Regional and State leaderboards

[queen9]

bob, I agree with what you are saying in principal - by encouraging players to go outside their once a week venue, it will improve venue number and improve npl profits. but there has been discussions in here that it may frighten them off it they are expected to play more than one night a week, also that more than one night a week is a huge committment that many people would find hard to do.

and the other issue is that the significance of the state leaderboard must give people a reason to aim for it. a lot of the players who are now making the top 50 were once a week players in metro west, and now play 3-4 times a week, trying to improve their game, better their average and make it into the top 50.

you don't have to commit to it every week of the year, just try it for one season and see how much more you learn from consistently playing over 10 weeks.

[Brett Kay]

Going with the quick summary for all those interested.

State Leaderboard. Current format of avg based of best 15 games. Advantages larger venue fields. Or multigamers with low strike rates.

Solutions so far being offered.
Increase games - Rewards those areas which have more games to play at, Avg player playing 2.5 games per week, to make it 25 games for leaderboard, or the die hard poker addict @ 5 games a week.

Change calculations - Do total points, once again rewards multigamers with lower strike rates.

Total points over games - Disadvantages Multigamers, but rewards the consistent player. Doesn't give people incentive to travel. Brings us back to how many games to qualify. If a player has an awesome average after 15, do they continue to play?

Dual leaderboards - Small vs Large venue, what constitutes which. Still the debate would rage over which venue should be classified as small, and how big a venue is before it is classified large. Not to mention bleeding in from the extra players that might turn up on a night.

My suggestions.

What about a separate tournament from the state leaderboard. They no longer qualify for states. but having a separate tournament means that they are playing against less people for a smaller prize pool.

I.E currently at 10k for state leaderboard, Why not do a top 100, play off for 10k in prizes. Top 10 still get paid out? Rewards consistent players, and multigamers. Keeping same average. Possibly could still award people seats to state final as well, Top 10 get paid, Top 30 get seats into state?

Or how about a yearly leaderboard, with a 50k Prize pool at the end of the year? Every 100 people qualify for it each season.

500 players playing in a 50k prize pool?

Or top 200, with top 50 going through.

Just a few suggestions. try and get a bit more construction going in this debate.

[Origami]

interesting...

I have reservations about splitting NPL structure in large/small venues.

or as Brett suggests in State Leader Board 'eliteer players Event , in addition to a Venue/Regional /SF/Finals Event. we are starting to talk having 'satelite style Events with prizes and qualifications into higher events within the NPL structure.
I'm not saying this is how NPL should not develop or will not develop. I personally prefer a non super tubo game , but the NPL are catering for a mass player market. The thrill and expierence in playing a large field final or Event is part of modern day ' texas foldem Poker'.

The prestige of qualifying and playing poker among the best poker players in your Competition is very satisfying for some others prefer the social pub poker player nights. NPL (Garth ) has to administer a ' league that caters for both.
Qualifications into a State SF with national ramifications is the issue.
You could for instance have a SF of only the venue leaders in combination with the Regional Leaders.
Changes read developments to the 2009 season go a long way to catering for all concerned in NPL roll on 2009.

[maccatak11]

lol @ [garth]

(use the round brackets brucey)

[Bob B]

I think Bob was around the mark with comments about players being enouraged to play outside their weekly venue. I know of about a dozen players who used to only play at one of our 2 venues who have 5 nights of npl between them. Through encouraging them to aim higher, meaning qualifying for state final via state leaderboard, qualifying for regional final via regional leaderboard, these people now play 3 times a week, instead of 1. that has to be better for the venues and for npl.

I know from the questions I get asked by the players at these venues, that most of them don't even know about leaderboards, except venue of course - and some of them don't understand that each night is seperate, and the way it appears on the npl site, the minute they bring up their venue, they stop. I have been told several times by players that they are top of tigers/hoppers club, only to find that they are not when you look at each night.

and so if people don't know what is out there, often they don't look and that is why they often appear not to care.

with the points system the way it used to be, prior to season 3/2007, 'points chasers' often targeted the smaller venues as it was easier to point and/or win and all wins were worth the same. In fact, I pointed every game I played at one small venue (ave. 30), but not even half as many in larger venues (ave.100). so why should they go through all that, trying to win against 100 people, when for the same points, 30 was easier.

Hi there Rosemary. I'm so surprised to hear your comments on points for venue winners being all the same for NPL players no matter how many runners were at the venue!!!!!!

So, do I assume the other points were also equal but of a lesser value say to the top 15 finishers and then say 10 points for turning up regardless of how many runners????

Did it work for the punter, NPL and the Venue Operators?
Were the punters happier with that system?
Did everyone make money and enjoy themselves?
If yes ....... to all the above, what was the reasons for NPL to change???

I read Brett's post and also found that to be very informative. The them and us syndrome doesn't really bother me too much. So, if that's where NPL are going then my opinion isn't gonna make a whole lot of difference. I'll just go with the flow LOL and stick to 2 venues a week.

Hmmm, I've put something like this forward in another post some where and it was knocked on the head. So, I'll try again.

Why not have set points per venue regardless of the runners.

Pick a number say 100, plus 10 if it makes any difference for first place and break it down to 10th or 15th spot using the NPL percentage formula or something similar and the rest get 10 points for turning up like we do now.

And then let the Venue Operators/promotors dangle the big ca$h carrot$$$ to attract more runners to their venues????

After looking at Bennymacca's response to Rosemary's and my posts I thought he might prefer the above suggestion. It doesn't encroach on his cash or time available but it does allow him to play good poker. It alsoallows him to support his local venues and be equally rewarded for his efforts and poker ability on the tables.

I think it would be good for the likes of Bennymacca and others like myself who don't chase venues all over the place and have limited funds or time availble. We would still be able to make points and maybe, just maybe have a go at some other venues where time or money permits us.

So, I'm gonna keep buying my dinner and a drink or two and depending on whose shout it is, Crayfish and I enjoy will be enjoying a serve of the Wheatsheaf apple pie. I can enjoy the time I spend with my friends and Poker aquaintances without breaking the bank.

My goals for this season is to finish in the top five at one of my venues and the DD points may or may not help me. Next season who knows???

Thanks for reading another marathon post, regards Bob B

[queen9]

Hi Bob, the 'then' state leader used to come from Dingley area to Geelong on a saturday night, to a strip club to play, I think the biggest crowd they ever got was about 45, but the points were the same there as at our Hoppers Crossing venue or any other venue ...

so when someone like that appears at the venues you frequent, you must wonder why ....

[queen9]

thanks to all those who wrote in support of Peter Minca over the past couple of weeks ... he is right where he belongs after a win last night, netting him a whopping 256 points - he is on top of the state leaderboard. well done to Pete and thanks again to everyone who showed their support.

I do know that the S.L.B. is an ongoing point of contention, but we have won this by using the criteria as set down by the NPL, just like Alf Morley won it back to back, Nick, everyone who has won it, did so by following the criteria as set down.

Whether you agree it is the right way or the wrong way to find the state leader, it is now irrelevant, it was won and awarded. and while I have 2 of them sitting on my wall unit, I will accept the accolade that they represent.

This season, I don't believe that the dd points have helped find a true leader, but I will work it out and see how Peter would have faired against the rest, with no dd points at all. Given how close he was anyway, his may be a unique situation. I will keep you informed of my findings.

[Garth Kay]

I take it Pete was unfortunate not to take out the Hot Seat jackpot as well?

Should be a few big nights at Hoppers coming up and Tigers this Wednesday should be interesting.

[queen9]

Not sure about the hotseat, I just saw his name up there on the results from last night ... and I haven't spoken to him yet .... but looking forward to seeing him tonight and giving him a well deserved pat on the back ...

[queen9]

wednesday night ... what do I do ... mr grand-daughter's graduation vs poker with the big boys .... you know what I have to do ... so I hope you guys will come and play with us another night ... maybe at Hoppers ...