Top 50 Leaderboard not accurate?

[andy_thomas]

Interesting! (Thanks for the heads up, Pete)

Hrmm I've only played 13 times (Maybe 14), I've got a bit of work to do!

[Ondie J]

BOSH!

I'm not at all a fan of this new system to work out the top 50 averages. In fact, to me, it isn't really a true representation of the top averages any more as you can hardly call your 'best XX outings' in this format as a true representation of an average of a players skill. If you have a bad run and trash your average, it doesn't just disappear despite how nice that would actually be. If you did this kind of mockery of an average in ANY other sport, all the players would be demanding massive pay increases for their now obvious skill and ability. Nevermind the other 70 times they played poorly. They had XX good games and they're a star!

Again... BOSH!

If the good players are indeed making a final table, or decent placing every 2-3 games at a minimum and should then be in the top 50 anyway... why change the ruling?

The only reason that I can see for it is that as a business the NPL still wishes to encourage people to play and spend money regardless of their standing at a venue, particularly near the end of the season as even if someone can't get into the top 5 they've now still got a shot to get on to the leaderboard and into the finals if they place enough times and are more likely to go and play. Sure enough, it is a great business and marketing strategy to encourage players to play lots and spend money and I'm not knocking that, but I am knocking the sugar coating and am in complete agreeance that this method of calculating a 'top' average is unfair to those players that don't have a regular venue that they go to or to those that are consistent in their performances in relation to their played games... You're machines to be playing 70 games in a 12 week season anyway!

If you want to give people an equal opportunity at the state leaderboard and making it to the state finals, make them more aware of how to play the game and increase their skill level -- don't manufacture an apparent out for them to gain entrance to the finals and in the process disadvantage the consistent players who just don't play 300 games a season due to time or money constraints. Not everyone who plays a sport is geared up for the top level and shouldn't be given an easier way there as it just encourages players to not get any better.


Now it's another essay but that's just how much I don't like this new average system. Another thing to bring up is that this ruling also seems to favor those that play in the larger events and point in them.

Some venues just attract more people and the points for those players that participate in those larger games and place is naturally going to be higher and in using the best 25 games for your average method, thus is their average -- regardless of how many games they've played. Someone in another area might love to play poker just as much as those players that go to the bigger games but they aren't really close to any of these larger venues so they only play at the games that attract 40 or 50 people. They also get 50 games completed in the season but their top 25 games don't include some of the 50 point 11th placing's or higher and their average means little. Don't get me wrong, if you go through a field of 100 you should get more points, it's just that with this new system it now doesn't matter if you have 20 DNPs in your record. Your 6 good placings at the high player numbered venues really drives your average up. With this system, the player who doesn't play in the higher player number games can be greatly disadvantaged.

Once more... BOSH!

With the old proper average system, if someone has got a high average after playing 25 games and decides not to play any more to 'protect' it, then good on them! If they're a decent enough player to have got that average in the first place, then it's a fair call for them to stop playing to look after their hard earnt average. They shouldn't have to play any more if they don't want to and, let's be honest, they've already supported the NPL by playing in at least 25 games! As far as I can see, that player has merely decided to protect his stack and fold every hand until the final table.

People will still have to 'protect' their average regardless though. The bonus for the NPL with this new average system is that in order to 'protect' it, particularly at crunch time, a person will have to play more, place better than what they have and thus spend more.



My two cents!

[Des]

Nah thats 50c worth.

[Garth Kay]

Gentleman,
We have over 15,000 members throughout South Australia. The top 50 in the State account for 0.3% of our player base. I have previously listed the reasons why we changed the system. As players what do you put the greatest emphasis on? Venue leaderboards or State leaderboards? if we changed the venue leaderboards to incorporate the best 6 games of your season to decide your average would that change anything? I think it would. Would it create greater competition? Would it attract more players to attend towards the end of the season even though in the current format, player numbers drop in the last few weeks at venues as some players realize the chase is fruitless?
You all make valid and relevant points. But firstly, one thing I need to stress is that we are a business first and foremost, all of the leaderboards qualification processes are marketing tools, no mater which direction you come at it from. And secondly we need to promote player retention and delivery to venues, we need to be able to show venues that we are tying to deliver greater player numbers CONSISTENTLY throughout the season. I'm not going to dress it up.
But do you honestly believe that the top 50 will only be filled by players who play a lot but continually "get lucky". When talking luck vs. skill: in any one hand luck accounts for about 90% of whether you win or lose, in any one tournament (and especially in our aggressive structure) I would shoot for about 60% and over a season maybe about 30%.
No matter which leader board qualification process we use, no leader board is ever going to be a true reflection of which players are highly skilled.
The average amount of games played by our Top 50 qualifiers last season was 37.5. That's quite a large average amount of games for a 16 week season. And many of those players would still retain a very high average based on the new system.
I believe that this is a null discussion anyway. As I have previously stated we are young over here and re developing our procedures and processes seasonly. Very shortly all players will be asked to take part in a survey where you guys choose how our prize pools are distributed.
These forums are the best place to have your say and I really do appreciate this critical feedback. But as a company we are in a position where we have to accommodate and satisfy such a broad customer range (Hospitality venues and a broad demographic range of poker players and those seeking entertainment) whilst satisfying our needs as a profit making organization.
We will never, ever, ever be able to satisfy 100% of the people with any one thing we do. We can only listen to our customers and try to adjust, accommodate and come to some sort of compromise.
Anyway that;s my two and a half cents.

[Des]

Whats with this 2c stuff... it gets rounded up to 5 cents anyway.

As for the new format for the top 50 I don't really mind because I've had a lot of DNP's this season, but I will say one thing... I would have liked to known when the season started, not half way through. But that's all.

My 5 cents worth

[Garth Kay]

Spoke to Alex last night Des and he told me that he always mentioned it in his opening spiel for the first 4 weeks. That's what happens when you don't pay attention in class.
Only Kidding, but that is one are we do fail in, communicating with players effectively and efficiently.

[andy_thomas]

I take it you're fairly passionate about this ruling, Andre?

Fair enough Garth, fair points you make and credit to you for not dressing it up.

I guess I'm not really fussed by it. I fancy my chances of making it into the top 5 of a couple venues.

For me, it is a bit of a shame that people are being rewarded for playing more games, but that's the whole business, you want people to be playing more, so fair enough!

[BigPete33]

Cheers for the response Garth.

I see your points, and mostly agree with them.

I still think there's probably a 'better' way to reward those who play a squillion games per season tho. I'm pretty much convinced that some players will make top 50 (and not be top 5 anywhere) purely because they played a lot of games. I'd expect to see a large difference between their best 25 games average and their actual average. I think the more games they play the more their average refelects their 'ability' because then you have a larger sample size to work with.

Looking forward to the player survey.

Some ideas in the interests of being helpful....

!) maybe a freeroll with a prize for those that showed up at a venue at least 11 out of 12 weeks - with reference to your mention of player retention at a venue.

2) similar sort of thing for those that play <x> number of games in a season.

I'm obviously not the genius marketer of the NPL but I think that'd be fairer for everyone by keeping a level playing field and hopefully continue to promote the venues/NPL to players.

[Des]

Id like to see this:

• Region leaderboard - top 5 based on your best 25 games (as it is with the state leaderboard this season)
• State leaderboard - top 30 based on average overall (as it was last season

Just another 5c worth.

[Gail]

I wondered why the difference in averages was and am glad I know now. I play a number of venues and have two or three or do OK in and some others I don't. I still like playing them and use them basically as experience, learning and fun. Now that I know the points system for the top 50, I am not so worried about playing at these venues for fear of my average going down too much.
Anyone who plays NPL Poker would have a regular venue or two and if you play consistently, you will end in the top 5 anyway. I admit that I play for points and final table and not necessarily to win and doing this gained me a place in the Top 5 for State Finals last season. Isn't poker a game of patience as well. It comes down to betting style and practice, knowing your odds and whether you're willing to risk your stack early on. Going 'all in' is certainly exciting, but you way up your own risk.
Perhaps there should be an end of season tournament for members who play over a certain number of games. Reward the poker junkies that way.
I think that NPL is providing a great nights entertainment and nothing is going to satisfy 100% of the people so STOP GRUMBLING and just enjoy playing.

NB I wish people would stop getting upset about 'donkey players' Everyone has different skill levels and surely the tournaments are basically for enjoyment. Everyone can take their own risk at betting on what ever they want - it's still up to you if you want to risk on the flop, turn or river too you know. Complain about 'donkey's' if you are playing at the Casino for real money.

There...... that's my two cents worth !