Shake up the points system?

[Matty H]

Originally Posted by Lisam8319

I think that a shake up in the points system is a good idea as it would make it fairer. Possibly a jump of 200 points between 1st and second maybe too much though, as luck certainly plays a part at that stage in the game.

Yeah I got lucky 6 times to 1 in a run of 7 headsup games I played the other day against some fish who plays at my local

I like the idea of changing the points system because there is FAR to much advantage to those that can just simply play every game. I actually think a bigger gap between 1st and 2nd may lead to HU being played with more thought. From what Ive mainly seen, when it gets to HU it ends up being an allin fest until someone calls. I'd like to see more incentive there for a better final two

See ya Saturday Lisa. Hope the pancakes were good

[RevStu]

Originally Posted by Flukey_Ian

Even easier:

1st 500 plus 10 x total players
2nd 350 plus 10 x total players
3rd 300 plus 10 x total players
4th 250 plus 10 x total players
5th 200 plus 10 x total players
6th 150 plus 7 x total players
7th 140 plus 7 x total players
8th 130 plus 7 x total players
9th 120 plus 7 x total players
10th 110 plus 7 x total players
11th 100 plus 5 x total players
12th 90 plus 5 x total players
13th 80 plus 5 x total players
14th 70 plus 5 x total players
15th 60 plus 5 x total players
16th 50 plus 5 x total players

If it's too easy to score over 500 points for the Reward Scheme you'll being giving out baseball caps etc. left right and centre.

I like this.

[Lisam8319]

Originally Posted by Matty H

Yeah I got lucky 6 times to 1 in a run of 7 headsup games I played the other day against some fish who plays at my local

I actually think a bigger gap between 1st and 2nd may lead to HU being played with more thought. From what Ive mainly seen, when it gets to HU it ends up being an allin fest until someone calls. I'd like to see more incentive there for a better final two

See ya Saturday Lisa. Hope the pancakes were good

Okay so maybe luck was the wrong word to use, but certainly if you have played a tournement game (not just heads-up) by that stage boredom is certainly settling in, take the onlien freeroll where Matt was 3-1 chip heavy, but still went on to become second and there was money envolved there, however with a bigger points gap perhaps it would force people to play more! I would definitely favour the above points system to the 800 one.

Pancakes were great thanks! see ya sat.

[tfeilding]

Originally Posted by swinebag22

Its only 18 months worth. btw

i agree, I dont want really want the profiles resetting (i'm sooooooooo close to shark status). I was just thinking of a possible solution if they change the points system.

Thinking hard about it (could have done that the first time), the new points system proposed will not have too much effect on overall averages.

"only" 18 months? Thats a heck of a long time! Ive played 200 games in that period and would be annoyed to see the stats wiped. Im pleased Mike isnt considering this.

[Nige B]

I agree with most posts re a shake up of points but my thoughts are that it is too easy to get points for turning up. if only 10 players turn up a player - no matter how good/bad - gets 130 points. They could qualify for every final provided they turned up often enough.

What about giving out points to players depending on how many participate as they do in lots of tourneys. Say 6 out of every 10 players get points so a field of 20 would mean that only 12 players get points. If that is felt to be too harsh you could make 7 out of 10 or 8.

Makes sense to me. What percentage of players get paid off in Tourneys anyway. I realise that we have to reward players for turning up but points should be harder faught. . . . . . . . maybe???

Of course this wouldnt upset averages too much either.

[LPL_Mike]

Originally Posted by Nige B

I agree with most posts re a shake up of points but my thoughts are that it is too easy to get points for turning up. if only 10 players turn up a player - no matter how good/bad - gets 130 points. They could qualify for every final provided they turned up often enough.

What about giving out points to players depending on how many participate as they do in lots of tourneys. Say 6 out of every 10 players get points so a field of 20 would mean that only 12 players get points. If that is felt to be too harsh you could make 7 out of 10 or 8.

Makes sense to me. What percentage of players get paid off in Tourneys anyway. I realise that we have to reward players for turning up but points should be harder faught. . . . . . . . maybe???

Of course this wouldnt upset averages too much either.

Thats a good idea i like the concept that in a small field players still need to play into the points rather than just recieve them....

8 - 4 receive points
9 - 5
10 - 6
11 - 7
12 - 8
13 - 9
14 -10
15 -11
16 - 12
17 - 13
18 - 14
19 - 15
20 - 16

its a interesting idea and i can't really see any problems with the system?

[Loz]

I like that idea!

[The Reaper]

I have been tempted in the past to just sign in, sod off, get blinded out and get points for doing nowt! Bet I'm not the only one who could've done that

So this gets a resounding AYE from me too...damn cheats everywhere I tells ya!

[Lisam8319]

Sounds like a very good idea to me also.

[Matty H]

Aye. Looks good to me too.

As an aside can I just say - DRUNK POKER FOR THE WIN!!!!!

that is all