fine to have a hurdle but i wouldn't make it too onerous 8 of the games maybe ie main and mini every day is ok every mtt in a day is ok unfair to rule out peeps who cannot play more than 2 days if they're willing to grind when they can. Posted by GELDY
Yeah, I agree. I was just attempting to satisfy the faction that believes in volume /> bink.
In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival : Yeah, I agree. I was just attempting to satisfy the faction that believes in volume /> bink. Posted by Slipwater
6 even - ie 2 a day for 3 days to enable mobile device players to compete
fine to have a hurdle but i wouldn't make it too onerous 8 of the games maybe ie main and mini every day is ok every mtt in a day is ok unfair to rule out peeps who cannot play more than 2 days if they're willing to grind when they can. Posted by GELDY
Now, you guys have approximately three hours to get your thoughts in for the UKOPS Leaderboard, after which there shall be no more idle discussion about it.
Is there really need to have a minimum of X events played? I mean it's going to be pretty darn impossible to win it playing only 3/4 events anyway without the need to exclude them entirely. Sky said in another thread recently that 1 table REC's are within the majority and that's why they don't have breaks in some satellites. So a 1 tabling REC that can play every day would only be able to play 4 events (if they ran deep in each) There might be another REC that is working 3/4 days and can only play the one day. Most REC's/semi reg's can't play more than 4 tables and there are only 4/5 events each day £11 or less that they might be able to afford so again for these players they would be excluded if they could only play 1 day and only manage 4 events.
But if they played that day and ended up doing really well in all 4 events, is it really fair they are excluded?
If the reason for this idea is to get the high stakes REG's to play more than just the high roller and main events then maybe suggest that for those that play the high roller they need to play a minimum of 6-8 events. But even that I don't see it as necessary enough to add just an extra condition that isn't needed.
Under my tier system of 6 events - it would promote people playing at least 6 events for maximum chance whilst not excluding the odd REC player that may only be able to play 4.
Also I've just got around to watching the WSOP final table on youtube and how they were talking about how great Mark Newhouse achievment is to finish 9th in 2 consecutive years. Field sizes do matter a lot - finishing 6th twice in really large field tournaments is much better than finishing 1st. I'm not suggesting any change though because it would end up being too complicated probably but just thought it was interesting to point out.
Also I've just got around to watching the WSOP final table on youtube and how they were talking about how great Mark Newhouse achievment is to finish 9th in 2 consecutive years. Field sizes do matter a lot - finishing 6th twice in really large field tournaments is much better than finishing 1st. I'm not suggesting any change though because it would end up being too complicated probably but just thought it was interesting to point out. Posted by F_Ivanovic
That's subjective - ask Mark Newhouse whether he would trade his 2x9's for a 1st and an early bust-out
In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival : That's subjective - ask Mark Newhouse whether he would trade his 2x9's for a 1st and an early bust-out I know what I would rather have. Posted by Phantom66
Of course he would rather have a 1st - it's a WSOP bracelet and a lot more money!! I'd rather win an event than come 4th in the same event 3 times. But I know the latter is way more impressive especially if it's a really big field. Shows a lot more consistency.
In fact to finish 9th twice is something like a 1 in 500,000. To win a 22 and 34 field event twice is a 1 in 750ish. (that's what Doyle Brunson did) To do what Stu Ungar did and win it twice in ~ 75 runners is 1 in 5500. He won it a 3rd time although much later on but that was 1 in 1.7million... so yeah, that seems a better achievment than Mark Newhouse. But these are all more subjective opinions when odds run a lot closer. But some things are pretty clear cut and 2 9 places /> 1 win.
let's not forget that the original spec suggested both size of field and buyin were taken into account. a number of peeps highlighted that there is a rough -ve correlation between the two and this might be justification to avoid having two sets of offsetting metrics and just leave it based on finishing position.
if you want to reopen having a field size metric then we'd also need a buy-in weighting as well. i think we are running out of time to develop all that and road test it enough to get peeps happy with it.
also ivan in your Newhouse example let's not ignore field strength, which is getting stronger as the numbers remaining decline. you can't really use a standard 50:50 in a skill based game. Maybe he starts the tourny as a 80:20, but by the time he is on the FT he is only a 30:70.
Thank you very much to everyone who has participated in this thread and offered opinions and theories and suggestions. Special mention really should go to Ivan and Phantom who (obviously) spent a lot of time and effort developing their ideas after the initial furore subsided, and managed to get their thoughts down in a usually easy-to-understand manner. The knowledge they both have when it comes to the maths of poker far exceeds my own, and many of the points they have raised have been compelling.
I knew when I took on this role it was going to be impossible to please everyone - such is the nature of the beast - and I've never been of the opinion that I should go out of my way to do so either. It's a pointless task and a thankless exercise, because not only will I never find that one amazing idea that meets the approval of everyone, but by virtue of diluting my own thoughts I invariably end up pleasing nobody. I figure it's better to pick a corner and be firm with it - right or wrong - than it is to try to appease the masses.
I have decided to go with a linear points system - with the noted amendment - which differs substantially from my initial projection and more closely resembles an amalgam of that of a couple of other posters.
1st - 12 points 2nd - 10 points 3rd - 8 points 4th - 7 points 5th - 6 points 6th - 5 points 7th - 4 points 8th - 3 points 9th - 2 points The remaining players in the top 5% of the field will each receive 1 point.
This means, for example, if 400 players enter the tournament, 20 players will receive points. If 401 players enter the tournament, the 5% is rounded up, and 21 players will receive points. A minimum of 10 players will always receive points, regardless of field size.
And in case anyone was wondering, I quickly got rid of the latter idea of a minimum requirement for x number of tournament entries, as this soon felt counter productive to the whole process and ultimately wasn't what I was looking for.
There were a number of valid points raised by players such as Slykllist which - contrary to my initial reluctance to include cashes - had some valid points about numbers, etc, so although I still believe a full list of cashers will look cluttered, clumsy, and may potentially skew the overall figures, I am prepared to accept the top 5% (essentially half of the cash field) is a large enough sample to feel inclusive, but also small enough to be fairly concise and easy to read.
If you don't like the leaderboard system, well, you don't like it - there ain't much I can do about that - but I have read and re-read every post on this thread several times, and there isn't any way to have your cake and eat it. There will be some forum members who disagree with my system, others who may think it fits very well. But whatever your thoughts and however you slice it, everyone starts at the beginning, and anyone in the running will have to play well and be lucky to win the seat being offered by Sky.
There has been plenty of time for debate, and plenty of debate has been had, and I have gone back and forth on many points, but I have approached it with an open mind, and ended up in a different place from where I began.
The only thing left to say here is... Merry Christmas everyone, and good luck at UKOPS XII.
I will get the threads ready, and prepare for the (inevitable) backlash.
Hi Slip, I'd say I'm pretty happy with your final proposal - I like having just the 5% as opposed to cashing and think it's an improvement! Merry Christmas to you to and GL with running this over UKOPS. I call fix if you manage to win it
Comments
Do behave.
But if they played that day and ended up doing really well in all 4 events, is it really fair they are excluded?
If the reason for this idea is to get the high stakes REG's to play more than just the high roller and main events then maybe suggest that for those that play the high roller they need to play a minimum of 6-8 events. But even that I don't see it as necessary enough to add just an extra condition that isn't needed.
Under my tier system of 6 events - it would promote people playing at least 6 events for maximum chance whilst not excluding the odd REC player that may only be able to play 4.
In fact to finish 9th twice is something like a 1 in 500,000. To win a 22 and 34 field event twice is a 1 in 750ish. (that's what Doyle Brunson did) To do what Stu Ungar did and win it twice in ~ 75 runners is 1 in 5500. He won it a 3rd time although much later on but that was 1 in 1.7million... so yeah, that seems a better achievment than Mark Newhouse. But these are all more subjective opinions when odds run a lot closer. But some things are pretty clear cut and 2 9 places /> 1 win.
I knew when I took on this role it was going to be impossible to please everyone - such is the nature of the beast - and I've never been of the opinion that I should go out of my way to do so either. It's a pointless task and a thankless exercise, because not only will I never find that one amazing idea that meets the approval of everyone, but by virtue of diluting my own thoughts I invariably end up pleasing nobody. I figure it's better to pick a corner and be firm with it - right or wrong - than it is to try to appease the masses.
I have decided to go with a linear points system - with the noted amendment - which differs substantially from my initial projection and more closely resembles an amalgam of that of a couple of other posters.
1st - 12 points
2nd - 10 points
3rd - 8 points
4th - 7 points
5th - 6 points
6th - 5 points
7th - 4 points
8th - 3 points
9th - 2 points
The remaining players in the top 5% of the field will each receive 1 point.
This means, for example, if 400 players enter the tournament, 20 players will receive points.
If 401 players enter the tournament, the 5% is rounded up, and 21 players will receive points.
A minimum of 10 players will always receive points, regardless of field size.
And in case anyone was wondering, I quickly got rid of the latter idea of a minimum requirement for x number of tournament entries, as this soon felt counter productive to the whole process and ultimately wasn't what I was looking for.
There were a number of valid points raised by players such as Slykllist which - contrary to my initial reluctance to include cashes - had some valid points about numbers, etc, so although I still believe a full list of cashers will look cluttered, clumsy, and may potentially skew the overall figures, I am prepared to accept the top 5% (essentially half of the cash field) is a large enough sample to feel inclusive, but also small enough to be fairly concise and easy to read.
If you don't like the leaderboard system, well, you don't like it - there ain't much I can do about that - but I have read and re-read every post on this thread several times, and there isn't any way to have your cake and eat it. There will be some forum members who disagree with my system, others who may think it fits very well. But whatever your thoughts and however you slice it, everyone starts at the beginning, and anyone in the running will have to play well and be lucky to win the seat being offered by Sky.
There has been plenty of time for debate, and plenty of debate has been had, and I have gone back and forth on many points, but I have approached it with an open mind, and ended up in a different place from where I began.
The only thing left to say here is... Merry Christmas everyone, and good luck at UKOPS XII.
I will get the threads ready, and prepare for the (inevitable) backlash.