Top 50 Leaderboard not accurate?

[BigPete33]

How much did Frosty pay you?

[David]

Seems the new structure of your average being the bset 25 really advantages the players who play a LOT more than 25 times.

If I play 25 times, which at this rate I'll just get to, I might place 8 - 15 times (as an average player).

That means I'll have 10 - 17 scores of 10 in my average.

If I play, like some do, 50 - 100 times a season (god knows how!), you'd think they would get in the points more than 1 out or 4 or at least close to it, meaning their average will contain values ALL over 10, giving them a better average.

I didn't have much chance of getting in any finals this season anyway. But, now I definitely don't! (unless I jag a top 5 somewhere).

[BigPete33]

yep, what david said.

but......check this out (it's ok I know him)

http://www.npl.com.au/PlayerDetail.aspx?ID=123576


he only needs another 129.167 games to make sure he has 25 placings


Basically, place (and place well) 25+ times to have the best shot at top 50. Now I place about 6.5 out of 10 times, which means I'm now 'having' to play 35-40% more games.

Top 5 at a venue looks like the best bet!

[Adam]

Top 5 at a venue looks like the best bet!

Yeah, i came to that conclusion at the beginning of season 2 with the rule change.

Ill probably only play 25-26 games total in a season. Just have to stay in the top 5 somewhere, or i miss state finals... again.

[GT]

hmm rewarding people who just play alot and are not consistent hardly seems a good way of doing it... i would have thought someone who has played 25 games and has a hi average is a better player than someone how has played 100, and whose best 25 might end up with a higer average than the player with less games...

its all about consistently surely?

[BigPete33]

I was thinking a similar thing GT, I can also see the point of view that the NPL may wish to reward their most dedicated players - there's nothing wrong with that in principle.

Could it be that whilst the dedicated players are indeed being rewarded, it's at the expense of other 'good' players?

25 games minimum in a 12 week season is in itself not a bad effort. That's twice a week plus a pick-up game. I'm personally ok with that.

Not sure I'm completely in favour of the best 25 results tho.

If I can come up with a better idea I'll be sure to say something

[Darren B]

"Could it be that whilst the dedicated players are indeed being rewarded, it's at the expense of other 'good' players?"

???
Wont the "good" players be making the top 5 at the venue anyway?

If they dont....well, they certainly cant complain about not making the top 50.

My two cents
The court jester.

[Garth Kay]

And then you can look at it the other way. Frosty played over 110 games last season. He loves his poker and we love him. He is a good pub poker player and regularly finishes on the final table in above average fields.
If Frosty had had his best 25 games taken into account there is no doubt that he would have finished in the top 3 of the state. And there is no doubt in my mind that he does belong in the top 5 percentile at least.
Another scenario that occured last season was that once some people achieved the top 50, with a decent average, they ceased to play, hence "protecting" their average. I would like to see all players have an equal oppurtunity to have a shot at the state leaderboard and these players who were protecting their average can no longer do this as their may be other players who could have a very good run at trying to achieve top 50.
And from a business standpoint we do wish to promote, and reward those, who do play a large number of games.
My view is that if your are a good player you should be able to attain a final table placing from every second or third tournament at a minimum. Your average should be pretty decent even if you do only play the minimum 25 games.

[BigPete33]

I'm not going to disagree with the points you made (altho I'm not too sure how many players actually achieved a final table every 3rd or so game).

What you're now doing tho, is bringing peoples 'bankroll' into play.

Stuffed if I can afford to play as much as someone like Frosty (which doesn't necessarily mean I wouldn't). Yes it's 'free' (and that's awesome, don't get me wrong) but show me a player who doesn't get at least one card filled, because I don't know any.

Again, I'm all for the NPL rewarding participants the calibre of Frosty - they absolutely deserve something, no question. I'm just a little unconvinced this is the best way to do so.

[Lizard]

hmm rewarding people who just play alot and are not consistent hardly seems a good way of doing it... i would have thought someone who has played 25 games and has a hi average is a better player than someone how has played 100, and whose best 25 might end up with a higer average than the player with less games...

its all about consistently surely?

Totaly agree , if u want to have the best players representing the npl u should change it back to how it was.
other wise u will probally have a drunken donkey representing the npl .