What's hot- what's not

[G__]

This has already being discussed in a previous post, as Pete, has discussed.
1.) If you are a good player and only play 1 venue per week, don't you think that they should finish in the top 5 of that venue?

. So that means of our 16,000 members, 15 people dislike it enough to voice their opinion:
That's 0.09% of our members. I'm sorry gentleman, I know we will never satisfy everybody's demands but the majority rule on this one.

Can i just say that your post was pretty valid Garth until this bollocks end. You really think 0.09% of your players are unhappy with the leaderboard? WE are the players playing almost daily and i reckon about 80-90% reckon its rubbish. fact.

as for you question above? what if a player CANT play every week at the same venue for a host of reasons but can play quite often at different venues. He;s a good player, plays about 30 games, but will never even get close due to some donkey witha 3 NPL a day habit!

and another thing.. you say'i never said the top 50 was the BEST players'.. well you must accept that that IS the notion perceived when you call it the State Top 50!

Solution; how about rewarding the GOOD players ASWELL as your addicts. Top 50 in the State on REAL average. Then Top 50 on whatever scheme you thinkn rewards your addicts.

Seems fair to me.

[Garth Kay]

In rebuttal:
We have over 7000 players at all of our venues per week. Of this 7000 , 5000 are all unique players.
So we have 5000 players playing at least one venue per week, and at least 2000 players playing 2 venues per week. We can quite honestly say that there are many more players playing more than two times a week.
So lets say that we have 500 players playing twice a week and 300 players playing 3 times a week.
So even we just use the 7000 players per week the multi game (more than two games) players equate to 4.3% of our total player base. We won't even take into account that we have 20,000 members.
So therefore we have approx. 1000 players that may qualify for the state leaderboard of our 20,000 members.
Our best NPL players are not always indicative of poker skills, NPL we are not all about the poker but people coming out and having a fun night. In terms of a description the best NPL player may not necessarily be the best poker player but those players who do achieve well and support the competition above and beyond what we see as loyal.
As I have stated previously we will never find a system that satisfies everyone's needs or perceptions. But the majority (high percentile say 90%) of "good" players should qualify by achieving top 5 at a venue. I understand there are some players that cannot consistently play at the one venue week in and week out, we are looking to offer spot state finals entries at venues across next season to give these players the opportunity to win a State Finals seat on any given night.

I would also like to add that we have just over 500 members on this forum, I think it is a great tool and works exceedingly well as a marketing and feedback tool. But until we get over 1000 members I do no think that we are getting a real "feel" for ALL NPL players feelings and opinions, as we have not yet received the opinions of the once per week, average, just here to socialize player; and that market equates to over 80% of our players.

[dnomez]

Wow, that is absolutely outstanding!!!

While it can be argued that it rewards mega game players there is also a negative side, whereby those people that can only play one or two times a week will withdraw altogether, because they can never get an average that will get them into the top 50.

About 6% of qualifiers at the state finals is from top 50 average, guess what Cougar, there is another way of qualifying. And to threaten NPL with the notion that players will "withdraw altogether" because you have failed to prove your skills equal the size of your ego is amazing.

And In some form or another I can agree the current system does not benefit everyone, but any modifications to the format that benefits some will surely disadvantage others.

I'm amazed that Garth has created a system where more then 99% of players are happy with. This proves Garth's incredible knowledge of the game and players. I tip my hat to Garth and the whole NPL team and hope that players like you don't dishearten them and they continue to keep NPL the best damn poker league in the world!

[Matty Norwood]

wish i could really voice my opinion on this one but i think ill fence sit

[Nathan Butler]

In regards to the Top 50, we could revert to a system that rewards players for there total point accumulation. For example if you were to play 100 games in a season and DNP on all occasions you would total 1000 points. Total points from each player would determine their leader board standings.

A player should be entitled to all the points they accumulate, how-ever to be fair on the players that play fewer venues the average system has been put in place. This system is the best means to an end in regulating the top 50 leader board.

If you were to study the top 50 leader board you will see that the majority of those players were in the top 5 of a venue, some of them in the top 5 of mulitpe venues and for that you should be thankfull. All players in the top 50 qualified for the statefinal at the higest level, meaning that they were removed from the their respective top 5 leader boards and other players (who in my opinion FAILED to quialify agiast better players) made it through to the stae final. In the event of multiple qualification, those seats should be expelled from the state final and the player that qualifed more than once would have increased his/her chances of success at the event due to the event having less runners.

In the genorosity and spirit of the NPL we are not here to provide ruthless compitition, were are here to provide great social expreince and also the oppotunity of furhter success through our state final.

The current system is incredible fair, fair to both the players how play few games and need to do well in order to procure a decent avergae and also fair to the players who play frequently but limitting their ability to score massive seasons totals and prevent the few game players from even coming close.

I challange anyone to think up a better system, in regards to the 1 out 5 system prosed in the original post. Why should low game playes be entitled to use all their games for thier average and high game players use only 20% of the games they play after 25. Its not just bad business, its unfair.

I submit to all players that even thought we offer some fantastic prizes for success in the NPL, the most succesful thing you can do by being a part of the NPL is make freinds and have fun. Let not rain on the parade of those who play alot of games and lets not cut those down who only play a few. Just enjoy your regular tuesday night, or sunday arvo or what ever game you play. Do you your best and hopfully its enough!

Best of luck all!

Mr CBD

[BigPete33]

Let's make everyone play at only 2 venues per week and see how many of the 'top 50' still manage a top 5 at a venue

More venues played (regularly) = more chance of making top 5 doesn't it?

Calm down! I'm only poo stirring

[David]

Wow, that is absolutely outstanding!!!

While it can be argued that it rewards mega game players there is also a negative side, whereby those people that can only play one or two times a week will withdraw altogether, because they can never get an average that will get them into the top 50.

About 6% of qualifiers at the state finals is from top 50 average, guess what Cougar, there is another way of qualifying. And to threaten NPL with the notion that players will "withdraw altogether" because you have failed to prove your skills equal the size of your ego is amazing.

And In some form or another I can agree the current system does not benefit everyone, but any modifications to the format that benefits some will surely disadvantage others.

I'm amazed that Garth has created a system where more then 99% of players are happy with. This proves Garth's incredible knowledge of the game and players. I tip my hat to Garth and the whole NPL team and hope that players like you don't dishearten them and they continue to keep NPL the best damn poker league in the world!

Regardless of MY opinion - that's a tad harsh.

If the system was the same as it was in season two, The Cougar would have finished in the top 3 in the state on the leaderboard, so to suggest that he failed to prove his skill isn't overly valid.

Unless you mean that because he failed to play 100+ games, he failed.

Again, not saying I agree or disagree.. but think about it a bit more.

As for this :

And In some form or another I can agree the current system does not benefit everyone, but any modifications to the format that benefits some will surely disadvantage others.

I'm not sure who ... if most people in the top 50 are in top 5's as well, I don't know who it would be disadvantaged.

I think Nathan's point is valid and one I have thought of.. in that the top 50 list should be points gained, not an "average".

[Garth Kay]

Hi David,
Maybe you should re read Nathan's post in regards to total points scored and averages.
Total points is definitely not the way to go as that system would skew towards the top end (players who play more than 3 times a week) even more.

[David]

Hi David,
Maybe you should re read Nathan's post in regards to total points scored and averages.
Total points is definitely not the way to go as that system would skew towards the top end (players who play more than 3 times a week) even more.

But doesn't the current system skew towards that anyway ?

[BigPete33]

I also scratched my head when I read Dave's post but also came to the conclusion of 'well it's not really much different'.

It would realy only favour (in addition to those it already favours) those that play at venues with more runners such as Roulettes. They still need to place but that's not different to now.

This doesn't mean I like either idea, or any other idea (just to be difficult).

How are the regions leaderboards sorted now may I ask? It seems as though it's total points rather than average.