What's hot- what's not

[David]

Why not increase the final to 650 people then

Have the top 5 from every venue, plus the top 50 averages, plus the top 50 averages over 25 games...

It won't be 650 though, it must means it might be more accurate! People are still being rewarded.

It would have meant an extra 7 people at the state finals cos the lists were basically the same names......proving the system as it stands currently is not unfair to the 90% majority

I guess "inaccurate" is more what I meant, but I know what you mean.

[Garth Kay]

Also it's 15 games now, no longer 25. That should make it easier for the self proclaimed "good players" to achieve a higher average than those, apparently, "donkeys" that play a multitude of games.
Good players should be achieving points more often than the 'donkeys' therefore if a 'donkey' plays 60 games a good player should be able to attain the same if not higher average simply playing 20 to 30 games?

Please note the above is said in a sarcastic tone and I do not believe anybody that finished in the top 50 last season could be titalled a donkey.

[Garth Kay]

By the way I did put forward to all TD's if they wish to see any changes to the current structure, the resounding answer from all staff , reflective of the majority of players, is that most people do not have a problem with any of the systems and most quite like the fact that the minimum amount of games is now 15.

[BigPete33]

I reckon you should ask them again but this time to grow a spine and say what they really think

[David]

Also it's 15 games now, no longer 25. That should make it easier for the self proclaimed "good players" to achieve a higher average than those, apparently, "donkeys" that play a multitude of games.
Good players should be achieving points more often than the 'donkeys' therefore if a 'donkey' plays 60 games a good player should be able to attain the same if not higher average simply playing 20 to 30 games?

I'm not proclaiming anything =)

It's easier, by a small percentage!

I like the 10/15 idea though, this season. A Lot better than 12/25. Mind you, I realised really quickly not to bother trying to play 2 games a week plus change to qualify - I'd have to score points every game!

[Garth Kay]

Pete,
All of my staff are honest and know I am easily approachable, there maybe two or three who wet themselves when I walk into a venue but thats it.
There have being a lot of staff who have wanted to write a response in regards to this and I have forbidden them from doing it as what they wanted to write wasn't exactly appropriate.
I will request Steve to do a leaderboard based on the best averages 15 games or greater, not the best 15 games and see what it looks like, but I still do not believe this a true representation of our State Leaders.
I will come up with a formula, based around numbers at venues, % of points placing, % of final table placings and % of wins. Also taking into consideration that they must play at least 8 games in the season.
Is there where the true argument lies; a small minority believe that our State Leaderboard is not representative of the best poker players we have on offer? Although I will continue to say that they are representative of the best NPL players.
Or is it because some players would have achieved top 50 last season on the old system but didn't this season?

[David]

Is there where the true argument lies a small minority believe that our State Leaderboard is not representative of the best poker players we have on offer? Although I will continue to say that they are representative of the best NPL players.
Or is it because some players would have achieved top 50 last season on the old system but didn't this season?

I haven't searched, though I thought you'd said in the past yourself that the leader board isn't a representation of the "best players", but rather the "most loyal".

I would call the leaderboard, the "best players who play over 3 times a week".

I did find this though :

Another scenario that occured last season was that once some people achieved the top 50, with a decent average, they ceased to play, hence "protecting" their average. I would like to see all players have an equal oppurtunity to have a shot at the state leaderboard and these players who were protecting their average can no longer do this as their may be other players who could have a very good run at trying to achieve top 50.

As much as you can say I can go out and play every night, I can't. I WISH I could! Don't get me wrong. I guess having an equal opportunity depends on your lifestyle, and situation.

It's weird, I have no problem with the current leader board having entry into the state finals. I have no problem with rewarding players who play more and provide more revenue to the NPL. It's more so the "wording" - and the fact that the leaderboard implies these people average the most points per game, which they don't.

[Nathan Butler]

Pete, Dave, Just curious... your not a mega game player but you would say play more than the average player, sound accurate?

Hypotheticly... if we used the old system for season and you had hit the final table of your first 15 games (say you played 3 games a week) In this scenario you are now number one in the state, in this scenario you have only played 5 weeks out of the 10 week season.

Would you scarifice playing the remain 5 weeks knowing that you may hold on to the top spot?

Would you think it was this was a fair representation of the best poker player in the league if you did stop and play only 1/2 a season?

If it were you persoanlly would you continue to play the remaining weeks of a season jepodising your average?

And Finally....

What would your opinion be of a player who put this scenario in practice?

No offence to Jerry Ison, he was the state leader in seaon one (the 16 week season) to protect his average, had did not play in the last couple of weeks of season one (who knows, i may have done the same thing)

Nathan Butler

[BigPete33]

Heya Garth,

I can't speak for anyone else here, but the main 'problem' I have with it currently is for sum1 to make the state final they just need to keep playing *almost* regardless of how good they are.

This isn't to necessarily say I'm pointing the finger at any1 that should/shouldn't have been there in my opinion. But I feel it gives reward to mediocrity on a scale that's perhaps quite generous.

BUT I'm sure you'll recall me saying more than once that I'm all for players being rewarded for their loyalty etc. Being given a walk-in to the state final (and that's almost certainly what it is) seems like not the best idea in the universe to me. I feel they definitely deserve something, just not that, because most others had to actually earn it.

If they would have made it anyway, they deserve a most sincere 'well done'. But I put to you again the 'let's see how many of them still would have qualified playing only a couple of times a week' scenario - this is in reference to 'if you're any good you'll make top 5 anyway'. More than 5 'good' players at the SAME venue doesn't mean a shoe-in for any of them. Much easier to just play anywhere and everywhere and you're much more chance of snagging a top 5.

I'm stewing over a few ideas for an alternative and I'll let you know once I've thought them through.

[BigPete33]

Heya Nath,

I only skimmed over that (doing 6 things at once here) but if sum1 decides to sit out to 'protect' their average that's up to them. It's not like they haven't spent their money too.

Odds are they'll get slammed and they'll regret doing it, but that's nobody's fault but theirs.

I think you're possibly overlooking that 15 games in a 10 week season is more than once a week. Don't be greedy.