore, an extra 50 points a game (not including the 10, that has been included in the 1400. Therefore they now have an extra 1050 points. For a total of 2450 points. Very hard to even surpass by anybody else.
What about the guy that plays 60 games. Using same numbers 600 + 450 (15% = 9) His leaderboard total is 1050.
What about the person that plays 3 games a week. 30.
300 + 225 (15% = 4.5) for a total of 525.
This encourages people to play more games, to gain points to get up in the leaderboard.
However, this also has the disadvantage of people not supporting venues. It makes it too easy for a player to come in and push all in, take the ten points and run. So this system good for NPL (more players playing) , bad for venue (lose money from player not paying)
So how can we make this system rewarding for both venue and player? If we go average over a range of games. It rewards the venue, because he needs the chip ups to help boost his average, it disadvantages the NPL, because this player might play less games in the week because of cost or travel issues. It still rewards those players that play at large venues.
So that was my suggestion, top 5 at venue, top 10 from leaderboards, top 50 average over 15 games. Which is 650, 130, 50
830 qualifiers.
Now back to the original question. Do we let others fill spots if they have been taken already. E.g Top 50, 5th in region, Top 5 at 3 venues. for a total of 5 spots. Do we exclude 4 other people? Or do we fill them up with the other players? Say we get 120 people filling two or more roles.
We now have 830 qualifiers, but 950 people have had a shot. Lets round it up to 1000. out of 20000 registered members thats 5% of the player base.
I don't know how many other ways that you can let someone have a shot at qualifying.
I think the people that want to qualify will, regardless of how it is all set up. There are enough people that come out to have a fun night with family and friends.
I haven't included regional finals yet for state final qualification either.
Ok, if you read this far, well done, pick it apart now.
Brett.
Load "*" ,8,1
Run
