You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.

You might need to refresh your page afterwards.

Sky Poker forums will be temporarily unavailable from 11pm Wednesday July 25th.
Sky Poker Forums is upgrading its look! Stay tuned for the big reveal!

UKOPS Player of the festival

edited December 2014 in Poker Chat

Hi All,

After UKOPS XI we received a lot of feedback from you guys saying that you would like a player of the festival type competition for the UKOPS festivals. For UKOPS XII that is exactly what we are going to do.

 

The Player of the Festival will win themselves a seat at the UKPC in February. This competition will be run on the forum and thank you to the volunteers that have already said they are happy to do this. We have an idea of the way this leaderboard will run but in true community spirit we wanted to get some feedback from you guys about how the points in this competition are allocated.

 

Player of the festival points will be on offer in every UKOPS event on the schedule. We have an idea of how the points should be allocated, taking into account:

 

-  Finishing Position

- Buy in 

- Number of runners

 

We now want to throw this open to you guys to make suggestions based on the above. We want to make it as simple as possible so that our willing volunteers are not working all hours trying to keep the leaderboard up to date, so please let us know what you think.

 

We will have a look at all feedback and finalise the details of this in the next week or so.

 

Thanks

Sam

 

 

«1345678

Comments

  • edited December 2014
    Different tiers would be good, separate leaderboards for mains, minis and sides events.
  • edited December 2014
    Sounds good, think having five mini leagues for the different buyin tiers would be best-
     then consolidate the results for the overall winner! 
  • edited December 2014
    I think you should clearly and quite blantantly rip off Slipwaters points system/league structure. :)

    It was, afterall, a group effort on deciding how it was run so the efforts already been made.
  • edited December 2014
    could make it 2 tiers for example

    Buyins from £3.30-£22
    Buyins £55+

    and do a similar points system to the main/mini leaderboard

    a few tweaks can obviuosly be made but think this could work :)
  • edited December 2014
    well it sounds like there is only one seat available so why not just use slipwaters leaderboard style.. im sure the lower buy ins will have a softer field but also it will get so many more runners that it will be just as hard to make the top 10 as it would be in a high roller so should just keep it simple
  • edited December 2014
    In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:
    well it sounds like there is only one seat available so why not just use slipwaters leaderboard style.. im sure the lower buy ins will have a softer field but also it will get so many more runners that it will be just as hard to make the top 10 as it would be in a high roller so should just keep it simple
    Posted by jordz16
    Because it's mines, innit? ;)
  • edited December 2014
    In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:
    In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival : Because it's mines, innit? ;)
    Posted by Slipwater
    Brian, why not post up your structure of points, tables etc.
    was good!!
  • edited December 2014
    think you should definately take up slipwater on his offer of running this competition, he should definately do different awards for buy ins etc.

    pity TOTP no longer runs, as it will be a lot of work alongside his excellent leaderboard thread.

    wp slip...
  • edited December 2014
    In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:
    think you should definately take up slipwater on his offer of running this competition, he should definately do different awards for buy ins etc. pity TOTP no longer runs, as it will be a lot of work alongside his excellent leaderboard thread. wp slip...
    Posted by TeddyBloat
    Hahaha, very funny.

    Er, no, wait a minute...
  • edited December 2014


    a tweek please to make it SIMPLE

    1 point if cashing
    2 points if FT
    3 points if third
    4 points second
    5 points first

    the benefits are numerous.  easy to calculate, easy to see what needs to be done.  but mainly, the competition remains alive for longer and for many more players

    Simplicity is the key. 

    PS.  The range of scores should be narrow.  ie 1 to 5
    PPS,   The relationship between points should not be polarising.  ie not 20 points to the winner.




  • edited December 2014
    In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:
    a tweek please to make it SIMPLE 1 point if cashing 2 points if FT 3 points if third 4 points second 5 points first the benefits are numerous.  easy to calculate, easy to see what needs to be done.  but mainly, the competition remains alive for longer and for many more players Simplicity is the key.  PS.  The range of scores should be narrow.  ie 1 to 5 PPS,   The relationship between points should not be polarising.  ie not 20 points to the winner.
    Posted by aussie09
    Absolutely.

    I must have seen scores of "Leaderboards" in my time, mainly in "Live Poker" Festivals. As a generality, one big win kills the fun, & Leaderboard, stone dead. 
     
  • edited December 2014
    I think I'd prefer Slipwater's leaderboard to Aussies. Some of the UKOPS XI events were paying out as much as 70+ runners. So to get 1 point for 70th and then only 2 points for 6th and 3 points for 3rd seems a bit unfair.

    You could take Slipwater's league and then for the £55 games multiply the points by 1.1 and the £110 games by 1.2. I don't think that makes it overly complicated does it? Gives a main event winner 36 points as opposed to a side event winner 30.

    Something different would need to be done with the HR as this will obviously have a far smaller field than any other game.
  • edited December 2014
    The way I see it, the lower the buy in- the more runners, which makes a micro win more impressive.
    Giving more points for higher buyins is the opposite of that.
    I thought this was an inclusive community competition?
    I'd much rather see the prize go to a plucky low stakes player rather than a high roller because it would mean more to them.

    I don't think it's unreasonable to at least start on a level playing field.
  • edited December 2014
    FWIW I think aussie's system is bang on.
    It would make it a closely fought race and encourage people to play extra tournaments.

    (If the winner of the high roller is grumbling that their 5 figure payout should have come with more points then they have definitely lost perspective...)
  • edited December 2014

     To put it simply.

     We all know that the winner of this will be someone who is very well rolled because they will be able to play in a lot more events than most. Most of the players on the site who will want to have a crack at these tournaments would never even dream of being able to play in the high roller.

     So any point system that gives more points to the higher rolled players only makes it even less of a competition than it could be.

     Only remotely fair way of doing it is to make all tournaments worth the same points. Dont know how to structure it to make it good but can not see the point in loading it in favour of a selctive group
  • edited December 2014
    this isnt what i would choose but.....

    what if you just calculated everyones 5 finishes nearest the win? then the lowest score at the end of the week wins? keeps it interesting for a lot longer, and is just an alternative as point based leaderboards will always cause disagreements 

    plus the more events you play the better chance you have but at the same time no one is exempt from having a chance. 
  • edited December 2014


    Le Tour De Skypoker

    Yellow Jersey = Overall best = Most money won
    Green Jersey = Points Winner = Cash=1, FT=2, 3rd=3, 2nd=4, Win=5
    White Jersey = Newcomer = Points and joined skypoker after 1/1/20xx
    Polka "Poker" Dot Jersey = King of the Mountain = Heads taken
    Skypoker Blue Hoodie and UKOPS bracelet = Stage Winner = Tournament Winner



     


     
  • edited December 2014
    In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:
    this isnt what i would choose but..... what if you just calculated everyones 5 finishes nearest the win? then the lowest score at the end of the week wins? keeps it interesting for a lot longer, and is just an alternative as point based leaderboards will always cause disagreements  plus the more events you play the better chance you have but at the same time no one is exempt from having a chance. 
    Posted by jordz16
    It is always gonna be difficult to reach a group consensus, 
    this sounds inclusive and closer to the 'player of the festival' concept than most points based systems. 
  • edited December 2014
    In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:
    The way I see it, the lower the buy in- the more runners, which makes a micro win more impressive. Giving more points for higher buyins is the opposite of that. I thought this was an inclusive community competition? I'd much rather see the prize go to a plucky low stakes player rather than a high roller because it would mean more to them. I don't think it's unreasonable to at least start on a level playing field.
    Posted by poppy765
    The only reason I suggested that was because the OP said they wanted buy ins factored into the leaderboard. That's why I said only 1.1 and 1.2 as it only makes a small difference. I'd be happy for it to all be lumped together and everyone get the same points... Next question is though, if we did agree to go with Slip's points is paying top 20 enough, due to the larger fields?
  • edited December 2014
    In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:
    Le Tour De Skypoker Yellow Jersey = Overall best = Most money won Green Jersey = Points Winner = Cash=1, FT=2, 3rd=3, 2nd=4, Win=5 White Jersey = Newcomer = Points and joined skypoker after 1/1/20xx Polka "Poker" Dot Jersey = King of the Mountain = Heads taken Skypoker Blue Hoodie and UKOPS bracelet = Stage Winner = Tournament Winner    
    Posted by aussie09

    Lanterne Rouge =  Bubble boy/girl  in  Highroller.
  • edited December 2014
    In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:
    a tweek please to make it SIMPLE 1 point if cashing 2 points if FT 3 points if third 4 points second 5 points first the benefits are numerous.  easy to calculate, easy to see what needs to be done.  but mainly, the competition remains alive for longer and for many more players Simplicity is the key.  PS.  The range of scores should be narrow.  ie 1 to 5 PPS,   The relationship between points should not be polarising.  ie not 20 points to the winner.
    Posted by aussie09
    I don't really agree with your proposal rob, or your reasoning. Surely the leader board is there to track achievements only, not to be close run. Although I agree it would add some excitement if it went to the wire, I don't think the format should be engineered to increase that likely hood. 

    I also don't think the credit goes where it deserves following your points allocation.

    My alternative suggestion is this,

    - simply use the percentage payout received (takes into account runners, and finishing position regardless of tournament type )
    - use a factorial to differentiate between differing levels of UKOPS, micro = 1 mini =1.1 challenger = 1.2 side = 1.3 main = 1.4 (takes into account buy-ins)

    Using this method would be very easy for sky as they have all the relevant data, and I believe it covers the criteria sky mentioned in OP.

    The payout system is never really complained about so I figure, if it's good enough for allocating the cash, why not use it for the points.

    Let me know if I have made any silly mistakes, cheers.

    Davy


  • edited December 2014
    In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:
    In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival : I don't really agree with your proposal rob, or your reasoning. Surely the leader board is there to track achievements only, not to be close run. Although I agree it would add some excitement if it went to the wire, I don't think the format should be engineered to increase that likely hood.   I also don't think the credit goes where it deserves following your points allocation. My alternative suggestion is this, - simply use the percentage payout received (takes into account runners, and finishing position regardless of tournament type ) - use a factorial to differentiate between differing levels of UKOPS, micro = 1 mini =1.1 challenger = 1.2 side = 1.3 main = 1.4 (takes into account buy-ins) Using this method would be very easy for sky as they have all the relevant data, and I believe it covers the criteria sky mentioned in OP. The payout system is never really complained about so I figure, if it's good enough for allocating the cash, why not use it for the points. Let me know if I have made any silly mistakes, cheers. Davy
    Posted by david666
    hi davy,

    i see your point and it holds true if we are trying to establish who is the best player and nothing else.  slippy does this very well.  if we are trying to devise a formula that takes into account everything it would need to be quite complex, as you have illustrated.

    however, the purpose is to provide an interesting competition and incentivise more play.  in which case, the scheme needs to be very different.

    we must avoid having the competition over after day 2.  we must avoid the winner of the high roller almost certainly winning this too.  remember we want people on day four to enter more tournaments.  we even want the HR winner to enter the micro on day 4 too.

    if you want to identify the best player then the mathematics are there already that take into account runners, buy-in, finishing position etc..it is money won.  if we want to incentivise throughout we should have a system that gives everyone a chance on day four.

    for example, imagine the premiership was decided by the gate receipts.  man utd would have sewn it up already with newcastle and arsenal next (i guess).  the premiership, instead use a points system as it means that the competition is not over until near the end of the season.

    horses for courses.  our race is not gate receipts, nor is it the best player in terms of winnings, it is the best player in terms of consistent high finishes across all games, and less dependant upon how much money they have.

    therefafter we need it to be simple, hence my orignal post.  we do not want a "duckworth-lewis" method to work out what we need to do.  the 1.2, 1.4 multiple is horrific. 

    i am thinking that we want fred bloggs to enter on day 4 knowing that if he cashes twice and FTs once he might win.  it should be easily calculated.


    regards
    rob



     

  • edited December 2014
    I understand your point rob, and on reviewing my own proposal it is flawed, but with such a great prize for the winner, I think it's more important to reward success than participation, ie weighting the point towards results.

    If someone runs away with it, surely they deserve to win, regardless of the format.

    Looking forward to see how they plan on doing it, it's not easy that's for sure.

    Davy
  • edited December 2014
    I think it should be weighted in a similar (probably exactly the same) fashion as Slip's current leaderboard. I don't see how that  method would result in it potentially being a 1 horse race after day one or two, or even a 5 horse race or whatever. You could absolutely brick every single comp for 2 days, and you'll still have 16 tournaments left to potentially win.

    If there are 8 events every day (9 on Saturday because of the High Roller), that's 33 events and if they are all set the same as Slip's points, that's 33 chances to get 30 points (1st place), 33 chances to get 24 points (2nd place) etc etc. and chances are there are gonna be at least 25+ unique winners of the events.

    So every night there's like 240 points to potentially win (270 on Sat) if you can run like that Bates fella ;) Even with the leaderboards being top heavy, the only way someone could really run away with it early doors is if someone manages to make top 3 in maybe 5-6 events in the first 2 days, and tbf, if they do that, they probably deserve to win!

    So many variables, the bigger BIs will be tougher fields, but then they'll generally be smaller fields too, is it tougher to win X soft comp with 500 runners, or Y comp with a tougher field but only 300 runners, tough to say. Just keep it simple imo, use Slip's point system for every event, regardless of BI.

    PlacePoints13022431941651361077859310211--201

     

  • edited December 2014
    If you go down that path Paul you are negating 2 of the 3 criteria which sky stated in the OP. Whatever happens, I assume it need to be scaled for buy-ins. 

    Davy
  • edited December 2014
    Regs all over this thread, terrible idea, scrap it. 

    Spend it on people who lose.

  • edited December 2014
    I think whoever has to run this leaderboard probably deserves the prize.... 
  • edited December 2014
    Let's not forget that the concept needs to be easily conveyed to (and understood by) a casual player.
    The simplest suggestion which ticks all of the boxes has been by jordz...

    Cash in at least five events to be eligible.
    Lowest total from your best five results wins.  


  • edited December 2014

    You can see from this thread how difficult it is to please all of the people all of the time!
  • edited December 2014
    I think it's cool that we got to discuss the relative merits of different systems.
    But let's face it, socratic method isn't gonna get the job done.
    Shall we put it to a vote?
    Slippys/Aussies/Jordz
Sign In or Register to comment.