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
Gauging the temperature of the room, the big sticking point seems to be points for cashing. Some are for; others are against. Whichever way I go, it's inevitable that those in the other camp will be disappointed... unless I can find some kind of unique middle-ground.
So get your thoughts in soon... because there will be a system and formula in place for the UKOPS Player of the Festival on Saturday morning.
How it will look is (at least in part) up to you.
On a cautionary note, "middle ground" can be the worst of all world's, as you upset both ends of the spectrum of views.
Anyway, good luck, & I hope that whatever you decide is accepted with good grace by all, you are in a horrible spot here.
I wll have nothing against a winner that grinds every single UKOPS game either as long as they have multiple top 10 finishes and seem deserving of. What I do have a problem with is seeing a REC make 3 final tables out of say 7/8 events they play and yet finish behind someone that has just the 1 FT but multiple cashes.
Promotions should encourage volume but they also should give REC's chances to win prizes too. If a REC wins a prize they are likely going to talk about sky poker with their friends and potentially get new customers. If REC's never win anything they are just going to bash sky off and not recommend anyone in joining. Obviously it can't all just favour REC's because REG's give sky a lot of rake and they are just as important. Some promotions just favour one or the other but I believe this promotion has the ability to be inclusive of both. REG's still gain an advantage because a) they are generally better players and b) more events = more chance of winning.
Phantom does make what seems like a valid point for awarding cashes in that it encourages participation because you have more of a chance of making the leaderboard and can compete with other people you know but to be honest if I had 4 cashes and 4 points I wouldn't really be bothered about who I was ahead of anyway. I'd be way down in the leaderboard anyway.
So.. a points system could look like this:
1st = 6 pts
There are some hypothetical but unlikely scenarios that could occur: You could have 3 5th/6th place finishes and 7 7-10 place finishes. Which would be very deserving of a winner even if you did play all events (plus it would soften the blow of being so consistent yet so far from a "big score") and would "only" gain 15 points. Some-one else may play all events and finish 4th in 4 of them and would get 16 points. IMO the first person should be the winner here but the actual winner would be almost as deserving and so even in this hypothetical unlikely scenario it wouldn't be the end of the world.
In the event of any tie on points scored, it could go to whoever got the highest unique place finish out of them. If that's a tie we could look at all other events and add up the points. Tie breakers haven't been mentioned elsewhere but it's important to include them!
Actually just noticed another potential tiny problem in that the High roller may not award cashes below 10th and 7-th-10th place may not cash but that's not much of a problem we could still award them 2 pts for finishing 7th to 10th.
No, my scenario might not happen but variations of it could. If it's easy to think up a scenario where the winner would be undeserving then there is obviously a major flaw with that points system. 10-12 pts for 1st and 1 for cashing although OK doesn't seem to really award cashing enough for it to have any effect. Therefore, you have to question is it worth the effort of Slip to include every cash if it's largely meaningless
What do you think of the two tier system I proposed? I've tried to think of scenarios where you would have a deserving winner miss out but I can't really think of many. The spread seems OK to me - 3 top 10 finishes equivalent to 1 1st place seems fair. A 5th and 6th place equivallent to a win again also seems fair. 3 2nd place finishes = 15 pts. 3 3rd or 4th place finishes and a 5th place finish = 15 pts. Both these being equal in pts seems fair.
It also seems perfect for encouraging competition between people - cashing definitely has merit here and you can cash 6 times and be on the same pts as a single winner. If you win an event every cash is going to be helpful in increasing your total score. Again, hugely promoting volume. You can't just get a FT and top ten and expect to win it and stop playing- you still need to make sure you gain an extra 4 points from cashing 4 times to give you every chance. By the last event you would have people needing just a cash to win and others needing a FT or top 10 finish - lots of people will still be within a chance.
I'm not an expert on statistical analysis but I'm reasonably competent at it and it was by far and away my strongest maths aspect when doing Maths at Uni!! Like I said the only problem seems to be for Slip in working it out. But IF we are going to include cashes then this is IMO the only way to do it to make it worthwhile. Otherwise there's just no point in including them.
Also there were other motives for my system. 1) It awards cashing enough to be worthwhile as a possible determinant of the winner (when otherwise points would be tied) which I think is important.
2) The point spread is such that it makes it more fun to follow and encourages continued volume. With a 2nd and a 5th place that's only 8 points on my suggested leaderboard. Gaining an extra 4 points for cashing in 4 events is going to be important since 12 points *may* be enough to win it whereas 8 definitely won't be.
Like I said I don't have a big problem with not awarding cashes although I do prefer it - I think the winner will still be fair with a decent points spread between 1st and 10th. Thus if slip thinks it's too complicated to try and do a two tier system I'm more than happy with that. I'm just suggesting my idea for everyone that thinks cashes should be awarded since I think it's the only way to make awarding cashes worthwhile and fair.
You mentioned 10/12 pts for first.
This is the best points spread I can think off the top of my head. But it favours too much those that can afford to play every event. Player A might come 4th, 5th and 6th in 3 out of 6 events they play and get 15 points. Player B plays all 33 events and come 2nd in one event and have 8 cashes for 16 points. IMO player A deserves it more.
Looking at your Player A vs B scenario:
I think I'm done now tho with trying to discuss it haha! I'll leave it up to slip :P
I think suppose you did include cashing you'd still only want to include top 50 at most IMO.
Hopefully.
Well played, sir!
It's been raised that the Player of the Festival should be one that puts in the volume, and I agree with that. What about an initial criteria for qualification of having to play either:
a) a minimum of three of the four days
b) a minimum of 17 of the 33 events
It eliminates the chance of someone binking three tournaments and walking away... but - of course - it's also tailored towards the higher rollers.
I do like the points system I have for the Main/Mini Leaderboard, and I think the names at and near the top have shown that it actually does work (certainly over the course of a year). Admittedly, over four days the spread is too wide...
Do behave.