New Points System for LPL - Please Vote

[RevStu]

Originally Posted by LPL_Mike

I also think the league would be very confusing as you would never be certain to where you stood, and at the end of the month when you think your qualified and then findout 10 people below you played there 11th game and moved up into the qualifying position..i think it would cause a lot of confusion and frustration.

I don't see how the leaderboard situation would be any different to what it is now. You'd be in a certain position with some people above you and some below you. Nobody's points totals could go down - only up - so you could have people overtaking you right at the end of the month, but you get that now. (I remember the month before last, I dropped about 18 places on the last two days, and from feeling safe snuck into the final in the very last position.)

I think it'd actually make the leaderboard significantly more stable and less prone to drastic upheavals on the last couple of days of each month, rather than more. But like I say, I understand the practical difficulties of implementing such a relatively complex system - I've just tried wrestling with Excel for a World Cup sweepstake game, and it made my mind cry. I don't think I've ever played more than 10 games in a month, so it wouldn't make much difference to me personally anyway.

[welshdemon]

Originally Posted by drwinston

The only thing I would say is it needs to be sorted soon as the first place person at the moment has only faced a field of 18 people max and I think the others were around the 10 mark. That's hardly fair on the people who are currently sitting outside the top 60 but have beaten more players but either not got into the points or it's only the small points because the field they've faced is much larger (if that makes sense).

The usual max field I face each week is averaging about 25 players lately. Yes two games were shorter handed, averaging 10 players, one was 18 and one this week was shorter than usual at 19. Ive faced 57 players this week and had 1st, 1st, 3rd, 4th. Thats finishing in the top 6% on average. Those points were earned (and paid for, god knows how much money I spend in league venues on drinks each week! )

On a serious note, I see your point though, so maybe less positions should pay points at quiter venues/nights or something. Or less points. It's still hard work to come 1st, so not too much should be taken away from it, after all, youre still playing poker from 7.30 until 11pm which is tiring, and will see about the same amount of hands played.

[drwinston]

sorry, I wasn't having a go at you personally. Finishing where you've finished in any tourny is an achievement. What's the old saying? You can only beat the opponent in front of you.

[welshdemon]

Yeah I realise you werent having a dig at me, just the situation of venues or evenings where there is less players, which is a valid point, I agree. Although, again, in a quieter venue, the people who do turn up are probably keeping that venue in the LPL! So perhaps they deserve to be awarded with points just for turning up as it is? Hmm. That has just made me change my mind about the following statement of mine which was going to be

"But, if it was to change, maybe something could be considered where by the number of positions that pay out are determined by the number of starting players or something."

However, now taking in to consideration what I said about the quieter venues and on second thoughts having no problem with people getting points just for turning up, then maybe your idea of extra points depending on how many players started would be the better option.

Hmm so thinking asbout this, I wish I had changed my vote on this thread. I think I voted for " 5 points"... something higher than that amount would be better to reward players who have gone through a larger field to do well. Count 1 less vote on "5 points" Mike and an extra one for "10" if you like

[Lanky Matt]

Originally Posted by RevStu

I've just tried wrestling with Excel for a World Cup sweepstake game, and it made my mind cry.

If you e-mail it my way (matt@infected-uk.com) with what you're trying to do, i might me able to help (bout time i used that software engineering degree ;P)

[sair*]

I like the idea of a sliding system or 1st-5th 10 points 6th-10th 5 points etc. Think it defo needs looking at because half a point per person is rubbish. Hate that ppl chase "unpopular" venues as so many (val in particular ) play reguarly against 25+ players and still win through pure skill NOT lack of players (easy points) also the ppl in these 25+ venues are 80% skillfull players who know the game for what it is, a game of skill not just luck. I think a new points system going on would change the ppl who chase the low numbers, i know someone chased points last month and there was about 10 ppl at the venue (easy points) whereas on the same night Val played 30+ players. Sort it out Mike, lots of great ideas on here, would like to see some in action xx xx xx

[LPL_Mike]

Originally Posted by sair*

I like the idea of a sliding system or 1st-5th 10 points 6th-10th 5 points etc. Think it defo needs looking at because half a point per person is rubbish. Hate that ppl chase "unpopular" venues as so many (val in particular ) play reguarly against 25+ players and still win through pure skill NOT lack of players (easy points) also the ppl in these 25+ venues are 80% skillfull players who know the game for what it is, a game of skill not just luck. I think a new points system going on would change the ppl who chase the low numbers, i know someone chased points last month and there was about 10 ppl at the venue (easy points) whereas on the same night Val played 30+ players. Sort it out Mike, lots of great ideas on here, would like to see some in action xx xx xx

Even though i agree with you Sair* i actually played at the Crown for the first event in Bristol on thursday, and though only 15 turned up the standard of play i thought was very high The newer players playing wern't new at all but internet players who knew how to play.
Also in a small field i find that the players concentrate a lot harder to try and get into the top 6 (as these are the points that make a diference) so making the game alot harder..even the new venue at the stillage the qualitly of player was quite scary...i really don't believe you will find and easy game..and if you do you still have to get into that top 6 to make a diference.

Having said all that i totally agree that the bonus points need an overhaul, and it looks like we will be going down the road of 10pts, maybe a sliding scale as you mentioned would even be a better idea:

1-5 10pts 6-10 7pts 11-16 5 pts

Whatever we decide we will hopefully implement the new system for July.

[Raiser]

Just came across this - looks quite simple and obviously works as its tried and tested in Australia!

http://www.australianpokerleague.com...?cid=8&navid=1

Bonus points just for the top 3 look like a good idea! You would obviously have to modify the amount of points slightly but worth having a look at!

[drwinston]

that wouldn't actually make a difference to the way we do it now and therefore wouldn't solve the reasons why Mike was looking at changing the bonus points structure. You would still get basically thee same amount of points for winning a tournament with 5 entrants that someone who won with 40+ entrants would get.

[LPL_Mike]

Originally Posted by drwinston

that wouldn't actually make a difference to the way we do it now and therefore wouldn't solve the reasons why Mike was looking at changing the bonus points structure. You would still get basically thee same amount of points for winning a tournament with 5 entrants that someone who won with 40+ entrants would get.

Yes i agree i don't actually see that solving the problem of rewarding the larger fields but thanks for sending that through Lee.
It seems that people tend to favour the *5* additional bonus points subject to the poll above