Another Scoreboard question

[JMACK007]

I disagree.
This isn't like the first season's state leaderboard where it was your average fullstop - where some people (one mainly) stopped playing so they wouldn't affect their average.

By adding one game in for every X games you play *over a certain amount* I don't think it stops people playing at all. People are playing all the time now, online and otherwise. Can you imagine someone on the leaderboard now stopping? I can't. It doesn't affect your average much at all if you think about it

Chances are your score that is just out of your average calculation (so your 11th online or away) isn't that far behind the 10th score. Your average won't go down much.

So then what is the point of what you are trying to achieve?

[David]

Evens it out a bit more, so the heavy game players still have something to think about, but it doesn't sto people from playing.

Didn't say it was perfect, just an idea.

Obviously the average system is flawed as far as being accurate goes but you have to have people playing. I'm trying to work out a way where people will still want to play, but it will affect them *somewhat*

[JMACK007]

Evens it out a bit more, so the heavy game players still have something to think about, but it doesn't sto people from playing.

Didn't say it was perfect, just an idea.

Obviously the average system is flawed as far as being accurate goes but you have to have people playing. I'm trying to work out a way where people will still want to play, but it will affect them *somewhat*

Yeah, but as I said before, that goes totally against what the 888pl are trying to achieve. They want to encourage people to play as much as possible, not penalise them for doing so.
Why do we need to even things out for people who don't play as much? If it is really that important to people to qualify for a certain leaderboard, then they need to find a way to do so (whether that be jump in a car and drive 4 hours to a venue, get an internet connection and play online, etc, etc.). That might sound harsh, but is the way it is. If that is too hard, or not possible, then those players need to re-assess how important it really is to them....
I could say I would really love to play at the Crown Poker Room 3-4 nights per week, but as I am not willing to move my family to Melbourne, I forget about it....

[bennymacca]

i agree with jmack here.

it is great for 888pl to have people devoting lots of time and energy at the end of the season to play as much as possible.

take scot and old man Swanky as examples - they are playing heaps in the last couple of weeks, and they are once a week players normally. - obviously a good thing for 888pl

i dont mind the current "average of x best games" system, but i don't like the bonus point games in general.

[David]

Just an idea!

[JMACK007]

Yes Dave, keep em coming mate. That's what it's about, putting ideas up here and kicking them around to see what might work and what might not....

[gundog]

sorry gundog, but that is detrimental to venues that actually give a damn,and ADVANTAGES people who play small venues - how is that fair?

benny the cunt, its because of my strong support for venues that this dissatification with the current points system concerns me.

Before morphing to 888pl form NPL, the Para Hills area had 3 games on Thursday nights PHCC which always attracted quality numbers, Settlers Hotel also had good numbers and the Old Spot Hotel which had small but consistant numbers.

The Old Spot went off to another provider which was a group decision, Settlers scalled back and PHCC has gone from strength to strength, I never played the Old Spot but I did play Settlers which had an excellent stamping policy coupled to a great Pint and Meal Deal, PHCC's stamping policy is not over generous but it is fair. We all know the history of Gawler venues, so its not a great area to use as measuring stick.

Great little venues died because I presume among with many other reasons lack of patronage most likely being one, could have benefited from a better points structure by maintaining their players, but that go's without saying not all players are interested in Dream Team or State leaderboard, a majority would have little idea about the state leaderboard and even less about the Dream team.

[bennymacca]

PHCC's stamping policy is not over generous but it is fair. We all know the history of Gawler venues, so its not a great area to use as measuring stick.

i am not talking about gawler venues here - to be honest, the kingsford killed poker in gawler with their stamping up. but thats another issue.

[gundog]

Now throw in to the mix on-line game schedule.

Mon to Friday the are 10 games starting between 1030 and 1530, 5 freerolls 4 buyin and 1 freeroll/rebuy, based on todays participation the 5 freerolls have an average of 57 runners, whilst to this point in time the buyins have an average of 7 players.

After a couple of seasons one would expect to see the average of buy-in player increase, but I fear the transferance from freeroll to buyin has not occured just too many freerolls available perhaps a reduction to 1 or 2 per day may be best.

[maccatak11]

[quote="gundog"After a couple of seasons one would expect to see the average of buy-in player increase, but I fear the transferance from freeroll to buyin has not occured just too many freerolls available perhaps a reduction to 1 or 2 per day may be best.[/quote]

Wow did gundog say something that makes sense. I agree wholeheartedly with you here mate. Restrict the freerols to a couple per day and (try to) increase partonage of online buy in events. Im sure this is what 888 would want anyway...