Tail wags Dog

[ArmstrongCD]

There doesnt actually need to be a prize, I suggested to some of the others, how about a link on the main menu which was titled something like ' Month winners photo gallery' and as u might of guessed it a picture of that months winner with their score! and maybe a few lines about how they did it!

What u think?

[LPL_Mike]

Originally Posted by ArmstrongCD

There doesnt actually need to be a prize, I suggested to some of the others, how about a link on the main menu which was titled something like ' Month winners photo gallery' and as u might of guessed it a picture of that months winner with their score! and maybe a few lines about how they did it!

What u think?

Its a good idea Chris, we have a photo gallery which we use here http://www.poker.co.uk/league/gallery.html
we could put the photo's up there with a few words?

We could have a sticky thread in the forum just for the purpose of monthly winner photo's

[ArmstrongCD]

Ok, It could be a link on there, because there just random photos!

Anyway, theres my ideas. I'm easy either way.

Not trying to be awkward or favour the league towards me, just want larger fields for a more entertaining night.

[83Unsuited]

To take things back to the original post for a moment:

Asskicker wrote "Mike Good proved that with a little bit of effort the league title is not impossible to win. The Best averages over six games will make it harder because Dave and Walt Can win 6 games a month without breaking Sweat."

The whole point though is that was not "a little bit of effort". Do you not accept that to attempt to win the league title under the old method you are going to have to play approx five nights a week for the whole month? Most people can't do that, they have families, jobs and other commitments which make it impossible to do that. Ok, the league may have 500+ active members, but under your method, before the month even starts, more than 99% of them know they can't win the league title. Surely that isn't a sensible way of running it?

If I understand you correctly, you are also suggesting that it will be even harder for someone to beat Dave & Walter under the new best six game average system than under the old system. I really must disagree. As Dave and my update at the bottom of the "Best score in a month *Discuss* thread have shown, with two-thirds of the month gone, their are three or four people well in the running for the title, rather more than would have been in it under the old system.

I would be quite willing to put my head on the block and say that someone other than Walter or Dave will definately win the title in at least one of the next three months. So, if you wish to make your identity known, I would be up for having a friendly £20 bet on whether that would happen or not. What do you think?

Finally, remember it is only a three month experiment anyway. If it flops we can go back to the old method, but at least let us give it a chance and find out.

[mike89off]

Originally Posted by 83Unsuited

I would be quite willing to put my head on the block and say that someone other than Walter or Dave will definately win the title in at least one of the next three months. So, if you wish to make your identity known, I would be up for having a friendly £20 bet on whether that would happen or not. What do you think?

WHERE DO I SIGN?!?

I'm having some of that, mate. I bet u £20 that nobody other than Walter or Dave will win the title in the next 3 months.

In fact, lets make it interesting, make it £30 and we'll run it 3 times. Ooooh, we're so sick...

£10 Walter or Dave to win it in month one.
£10 Walter or Dave to win it in month two.
£10 Walter or Dave to win it in month three.

There, sorted.

Who are you, by the way? And what kind of a raggy hand is 83o???

[83Unsuited]

Tricky sir, very tricky, I can tell you are a poker player! You are craftily trying to alter the bet in your favour. If I understand Asskicker correctly, he is saying that that under the new best of six game average system, it will be almost impossible to beat Dave and Walter. I am accepting it will be difficult, they will be favourites definately, if only due to the amount of games they play. However, for me to win the bet, someone would only have to beat them once over the three months for me to win £20. Under your new terms, if this happened once I would end £10 down.

I originally offered the bet to Asskicker, and it might start proving a bit expensive if I end up with two bets running, so I think I should let Asskicker have first option. If he hasn't accepted though by say midnight on 25th, I will accept your bet on the ORIGINAL terms, if that is still ok with you.

Who am I? I am Mike A. I play in Middleton, Moston, Denton (Lowes Arms), and occasionally in Ashton before it folded. Am I right in thinking you are Mike Morris?

Where does 83 unsuited come from? It comes from a bit of an infamous hand played at the Old Cock three or four months ago. I wont embarrass the other player involved in the hand by naming him or her, but they got relatively short-stacked and went all-in on my big blind. After some thought I called, (I had a big stack), and turned over 8 3 unsuited. At this the other player got very Angry, even more so when a 8 appeared on the turn. The unnamed player then stormed off, refusing to shake my hand and shouting abuse. Personally I thought the organiser at the Old Cock should have had a quiet word with them, but I don't think anything was ever said!

[ArmstrongCD]

Less of it Michael! Terrible call!

[83Unsuited]

And pray please tell me, Christopher, what exactly was the difference between that and when you called my all-in bet with 8 5 at the Lowes Arms last week?

[Nige B]

Best 6 results will favour those who play most. Why trial it for 3 months? Just look at the stats for the last 12 months and post the results.

The only way others will win the league is if scores and number of appearances are taken into account (averages). You can strike a balance by making the minimum games 12 or something like that. At the end of the day does it matter that much anyway?

The thing I notice is that there may well be more venues but what happened to the nights at the older places where we used to get 40 plus players???? How many venues get more than 16 - 18 regularly? Its great opening new places and spreading the news but little point in doing so if they are a couple of miles apart and easily accessible.

I enjoyed the bigger fileds fewer times a week (thats also when pubs made money). Venues seem to be closing now because they are unsustainable.

And asskicker....go easy on Chris he has some valid points even tho he is an angry b%%$*%**

[RevStu]

Originally Posted by Nige B

Best 6 results will favour those who play most.

Man, some of you guys really suck at basic arithmetical logic.

Player A plays 25 games a month.

Player B plays 8 games a month.

If Player B wins 5 games of those 8, comes 3rd in another, and comes nowhere in two, under the new system he has a very good chance of winning. It's not EASY to win five games out of eight - nor should it be, we want the winner to be a good player - but it's unquestionably possible with a little bit of luck on your side. Player A then has to win six games out of 25 to beat him, which is also possible, but still needs a phenomenal performance - winning one game out of every four is a ratio any top pro would be very happy indeed with.

Under the old system, however, Player B could win five games and come 3rd in another, and Player A would still easily top him just by turning up to a lot of games. Player B would have maybe 3000 points (depending on the number of players). To beat that under the old system, Player A only needs 120 points from each of his 25 games, a laughably easy target for anyone even vaguely competent.

The new system would still favour more frequent players, then, but compared to the old system it favours them infinitely LESS, because currently the chances of a more casual player winning are in all practical senses zero, and under the new system they've at least got a fighting chance. Zero > anything = infinite increase.