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.
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.
Comments
Rather than having points based on buyin you could just have it based on runners. So <100 runners have one points system, 100-300 runners another points system and more than 300 runners another one. eg.
< 100 runners:
1st = 10
1st = 12
Apart from the HR, what are the high buy in low field comps?
So essentially, everybody that cashed in any UKOPS tournament scored points. Points were awarded based on the % of the field beaten.
So for example say you finished 7th in a 100 runner tournament you would score as follows:
100-7 (number of people you beat) / 100-1 (total field excluding yourself) * 100
so - 93/99 * 100 = 93.94 ie. you beat 93.94% of the field
That way, the winner will always score 100 points regardless of field size or buyin etc. and the rest of the points will be weighted exactly the same in all tournaments based on the size of the field.
It does have it's problems in that it favours bigger field sizes, however it was the fairest way I could come up with to allocate points.
So personally I would prefer to see a league system even if it does mean that Matt Bates will have it locked up after the first 2 days. The aim should be to find the best player over that series of tournaments, not to give everyone a chance.
lol!!
Good Posts/Points All
sam, asking the forum was a bit of a waste of people's time.
my point is not about slippy.
had you revealed at the beginning that you had asked slippy and that you are, "happy to go with whatever mechanism you finalise" we would not have wasted our time.
Keeps it oh so simple, and anyone in the hunt come the final events will have an idea of what they need to do to nab the POTF title.
If you cash in any event you've done well and still finished in about the top 10% of the field, regardless of its size.
If you FT then you've done even better, and obviously if you win then vwp and you get max points.
Keep it simple!
For example:
Win = Gold Medal = 12 points
Final Table = Silver Medal = 6 points
Cash = Bronze Medal = 3 points
Winner is player with the most points, in the event of a tie then countback rule on number of Gold Medals.
@ Phantom: Promotions should serve 2 purposes.
a) To be inclusive of recreationals
Slips initial points system the more I think about is ideal - it's inclusive of Rec's but still encourages volume since obviously the more tournaments you play the more likely you'll have a chance of a top 10 finish.
I still believe a simple points system is the best way forward (and to be honest, there have not been too many dissenters about that being the case for my Main/Mini Leaderboard thread which was - to some degree - a collaborative forum effort anyway). I'm certainly prepared to amend the allocation of points, and the number of runners who are awarded points.
Personally, I am opposed to giving a point to everyone who cashes, if for no other reason than it increases the overall size of the leaderboard greatly and makes everything a lot more cluttered. However, as I have said before, this is not a dictatorship, and no thread on the forum of this nature has its democratic doors closed to good ideas. This one is no different. If that is genuinely what the majority of people who post here think, I will do it. In the interests of clarity, my vote is for a straight points system, for an as yet unspecified number of players. I've made that fairly clear for a while.
The medal system is interesting: it is effectively the same as distributing points. I'm not sure about having 2nd place and 6th place equate to the same reward - that feels off to me. But no idea is bulletproof, and no system will ever be truly 100% inclusive, no matter how long we sit here and debate it. The object here is to devise something that is (on balance) pretty fair, has the fewest amount of pot holes, and is simple to follow.
Some people have thrown spanners into the mix because my system (as well as those suggested by others) favours volume. Well, how else are we meant to arrive at the best player of the series? Sure, it could be put to a public vote (as has been mentioned) but then it lacks any sense of objectivity and it really is just a popularity contest.
The Player of the Festival should be someone who puts in the hours, and if that means the winner has a bigger bankroll than you or I, then so be it, but 18 of the 33 events on the schedule have a buy-in of £11 or less, and 10 of those are £5.50 or less, so it certainly is not for the lack of variable entries on offer. If you're a low-stakes player and you final table a few of those, you're going to be in with a great chance of the ultimate prize.
It should be noted as well that the UKOPS events begin at 2pm every day. Saturday and Sunday (Day One and Two) are fine for me, but I'm back to work on Monday, and unable to play at least two of the three warm-up events on those days. I'm sure a lot of players will be in a similar position. I don't know how this will affect the rec/reg balance, but it may well be a good opportunity for a 'little guy' to sneak through.
This was not supposed to be a dissertation, so I'm going to go boil the kettle...
If you really wanted to account for that possibility you could always say if anyone is within 5 points from 1st place that you then look back at cashes. But that's getting a bit too complicated and un-neccessary!
I do disagree regarding not giving points to all that cash though, purely because to some extent it evens out the issue of field size a little. In almost every tournament the top 10% will cash whether that is 20 runners in a 200 runner field, 5 runners in a 50 runner field or 100 in a 1000 runner field........ you get the idea
Effectively by picking a nominal number such as top 20 to score points, you're effectively saying that 20th in a 200 runner field is the same as 20th in an 800 runner field, which we all know it isn't.