Leaderboards.

[sunbury2]

Now let's say the top 10 of this leaderboard for every season play off in a tournament at the end of the year. Prize pool for this tournament is in excess of $200,000 Australian.
[quote][/quote]

So Just 50 players playing for $200,000??

[Garth Kay]

And none of the above is actually in the pipeworks I am just trying to get everyone's mindset away from what is and has been offered.

[sunbury2]

I still think by rewarding people that player a lot of events or in large fields you alienate them from the country and smaller venues.
If you still want to keep the sliding scale.

The simplest way I can see it is too keep the points as they are.
Have the top 3 from each venue and the top 10 from each regional qualify for the states.

Would encourage people in the country to maybe try and play the extra venue to boost their points and encourage the multi venue player to play a lot of events to try and be in the top 10 of their region.
And Make the final week 10 venue final double points round.
As previous post. The Top 40 or so after week 9 play in a venue final. Other have a side event with progression to the final table.
Winner qualifies for state. Would mean nearly everyone has a chance to qualify for the states.
Scrap the region finals and use this money in the state prize pool or have a tournement of champions for all states final table in the states.

[bennymacca]

sunbury, how about this.

i used to play at venues that averaged anywhere from 25 runners, to about 45.

when i played these venues, i won 3 times out of about 80 games, and i averaged about 23. i made state finals 2/5 seasons.

in the last 3 seasons however, the smaller venues have closed down. i now play at a venue, twice a week, which averages around 70 one night, and about 55 the other night i play.

i have won twice out of about 40 games, and i average about 25. i have made states the last 3 seasons running.


if there was no sliding scale of points, then my points results for the bigger venue would look a LOT worse, wouldn't you agree?

what would be the incentive for me to play at bigger venues?

[sunbury2]

sunbury, how about this.

what would be the incentive for me to play at bigger venues?

You are not going to please everyone, but if you are just going to use a stateleader board that rewards players that play at the bigger venues in the end the smaller venues will close and you will end up with 25 large venues and people having to drive all over the place to accumulate points.
If the current points system is to remain make it harder to qualify through a venue by making it the top 3 and easier to qualify via your region. ie top 10 in the region. Get rid off of the state leaderboard that just helps people with a large number off events in their region.
You will still encourage people to play larger events so they can qualify through the region, but also the good players can still qualify through there local small venue. The

[bennymacca]

If the current points system is to remain make it harder to qualify through a venue by making it the top 3 and easier to qualify via your region. ie top 10 in the region.

and what about the people that finish between 6th and 10th each season?

what incentive to they have to play at all any more. with a top 5 system, they might be able to scrape through and play in states, but if its a top 3, then they have no hope.


if you think about it from someone else's point of view, rather than your own, you will see that the current system, while obviously not perfect, pretty much has to stay.


this has been said about a million times, but think of the state leaderboard not as a list of the best players in the state, but a loyalty program to NPL's biggest customers. then you will have less of a problem with it.


this is why i like the idea of having 2 leaderboards - one in a similar format to what we have now, and one that a 2 game a week player may win, whatever form that is.

then we have the best of both worlds

[sunbury2]

and what about the people that finish between 6th and 10th each season?

By having the top 3 then it will encourage players to play other venues in their region. Also they could still qualify by finishing 6-10 if players within their venue are also playing other venues.
By using the regions top 10 instead of state top 50, you will still get roughly the same numbers qualifing for the state finals from each region as you do now!!!! Work it out! Where is the disadvantage?

[sunbury2]

Please read the whole idea before commenting.
Keep points system the same.
Scrape State Leader Board or have an amended one based on placings.
Top 10 from each region qualify for states. (Will benefit multi players and large venues.)
Top 3 from each venue. (Will encourage players to play other venues)
Week 10 is a venue Final.
Venue Final Top 50% based on Weeks 1-9 play in main event with side event for all others.
Winner of side event makes final table with double big blind chip stack.
Double points for week 10.
Winner of week 10 game also qualifies for state final.

So you will get at least 4 players from a venue.
At least 10 from each region plus the 4 from each venue in that region.

[Garth Kay]

I think the debate has gone off on a slight tangent.

I appreciate the comments Subury, but the idea of a complete competition overhaul is dramatic and something I would hesitate to do.

Organising venue finals at the end of each season would quadruple my workload in that time frame and I just do not have enough fully dedicated TD's to ensure something of this nature runs smoothly and professionally in the last week of the season. It is a logistical and administrative nightmare with our current operational structure.

The LDB points allocation wouldn't work either. We need to reward those who do well in larger venues.

You only have to look at the Para Hills and Parafield Garden events in the last four weeks of the season to see the results of drawing multi gamers or points chasers to your event.
Both of these venues contributed at least $1,000 in prize money and attracted crowds of 350+, this was not just for the money on offer but also attracted players looking to increase their LDB position with a big score of points.

At the moment I think the qualification methods is 90% correct. I don't think we need to reduce the venue qualifiers at this time, at the moment we have a 70% redemption on finals qualification. And if we remove almost 40% of the field by reducing the qualifier numbers we reduce the field even further, and I know one of the big attractions for players is to play in a large field of what is presumed to be the "cream" of each season.

I like the debate though. And I am happy to continue debating the comp structure in it's entirety on this thread.

[sunbury2]

Organising venue finals at the end of each season would quadruple my workload in that time frame

After the 9th week print off the venue leaderboard and give to the TD.
The Top 40 or 5 tables are playing in the venue finals.

Anyone else that signs up on the day play in the side event.
Winner into the Final table of the venue final.
Means someone playing in the 10th week actually has a small chance of making the state finals. All be it only by winning the venue final as probably won't have enough points as would have been in the top 40 already. Means players are also playing for points the whole season week 1-9 to try and make the top 40 of their venue.
You will be rewarding those in larger venues as they will still be fighting it out for the regional leaderboard as well as the venue. Give prizes for the top of each region.
My idea you are reducing venue qualifiers by 1, but also encouraging players in smaller regions such as ballarat, bendigo to try and compete for the regional qualification.
Maybe to sustain the larger venues have the Top 25 from that region qualify.

It is not a major overhaul as you have the region leaderboard all ready listed on the website. If you have an amended state leaderboard based on win, and placings, player in the regional areas will compete on a level playing field to those in the metro areas.

Also still roughly same number at the state finals, just a more wide spread demographical participation.