New Points System for LPL - Please Vote

[drwinston]

Originally Posted by lord2300

to be fair thats not a good idea at the end of the day its not the players fault that theres not enough people playing this really comes down to mike growing his business maybe get some flyers out in the area like he was going to do in weston or possibly advertise it a bit more in local papers i know this all cost money but if he can turn around the poor attendance pubs it will pay him back tenfold in the future

I agree it's not the players fault but again it's an unfair advantage to people playing at these events. I've seen people who have come 2nd and 1st in the events that have started with 6-7 people and they're into the final when really they don't deserve to be there and don't do very well because they're not good enough to come through a larger field, whereas someone else who has pointed quite a lot etc in larger fields just misses out on the final etc. It's again just another way to make the pointing system less advantagous to people who attend low attended events, and we all know some people only attend these events because they know no-one goes to them.

[sligobhoy]

surely people who attend these "low number of player games" are advantagous to the game because without them there would have been even less and the league could lose the pub.

I dont think a negative solution penalising players is the answer - the answer is giving more points to players in trhe bigger games - the only question is, when the amount of players in a game is over 30 and if you give an additional 10 points per player then there is no real difference in coming 16th or 6th.

[waltypies]

I reckon if you dont change the blind structure you should reward the players more points for making the final table and not have such a big gap between 1st to 5th

Say an extra 30 odd points for making the final table plus then the bonus points for the bigger fields.

The only reason i say this is i have played 3 games this month and made the final table but by then its basically just a lotto where you pick a hand and hope not to be behind or suffer a bad beat.

This way will reward the better players for reaching the final table and not make them suffer from the huge blinds

[Alex_B]

Hi Mike

Alex here, just joined up today!! As you know, its been getting extremely manic down the Assembly EVERY nTuesday and Thursday and I've been having to cope with organising 46 players on a regular basis now.

I believe that fighting your way through 45 other players to win, is a lot more difficult (obviously) than only beating 14 or 15 other players as some venues have. Therefore an overhaul of the points system sounds a great idea - I know Dan mentioned it to you back in December of last year, so he'll be pleased.

I really like your idea of having a sliding scale and would definitely encourage something to be put in place. It seems a lot fairer than the same points accross the board, regardless of how many play. I understand that the people who attend the smaller fields probably wouldn't like it, but I certainly think its fairer as you shouldn't get 600 points for coming through a field of 15 players, when someone else gets 600 for coming through a field of 45 other players. But that's just my take on the situation.

What is the next step Mike?

[drwinston]

the sliding scale thing isn't the way to go. Nor is changing how many points you get for each position as that is the same wherever you play. If you only got 50 points for second but 1000 points for first it wouldn't really make a difference as it would be the same everywhere. The only thing that needs changing is the amount of extra points that are awarded per player in the game. That's the only variant in each game. Keep it simple so everyone can understand roughly what points they'll get but make it advantageous to attend the larger fields because you'll get a lot more points for winning than against a smaller field.

[Raiser]

Originally Posted by drwinston

the sliding scale thing isn't the way to go. .

Thats a strong statement to be making!

Originally Posted by drwinston

I agree it's not the players fault but again it's an unfair advantage to people playing at these events. I've seen people who have come 2nd and 1st in the events that have started with 6-7 people and they're into the final when really they don't deserve to be there and don't do very well because they're not good enough to come through a larger field, whereas someone else who has pointed quite a lot etc in larger fields just misses out on the final etc. It's again just another way to make the pointing system less advantagous to people who attend low attended events, and we all know some people only attend these events because they know no-one goes to them.

But.... a sliding scale will solve the problem you mentioned.

[drunkenmonk]

From a development perspective it doesn't really matter.

Simple bonuses are obviously very easy but I could implement a sliding scale, just means I'd have to use my brain.

Ouch

[spidero]

I know as a player whos "main game" regularly has over 30players now i should be pushing for 10pts per player, but im not.

unless you get a real bad beat, most people could make it to the final 16 regularly and pick up 300pts just playing tight, to average 300 points a game in a field of 16 in this system your looking to finish at least 6th(ish) every time.

i have no idea what the technical difficulties of it would be, but if your gonna make a change, a sliding scale, maybe some sort of "reaching the final table bonus" that increases with field size seems the only way to go IMO

[LPL_Mike]

I can see from this thread that many people have different ideas to what could be used.
However we must remember that to actually use this new bonus system it has to fit in with the old system and i really don't want to complicate matters by trying to introduce something that would be to dificult to code into the site or to confusing for people to use.

The points structure in my opinion is ok as it stands, its the bonus points that we want to change to make it more rewarding for people who come through a larger field....the simple method would be to increase the bonus points to either 5 or 10.

But keep the ideas coming and lets see some figures or calculations for this sliding scale that people keep talking about....

[Lanky Matt]

Originally Posted by drunkenmonk

From a development perspective it doesn't really matter.

Simple bonuses are obviously very easy but I could implement a sliding scale, just means I'd have to use my brain.

Ouch

Even then, from a sliding scale point of view, you'd still have to know how many people attended and how many tables there were. Once you have that the coding itself is/should (depends on language) be very easy. Well. If you haven't been drinking that is!

As someone who tends to play in the larger attended games, it would be nice to get more points for that, as you have to work a lot harder (and stay more awake) to get anywhere.

Maybe for a sliding scale system:

16-8: 5 points per person
8-4 (first half final table): 10 points per person (you've been out half of the btter players in the field)
4-1: 15 points per person

It's simple from the coding point of view, simple from working out the number of points you get, and with the existing points structure, those making the final table still get significantly more points for position, and if it is a really huge field (40-50 people) then those bonus points can easily equal winning at a 5 person game. Hence. you get a lot more points for winning through a large field, but still get a lot of points for winning the smaller games.