Regional and State leaderboards

[one chip]

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.

What makes you think that I have not played out that way? (You’re not the only player that has travelled in the past)
I will admit that if the night goes longer it is harder.
But it works the other way around as well.
That is why I have originally stated that big venues should keep their big point fair or not (that’s a debate that is hard to agree on as every poker night is so different at big or small venues)

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.

Garth what criteria will you accept for change?
I think you made it clear that it has to be based off averages somehow, and that big venues must have big points.
So how can it change?

[queen9]

one chip, it is not the length of the night that matters .. I have played against a field of 30 and our game finished just as late as hoppers or tigers field of say ... 80 or so ... people play differently in bigger crowds, a bit loser .. while they are tight as in a smaller group as they are closer to making points ..

If there are 100 people at my venue and I have to wait for 85 of them to go out before I make points, that is a LOT of people. If I am a venue with 30 playes, I only have to wait til 15 go out, and I am in the points... so I will probably play tighter and take less risks ... depending of course on all the other factors, position, stack, the way the table is playing ect.

Perhaps next time you travel to the Hoppers Club, you could introduce yourself so I can see who I am discussing these matter with ... I look forward to it, just ask one of the td's they will point me out.

To ask Garth what type of criteria he would accept for change is a hard one, perhaps you could suggest one that is as fair as averages and he would look at it.

[BigPete33]

Rosemary: You've mentioned the leaderboard format for every other season... what format would you like to see for future seasons?

More importantly, what exactly do you think the state leaderboard should be trying to show?

Should it be showing who the best players in the state for that season are, or should it be showing something different? At this moment in time, it's showing something different - but it is possible the end result is the same ie: the player with the best 15 game average may actually have the best overall average too.






One chip: Similar question for you, it sounds as though you would like the smaller venues, who have less players, to not be disadvantaged on any kind of leaderboard.

My understanding of any kind of leaderboard is it is showing who has done the best at something. A player could win a smaller venue every week. That's still not as good as someone coming 2nd, 3rd, or even 15th regularly at a larger venue because it's harder to do that at the larger venues.

That means you can't apply the same scale to both things.

That is exactly why points are based on number of runners.

Assuming the 15 game average was to remain (and I REALLY hope it goes the way of the dodo) one option *might* be to have a split board which would separate smaller venues from larger venues.

Eg: venues that average less than say 60 runners are on the 'small' board and venues that average more than that are on the 'large' board.

Then you would be competing against others in more of a level playing field, which sounds like that's what you're after.





But I have to be honest here, the SLB isn't a monkey's bum of a leaderboard and I have no idea why people choose to chase it. Great talking point though!

[queen9]

I actually like the state leaderboard the way it is ... and I don't 'dislike' the idea of having double points .... but not for 3 weeks and not at the end of the season, and not right on christmas when so many other factors come into play.

also, I am not criticizing the state leaderboard, I am stating that dd wrecked it, then the prizemoney was dropped again, and now only paid to 1st and 2nd, and so it is not attactive any more.

the reason we play as often as we did was to improve our games and for the practice. we played npl as we saw the more we played, the better we got, the more we learnt, and we did achieve results good enough so that the criteria in place, allowed us to get where we got.

but if there is no pot of gold at the end, why would you make the journey (ie: spend the money, go out 4 nights or more a week etc.).

and it possibly does sound unfair to those who play in smaller venues, but when garth showed the percentages and made the comments he did in earlier posts, well, I have to say, I agree with what he is saying.

Don't take me wrong, I prefer bigger venues, I seem to play better against bigger crowds. One win I had was against 145 people ... put me in a tourney with 30-40 and I won't make points ... guarantee it .. lol ...

But by reducing the prize money for the SLB, its significance and purpose, I will now just go about playing 2 nights a week, which if I'm lucky, may get me to top 5 in a venue ... and stay at home the other nights.

[BigPete33]

Now I'm confused again!

I think it's safe to say we know you don't like the DD in it's current format. You may have mentioned this before.

What confuses me is you wouldn't like to see the SLB reduced in significance. It currently does not have any significance, nor does it actually mean anything. I believe this gets overlooked far too often.

If it were to turn into an actual leaderboard (or leaderboards), where your real results are used to gauge you against your peers THEN it would have some significance and it would actually much better serve you in the way you just described ie: you could track your real progress from season to season and throughout your NPL career. How good would that be?

Further to that, one of your primary aims as a competetive player (which I believe you are) should be to consistently qualify for what's now called the Championship Main Event.

If your real average (for example) was what got you high up on a SLB every season and consistently qualified you for the Main Event particularly if you played a lot of games then THAT demonstrates your ability as a player to consistently perform at a high level.

Those are the sorts of aims that would be beneficial to you if you are aspiring to become a better player and to learn more (which is awesome and well done if that's your aim).

[Origami]

I read with interest contributions to this thread –

Queen 9 has brought from a position of strength and authority as a NPL Vic player opinions that are being received with openness by Garth. And are being received with keen interest by fellow forumers.
As a long time NPL participant and probably could be assessed as a good regular > 1 game a week, above average player, I would like to offer as a point of discussion the following –
I consider 50% as average anything above good and anything below as needing improvement.
My results in a game or tourney or season are set to be above average. The 10% considered among the best and obviously the winner/leader the best of that set criteria.
Persons that perform consistently at the top level 10% and or win deserve respect and or recognition and reward.

Statistics summarizing these make for interesting reading and comparison and I for one look forward to the new improved info. to be implemented by the NPL.

My proposal-

Give every player a point for the position of finish in the game /venue they play at then summarize the Leader boards - State/ Regional / Venue accordingly.

Cap the points at a hundred those venues that have greater than 100 runers the top 100 receive points and the others are culled. Every entrant receives 5 points for showing up.

As I see it this would solve/reward several issues that presently occur, sure there may be admin. Issues that staff need to police but, -

In Smaller venues it maintains the relativity for regulars those who beat each other they drift to the top of the venue and consistent performance and attendance would be rewarded. Comparison of achievement is maintained. Nightly or over the set season.

Same applies in the Regions…need more points go to the bigger venues and win finish high regularly in the top end of the field and beat the better players at that venue. Your travel and time input is rewarded accordingly as every player has at opportunity and skill or luck to get to the top.

Stretching this to a State Leader Board a point per player would the give a fair indication of the ‘ Best in the State’ those that play and win over fellow combatants need to win at various venues over a sustained period of performance over variety of standard of players, those venues that attract high quality players would give their players high quality games against the best. (Points could become a side issue. and attract those that want to prove them selves have the opportunity to see how good they are or should become.).

The social players can still achieve against their friends the Donald Keys and 1st out regulars get their rewards. Achieving ‘final Table’ [as in final four in football]. And in the points doesn’t really change. Its emphasis can and still holds .and probably can still be assessed [i.e. top Five at venue]. And rewarded where applicable at the venue or tourney.
.
as all set criteria there are positive/negatives – this reduces the Big venues/ small venue that seems a big hurdle in most previous discussions. The average venue size I’m lead to believe is 35-40 in the NPL in SA… sure it’s the KISS principal.-- so I get 896 points in a season the guy that gets 3267 points deserves has paid for and played accordingly if Bennymaca has 1002 points he had a good season and Petes 523 would be below average !!….

[maccatak11]

So basicaly bruce, you are advocating a points system based on 1 point for every player you outlast?

I don't think this would change the current top 5 of many venues, and can only see it becoming a huge problem in 100+ venues where TD's have a big enough job without recording the positions of EVERY player.

I don't mind the ides in principle, but its too hard to implement in big venues.


Pete's idea of having a large lb and a small lb is interesting, and would make players in each category feeling like they have something to strive for. However, if our goal is to design a leaderboard that truly shows us the best player, then we still haven't really achieved our goal, we have 2 winners. Who is better? small lb winner or big lb winner?


What about a venue who averages 58 runners. A player chasing small lb points might like this venue as there is 'big points' on offer. Howevere he rocks up with 5 minutes to go before play only to fins that 61 have registered tonight. This is no good for him, he may as well just drive down the road to the 40 runner venue. I guess venues could be categorised as 'small' or 'large' at the beginning of each season, but how does this encourage small venues to grow larger.

Its an interesting argument. Each proposal has its pro's and cons.

I think making an averag over 25 games would maker a truer state leaderboard, but that still doesnt solve the issue of a 2 game a week player who averages 40 and is therefore one of the top player imo.

hmmm

[BigPete33]

What about a venue who averages 58 runners. A player chasing small lb points might like this venue as there is 'big points' on offer. Howevere he rocks up with 5 minutes to go before play only to fins that 61 have registered tonight. This is no good for him, he may as well just drive down the road to the 40 runner venue. I guess venues could be categorised as 'small' or 'large' at the beginning of each season, but how does this encourage small venues to grow larger.

I wasn't actually putting that forward as an idea that I'd like to see happen, more as a possible working example of what one chip seemed to be requesting. Having said that, just assume the figure for average runners was based on the entire previous season. It may well mean a venue changes leaderboards after a season but couldn't see too many changes of that nature happening overall.

[Bob B]

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

I thought it was self explainatory. A lot of punters don't care about stats or finals or points they just simply enjoy playing at their local every now and then and have a drink with their mates.

?????????
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?

Sorry Garth it was getting late for me too so I'll try again.

I was hoping to get an overall total amount of games played by everyone on NPL's books for last season. Reasons were to see how that would compare with player having to play a minimum amount of games to qualify for the finals.

Would we see more games played by more players or would we see less? Would NPL have a better total at the end of the season or not if you were to introduce a minimum number of games to automatically qualify for the finals? I don't really know.

I just checked last seasons leader board which shows there were 1,110 players who had played at least 15 or more games. Unfortunately there's 23 pages and no grand total so I start adding them up myself.

The top 50 had played a total of 3,377 games showing an average of 67.54 games per player.

I counted the next 50 with a total of 2,162 and an average of 43.24.

I think I just blew my own suggestion out of the water because, those 100 players averaged 55.39 over the 5,539 games played.

My thoughts were to encourage more players to play a few more games a week rather than their one and only venue.

Having a minimum of 20 or 25 games to qualify for the finals might have improved the player numbers at the smaller venues as well as the larger ones. In turn this could also boost NPL's overall number of games played per player.

That's it no more to say on the subject but I'l keep counting and averaging each page for my own satisfation LOL

[Bob B]

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 have to agree with you on smaller venues still having all their runners after the first break. In fact one night we had 30 runners plus 6 reserves turned up and we had to play an extra 40 minutes before we took our first break.