a tweek please to make it SIMPLE 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 PPS, The relationship between points should not be polarising. ie not 20 points to the winner. Posted by aussie09
I don't really agree with your proposal rob, or your reasoning. Surely the leader board is there to track achievements only, not to be close run. Although I agree it would add some excitement if it went to the wire, I don't think the format should be engineered to increase that likely hood.
I also don't think the credit goes where it deserves following your points allocation.
My alternative suggestion is this,
- simply use the percentage payout received (takes into account runners, and finishing position regardless of tournament type )
- use a factorial to differentiate between differing levels of UKOPS, micro = 1 mini =1.1 challenger = 1.2 side = 1.3 main = 1.4 (takes into account buy-ins)
Using this method would be very easy for sky as they have all the relevant data, and I believe it covers the criteria sky mentioned in OP.
The payout system is never really complained about so I figure, if it's good enough for allocating the cash, why not use it for the points.
Let me know if I have made any silly mistakes, cheers.
In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival : I don't really agree with your proposal rob, or your reasoning. Surely the leader board is there to track achievements only, not to be close run. Although I agree it would add some excitement if it went to the wire, I don't think the format should be engineered to increase that likely hood. I also don't think the credit goes where it deserves following your points allocation. My alternative suggestion is this, - simply use the percentage payout received (takes into account runners, and finishing position regardless of tournament type ) - use a factorial to differentiate between differing levels of UKOPS, micro = 1 mini =1.1 challenger = 1.2 side = 1.3 main = 1.4 (takes into account buy-ins) Using this method would be very easy for sky as they have all the relevant data, and I believe it covers the criteria sky mentioned in OP. The payout system is never really complained about so I figure, if it's good enough for allocating the cash, why not use it for the points. Let me know if I have made any silly mistakes, cheers. Davy Posted by david666
hi davy,
i see your point and it holds true if we are trying to establish who is the best player and nothing else. slippy does this very well. if we are trying to devise a formula that takes into account everything it would need to be quite complex, as you have illustrated.
however, the purpose is to provide an interesting competition and incentivise more play. in which case, the scheme needs to be very different.
we must avoid having the competition over after day 2. we must avoid the winner of the high roller almost certainly winning this too. remember we want people on day four to enter more tournaments. we even want the HR winner to enter the micro on day 4 too.
if you want to identify the best player then the mathematics are there already that take into account runners, buy-in, finishing position etc..it is money won. if we want to incentivise throughout we should have a system that gives everyone a chance on day four.
for example, imagine the premiership was decided by the gate receipts. man utd would have sewn it up already with newcastle and arsenal next (i guess). the premiership, instead use a points system as it means that the competition is not over until near the end of the season.
horses for courses. our race is not gate receipts, nor is it the best player in terms of winnings, it is the best player in terms of consistent high finishes across all games, and less dependant upon how much money they have.
therefafter we need it to be simple, hence my orignal post. we do not want a "duckworth-lewis" method to work out what we need to do. the 1.2, 1.4 multiple is horrific.
i am thinking that we want fred bloggs to enter on day 4 knowing that if he cashes twice and FTs once he might win. it should be easily calculated.
I understand your point rob, and on reviewing my own proposal it is flawed, but with such a great prize for the winner, I think it's more important to reward success than participation, ie weighting the point towards results.
If someone runs away with it, surely they deserve to win, regardless of the format.
Looking forward to see how they plan on doing it, it's not easy that's for sure.
I think it should be weighted in a similar (probably exactly the same) fashion as Slip's current leaderboard. I don't see how that method would result in it potentially being a 1 horse race after day one or two, or even a 5 horse race or whatever. You could absolutely brick every single comp for 2 days, and you'll still have 16 tournaments left to potentially win.
If there are 8 events every day (9 on Saturday because of the High Roller), that's 33 events and if they are all set the same as Slip's points, that's 33 chances to get 30 points (1st place), 33 chances to get 24 points (2nd place) etc etc. and chances are there are gonna be at least 25+ unique winners of the events.
So every night there's like 240 points to potentially win (270 on Sat) if you can run like that Bates fella Even with the leaderboards being top heavy, the only way someone could really run away with it early doors is if someone manages to make top 3 in maybe 5-6 events in the first 2 days, and tbf, if they do that, they probably deserve to win!
So many variables, the bigger BIs will be tougher fields, but then they'll generally be smaller fields too, is it tougher to win X soft comp with 500 runners, or Y comp with a tougher field but only 300 runners, tough to say. Just keep it simple imo, use Slip's point system for every event, regardless of BI.
If you go down that path Paul you are negating 2 of the 3 criteria which sky stated in the OP. Whatever happens, I assume it need to be scaled for buy-ins.
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!
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
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
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.
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
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.
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!
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!
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.
Comments
i see your point and it holds true if we are trying to establish who is the best player and nothing else. slippy does this very well. if we are trying to devise a formula that takes into account everything it would need to be quite complex, as you have illustrated.
however, the purpose is to provide an interesting competition and incentivise more play. in which case, the scheme needs to be very different.
we must avoid having the competition over after day 2. we must avoid the winner of the high roller almost certainly winning this too. remember we want people on day four to enter more tournaments. we even want the HR winner to enter the micro on day 4 too.
if you want to identify the best player then the mathematics are there already that take into account runners, buy-in, finishing position etc..it is money won. if we want to incentivise throughout we should have a system that gives everyone a chance on day four.
for example, imagine the premiership was decided by the gate receipts. man utd would have sewn it up already with newcastle and arsenal next (i guess). the premiership, instead use a points system as it means that the competition is not over until near the end of the season.
horses for courses. our race is not gate receipts, nor is it the best player in terms of winnings, it is the best player in terms of consistent high finishes across all games, and less dependant upon how much money they have.
therefafter we need it to be simple, hence my orignal post. we do not want a "duckworth-lewis" method to work out what we need to do. the 1.2, 1.4 multiple is horrific.
i am thinking that we want fred bloggs to enter on day 4 knowing that if he cashes twice and FTs once he might win. it should be easily calculated.
regards
rob
If someone runs away with it, surely they deserve to win, regardless of the format.
Looking forward to see how they plan on doing it, it's not easy that's for sure.
Davy
If there are 8 events every day (9 on Saturday because of the High Roller), that's 33 events and if they are all set the same as Slip's points, that's 33 chances to get 30 points (1st place), 33 chances to get 24 points (2nd place) etc etc. and chances are there are gonna be at least 25+ unique winners of the events.
So every night there's like 240 points to potentially win (270 on Sat) if you can run like that Bates fella
So many variables, the bigger BIs will be tougher fields, but then they'll generally be smaller fields too, is it tougher to win X soft comp with 500 runners, or Y comp with a tougher field but only 300 runners, tough to say. Just keep it simple imo, use Slip's point system for every event, regardless of BI.
PlacePoints13022431941651361077859310211--201
You can see from this thread how difficult it is to please all of the people all of the time!
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.
I understand the need for simplicity, but as demanded by most, it needs to be as fair as possible across all levels