what about the winners?

[TheChickenman]

If the social players are playing for social reasons and not as serious league competitors, by definition they already have their incentive to play, i.e. FOR SOCIAL REASONS.

[ian_distort]

Last week, a few of us were discussing ways of levelling the playing field with regards to winning the leaderboard. As it stands in Manchester, the only people who can possibly win the league are Walter, Dave, H (at a push), or Mitch if he decides to stalk Dave for a month again.

If you could make it so that only your best 10 results count towards the leaderboard trophy (obviously, this is only for the monthly leagues, not the quarterlies), then it might give the on form 'social' player the impetus to play an extra couple of games, as well making the usual suspects at the top of the table not so keen to rush off and play a side game.

Just to reiterate, it would not be based on your average, but your 10 best results.

[Liam_AA]

ye we have sat around the table many times and spoke about this. I dont considor myself a social player, but I know I will never win the league because I'm not there 31 times over a month. I play between 8 - 10 games a month. I like the idea of the best 10 results. And to be honest no offence but some of the averages that the winners have are shocking. When there will be a player with a 360 point average sat in 25th.

From the leagues point of view though they are there to make money and to do that they want people in the pub every night.

[LPL_Mike]

Originally Posted by ian_distort

Last week, a few of us were discussing ways of levelling the playing field with regards to winning the leaderboard. As it stands in Manchester, the only people who can possibly win the league are Walter, Dave, H (at a push), or Mitch if he decides to stalk Dave for a month again.

If you could make it so that only your best 10 results count towards the leaderboard trophy (obviously, this is only for the monthly leagues, not the quarterlies), then it might give the on form 'social' player the impetus to play an extra couple of games, as well making the usual suspects at the top of the table not so keen to rush off and play a side game.

Just to reiterate, it would not be based on your average, but your 10 best results.

Hi Ian
from what i have been reading in this thread we are talking about the social player who plays once a week, and from my understanding they only play 4x maybe 5x a month, if you implement your suggestion the social player would have to play at least another 6 games a month to qualify his 10 best results? which would defeat the purpose of the social player.

If players are unhappy that only certain players win the league every month due to the high number of games that they play, maybe it would be best to remove trophy as it has no value? (or understand that these players put alot of effort into supporting the league every month and deserve there trophy, there are alot of other things players can attempt to win)

We have the National Average Leaderboard trophy where you have to play 6 games to qualify, maybe the social players should focus on that one rather than the league trophy?

This is where i get confused with why players who play in a social capacity, foucus on something that they can't win ie leaderboard medal when there are other prizes which can be obtained....??

Let me break this down to a social player who plays once a week, to see what they qualify for within the league.

• If they win a nightly league game they qualify through to 'Stage 2' of the WSOP 'Main Event package giving them a chance to win a $12,500 seat to the WSOP 2008

• 'National Average Leaderboard' play 6 games and have a good average you could win a very nice glass trophy (that would be in reach of the social player and in my opinon is a much more creditable trophy than the monthly leaderboard)

• Monthly (Quarterly) League leaderboard if a social player only plays 4 or 5 games a month will they stand a chance at qualifying for a final?..the answer is 'YES'
  Looking at this months Manchester leaderboard, there are 9 players who played 5 games qualifying highest is in 36th place; 7 players who played 4 games qualifying highest in 48th place; and 2 players played 3 games qualifying highest in 47th place

• Also players who play one game can now play in the monthly Freeroll and stand a chance in fastracking to the 'March 1st WSOP Final' by getting into the top 3

Maybe i should get this printed out and given to every tournament director so when a new or social player asks to what they can win...the answer is quite alot even if you play only once a week!

P.S Next year when the monthly league starts back up i will discuss with Dave the possibility of a trial for 3 months where a player plays a minimum 8 games his best 8 results will count towards the monthly leaderboard trophy, this will also include one manchester player sitting down at the end of the month and working out the best scores any volunters?

[ian_distort]

Mike, I wasn't having a crack. I generally play two games a week, and although I've been playing in the league from the beginning, I'd certainly class myself as a social player. An oustandingly good one, obviously, but a hobbyist nonetheless

There's no denying that the prizes are ace, but the leaderboard trophy should at least be attainable for those who play on a regular basis, and not just reserved for the people who run 6 games a week. If you're worried about upsetting them, don't, it's for the good of the league as a whole.

Originally Posted by LPL_Mike

P.S Next year when the monthly league starts back up i will discuss with Dave the possibility of a trial for 3 months where a player plays a minimum 8 games his best 8 results will count towards the monthly leaderboard trophy

Jolly good, old bean. Splendid, in fact.

[tfeilding]

A venue could always have their own mini-prize for, say, best average over a minimum of 3 games during the month at the venue.

That way you keep everyone sweet.

[LPL_Mike]

There's no denying that the prizes are ace, but the leaderboard trophy should at least be attainable for those who play on a regular basis, and not just reserved for the people who run 6 games a week. If you're worried about upsetting them, don't, it's for the good of the league as a whole.

I agree and will take steps to implement that for next year.

[ian_distort]

Nice one, Mike.

You coming to the Manchester APAT, by the way?

[Johnny5]

Originally Posted by ian_distort

Nice one, Mike.

You coming to the Manchester APAT, by the way?

in the words of jackson5 Ian, i'll be there!

[TheChickenman]

Originally Posted by tfeilding

A venue could always have their own mini-prize for, say, best average over a minimum of 3 games during the month at the venue.

That way you keep everyone sweet.

Isn't this like what The Bush started last month? £50 bar tab for the week if you win their Monday night game.