Leaderboards.

[bennymacca]

Although, unlike benny the cunt, I'd like them to actually be reflecting the true story and not just whatever it is we're looking for at the time
Love you benny the cunt

why don't i want this pete?

what i was trying to say, was to make 2 different leaderboards. 1 in the current system, and 1 in a total average based system.

then, for the total average based system, give prizes not for just the best, but the best in certain game brackets.

i.e best total average for a player over 50 games etc.

garth, you are right about the 10 game block method - that would cater to both crowds, and is actually a pretty good solution

problem is, its still not completely fair. say, i played 20 games in a season, and won 10 of them. but the 10 i won, were the first 5, and the last 5, and i DNP'ed for the other 10 games

this would mean that only 5 of my wins would be counted toward my average, which is hardly fair. in this case the "best x games" would be fairer!

[BigPete33]

The whole point of the block of 10 would be to demonstrate consistency over a period of time.

That is quite clearly severely lacking at the moment.

[Garth Kay]

As well as allowing those who just play at one venue the opportunity to qualify for this leaderboard.

[AceLosesKing]

As well as allowing those who just play at one venue the opportunity to qualify for this leaderboard.

That will never happen unless they run better than Jamo.

[BigPete33]

I think he was having a cheeky dig.


Looks like the Gbot added the humour mod

[AceLosesKing]

That is quite clearly severely lacking at the moment.

As well as allowing those who just play at one venue the opportunity to qualify for this leaderboard.

Ohhh.

[mr_niceguy_1979]

another idea

pay out $200 or something to the player with the best overall average in certain bands - i.e 20-30 games, 30-40 games, 40-50 games, as well as having a normal leaderboard for the really big gamers.

I like benny the cunt's idea or the consecutive game idea (5 or 10), in conjuction with current leaderboard. Gives smaller game players more "multi game" rewards for consistant performances.

[one chip]

In regards to the State Leaderboard,
Which ranking system should be used:
Total Points scored
Average Points
Total Points scored (Min 20 games) with total of best 20 games as rank.
Average points (Min 20 Games) with an average of best 20 games as rank.
Total points scored in blocks of 10, with best ten block as ranking.
Average points scored in blocks of ten, with best ten block as ranking.
Which one do you like and why?
_________________
GARTH KAY

As stated in past messages I like the leaderboards in bulk points as it can give a consistent small venue player a chance to catch up to a big venue player if they do well enough.

Under this format if just placing’s where used (remove all DNP points on only the state and regional leaderboards) it would reward consistent play more and not be as much about how many venues you register at.

[Garth Kay]

In regards to the State Leaderboard,
Which ranking system should be used:
Total Points scored
Average Points
Total Points scored (Min 20 games) with total of best 20 games as rank.
Average points (Min 20 Games) with an average of best 20 games as rank.
Total points scored in blocks of 10, with best ten block as ranking.
Average points scored in blocks of ten, with best ten block as ranking.
Which one do you like and why?
_________________
GARTH KAY

As stated in past messages I like the leaderboards in bulk points as it can give a consistent small venue player a chance to catch up to a big venue player if they do well enough.

Under this format if just placing’s where used (remove all DNP points on only the state and regional leaderboards) it would reward consistent play more and not be as much about how many venues you register at.

Isn't a DNP also an indication of how consistent a player is?
I could play 100 evens, win 10 and have a phenomenal average if we removed DNP's.
But consistent I am not.

In regards to bulk points, it will never happen, I believe the sliding scale is the fairest as winning in a larger events should be rewarded more than a smaller event.

Hence why total points in blocks of ten is my preferred method at this moment.

[Bacon]

wonder if there is a way of incorporating the number of runners into the leaderboard?

Like total points / total opponents x 100

U know the number of runners per event

Someone who dnp's in a 40 person game gets 25 leaderboard points, but someone dnp'ing in a 100 person game gets 10 lbp's.

Helps the small venues.

Someone getting 10th at each venue...

40 runners = 85 lbp's
100 runners = 70 lbp's

And the winner:

40r = 175
100r = 160

It does help those at smaller venues keep up.

Still maintain the total points for best 15 games, but by tying in the runners, it maintains a level playing field.

I'll do some stats on last season's players if u like. Vic's stats v daniel booth's for example.