UKOPS Player of the festival

Unknown

Fwiw you can make it a 2 variable problem by using the amount of cash won, rather than the buyin/finishing position. You can then scale down these numbers (usually by putting them to a power of a number less than 1) so that the gap between levels is reduced. Then decide which is more relevant, number of players or cash won, and weight it accordingly. I made a few equations in excel for a UKOPS ages ago and offered it up, Sky are free to contact me to discuss if they like!

poppy765

IMO as buyin and and number of runners are inversely proportional- they seem to balance each other out.

That makes a 1st in the roller (£530/50 runners) as valid as a 1st in the micro (£2.20/500 runners).

Any system with multipliers or cash based ranking will make it impossible for a lower stakes player to win,

that's why I think Jordz has made the fairest suggestion.

Unknown

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:

IMO as buyin and and number of runners are inversely proportional- they seem to balance each other out. That makes a 1st in the roller (£530/50 runners) as valid as a 1st in the micro (£2.20/500 runners). Any system with multipliers or cash based ranking will make it impossible for a lower stakes player to win, that's why I think Jordz has made the fairest suggestion.
Posted by poppy765

Not if you normalise the values

Unknown

Simple as just cuberooting the overall cash - win £10000 in the highroller, or win £200 in a micro MTT, points would be 21 and 5.9 respectively. Does that seem a reasonable and surmountable an amount to overcome, given that there are very few tournaments where £10k will be top prize? Still need to add in a calculation for number of runners, which could bring the figures even closer together

aussie09

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:

Simple as just cuberooting the overall cash - win £10000 in the highroller, or win £200 in a micro MTT, points would be 21 and 5.9 respectively. Does that seem a reasonable and surmountable an amount to overcome, given that there are very few tournaments where £10k will be top prize? Still need to add in a calculation for number of runners, which could bring the figures even closer together
Posted by CoxyLboro

hi coxy, i see that you are now exploring cuberoots.  i did too, with logarithmic scales.  however, all this illustrates that total cashes just distorts the results in an undesirable manner.  so is the answer to use more complex formulae or to simplify things instead?  my view is that there is a need to simplify so that most people get it.



 


 

Unknown

There are more complicated methods of normalising the results, but cuberooting isnt really one of them. Inevitably in order to get results that are reasonably cohesive across all levels, there needs to be a non-linear reduction of the subject number.

I understand the need for simplicity, but as demanded by most, it needs to be as fair as possible across all levels

Unknown

If you want to exclude total cashes, you can apply a non-linear reducition to the buyin amount, and then use finishing pos/runners to get a final result.

Unknown

If Sky could either post/email me figures from previous UKOPS events please (runners and buyins, preferably from a similar time of year event) it would make constructing a formulae a lot easier!

Unknown

I've re-read some of your posts aussie, and I definitely see where you are coming from, and I am inclined to agree. By Day 4, you want at least 10-20 people in contention for the prize, making it a great thing to watch. Could also have consequences for in-game decisions based on who remains!

gazzaluf05

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

Like that idea best.

Otherwise names in a hat and pick out a winner seems fair and accurate. 

HITMAN_RV

In Response to UKOPS Player of the festival:

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    
Posted by Sky_SamT

Hi SkySam,  All.


Currently, Me & An 'Intelligent' Forum Colleague, [as im not Obvs],  are working on a SIMPLE Points system to suggest to you All.

In Fact it is a Variation of a Succesful formula from before, he has used.


I will let him explain it fully later, as I am just a Dumb Blond, and off to Fulham Match now,  but if liked by Sky, he will do tables & I will just be 'Eye Candy' & copy paste to Sky/FOSP FB Groups Summary of His tables.

Please Give it a chance as we have taken all above on Board, but obviously it's in Your/Skys Hands to decide.



PS EVERY UKOPS NITE Prior to Tournies, I will Parade around My Computer in My Pink Speedo's, with a Big UKOPS Day 1, [2/3/4 etc], Banner held Overhead, like the Girlies do in The Boxing Rings before rounds!!
Just for Atmosphere Obvs.


So, Run Golden All!!

In fact after Recent Footie Betting Success, I've gone & bought into all Tournies already, so i dont blow it all on Fulham v Watford tonight....... [2-1 btw]

I'm clearly gonna win this 'Player of Tournament' anyway, so cue The 'Rigged' threads in Jan, lol


The Hitman

Slipwater

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:

Me & An 'Intelligent' Forum Colleague, [as im not Obvs],  are working on a SIMPLE Points system to suggest to you All.Posted by HITMAN_RV

...Pretty sure that rules me out.

HITMAN_RV

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival : ...Pretty sure that rules me out.
Posted by Slipwater

shhhhhhhhh!!!!

Get on with your abacus &  stuff mate!!!
Dont Blow Dream Team Cover!!


Ooooopppsss

Slipwater

If this runs, I don't think that buy-ins should be taken into consideration at all. It overcomplicates something that really should be quite straighforward (which was - ironically - alluded to in the opening post).

The moment you add those kind of differentials, you lose the attention of a section of the player base you're trying to engage.

People want to be able to look at the leaderboard, scroll down the list of names and quickly see that Lambert has 37 points after Day 2; TommyD has only won four events going into Day 3; and Malcolm is so far down the table he doesn’t even appear. And they want to know that if they bink a win or a second place they’ll be in position x or position y afterwards. There’s very little chance of that happening if people are sitting there for half an hour adding it up on their fingers and toes, trying to work out square roots and the like.

Like I said, I don't like the idea, but if the buy-ins absolutely have to be weighted differently, then I'd reverse it so that you get more points for a £2.20 tournament than a £55 one. That way, the balance shifts a little towards those who cannot afford to play the bigger events.

MattBates

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:

If this runs, I don't think that buy-ins should be taken into consideration at all . It overcomplicates something that really should be quite straighforward (which was - ironically - alluded to in the opening post). The moment you add those kind of differentials, you lose the attention of a section of the player base you're trying to engage. People want to be able to look at the leaderboard, scroll down the list of names and quickly see that Lambert has 37 points after Day 2; TommyD has only won four events going into Day 3; and Malcolm is so far down the table he doesn’t even appear. And they want to know that if they bink a win or a second place they’ll be in position x or position y afterwards. There’s very little chance of that happening if people are sitting there for half an hour adding it up on their fingers and toes, trying to work out square roots and the like. Like I said, I don't like the idea, but if the buy-ins absolutely have to be weighted differently, then I'd reverse it so that you get more points for a £2.20 tournament than a £55 one. That way, the balance shifts a little towards those who cannot afford to play the bigger events.
Posted by Slipwater

Sorry, just giving a load of points to people for entering events seems a really bad idea

Slipwater

Fair point, Matt.

HITMAN_RV

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:

If this runs, I don't think that buy-ins should be taken into consideration at all . It overcomplicates something that really should be quite straighforward (which was - ironically - alluded to in the opening post). The moment you add those kind of differentials, you lose the attention of a section of the player base you're trying to engage. People want to be able to look at the leaderboard, scroll down the list of names and quickly see that Lambert has 37 points after Day 2; TommyD has only won four events going into Day 3; and Malcolm is so far down the table he doesn’t even appear. And they want to know that if they bink a win or a second place they’ll be in position x or position y afterwards. There’s very little chance of that happening if people are sitting there for half an hour adding it up on their fingers and toes, trying to work out square roots and the like. Like I said, I don't like the idea, but if the buy-ins absolutely have to be weighted differently, then I'd reverse it so that you get more points for a £2.20 tournament than a £55 one. That way, the balance shifts a little towards those who cannot afford to play the bigger events.
Posted by Slipwater

Great Point!!
& Fair & Inclusive!!

A Version of YOUR original leaderboard idea would suit Most I feel Bri!!
Thats been running Succesfully for many, many Months Now!!

Great Work Mate!!

Slipwater

Here is my three pence, in case I was going to run this leaderboard…

 

My preference is for a linear system, where buy-ins do not matter. Those rolled for the bigger buy-ins will already be playing more tournaments anyway, so those players have an inherent advantage simply by virtue of that fact, therefore I see no need to further handicap the rest of the player base. You win a £2.20 event, then you get the same amount of points (albeit, not money) as someone who wins a £110 event. You disagree – feel free to make your case.

 

Christmas UKOPS 2014 is only a four-day festival, so I would probably take the template I have for the Main/Mini Leaderboard and manipulate it to narrow the spread, thus helping to relieve that thing called variance. The larger the spread of points and number of players, the longer the leaderboard has to run in order to balance.

 

There are 33 UKOPS events. I would suggest that the top ten positions in every UKOPS event gets the following points:

 

Position	Points
1	20
2	17
3	15
4	13
5	11
6	9
7	6
8	4
9	2
10	1

 

If my hand was forced, and someone was insisting on different tiers, I would divide the 33 events into the following:

 

·         Tier A - Up to and including £11 tournaments (19 events)

·         Tier B - Tournaments over £11 (15 events)

 

I again reiterate however, that this is not my initial preference, but – given the points table above – I would award Tier A players something along the lines of:

 

Position	Points
1	25
2	22
3	20
4	18
5	16
6	14
7	10
8	7
9	4
10	1

 

I have yet to hear a valid argument for giving Tier B players more points

Slipwater

I was also thinking of perhaps an extra 10 points for anyone who wins more than one event on the same day...

...again, if I was going to run this thing.

david666

Are the warm up tourneys going to count as UKOPS  events for the purpose of the leader board? 

Slipwater

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:

Are the warm up tourneys going to count as UKOPS  events for the purpose of the leader board? 
Posted by david666

They are counted as part of the schedule, so I'd say yes.

david666

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival : They are counted as part of the schedule, so I'd say yes.
Posted by Slipwater

Would this not hugely favour the regs over the recs, which is what so much worry has been over

jdsallstar

Just an alternative suggestion to the league thing why not run a freeroll for all those who final table any event. You get 1k chips for every final table and an extra 2k if you've actually won one. 

Means everyones got a chance right up to the last event but still weighted towards winners and those who have done the best. 

Slipwater

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival : Would this not hugely favour the regs over the recs, which is what so much worry has been over
Posted by david666

Why would it?

There are twelve so-called 'warm-up' events, and three of those (25%) have a buy-in higher than £11.

The more events there are - at multiple levels - the more chance a player with shallower pockets has of topping the table...

...but of course, you can't please everyone all the time.

F_Ivanovic

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:

Just an alternative suggestion to the league thing why not run a freeroll for all those who final table any event. You get 1k chips for every final table and an extra 2k if you've actually won one.  Means everyones got a chance right up to the last event but still weighted towards winners and those who have done the best. 
Posted by jdsallstar

I like this idea although maybe a tad complicated? Plus whatever date you decide for this extra tournament there will be some people not able to play it.

Big problem with aussie's idea is it massively favours those that can afford to play all events. (33 events, min-cash in 25 of them that's 25 points - but say you can only play 4 events and you win one, come 3rd and 4th in another and that's only 10 points!) But clearly that's a better achievment.

I like jordz idea because it gives everyone a chance. I guess the only potential problem is you could finish 1st in 4 events (or 1st in 2 and say a 2nd and 4th - some variation of that of really good finishes) but then only play 1 other event and finish 200+... and you'd end up being behind to someone that has finished 20th in 5 events. Other thing to add is it does slightly favour those playing the events with smaller runners. (eg. High roller) - as more likely to get a decent finish.

Slips idea again favours those that can play more events, plus I don't like how 10th gets 1 point and 11 nothing. I think cashing deserves a point. 

I'd like to propose my idea which is essentially a combination of jordz and aussie's

Firstly, your best 5* events only will be taken into account. (* - this could be changed to a different number 4, 6, 7 - probably not any more than that though. We need to give players with a lesser bankroll a chance to enter enough events to have a fair chance of competing. I think 5 is a decent number though)

Then, you'll get points based on your finishing position. I would adjust aussie's slightly though and maybe say:

1 point cashing

3 points final table

4 points for 2nd&3rd

5 points for 1st.

This keeps it interesting throughout and gives everyone a fair chance.

Slipwater

I don't think cashing has anything to do with it.

Do you want to be the one who keeps track of perhaps seventy people who cash in one tournament?

F_Ivanovic

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:

I don't think cashing has anything to do with it. Do you want to be the one who keeps track of perhaps seventy people who cash in one tournament?
Posted by Slipwater

Why does it have nothing to with it? Why award 10th place but not someone who cashes in 11th? Seems pretty arbitary. 

Agreed keeping track of everyone who cashes would be hard though - I didn't see opening post saying community would run it, I thought sky could just easily keep track themselves and input a formula for tables. What about..

1st = 5 pts

2nd/3rd = 4 pts

4th/5th = 3 pts

6th = 2 pts

If points are tied, it will go to the highest place finisher. (eg. someone with 2 1st's and no other final tables will beat someone with a 2nd/3rd and 6th on 10 points) If still tied, we'll look at if one came 2nd over 3rd or 4th/5th - if all that's tied we'll look at their next highest position.

I thought adding a point in for cashing would be useful in instances like this: Someone with a 1st and 2nd only gets 9 points in the above leaderboard yet someone with 5 6th place finishes gets 10 points. Now if the 1st and 2nd had no other cashes then I'd agree getting 5 6 place finishes is more impressive. But if they had 2/3 cashes as well with 1 pt for cashing they would have 11/12 points and win - which I think would be fair/reasonable. 

I dunno, the scoring might still need some tweaking - Either way would you agree the best system would be some combination of jordz and a point based system?

Slipwater

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival : Why does it have nothing to with it? Why award 10th place but not someone who cashes in 11th? Seems pretty arbitary.
Posted by F_Ivanovic

How is it arbitrary? It's a league table where the first ten places get points - it's hardly new ground, and is the kind of scoring system that is fairly common in other pursuits.

How is your idea of giving points to six people any less 'arbitrary' than my idea of giving points to ten?

You could cash in 70th place, and I don't think that's worth a point on any leaderboard.

aussie09

hi slippy

i think there are flaws in what you have said in response

i will comment separately on each so that things dont get muddled

Slipwater

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:

hi slippy i think there are flaws in what you have said in response may i comment separately on each?
Posted by aussie09

It ain't a dictatorship, mate.