Leaderboards.

[Garth Kay]

I don't want to complecate things but...
Why not if you are keeping the stateboards, have two or three
(20/20, One day and test) or average field less than 40 and 40-70 and more than 70.

I also would like to see a strike rate of final tables per event played.
This perecentage could be added to the existing average points.
ie someone averaging 60 makes 80% of final tables has 140 points.
Large Mulitple event player averaging 80 makes 25% final tables has 105pts.

Too complicated.

Remember we want this accessible to all players and for our TD's to be able to communicate the concept quickly and effieciently. We can't make it too complicated. And one ldb will be the way to go.

Too many ldb's otherwise and that becomes confusing.

[rcon]

I would just prefer an average to include all games, not just a selection.

This would not be fair to "big game hunters" as the current system is to allocate points to only the top 15 runners. Imagine the WSOP only paying 15 spots! I can't tell you the number of times I finished 17-25 when playing fields over 60 during the season I was chasing points, but I do know you're talking at least 7 or 8, plus 4 bubbles. Does this really make my efforts less worthy of "scoring" than someone who finishes even say 10th in a field of 30?

Until point paying places reflect field size as well as, you can't use an average of points scored across of all games.

edit: I should point out, I am completely aware of why NPL does not have a sliding scale of point scoring places - well I assume anyway it would be a logistical nightmare for the TDs.

[BigPete33]

Garth, I wouldn't be using just one stat to determine anything on a leaderboard that's not used for qualification.

If there were a whole raft of stats to see for any given player, half the fun would be everybody discussing amongst themselves which of those stats they rate as more appropriate for any given debate.

We've had this discussion before, but something similar to the 'official poker rankings' website would be great. In short, if you can discuss it then there's a stat for it - the more stats the better.

Besides, it'll give benny the cunt something to try and base foolish statements on

[rcon]

MS Reporting Services have nice little modules which could be easily exposed thru a decent website

NPL could build some data models for us to access..... and benny the cunt could do the rest!

[bennymacca]

i think our reasoning for the different stats is not so that any prizes are attached to them, just that we can use them for bragging rights


what about making the database readable to anyone, so that we can make our own queries? that would be good enough for me

[maccatak11]

clearly for online games there is a sliding scale of how many people cash depending on how many runners there are.

why not make a system where the top 30% of finishers make points, with a percentage of total points used to work out each players points.

Surely all it would need is a spreadsheet to be created and given to each TD i.e. 30 runners, 10 players make points etc.

this would make everything fair and all leaderboards relevant. yes the big game players will still get more points, but results between big and small venues would be truly comparable.

It wouldnt be difficult for the TD to announce at the beginning of each game that "we have 33 runners tonight which means 11 will get points".

what do we all think?

[rcon]

what about making the database readable to anyone, so that we can make our own queries? that would be good enough for me

That is essentially what the MS Reporting Services modules would do - Garth has indicated this is exactly what is on the cards, but I think we're all too aware of how long this sort of thing takes NPL's IT services!

[AceLosesKing]

clearly for online games there is a sliding scale of how many people cash depending on how many runners there are.

why not make a system where the top 30% of finishers make points, with a percentage of total points used to work out each players points.

Surely all it would need is a spreadsheet to be created and given to each TD i.e. 30 runners, 10 players make points etc.

this would make everything fair and all leaderboards relevant. yes the big game players will still get more points, but results between big and small venues would be truly comparable.

It wouldnt be difficult for the TD to announce at the beginning of each game that "we have 33 runners tonight which means 11 will get points".

what do we all think?

I like that A LOT. I don't see it happening though. The 'top 15' is a staple of NPL.

[Bacon]

It wouldnt be difficult for the TD to announce at the beginning of each game that "we have 33 runners tonight which means 11 will get points".

what do we all think?

Ideally perfect. But getting 30 people to write their names down,in the order they were knocked out, in a field of 100 is what would cause issues.

[Garth Kay]

i think our reasoning for the different stats is not so that any prizes are attached to them, just that we can use them for bragging rights


what about making the database readable to anyone, so that we can make our own queries? that would be good enough for me

A big absolute hell no!