Leaderboards.

[krunchie]

i like it

nice contribution

[BigPete33]

I think with a venue top 5 and Regional top 10 being the primary qualification spots for the Main Event (don't forget the other events on the Championship weekend) you could pretty much do away with the current SLB as a Main Event qualifier.

Currently venue top 5 uses total points - works fine, don't change it.
Can't see why regional wouldn't also use that but I'd be fine with real average as the main stat if it was to be different from venue top 5.

That then opens the door for the SLB to be replaced with a 'real' leaderboard showing copious amounts of actual stats (not artificial ones like now) and not having any qualification attached to it, at least for the short term, doesn't complicate the issue.


I like Des's idea of attaching some moolah to the top couple of spots for regional leaderboards.

[maccatak11]

i dont see a problem with rewarding RLB people but also keep the SLB in its current format. i think a lot of big game players hunt the big crowds across multiple regions. it would be unwise i think to stop the multigamers (read: big spenders) from doing this.

So RLB qualification would be in addition to existing qualification (both for metro and country RLB). And i like Des idea of a small cash prize or a big arse trophy for leaderboard winners.

I also am a big fan of RLB to be sorted by real average (15 games minimum).

What are your thoughts on RLB qualification garth?

[gundog]

And secondly to that regional venues on average generate greater income form passports than the majority of metro venues. The passport redemption rate is far greater in regional areas compared to metro areas. So you could have a regional venue of 60 generating more F and B revenue than a venue of 100+ in a metro area.

It easy for a player on some days to play 3 games in one day and not bother stamping a card ( I have seen it happen), play hit and run poker, if you can build a stack early then temper your game and try for points, if you fail move on to the next game same process, fail again play the last game maybe stamp up at this venue or play the same way as the 2 previous games.

This kind of player could depending on work committments play up to 15 games a week and not contribute $1 to the venues and its feasible the player could hit points 25% of the time, and a long shot to make the SLB top 50.

what contribution to NPL has this player made?

I would love to know what ratio of the top 50 from SLB actually the money at SF.

[Garth Kay]

Ok so regional ldb top 10. Got it. But there will be no monetary reward for regional ldb.

State LDB will not be scrapped, well a leaderboard for either our "best" players or multi gamers will not be.

Now can we get back on topic and resolve an answer for the very first post.

And in answer to Bacon and Des,
What is a player first judged on in terms of cricket stats. Average or strike rate? And I know it depends on batting order position and cricket format, but in general terms.

Pete,
How does % of final tables read as a definitve stat, if that becomes a measure of a good player then I see the majority of player moving to 20 player events ad our state LDB winner coming from the Yorke Peninsula. Even if it is sorted from a minimum amount of games and % of final tables from games played would clearly not represent the best player.

I am interested in all the stats you would like to see, as well as how you think the best player should be decided?

[Bacon]

Garth, it depends on what level of cricket. In Tests, it's average... but in 20/20 it's strike rate that is looked at in high esteem.

What you do see as Super-Turbo pub poker? A test match, or 20/20??

[Scotty]

I agree with those saying the SLB has to say (in some form). Especially in rewarding X finishers with a SF guernsey.

Gundog, the example you've given regarding a player not spending much, if at all, whilst playing a large amount of games, can't be extrapolated out across all the mega-game players. That's just generalising.

[Garth Kay]

Garth, it depends on what level of cricket. In Tests, it's average... but in 20/20 it's strike rate that is looked at in high esteem.

What you do see as Super-Turbo pub poker? A test match, or 20/20??

What do you call an extended period of time (8-12 weeks) in which you play one tournament every week. What would you judge a player by? Strike rate or average?

[Bacon]

a world cup?

I would just prefer an average to include all games, not just a selection.

I think a 10 game block would be useful for judging a hot streak though

[sunbury2]

I don't want to complecate things but...
Why not if you are keeping the stateboards, have two or three
(20/20, One day and test) or average field less than 40 and 40-70 and more than 70.

I also would like to see a strike rate of final tables per event played.
This perecentage could be added to the existing average points.
ie someone averaging 60 makes 80% of final tables has 140 points.
Large Mulitple event player averaging 80 makes 25% final tables has 105pts.