Regional and State leaderboards

[Garth Kay]

How is an average not a total of all combined results?

Total points scored doesn't necessarily dictate a good winner as well.
Take PGCC $1,000 game for example - 300+ runners. Have a lucky night and win 300 points from one game. No offense Porky just using it as an example.

I'm already a third of the way to total points accumulated in a season by our mega gamers.

I like total average from total games played. Minimum of 25 games for State and 15 games for regional.

Or I like a Mega gamers leaderboard and Elite leaderboard as well as a true leaderboard.

Not enough room on the webpage unfortunately.

I'd also like to see a true percentage of games played or at least an average over a minimum of 25 games for the metro boys & girls who can play at multiple venues within a half hour of each other.

Assuming the city players had to play a minimum of 25 to qualify for say a state final or whatever you want to call it seems fair. By doing so it may encourage more players to venture away from their sole club or pub (10 games in most cases) which they support weekly.

I believe it will encourage the overall numbers for the season rather than relying the selected few who are chasing venues one after the other to improve their percentages over their best 15 games.

Garth, I was also wonder what the comparisons would be like if you could compare the stats from say last seasons total attendances (games played) per player in the Metro and say compare that with a minimum of 25 games per player. The results might be surprising!

I specifically chose last season because there wasn't any double points involved. I realise there was a special tourney for winners on the last four weeks which may not have had a huge bearing on blowing out the stats.

I like the regionals needing 15 games to qualify which should also encourage them to play at an alternative venue to qualify.

Unfortunately some player will be effected by both limits 25 in the metro and 15 in the regional areas due to location or ability to play more games or venues due to various circumstances. And a lot of punters don't really care about the finals etc, they just play for the enjoyment.

This:

Assuming the city players had to play a minimum of 25 to qualify for say a state final or whatever you want to call it seems fair. By doing so it may encourage more players to venture away from their sole club or pub (10 games in most cases) which they support weekly.

Then this:

And a lot of punters don't really care about the finals etc, they just play for the enjoyment.

?????????

Bob, It's late, I've had a hard week and I'm tired. I cannot make heads nor tails of your requests.

Garth, I was also wonder what the comparisons would be like if you could compare the stats from say last seasons total attendances (games played) per player in the Metro and say compare that with a minimum of 25 games per player. The results might be surprising!

Do you want to see how many metro players played 25 games compared to the total number of players? Is that right?

[one chip]

Garth are you willing to consider a change leaderboards to another way at all?

On a side note I have never found bigger venues much harder than smaller venues (may just be me).
A lot of smaller venues play poker for around the same time as a big venue.
For some reason big venue players are far more loose with there play so numbers drop very quick (some small venues do not lose one single player to well after the break, a big venue can lose 10 to 40 people in that time).
So if the same amount of time has passed in a tournament and the same amount of blinds why is the big venue harder?
I am sure this will start another debate that I have been trying hard to avoid, as I know there will be strong points of views on this subject.

[Garth Kay]

Garth are you willing to consider a change leaderboards to another way at all?

On a side note I have never found bigger venues much harder than smaller venues (may just be me).
A lot of smaller venues play poker for around the same time as a big venue.
For some reason big venue players are far more loose with there play so numbers drop very quick (some small venues do not lose one single player to well after the break, a big venue can lose 10 to 40 people in that time).
So if the same amount of time has passed in a tournament and the same amount of blinds why is the big venue harder?
I am sure this will start another debate that I have been trying hard to avoid, as I know there will be strong points of views on this subject.

I am willing to consider a change. If we found an equitable solution for all and to take into account the several multiple layers and facets involved in this promotion.

Most tournaments with runners from 40 - 150 and our tournament structure will run similar lengths of time just due to the attrition rate of tournaments and the amount of chips in play at later stages with the blinds so high.

I think you are been very generalistic in your statements and any poker player worth his salt would tell you it is easier to navigate through a field of forty than it is a field of four hundred and that is easier again than a field of four thousand.

Most large buy in events will run for three to four days. The WSOP main event with over 6,000 runners still operates the same amount of days (just with multiple day 1's) as the Aussie Millions main event (800 runners) with multiple day 1's as well.

[Garth Kay]

But back to the topic on hand.

Leaderboards?

I am open to suggestions.

[one chip]

I think you are been very generalistic in your statements and any poker player worth his salt would tell you it is easier to navigate through a field of forty than it is a field of four hundred and that is easier again than a field of four thousand.

Most large buy in events will run for three to four days. The WSOP main event with over 6,000 runners still operates the same amount of days (just with multiple day 1's) as the Aussie Millions main event (800 runners) with multiple day 1's as well.

I am surely not comparing a 40 player poker night event to the Aussie Millions, 40 to 400 etc is a big gap but 40 to 100 is not.
But like you said I am going off subject.
So back to leaderboards.

[Garth Kay]

I was using larger mainstream events as an example 800 players or 8000 players and they use similar structures and they both run for the same period of time, almost.

Now we just downscale it for our tournaments

[queen9]

I think Bob was around the mark with comments about players being enouraged to play outside their weekly venue. I know of about a dozen players who used to only play at one of our 2 venues who have 5 nights of npl between them. Through encouraging them to aim higher, meaning qualifying for state final via state leaderboard, qualifying for regional final via regional leaderboard, these people now play 3 times a week, instead of 1. that has to be better for the venues and for npl.

I know from the questions I get asked by the players at these venues, that most of them don't even know about leaderboards, except venue of course - and some of them don't understand that each night is seperate, and the way it appears on the npl site, the minute they bring up their venue, they stop. I have been told several times by players that they are top of tigers/hoppers club, only to find that they are not when you look at each night.

and so if people don't know what is out there, often they don't look and that is why they often appear not to care.

with the points system the way it used to be, prior to season 3/2007, 'points chasers' often targeted the smaller venues as it was easier to point and/or win and all wins were worth the same. In fact, I pointed every game I played at one small venue (ave. 30), but not even half as many in larger venues (ave.100). so why should they go through all that, trying to win against 100 people, when for the same points, 30 was easier.

One chip, if you don't agree with what garth is suggesting, come accross to the The Hoppers Club or Tigers Clubhouse and see for yourself. Come play with us against a larger field - more then once - and you will soon change your mind.

[bennymacca]

to be honest, i think queen9 and bob couldn't be further from the mark

i think its a really big ask to expect players to play 2 or 3 times a week just to qualify for state finals - that is a big time committment that i know i wouldn't be able to make, and i am sure a lot others wouldn't either.

doing this would scare away the players that only play a single game a week, and they would go somewhere else.


rosemary, i think your point of view is skewed, because you play pretty much every night of the week. but although some of your points have been valid, most of the changes will not be implemented, because they cater for the insane gamers, and not the regular 1 or 2 night a week players

[BigPete33]

Rosemary I'm having trouble working out what you mean by 'the same amount of points'.

It might be different in VIC so please excuse my ignorance if it is, but currently the amount of points on offer is based on how many people show up on the night.

If someone is a points chaser they'd quite deliberately avoid a smaller venue, which seems to be contrary to what you mentioned.

[queen9]

I think the points system is the same now for both our states, but prior to season 3/2007 you used to get 1000 points for a win and 800 for second, down to 100 just for playing. so the 'points chasers' - which is a term Garth used in an earlier post, would play smaller venues as it is easier to get a win or at least points.

using the stats garth provided, in a venue of 100 people, you don't make points til 85% of the players have been knocked out. In a venue of 40, you are into the points when around 60% of the players have been knocked out.

what Garth was saying was that it is easier to point more frequently in smaller venues and harder to point as often in bigger ones. however, if you check the venue and/or regional leaderboards for metro west for the last 4-5 seasons, maybe 6, you will see the same names up there and check out their venues, mostly bigger numbers, so I can see both sides.

I used to play every night of the week, now I average 2-3 games a week, as does my husband. and with that, before dd points came in, he was still in the top 10 on the state leaderboard list.

I am not sure why players would be scared away as there are other ways to qualify for state finals, like venue leaderboard or regional winner. and some people don't even know or understand about the state leaderboard, and this is not just with npl, another poker group has similar issues with educating people about the s.l.b., so they can't be frightened away by something they don't know about.

But it just gives those of us who do play more, or want to play more, reason to do so ... cos at the moment, twice a week socially out, is enough and saving us money. the state leaderboard holds little interest for us as the drive behind it was the prizemoney and the recognition and now that has all but diminished.

so instead of playing npl 6 nights a week, we will have to learn to play 'tiddlywinks' (now showing my age ..lol) or take up bowling, indoor football .... I am sure you get the picture .... lol ...