Best Score in a month *Discuss*

[83Unsuited]

Ok, seeing that everyone else in Manchester seems to have had a go, I would feel a little left out if I didn't have a try.

Firstly I think few if any people would disagree that the present leaderboard structure is fine for determining the sixty monthly finalists, and should therefore remain as it is.

The problem comes with finding a way of determining a winner of the monthly title/medal. As your calculations seem to prove Mike, using the average of the best eight games still leave us with a three horse race between Walter, Dave & H. But I have always thought that eight games was a little on the high side. Why not make it your best six games to count? Ok, this would still make the same threesome as favourites, and they would probably still win most months, but almost certainly not all. I think it would open up the possibility that anyone of, I dunno, perhaps fifteen or twenty people, instead of just three, having a chance of winning if they have a really good month.

Just to give an example of Januarys leaderboard as it now stands. Chris B has started the month with scores of 540 and 480 in the first week of January. Ok, he would still need some more good scores, but let us say he could get another four scores averaging 400 a piece in the final three weeks of the month, something he is certainly capable of. That would give him an average of 437 for the month, certainly a score to give Walter and Dave a run for their money. Next month it could be someone different who starts the month with a bang and has a realistic shot at the medal.

[Liam_AA]

I think Mikes made a good point by displaying the averages. While spetember was a bad month for me, evan with the 8 games I'd have to win 6 to catch up with the top 3.

Bah!

What are the chances of returning the card covers mike?

[ian_distort]

I'd say a best six games format would be best. True, the usual suspects are bound to be up there month after month (they do play the most games, after all), but, I'll have to use my good self as an example.

I played 6 games last month, averaging 310 points, and as usual, I did the bare minimum to make sure I reached the finals. However, as somebody has pointed out elsewhere in the thread, if I'd have had something exciting to tickle my ego (such as a leaderboard prize) I'd very likely have played more games, therefore wiping off my cruddy scores of below 200, and propelling me into the illustrious 400+ best 6 games company of Messrs Thompson and Nisbett.

Naturally, player numbers would go up, points available per game would go up and bar takings would most definitely go up. I sincerely hope the days of Ye Olde Cock and The Ladybrook having 40+ runners are not lost forever (other, more tinpot leagues have certainly managed to pull the crowds in, albeit briefly), and I'd imagine this would be a surefire way of boosting numbers. I don't see how it couldn't.

As for the National Average Leaderboard? Honestly, I don't think anybody particularly cares. Nice idea, but it discourages you from playing more. Why risk losing your nice big average and subsequent trophy if you're sitting pretty after 6 games? The best 6 games format encourages you to play more, which is obviously better for all concerned.

I did have another good point, but I've been gibbering on for so long, I've forgotten what it was

[tfeilding]

I feel by focussing on changing the setup so more people can have a crack at becoming a leaderboard winner is missing the point.

Each region only produces one winner a month. In reality only 20% or so of the league players are good enough to win the league based on ability rather than playing a hundred games.

If I look at the venue I played in last night, there were 14 players at a venue which would regularly run 4 tables last year. Now they only bother setting two up each week. Of those 14 players, only 3 are good enough to challenge for any type of leaderboard and the reason they are good is because they play regularly and get the practice in. Altering how the league is won won't pesuade them to play more as they play as much as they are going to play anyway.

If turnouts are to be bolstered then you need to ensure that those who don't even make the monthly top 40, let alone the top 15/20 keep coming along. I think this can be done by offering small but realistic prizes such as the aforementioned tshirts and card protectors. Perhaps you could also give away chipsets at random - if each time you turn up to a night you get a ticket to a cyber raffle and each month you give out five chipsets (ensuring that once you win in one month you cant win again) then there will be added incentive to turn up and people will feel like they are getting something for nothing.

The league also needs promoting more than it currently is. Manchester, Bristol and Bath are all filled to the brim with students who like nothing more than cheap entertainment. The universities should be approached and adverts taken out in student publications. Venue (in the south west) should also be targeted either for adverts or for a review. It could also be an idea to run an annual live freeroll for students where you go from city to city and give away a cash first prize with chipsets and cards and so on for runners up. That would spread the word and act as a feeder to the regular nightly games.

Finally I think the three monthly league at the end of each year needs looking at. Whilst the prize is fantastic and very generous of the sponsors/Mike to be offered to us, I do wonder whether the extra players this generates cancels out those the league loses cos the idea of a 3 monthly qualification period is too daunting - I've heard people say that they don't push for points at the start of the 3 months because they have plenty of time to accrue them, but then towards the end of the period they realise they are too far behind to have a decent crack at qualification and so don't both trying.

I do think the league is great - the fact Ive played nearly 200 games in 15 months is a testimony to this, I am just worried that some of my regular venues might bring a halt to the nights because the numbers are dwindling.

[ian_distort]

Agreed, Tom. The promotion of the league in Manchester is virtually zero. The odd pub had a poster up inside, but there are no flyers on the bars, no advertising, nothing in the local press. All the regions have got people fighting for a realistic chance to go to Vegas, so let's get it in the papers, they always need the occasional plucky underdog story

The chance of winning the leaderboard isn't the crux of the argument. In fact, maybe it's got nothing to do with it at all. The three month league has, I believe, left people feeling jaded, and the return to the monthly competition might be enough in itself to re-ignite people's passions. An experiment with the best 6 games thing is still worth a try, though.

I think I'm right in saying that the LPL will be sending 8 people over to the WSOP this year (Geordie Jim and Mich from up here, the SW two Bad Beat qualifiers, three from Birmingham, and one Main Event entrant), which I'm guessing is unrivalled in the world of Pub Poker. We do, however, desperately need to get numbers back up to a respectable level. Landlords will no doubt be pissed off that numbers have fallen, and something really does need to be done.

What happened to the LPL cards which were given away to new members in the old days, incidentally?

[The Reaper]

I don't believe it would be feasible to restructure the way the league is scored...the point is to promote Poker AND PUB business, so players who play more (generally) spend more in pubs...BUT I must admit I do like the idea of, as Tom puts it, 'cyber-tickets' to the top few places. This will give everyone, casual or hard-core, a game incentive to get these, so they can exchange them for prizes which they can then 'show off' as being better than average players... my game might even pick up a bit...but then again, maybe not!

Good luck to all, whatever comes of this

Neil

[ian_distort]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

I don't believe it would be feasible to restructure the way the league is scored...the point is to promote Poker AND PUB business, so players who play more (generally) spend more in pubs...

That's exactly what the proposed new format would do, though. The points wouldn't be restructured at all (except that there'd be more players, so you'd get more), and you wouldn't have to play a minimum of 6 games to qualify for the finals....it'd be the same, but better

"the point is to promote Poker AND PUB business" ........ As the pubs are paying to host the poker, shouldn't it be down to the league to promote it properly? Go on, Mike, giz a job

[LPL_Mike]

I am trying not to be negative here regarding the 6/8/10 game rule, but i think i have shown no matter how you try and calculate it, players who play 15-20 games will win hands down everytime over a player who plays 8 games and only can remove 2 games.

Players would quickly see that the format no matter how you calculate it would have the same result..... one of the top 3 would always come through just based on the amount of games played.

The only fair way that i see would be to use the National Average Leaderboard, increase the games played to 8 and put up trophies for the top 3....does anyone have any objections to doing this format??

Tom a very well contructive post and i agree with alot of what you have written, i have already been in touch with the venue mag and should have a half page spread on the 21st, i will focus my attention in trying to put out more advertising as this has been an area nelgected recently.

[BobsTheMan]

After reading tom's post, I think he could be onto a winner here with the advertising. I know that in Bath there are 2 or 3 regular student players who really enjoy playing the game. How about getting in touch with them and see what they feel about trying to get the advertising via posters and the like in their uni. They can talk a good game but can they use this gift of the gab to help grow the league. I mean they have brought some friends in the past but they were only few and far between, imagine tapping in a resource of thousands.

[ian_distort]

Originally Posted by LPL_Mike

I am trying not to be negative here regarding the 6/8/10 game rule, but i think i have shown no matter how you try and calculate it, players who play 15-20 games will win hands down everytime over a player who plays 8 games and only can remove 2 games.

True enough, Mike. The only thing is that we've got three people playing 25+ games a month, and the 6/8 game thing would give the 15 game players a good shot rather than none. I just think it's a fairer system overall, plus it rewards good results more than the present one.

Not wishing to pick on anyone, but I've got to use an example. Howard played a million games last month, finished 3rd, but his best 6 would have only averaged 358.

Go on fella, give it a try.

As for the national averages thing, I'd prefer to keep it local, and as I mentioned earlier, I reckon playing for an overall averages title discourages people from playing as often as they could.