UKOPS Player of the festival

aussie09

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:

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
Posted by Slipwater

your suggested points range is really not the best. 

the consequence is that the competition is over well before day 4.

also, consider the relationship between finishing positions.  do you think that coming 10th in 16 events is not as good as someone who comes nowhere in 15 events yet 2nd in one event?

your range is top heavy, oriented more towards winning and less towards performance.

a wide range is not good.

formula one have a similar problem.  they changed their range a few years ago and the outcome affected the championship so much so that they had to tweak it this year with double points on the last race.  the problem is the range, they are trying to solve the symptoms not the cause.  the range is the fundamental problem.

aussie09

2 tiers is not what is wanted.

aussie09

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

you mention not wanting to do the workload, i dont mind doing it.  it is reasonable straightforward to give a point to everyone who cashes too.  even if there are 70




 

aussie09

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:

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.
Posted by Slipwater

this would be better if it was ackowledge in some other way than to add points and distort the scoring.  a wee bonus prize or something would be good instead.




 

Slipwater

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival : you mention not wanting to do the workload, i dont mind doing it.  it is reasonable straightforward to give a point to everyone who cashes too.  even if there are 70  
Posted by aussie09

Well, using cashes as a basis for a scoring system is certainly not the way I'd go.

aussie09

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

totally agree.  this is one of two essential things.

the second, which must be there, is the ability to understand what is required to move up the leaderboard.

it scoring system has to be simple


 

HITMAN_RV

Some Valid Points!!!

I like brains Version, is easy to understand & similar to what we seen before.

I guess if anyone else has a Structure they would prefer & CAN COMPETANTLY MANAGE OVER UKOPS, please put up for us to see.

...then Sky, We can make a choice of structure.

I guess that's what this thread is about, getting as close to a fair structure for all as possible!


My Vote is 'easy is best'!!

Slipwater

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival : totally agree.  this is one of two essential things. the second, which must be there, is the ability to understand what is required to move up the leaderboard. it scoring system has to be simple  
Posted by aussie09

Ten places get points - seems pretty simple to me.

aussie09

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival : Well, using cashes as a basis for a scoring system is certainly not the way I'd go.
Posted by Slipwater

cashing is a triumph.

only one in seven cash.

not using cashes to judge performance would be breathtaking.



 

HITMAN_RV

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival : Well, using cashes as a basis for a scoring system is certainly not the way I'd go.
Posted by Slipwater

yup, that's back to whoever wins Main or High Roller, will be fave for festival Champ, as many have mentioned.

Win 3 Small mini side events & you'd be still well behind!!

aussie09

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:

Some Valid Points!!! I like brains Version, is easy to understand & similar to what we seen before. I guess if anyone else has a Structure they would prefer & CAN COMPETANTLY MANAGE OVER UKOPS, please put up for us to see. ...then Sky, We can make a choice of structure. I guess that's what this thread is about, getting as close to a fair structure for all as possible! My Vote is 'easy is best'!!
Posted by HITMAN_RV

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

Slipwater

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival : cashing is a triumph. only one in seven cash. not using cashes to judge performance would be breathtaking.  
Posted by aussie09

So someone comes 71st in a tournament with lots of runners and someone else comes 19th in one with a much lower number of runners, and they both get one point. That seems fair to you?

aussie09

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival : 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.
Posted by Slipwater

it is definitely worth a point

aussie09

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival : So someone comes 71st in a tournament with lots of runners and someone else comes 19th in one with a much lower number of runners, and they both get one point. That seems fair to you?
Posted by Slipwater

yes.

not to you?

poppy765

I'm very grateful to anyone who is prepared to run the leaderboard for us all.

I think Slipwaters point system is fair and pretty elegant. Giving points to the top 10 should be fine (whatever system we use- you'll need a fair few final tables to win the crown.)

Playing all 33 events is always going to be a big advantage but we should try and make sure it's not an insurmountable one.

If we did go for cumulative points over 33 events then i'd definitely favour the two tier point system because it redresses the balance a bit. However, that is heading back towards complicated town... 

Limiting the number of results that get counted (eg. best five results) still seems the best and simplest way to give lower bankroll players a shot.

Slipwater

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:

I'm very grateful to anyone who is prepared to run the leaderboard for us all. I think Slipwaters point system is fair and pretty elegant. Giving points to the top 10 should be fine (whatever system we use- you'll need a fair few final tables to win the crown.) Playing all 33 events is always going to be a big advantage but we should try and make sure it's not an insurmountable one. If we did go for cumulative points over 33 events then i'd definitely favour the two tier point system because it redresses the balance a bit. However, that is heading back towards complicated town...  Limiting the number of results that get counted (eg. best five results) still seems the best and simplest way to give lower bankroll players a shot.
Posted by poppy765

The problem with counting the five best results over the entire festival is that it becomes very difficult to see where you are at any given point in time, and there will be a far larger number of players to track.

It's not particularly visible to outsiders who wish to take an interest in proceedings either.

poppy765

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival : The problem with counting the five best results over the entire festival is that it becomes very difficult to see where you are at any given point in time, and there will be a far larger number of players to track. It's not particularly visible either to outsiders who wish to take an interest in proceedings.
Posted by Slipwater

I see your point but without that limitation, under your points system, by day 4 there will be very few players in with a shot of winning.

(Which makes aussies system far more inclusive)

HITMAN_RV

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival : The problem with counting the five best results over the entire festival is that it becomes very difficult to see where you are at any given point in time, and there will be a far larger number of players to track. It's not particularly visible to outsiders who wish to take an interest in proceedings either.
Posted by Slipwater

Agreed!!

I believe a Main priority for Sky Poker is visibility EVERY Day, so table can be posted on Sky Forum & Sky FB Groups!!
thus promoting UKOPS festival....

...not an easy task!!!!

Slipwater

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival : I see your point but without that limitation, under your points system, by day 4 there will be very few players in with a shot of winning. (Which makes aussies system far more inclusive)
Posted by poppy765

What makes you say that?

33 events - I'll wager right now that there are at least 25 different winners.

HITMAN_RV

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival : What makes you say that? 33 events - I'll wager right now that there are at least 25 different winners.
Posted by Slipwater

I'm winning 5!!!! so leaves only 28 for you lot!!

poppy765

I agree that the leaderboard needs to be simple and easily understood 

However, the important part is a binary concept....

In with a shot of winning/ Not in with a shot of winning. 

This competition is supposed to incentivise play (ideally across all level and players). It can only achieve that among players who still have a chance of winning. 

By day 4...

Under Slipwaters system maybe 1% of sky players have a chance.

Under Aussies system maybe 5% have a chance.

Under Jordz system 100% players have a chance.  

Slipwater

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:

I agree that the leaderboard needs to be simple and easily understood  However, the important part is a binary concept.... In with a shot of winning/ Not in with a shot of winning.  This competition is supposed to incentivise play (ideally across all level and players). It can only achieve that among players who still have a chance of winning.  By day 4... Under Slipwaters system maybe 1% of sky players have a chance. Under Aussies system maybe 5% have a chance. Under Jordz system 100% players have a chance.  
Posted by poppy765

You have absolutely no basis for those figures.

poppy765

Obviously, 

writing 'maybe' before the percentages should have made that clear.

I am trying to illustrate a point (not instigate an argument) 

poppy765

Like I said, I'm very grateful to whoever wants to run this for the community,

the truth is i don't really care what system we use.

I'm just speaking up for the hoards of little guys on sky poker...  

HITMAN_RV

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:

Obviously,  writing 'maybe' before the percentages should have made that clear. I am trying to illustrate a point (not instigate an argument) 
Posted by poppy765

Yup Understand.

but Sky are asking for a Fair Structure to Find 'Player of The Tornament', not keep a 'Separate Comp' open until the last Day...

Bernie Ecclestones Structure would be 100 times Points for the last tourmies, thats not point here

poppy765

FWIW 

I think the player with the best 5 results would most deserve the title 'player of the tournament'.

Under Slipwaters points system, someone that came 1st in the only 5 tournaments they played would lose to someone that played all 33 and came 3rd seven times (a less impressive achievement IMHO). 

Sky_SamT

Hi Everybody,

I appreciate everybody's input into this it has all been very interesting to read through and has highlighted the impossibility of pleasing everybody.

The main focus for us is simplicity. It will be run by a member of the community who will not have the tournament results readily available to them without looking through lobbies etc..

Therefore the proposal that Slipwater has made makes sense and I know that he is happy to run this so we would be more than willing to use this. That is not to say that this has to be a final decision now but if we could have a final proposal in the next couple of days I will ensure that everything is order and we have some formalised rules and terms of the competition.

Thanks

Sam

Slipwater

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:

FWIW  I think the player with the best 5 results would most deserve the title 'player of the tournament'.
Posted by poppy765

So how would that work from a visual point of view?

After Day One you will have a list of hundreds of players to present on the forum - effectively everyone who has played.

GELDY

slippy's system seems to work pretty well for the 2014 leaderboard. the obvious players are on the board, you don't hear any whining about how it is calculated. it is simple and linear so easy to calc in real time by observers as well as players.

i would have thought taking this and tweaking it for ukops would be by far the best thing to do. 

Main Board = evening events

Mini Board = warmup events

BragBoard = all 

Slipwater

In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival:

slippy's system seems to work pretty well for the 2014 leaderboard. the obvious players are on the board, you don't hear any whinning about how it is calculated. it is simple and linear so easy to calc in real time by observers as well as players. point structure is already quite flat compared to cash won so a lot more inclusive. i would have thought taking this and tweaking it for ukops would be far the best thing to do.  Main Board = evening events Mini Board = warmup events BragBoard = all 
Posted by GELDY

Yeah, I guess you could have a separate list for the warm ups.