Leaderboards.

[sunbury2]

From what I see.
Most of the people of the state leaderboard finish in the top 5 of a venue and qualify for the state finals anyway.

So it doesn't really matter what system you have, as currently you are only awarding the top 2 on the state leaderboard.

If you are going to encourage people to play for the points you need more prizes than just top 2.
Some players play 60 events top 5 at 2 venues(so have qualified for the states) finish 3rd on the state leaderboard and all the get is a seat at the state finals.

If the prize pool is to increase.
I still think to win a tournement is hard regardless of 30 or 130 players.
I think the leader board should just be based on the following.
Though keeping the current scoring system for venue leaderboards.
Win 20pts, 2nd 15pts, 3rd 10, 4-9th 5 10-15th 3
For playing you get 1pt.
Then mulitple players can still accummulate points even if they aren't placing.
This would mean a really good player in a small venue would be able to compete with an average player playing mulit events.

[Garth Kay]

From what I see.
Most of the people of the state leaderboard finish in the top 5 of a venue and qualify for the state finals anyway.

So it doesn't really matter what system you have, as currently you are only awarding the top 2 on the state leaderboard.

If you are going to encourage people to play for the points you need more prizes than just top 2.
Some players play 60 events top 5 at 2 venues(so have qualified for the states) finish 3rd on the state leaderboard and all the get is a seat at the state finals.

If the prize pool is to increase.
I still think to win a tournement is hard regardless of 30 or 130 players.
I think the leader board should just be based on the following.
Though keeping the current scoring system for venue leaderboards.
Win 20pts, 2nd 15pts, 3rd 10, 4-9th 5 10-15th 3
For playing you get 1pt.
Then mulitple players can still accummulate points even if they aren't placing.
This would mean a really good player in a small venue would be able to compete with an average player playing mulit events.

Prize pool might increase with a new competition re design, but it is the way it is for the next two seasons.

Also I disagree on the points structure I think a player who wins a tournament of 130 should be awarded more than the player who wins in a tournament of 30.

My own personal feelings but please feel free to debate.

[sunbury2]

All I am saying is at the moment there is no real reward for playing a large number of events.

If you are going to have a state prize leader board where a good player at 1 venue is on the same playing field as an average player playing a lot of venues then you need a different points structure.

Looking at season 3,4,5 2008 no players won more than 5 events. despite some players playing upto 72 events.
Is a player who has played 72 events and won 3 times really one of the best players in the state, or is the player at the 1 venue that has won 4 times out of 10 the better player? Not enough games to even make the state leader board at the moment.
Regardless of number of players registered, it is still hard to win an event.

I think if you award Win 20pts, 2nd 15pts, 3rd 10, 4-9th 5 10-15th 3
For playing you get 1pt. Then the high volume players can still accumulate points by playing alot and occasional final table, but also the 1 venue player has a chance on the state leaderboard.
The Top 10 points scored by a player are what counts.

I think the points system in place at the moment is great for the venue leader but for the state leader board I think you need to have a system so that the good players at 1 venue are on almost the same playing field as the average ones at multiple venues.

[bennymacca]

you have mentioned a good player in a small venue vs an average player in a big venue.

what about if you flip the coin? how about a good player in a big venue, and an average player in a small venue?

surely the average player has an advantage if the same points are awarded for both big and small venues?

what if you win 3 tourneys in 10 weeks at a 100 runner venue? surely that makes you a better player than someone that wins 3/10 at a 30 runner venue.

[maccatak11]

yeah its a hard one and i think there will be pros and cons with any system used. but i think your point about multi-gamers is valid. It is good for NPL and good for business if they keep the multi-gamers playing so many games, however it has been mentioned before that the multi-gamers make up only a very small percentage of the total playing community (was something like 2% but ill stand corrected).

I guess the NPL needs to look at where it can grow. Is it better to try and increase the number of 10 a week players by adding prizes to the SLB, or is it better for NPL to convince the average 1-2 game a week player to play that extra game a week. Here is where i think there is much more growth for NPL - which is why extra events like the FTT games (especially in regional areas) and other events help.

It would be interesting to work out the average spend per player of the multi-gamers. Do they card up every time? Most likely is that they will have 1-3 "regular" venues where they might buy a meal and get stamped up, but getting these types of players to play 4 more games a week wont dramatically increase the aount they spend me thinks.

Whereas getting a player who plays once a week and spends $20 to play a second venue and spend $40 will help more venues i think. I could be wrong, but thats my theory as to why prizes for the state leaderboard have been reduced in favour of extra tournaments like FTT tourneys.

[sunbury2]

what about if you flip the coin? how about a good player in a big venue, and an average player in a small venue?

surely the average player has an advantage if the same points are awarded for both big and small venues?

what if you win 3 tourneys in 10 weeks at a 100 runner venue? surely that makes you a better player than someone that wins 3/10 at a 30 runner venue.

The stats don't lie. Regardless of numbers it is hard to win or finish in the top 3 at any venue.
Look at all the stats and no season has a player won more than 5 events. (I could be wrong)

An average player will not feature in the top five of any venue regardless of number of players. They won't also win consistently.
The way I am putting it just makes it a more level playing field for the 1 venue players as well as the multi venue players.
Currently very good players at the 1 venue can't make the state leaderboard. Surely the stateleader board should reflect the best players not the ones that have the disposable income to play the most games.
Also in some regional there aren't that many weekly games, compared to metro regions that have daily or twice daily games.

[Scotty]

Surely the stateleader board should reflect the best players not the ones that have the disposable income to play the most games.

This discussion goes waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back

[maccatak11]

Surely the stateleader board should reflect the best players not the ones that have the disposable income to play the most games.

In theory this is ideal - but i dont think we have come up with a way to do this yet. I dont think your idea solves this problem either.

A player who wins 3 times at a venue with 30 has played well, are a good player and has had an excellent season, but the DO NOT deserve to be equal on a leaderboard with someone who has won 3 times at a venue with 100 runners.

[Garth Kay]

Ok. Hypothetical.

Let's say we make it a leaderboard for both SA, Tas and Vic; no State Leaderboards, no regional ldb's. Just venue and states.

The prize money for the leaderboard is $40,000. Let's scrap NPL champs all together and just base our prizes on leaderboards (and before anyone panics, this is not really happening and never will). Now let's say the top 10 of this leaderboard for every season play off in a tournament at the end of the year. Prize pool for this tournament is in excess of $200,000 Australian.

Key data:
SA 120 events @ 45 players per event on avg.
Vic 115 events @ 55 players per event
Tas 20 events @ 35 players per event on avg.

Metro areas, in general will draw 5 - 10 more players on average. They also have the largest concentration of 70+ games.

If we can make a fair and equitable leaderboard, doesn't this in itself promote those one or two game per week players to strive for a possible extra game per week. Would it make you try to crack the leaderboard if you knew that multi gaming had little effect on the positions?

You have the data, design something if you wish or tell me what you would prefer, but:

Points will be based on field size, sliding scale can be changed though. The larger the field the greater the reward.

A system must be derived that is equitable for all, but as always metro areas will always get the greatest of benefits in terms of game selection and field sizes, there is no avoiding this.

[sunbury2]

A player who wins 3 times at a venue with 30 has played well, are a good player and has had an excellent season, but the DO NOT deserve to be equal on a leaderboard with someone who has won 3 times at a venue with 100 runners.[quote][/quote]

I think they do. You can't control the quality of players that play.
I have played at venues with 100 players and if you just fold every hand you progess as people bet big trying to accumulate chips quickly.
At smaller venues people are tighter as fewer chips to go around.
Honestly. If you play at a small venue try a big and the other way round.

With my suggestion you could actually have a table like the footy as the season progress.

Name play Won r/up 3rd F/T Top15 Total Pts
Player 1 5 2 2 1 0 0 70
Player 2 50 0 1 4 0 5 70
Player 3 20 1 1 1 5 2 66