What's hot- what's not

[David]

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

Not really. I struggled to get to 25 last season as it was, and this season I'm playing once a week plus the occasion game elsewhere (Hey, I have a 10 month old daughter! )

I think I'll play 15 times this season, or there abouts

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?

I think it's more accurate than the current system, yes.
The amount of people who would stop would be very very small I reckon.. hell, we all like playing poker That's the idea!

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

Yup. I would probably be in the top 5 somewhere, I would hope - and I'd still go out to look after that.

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

This is poker - tactics are used all the time. People don't play powerful hands so they get more points, and on the flipside, some people might avoid playing all together to keep an average.

I don't have a problem with a player who does that. It's not hard to see the averages and stats


I also don't have a problem with the system - I just think the way it's represented is wrong.. that's all!

[Darren B]

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

I can do that Pete but we may need an "R" rated forum

[BigPete33]

oh if only

[Garth Kay]

All, but 7 players, that qualified through the top 50 were also in a venue's top 5. The top 10 players in the state were actually in the top 3 of there venue leaderboards and three of them were in the top 5 of two venues leaderboard.
To say they walked there way in by playing a multitude of games is wrong. All of these players deserved to be there in one form or another.

[David]

All, but 7 players, that qualified through the top 50 were also in a venue's top 5. The top 10 players in the state were actually in the top 3 of there venue leaderboards and three of them were in the top 5 of two venues leaderboard.
To say they walked there way in by playing a multitude of games is wrong. All of these players deserved to be there in one form or another.

That's what I imagined the stats would be.

Can you tell me... of the 7 people who didn't finish in the top 5 somewhere, would they have finished in the top 50 in the old system?

[Garth Kay]

I didn't check that thoroughly but I know three of them had averages of 29+ from memory.

[David]

So really, having the top 50 averages over 25 games (last season) rewarded no one

[BigPete33]

All, but 7 players, that qualified through the top 50 were also in a venue's top 5. The top 10 players in the state were actually in the top 3 of there venue leaderboards and three of them were in the top 5 of two venues leaderboard.
To say they walked there way in by playing a multitude of games is wrong. All of these players deserved to be there in one form or another.

completely disagree.

should they only have been able to play say twice a week, suddenly there's some venues they didn't have a chance of top 5 at. Also there's more chance of having to compete with others (who would legitimately be in the running) for the same top 5 spots at those couple of venues.

You are saying (I think) that they would have top 5'd anyhow...I'm saying that's bollocks good sir

[Garth Kay]

LOL
So know your saying we should restrict the amount of games a player can play?
Please, this is getting ridiculous.
Why should we now punish players who do play at the same venue week in and week out? How is that possibly fair?
So if a player plays three or four times a week consistently at the same venues we should prohibit them from qualifying at a venue because they have more of a chance at making a top 5 venue position than someone who plays once per week?
My god, I might have to change my signature to Darren's.

[BigPete33]

lol, yeah really not what I said!

I was saying that some of them top 5'd purely because they're playing many more venues and this naturally gives them more of a chance to do so.

You seemed to be saying they top 5'd because they would have anyway (perhaps even if they only played say twice a week).

It's not a like for like comparison to say 'oh they would have qualified anyway'.