Leaderboards.

[bennymacca]

In poker there is the some amount of luck! If your Ace's get beat by 2 7 three weeks out of nine then you not going to make the state finals.

yes, poker is a game of skill that has a lot more luck than a lot of other games.

By having a venue final in week 10 you still have a chance to make the states.

so to combat bad luck, you want to introduce more luck into the qualification process?!?!?!?!

i think we have argued your points to death, and some of them are valid. but you don't seem to be taking anyone elses opinions on board, including the manager of the companies.

ill let someone else take up the debate

I am just trying to get players playing for the whole 10 weeks.

to make sure that everyone does keep playing for the whole 10 weeks, there are things like the aussie millions and vic/sa champs satellites. this is your reward for winning/ final tabling in the last part of the season when states might be out of the question

in my view this is a much better situation than meddling with the qualification to state finals. dont you agree?

[Bacon]

garth, in cricket, they have 2 types of stats.. Average and strike rate. The idea put forward by Des and I goes down the line of strike rate.

I'm sure a lot of players on here look more at their final table % than their average. I think that by incorporating the consistency into a leaderboard, it shouldn't matter where or how much u play.

I don't know the answer


[sunbury2]

I will just outline my main points again and then let the matter rest.

State qualiifaction in order.
Top 50 state leaderboard.
Top 5 at a venue.

My idea.
Top 3 of a venue.
Winner of week 10. This is not by luck. You would still have had to play well enough to be in top 40 and/or won a side event and the venue final.
Top 10 (top 25 metro) of regional leaderboard. This will probably mean someone who plays a vast number of games will probably make the state finals as the majority of the higher places will have been claimed by the venue top 3. Looking at the stats. All players in the current top 50 will still make the state finals in the new format. You just have players playing week in week out to try and make the top 40 and week 10.

You are not changing to much in the qualifying at all. Good players will still make the top 3 or regional top 10+, but unlucky, multiple players have something to keep them interested during weeks 1-10.

If you think the current system caters for more players and keeps players playing all the season, compared to my idea then fine, I will leave it at that. bennymacca, no one likes change but NPL changed from their original scoring system. I haven't seen your idea on what to do to improve the NPL. The regionals aren't getting the numbers and you need to retain players and/generate new players and venues. If you have a venue final each season, then new venues my come on board.

[Des]

Fcuk it, just let everyone play.

[Bacon]

sunbury, would u know what the dropoff rate for the last 3 weeks is? Having played most seasons, in Sa, i have never noticed a marked player loss for the final 3 weeks. Because, most single venue players, to me, play for the social aspect and making states isn't the be all and end all. Most would just love to win.

As for using week 10 as a last-chance state qualifier, well the Saturday of the Champs weekend has that game for everyone, and will attract those who care about qualifying (i'll play next time)

I know it was an arbitrary figure, but venue top 40 doesn't mean much. I play at a 40-60 runner venue. I should make top 40 from here, because i'm regular. I made points once in 6 weeks... Doesn't really mean i'm good.

 From all i see, the week 10 final's only purpose is to give 37 people a last chance at qualifying. It doesn't appear to me to help the venue out. If it's available at every venue, there's no reason to play elsewhere.

A 1 in 37 chance at a weekly venue, or a 9 in about 250 chance playing the Sat event at champs. The odds favour the latter

[bennymacca]

I haven't seen your idea on what to do to improve the NPL.

well i think you better re-read pretty much every thread that garth has started where he wants us to comment.

i am not coming up with any alternative scoring methods or state finals qualification methods, because i think they are working well at present. i dont have an issue at all with that, and i think it is much better than some other competitions.

what i would like to see is a deep stack game every week on a saturday or sunday afternoon. i think that this could be run as any other regular venue, with top 5 still qualifying for state finals, just that the stacks deeper and blinds more relaxed.

i think these would also be the perfect candidates for cash buyin events if/when they are introduced for NPL.

[sunbury2]

A large portion of players do play only the one venue each week, especially in outer regional areas. If you are using the regional leaderboard you are encouraging them to play more than one venue.
No point at the moment as still won't make the states so they just socialise or try and win the one venue.
By encouraging people to play more of the outer regional events you keep these events going.

Garth correct me if I am wrong, but the venues pay per player in attendance with a minimum of around $600. This means venues in the outer regions with less than around 60 players still pay as if the around 60 players attend..
A venue in the metro area with 120 players generates the same income as 2 venues in the outer regions with 20-60 players. As there is a minimum amount to be paid. The only difference is a metro venue is generating a bigger income for its self, outer region running at cost or below, NPL gaining nothing monetary wise.

If you can encourage more people to play in more outer regional events then you can retain or attract this players.

A regular player will make the top 40 of a venue yes. Occasionally play no, but still slim chance of making the states in last week.

If in week 10 the venue gets more than 60 players at least they think it is worth it for them monetary wise.

[BigPete33]

If you live in a regional area, you just can't expect to be 'compensated' or given special treatment or bonuses or whatever - because it's nobody elses fault that you chose to live there.

I think an important factor in the qualification process is being overlooked with regard to top 5 at a venue - the absolute first thing you should make sure you do is show up EVERY week!

Have you not considered the fact that you get points just for showing up? How cruisy is that?!? If it were up to me you'd get NOTHING. But I'm not very nice

I think we all realise the 'top 50' really doesn't mean that at all and I can certainly see where sunbury is coming from in wishing that it was and that anyone who is any good should be able to have a crack at it. But the fact is if you can only play games with low numbers of players then you're boned no matter what and that's EXACTLY how it should be because it MOST DEFINITELY is harder to do well in a larger field.

Suggesting it's effectively the same to do well in a small field or a large one is just unbelieveably wide of the mark. If that were the case I'd be a lot more cranky with myself for not cashing in every single state final!

Allow me to add another perspective.

How many of the 'top 50' are also top 5 at a venue?

If it's about 2 thirds or more:
1) Remove that leaderboard as a method of qualification altogether, this will bring the focus back on regularly showing up at a venue in order to qualify. Venues certainly won't hate that.

2) Replace that absolute joke of a leaderboard with one that has relevant stats on how well a player is actually doing. Stuff like final table % in the points % average field size blah blah blah. Bragging rights only, but it will maybe stop *some* of the players from believing they are better than what they actually are and vice versa with showing everyone how surprisingly well some of the lesser known players are doing. There's nothing like competing against your mates!

If it's well below the 2 thirds mark:
Then you still need to reward the players that play a zillion games a season and a modification to the existing 'top 50' structure should be all that is required and oh look, Garth has already asked us to vote on some suggestions

[Garth Kay]

A large portion of players do play only the one venue each week, especially in outer regional areas. If you are using the regional leaderboard you are encouraging them to play more than one venue.
No point at the moment as still won't make the states so they just socialise or try and win the one venue.
By encouraging people to play more of the outer regional events you keep these events going.

Garth correct me if I am wrong, but the venues pay per player in attendance with a minimum of around $600. This means venues in the outer regions with less than around 60 players still pay as if the around 60 players attend..
A venue in the metro area with 120 players generates the same income as 2 venues in the outer regions with 20-60 players. As there is a minimum amount to be paid. The only difference is a metro venue is generating a bigger income for its self, outer region running at cost or below, NPL gaining nothing monetary wise.

If you can encourage more people to play in more outer regional events then you can retain or attract this players.

A regular player will make the top 40 of a venue yes. Occasionally play no, but still slim chance of making the states in last week.

If in week 10 the venue gets more than 60 players at least they think it is worth it for them monetary wise.

We have seen, especially in SA, that any motivation to do well in your regional leaderboards does not promote those one or two game players to try and play more games. Hence why prize money for regional LDB's and regional finals has been scrapped, it just does not motivate enough people within any region.

In regards to venue charges you are way off the mark. We have several different pricing models and the average and $600 is nowhere near the mark and their are different models depending on geographical location. And secondly to that regional venues on average generate greater income form passports than the majority of metro venues. The passport redemption rate is far greater in regional areas compared to metro areas. So you could have a regional venue of 60 generating more F and B revenue than a venue of 100+ in a metro area.

[gundog]

I can understand most of what is being discussed here but!

I was a player who travelled to most venues in my region getting a payday from my position on the regional leaderboard twice, over he last couple of season I have scalled back travellng to regional venues as there is little benefit to me in finishing high on the regional leaderboard, except for pride and some prize money.

If however the top 5/10 from a regional leaderboard gained direct entry to season final etc etc like the state leaderboard, then I would resume playing muliple venues, with the view of regional leaderboard position rather than venue position, because its easy to miss top 5 in a venue if you miss a couple of games for what ever reason (ie state final on sunday and one of your regular venues is a sunday you must be on your game for rest of the season)

I somewhat agree that only the top 3 from each venue plus the top 10 from every region gain entry to the SF. In saying that some considerstion must be given to the remote venues which playes have little or no chance to make regional leaderboards because of the tyrany of distance they are 1 venue players.

I am not sure but I would hazard a guess that 90% of the top 50 on the SLB would have qualified at either a venue or region.

There has been on an occasion that a player placed 10th at a venue gained entry into a SF because of muliple venue quals and SLB qual, for a player to make SF this way is a lot of BS.

If loyality is part of the thinking then regional loyality must come into the thinking also.

Finally the VLB's final standings should be based on average, with a minimum of 75% of games played to qualify.