Regional and State leaderboards

[queen9]

pie charts and graphs ... no not yet ... not as of 7am this morning ... lol ... but it is a frightening thing .. I am not sure I am ready for this ...lol ..

as far as the leaderboard goes, I take my wins seriously, as they were presented to me for having the highest average over my best 15 games., and that was how it was described and written up on the net. I have 2 beautiful trophies, and my husband has one too, and not until this week have we ever sat together and have only ever met on 3 final tables.

But I know that does not make me the best player, but nor do I consider that it makes me the luckiest players, I did work hard for those results. and although it was my best 15 that counted, my best 20, or 50% would not have been too much less. I won the trophies following the criteria that was set down, which I think was a fairer criteria than previous seasons - where you just went flat out playing and your accumulative total won you the prize. admittedly, you had to have some good results in there, but if you went away and missed a week, you were doomed not to recover on the board.

Double december, which I know has been done to death, is only showing the results of players having a december, not the whole season, and that is a pity ... but again, they are playing under the rules and criteria as set down by the npl. at the end of it, I will work out the 'true' average of the winner, just to see how it compares.

But how you find the right criteria to be fair to everyone is a bit tricky. at the moment, the state leaderboard is open to everyone. Play 15 games and you automatically go on. Improve your 15 scores and you go up. where it gets unfair is that those who play the bigger venues get more points than those who play the smaller venues. and while I agree with garth that if you play against bigger numbers, you deserve bigger rewards, I will need to put more thought into all the posts before I go further with this.

as far as finals go, I think they are too big and should be more elite. I think the state leaderboard top 10, top 3 from regionals and top 2 from each venue is enough. the state leaderboard is a great asset to those of us who play more than one region ... like 3 this season for us. so it doesn't matter where we play, our points still count for something. but now, it appears that the changing of the criteria, at the end of the season, will hinder some of us again.

[one chip]

I think it's easier to consistently perform in those smaller fields than the large one.

So just because players can achieve bigger TOTAL points in a region such as the Metro West region it would balance out as to constantly finish in the top 3 of a 80+ field is a lot more difficult than a regular 30 - 50 field.

Garth maybe I am not stating my views clearly.
What I am asking players at small venues will still have to score twice as often as a big to venue to equal them. (You will still be rewarded my for playing a big venue)
I am not asking that big venues do not get big points.
I am asking that small venue players have a chance to catch up even if they have to score twice as often.
Under the currant leaderbord sorting it is completely impossible to catch up.

Improve your 15 scores and you go up. where it gets unfair is that those who play the bigger venues get more points than those who play the smaller venues. and while I agree with garth that if you play against bigger numbers, you deserve bigger rewards, I will need to put more thought into all the posts before I go further with this.

Queen9 May be you did not understand my posts ether if you only play small to medium venues your points do not go up when you play more it can only reach a fixed number then you can go no further.
Not all regions have access to a big number 100+ nights regularly like the West.

My guess is that the leaderboard will not have been much different with the new points system compared to say, using 30% of our scores or other methods suggested.

Past leaderboards would have been very different under the current system that I am sure of.

[Garth Kay]

I agree with your points one chip.

The problem is this - average points will always be the best way to assess how good a player is.

Let's have this example based on two players of equivalent skill and a leaderboard based around the average of total games played.
We have player A - a regional player who plays 5 nights a week in a field of forty. Player A finishes in the points 100% of the time and 60% of the time final tables.
Player B is a metro player who attends events 5 nights a week as well but all of his fields are 80+ but he finishes in the points 80% of the time and final tables 50% of the time.

From your perspective who is the better player?

A leaderboard based around total averages (minimum of twenty games must be played) will definitely distinguish the good from the bad irrespective of field size and region simply based that field size has an impact on points and also how often you will receive bonus points. In a field of forty you only need to beat 62% of the field to finish in bonus points. In a field of 100 you need to beat 85% of the field to finish in points. Hence why you receive more points for the larger field sizes, it is more of an accomplishment to win in a field of 100 rather than 40 but a win in itself is still an accomplishment. And thus it is harder to consistently point in a larger event rather than a smaller event.

Statistically a leaderboard based around total average would prove beneficial for skilled players to play in average field size venues.

I hope you can follow that logic

[Garth Kay]

Sorry that last comment was not sarcastic but rather me hoping everyone understand my train of thought.

[one chip]

The problem is this - average points will always be the best way to assess how good a player is.

I agree with that.
I understand your way of thinking now Garth.
But the problem still remains, is there another way around it then that will give the smaller venues a fair chance?

[Bacon]

my bragging rights would come from being top 5 at a venue, rather than leading a state/regional leaderboard.

Maybe the state leaderboard should be renamed the npl state challenge top 50, where the challenge is to get the best average from 15 games.

To me, its not about beating others, its about improving my game. And i'm a venue leader, so i'm happy.

[BigPete33]

But the problem still remains, is there another way around it then that will give the smaller venues a fair chance?

Yes.

Encourage more people to play at your regular venues.
Encourage the venue to self-promote a bit more (on the assumption they don't already).

[queen9]

I can see where Garth is coming from, the only point here is that once you have achieved your 20 games, those who play at smaller venues can't increase their average by as much as those who play in larger venues. In fact, making it to 10th in a larger venue is sometimes just as good as a win in a smaller venue.

But I also agree that the bigger the field, the harder the win and I appreciate the averages Garth showed, I had not thought to work it out. But I can also add, that from season 3, 2007 til now - season 4, 2008, metro west have taken out the state leaderboard winner 6 times out of the 7 seasons - and it is not due to the amount of games we play, it is due to the number of people we have to beat to get those points.

The other seasons was won by Jamie Mur from Knox Tavern etc.

Geelong region holds the record from memory, of winning the most state finals ... they have produced the most winners, and that has nothing to do with points.

But both the state leaderboard and the state finals, recognises players efforts in different ways and I think they are both worthy of trophies and prize money. and this is where my stand for the state leaderboard comes from .... it is made up of your whole season's efforts, to form your top 15 scores, to give you an average performance over those games. the state final is the result of one game on one day, which given the right amount of luck, one person can win $10,000. the state leaderboard used to offer a prize of $3000, it was reduced to $1000 in season 3 last year, and as of season 1, 2009, it will be reduced to $1000.

so now there is no incentive for us to play and go through the stress (trust me, it is stressful), we may as well just go to one venue, play with our friends, if we make points we do, and if not, bad luck. and with the re-introduction of some prizes/trophies (sorry Garth, mental blank) for 2009, the venue prize will be worth winning and I will save heaps of money that I would otherwise spend out at the venues.

[BigPete33]

So is your entire reason for playing pretty much just to "win" the state leaderboard ?

Social aspect?

Fun times?

Learning something?

Playing against a wide range of opponents?


I'm finding it a little hard to believe that it's not pretty obvious a player will need to play in larger fields if they are chasing the leaderboards artificial glory.

There are realisticly two choices.

Go and play at the larger venues.
If that's not possible help make your local/favourite venues as big as they can be.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[one chip]

Encourage more people to play at your regular venues.
Encourage the venue to self-promote a bit more (on the assumption they don't already).

Go and play at the larger venues.
If that's not possible help make your local/favourite venues as big as they can be.

In fact a large percentage of my local venue came because I informed them of it.
Some venues just cannot pull 100 players due to location day time and room.
And as I have said before not every one can get to a big venue to play, and if they all somehow did it would kill all the smaller venues and badly damage the Npl as they would lose the bulk of there venues and money.