What's hot- what's not

[zemond]

But If we continue to run the system like we do, then players will have to rely on skill, and I'm sure bigpete will have something bad to say about that.

unfair!

[Nathan Butler]

Harsh.

[Des]

I LOVE YOU GUYS!

[Goose]

I dont see what the fuss is all about

Everybody plays on an even field
Whatever the point system is, its the same for everyone.

If the chasers want to play 10 times a week so be it or if Jo Blow want to only play once thats his choice.

Yes the top 50 does support the chasers that play everywhere but you must remember those players are a minority of 1-2%
Yes they do get more chances to make the finals but thats it, ONLY CHANCES. It doesnt mean they are better or worse. All it means is they are willing to play at more venues to give themself more chances to make the finals.

A strategy i used in season 1 was to play 6 venues.
After 5 or 6 weeks i assessed my points tally at the venues due to family committments and costs and dropped 2 venues that i wasnt in the top 20 and concentrated on the other 4. I got through at 2 of the remaining venues finishing in the top 5. The top 50 was only bragging rites as i spent many weeks at No1 and top 10 (finishing top 100 i think).
(I would have had an average of 60 under the new system)

Season 2 i chose to play at only 2 venues and concentrate on them only throwing in the odd game here or there for fun and to try new strategies. I finished in the top 5 at 1 venue and 8th at the other.

Season 3 is the same as season 2 but with some good prizemoney and bonuses been thrown around by some venues things could change

In Summary.
Its a good marketing ploy to encourage players to play the full season to increase their averages (refer Enzo winning the very last tourney at Roulettes to finish top) where the old system made players stop playing with weeks to go to protect their averages.

My only suggestion is::::
There is too much emphasist on the top 50 and the prizemoney excessive.
The NPL bread and butter are the venue players
Top 5 at each venue should be rewarded instead of the top 10 on the leaderboard and regional leaderboards (quote Garths Prizemoney draft).
As i said before the more you play the more chances you have. This would also apply to venue prizes. For example Enzo would have picked up 2 firsts and 1 second seasonal prizemoney at venues he played at in season 2

Just my 2c worth

[Nathan Butler]

Nice post Goose. I agree with you completly, I do believe the playing field is even, i also, like you have my regular venues... if i were able to score points im pritty sure i would have qaulified for the past season final at Pooraka (tues) I made the points every second event and i gave it my best.

Was the only event i played consistantly, but i played every now and again on my nights off too.

Nathan Butler
Mr CBD

[Tom Cerny]

Alright, time for an easy leaderboard system that encourages people to play more and better reflects the overall quality of the players

Heres how it goes:

for every player that enters a torny 10 points are put into the points pool. points are payed out the same way as money in cash tornys with the final table and especially top 3 being points heavy.

so in a 50 person torny theres 500 points in the pool 1st gets 25% [125 points], 2nd gets 15% [75 points] etc (not sure on exact % breakdown but im sure garth has it somewhere) down to 15th who might only get 20 points or a similar smallish number. all of the points in the points pool are distributed amongst the top 15 and all the DNP's still get 10 points.

the season still goes on best 15 games, which is still encouraging people to play more games and strive for better places to improve their average as the difference between 1st and 10th in this new system may be 50+ points compared to a much smaller figure now (probably round the 25 mark in average torny )

As we are trying to make our game more closely reflect casino style tornys, a points payout in the same ratio as a money payout is the next logical step

Tom C
TD for South

[Nathan Butler]

Hey Tom. Fantastic Idea. I really like the system you have come up with and im glad im not the only one just posting here to complain, bag, or stir up other forum contributors. (Bretts post was good too)

I see one flaw in your system (which realisticly isn't a flaw, just somthing we may need to tweak) I just feel that if we were to pool the points (10pts per player) then in the pay out of those points, the pay out must reflect the number of players in the tournament.

In any casino tournament, only around 10% of the field is payed out. So in a tournament of 20 runners, you would only pay points to the top 2 or 3 players.... in a tournament of 100 players you would pay the top 10.

Although your system still works if you wanted to pay out the the top 15. A tournament with 20 runners still = 200 points to go around, 25% being 50 pts for first... but in an event that say has 12 players (less players then the break down 1-15) there are now 3 positions = dead points (if 15 was say worth 6% of the points, who gets those points?). We need to construct an ajustable break done which is based on player numbers, that way, the total value of each tourament and the value of the positions payed out would truly reflect the better poker players through out the season.

Now all we need to do is think of fair system to average a players standing.... if we take the best 15 games, the mega games players have more chances of completing an averge comprising of 15 final table finishes, how ever, if we don't utilise that system, then many players would stop playing more games then required as to protect thier average...

HHHMMM...........

Any idea's? i think you may have started somthing here Tom! Post again if you come up with anything else, this is great!!!!!

Nathan Butler
Mr CBD

[Des]

I LOVE YOU GUYS!

Note the above post was at 3am... I was playing a deepstack tourney on PokerStars... its now 7am and I am still playing same tourney, just made final table, no sleep for me

Edit: 5th for $313
Lost 90% of my stack when I ran into AA with JJ.... typical PokerStars doomswitch. Had 9k left... ran up to 68k and then ran into KK with A10.

Time for sleep.

[Lizard]

What about away to please both sides of the argument.

Top 25 players with highest average points for 25 games or more.
&
Top 25 players with highest average points for 50 games or more.

This should encourage players who love the game to play more, even if they think there a sure bet to make the top 25 with a good high average in 25 games or more they can keep playing because there going to have a lot less competition in the 50 games or more and should still be a sure bet.

Also players who don’t think there going to make the top 25 for 25 can go for the top 25 for 50.
Even players who may play only 2 pubs but have a bad run and just might miss out on the top 5 can go for the top 25 for 25.

In short u encourage more players to play more games (good for the NPL) but also get good players in the finals.(good for all)

BTW: I only play at 1 pub so this doesn’t really affect me just trying to help.

I haven’t read all the post on this section, so sorry in advanced if I've repeated anything.

[Brett Kay]

Lizard it sounds good in theory.

But then players would start saying that the guy who has played 50+ games has a lower average than the guy who has 25+ games.

Not to mention players that would stop on 49 games if there average doesn't let them make the top 25.

Also splitting the averages like that would create a huge headache for the IT department, especially with some of the other things that have to be added in first.



Is it just me, or is this topic just starting to be this way vs that way vs another way? No one is willing to concede to either side?