Leaderboards.

[bennymacca]

Does the 10 game block avg stop where it is if i stopped playing?

What if i played 25 games in the first 5 weeks, and in my last 10 games i got 3 wins and 7 final tables. Why would i continue playing?

you would take that as your best block, and you would be able to try and improve - i.e in your next game, you might get another win, which would increase your average if your first game out of the block was worth less points.

[Garth Kay]

My view for what its worth, scrap the state leaderboard, it only benefits metro players that have the opportunity to play at the bigger venues which equals bigger points.

The focus should be on regional leaderboards, this creates equality between city and country irrespective of venue numbers.

As for points the best 20 games to qualify for a regional leaderboard.

Give the standard venue points the heave ho and revert to a freeze out points system

What if I was to say we are scrapping State and regional leaderboards and moving to one complete leaderboard to cover all states and regions, and that there is a way for all players to partake in larger fields?

[Garth Kay]

Does the 10 game block avg stop where it is if i stopped playing?

What if i played 25 games in the first 5 weeks, and in my last 10 games i got 3 wins and 7 final tables. Why would i continue playing?

you would take that as your best block, and you would be able to try and improve - i.e in your next game, you might get another win, which would increase your average if your first game out of the block was worth less points.

Blocks of ten would be measured in the following way:

Games 1 - 10 total point score
Games 11- 20 total point score
Games 21 - 30 total point score, etc.....

Whichever block was your highest point score would be used as you LDB ranking.

[bennymacca]

oh ok, i thought you could take it as your best block whenever you wanted to start and finish it

for leaderboard purposes, what if someone has played 31 games going into the final week

this would mean that the only way for their last games to count would be to play 9 games in that week.

if it was a moving average (taken over any 10 consecutive games), then this player would be able to play 3 games in the week and improve on his average.



a question about the way you have described the leaderboard - would someone be able to qualify multiple times for the one leaderboard?

[Garth Kay]

oh ok, i thought you could take it as your best block whenever you wanted to start and finish it

for leaderboard purposes, what if someone has played 31 games going into the final week

this would mean that the only way for their last games to count would be to play 9 games in that week.

if it was a moving average (taken over any 10 consecutive games), then this player would be able to play 3 games in the week and improve on his average.



a question about the way you have described the leaderboard - would someone be able to qualify multiple times for the one leaderboard?

First part - too difficult.

Second question - no.

[maccatak11]

so what about the idea of peak average?

[Garth Kay]

I'm not sure about peak average.

For peak average to work we would need to set a minimum amount of games to be played, and it's not exactly an easy sell (or easy to communicate) to the majority of players.

I need to think on it a bit more.

[maccatak11]

20 games minimum i think would work.

It means that in order to improve during a season, the top players need to have a string of consistent results, and they are not just looking for one big win to improve their leaderboard placings.

It may also imprve spend from these players, as there is more improtance on each event - the 'double up or go home' factor in the first blind level becomes redundant.

Yes the big games are still important, but this would also allow top players in country regions to compete for the top of the state leaderboard - not just hoping to sneak into 43rd.

[Origami]

20 games minimum i think would work.

It means that in order to improve during a season, the top players need to have a string of consistent results, and they are not just looking for one big win to improve their leaderboard placings.

It may also imprve spend from these players, as there is more improtance on each event - the 'double up or go home' factor in the first blind level becomes redundant.

Yes the big games are still important, but this would also allow top players in country regions to compete for the top of the state leaderboard - not just hoping to sneak into 43rd.

Agree Agree....
my post may not have reflected it... but maccataka has the expressed my point of view..---- 20 games in a 10 week season. ---highest points/average... to improve your play /win and drop your lowest tally . The country/city large/ small venue issue still applies but is minimised some what dropping your lowest [ improving ].. multi gamers still have to finish consistently in the points to move up . and those chasing high points need to play in large venues and finish high in the points to make the top 50 and prove/ improve themselves.

[todd182]

i havent read any of the other comments so i may be repeating. but i like the average points idea overall, not that i ever figure in the leaderboard, but it just make for a more open leaderboard i mean there scores will be changing every match.

thats how'd i like it and thats what i voted for