I've read the whole of this thread and I've been through all of this before when we ran similar weeks on Black Belt.
I think the most important thing is that a player joining halfway still thinks it's worth trying and the second most important is that it's really easy to explain.
How about a freeroll is played for the prize and to get into the freeroll you have to cash twice in any event throughout UKOPS?
Obviously you could argue that someone may cash really early in two and not bother playing again but that won't effect too many. For most players you are in contention until the third last event and for some the 2nd last and it's super easy to explain.
You could make the freeroll a live thing at DTD and give some other prizes or hold it online.
the best i can suggest is 1st 10 points 2ns 8 points 3rd 6 points 4th 5 points 5th 4 points 6th 3 points 7th - 10th 2 points cash 1 point no tiers, no bonus points, small range, award cashers, smooth intervals in the range. Posted by aussie09
this makes a lot of sense!
(rather than everyone calculating where the points bubble is at the end of late reg)
I've read the whole of this thread and I've been through all of this before when we ran similar weeks on Black Belt. I think the most important thing is that a player joining halfway still thinks it's worth trying and the second most important is that it's really easy to explain. How about a freeroll is played for the prize and to get into the freeroll you have to cash twice in any event throughout UKOPS? Obviously you could argue that someone may cash really early in two and not bother playing again but that won't effect too many. For most players you are in contention until the third last event and for some the 2nd last and it's super easy to explain. You could make the freeroll a live thing at DTD and give some other prizes or hold it online. Sorry to throw a spanner in the works late on. Posted by NChanning
So Slipwater's system works perfectly. You need to run deep. You need several results. multi min cashing is not good enough. join half way and take a couple down and you are there.
ps we treat all new posters this way. suggest a bag of spanners is a good idea and you'll hear what we think about it.
slippy hold firm. forget the 5% b*llocks. This is all about running deep/winning don't dilute it.
slippy hold firm... don't get all oxymoronic on me, Gelders! It's good to have Neil's input on the thread - I feel as though I've made it now. Posted by Slipwater
wow
an oxymoron i didn't even realise.
#sigh as they'd say on Twitter, wonder what they say on instagram?
Guess i should post a picture on instagram with me holding up two boards. One white one saying yes and a black one saying no but as i don't do instagram i think I'll leave it there. ps if you Twitter you tweet what the **** do you say you do if you instagram? Posted by GELDY
All right. The top 5% of runners are awarded points. The top ten players are (example numbers only) awarded the following: 25 – 22 – 19 – 17 – 15 – 13 – 10 – 8 – 6 – 4 …and the remainder gets 1 point. Better? Posted by Slipwater
It still favours those that can afford the high roller and other high stakes low field events though since you've got way more chance of a top 10 finish. Suppose you finish 3rd in the high roller for 19 points - all you need then is possibly 1 other top 10 finish (say a 6th place) - giving a total of 32 points and your in with a decent chance. Getting 2 top 10's only playing high runner events is always going to be tough and require a lot of play well/run well.
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.
I attempted to run a league for one of the UKOPS a while ago, the fact that I've never done it again should tell you all you need to know about how impossible it is to find a points system that everybody will be happy with and that no-one will moan about.
I attempted to run a league for one of the UKOPS a while ago, the fact that I've never done it again should tell you all you need to know about how impossible it is to find a points system that everybody will be happy with and that no-one will moan about. Posted by Slykllist
FWIW - I tried to ensure that points awarded were reflective of field size and % of the field beaten in an effort to ensure that all tournament cashes were of an equal worth regardless of buy in.
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.
I've read the whole of this thread and I've been through all of this before when we ran similar weeks on Black Belt. I think the most important thing is that a player joining halfway still thinks it's worth trying and the second most important is that it's really easy to explain. How about a freeroll is played for the prize and to get into the freeroll you have to cash twice in any event throughout UKOPS? Obviously you could argue that someone may cash really early in two and not bother playing again but that won't effect too many. For most players you are in contention until the third last event and for some the 2nd last and it's super easy to explain. You could make the freeroll a live thing at DTD and give some other prizes or hold it online. Sorry to throw a spanner in the works late on. Posted by NChanning
Although I can see the merit in doing this in that it keeps everybody interested right to the very end of the festival, what it doesn't do is find the best player of the festival, it only finds the player who played/ran best in that particular freeroll.
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.
All right. The top 5% of runners are awarded points. The top ten players are (example numbers only) awarded the following: 25 – 22 – 19 – 17 – 15 – 13 – 10 – 8 – 6 – 4 …and the remainder gets 1 point. Better? Posted by Slipwater
I like this but with slight changes...
25-22-19-17-15-13-10-10-8-6-4 ... but then 2 points for 11-20th (providing the tournament pays more than 20) and 1 point for all other cashers.
It may well give the HR players a slight advantage because of the small field, but at the end of the day it's a £500+ buy in and the toughest field of the week so I think that's fair enough. Don't forget the HR event is just 1 of (33 events?) so the advantage is minimal.
If Sky are offering a free UKPC seat i would fully expect them to promote this every which way possible to attract volume.
Player of the festival should be just that - the best overall player taking into consideration all qualifying events.
Maybe given the range of opinions on fairness of points systems - why not just publish the results - have a period of nominations and then have a vote or committee selection of some kind. I would recommend that forum/twitter input is limited to the nominations and the votes with sky approving a shortlist inbetween those steps?
Some people might think cashing in 10 events is best
some people might think winning 2 main events is best
some people might think 4 FTs in any event is best
All are quite possible and impressive in their own right and if achieved would be worthy nominations and the subjective element would be decided by the voting. There would be arguements sure but at least people would have the right to a vote. Its not as if there arent arguements now!
I thought we had this locked down a couple of days ago with sky themselves favouring Slips approach.
But seeing as everyone else is throwing in their views...
Complete left field here, but the simplest scheme I can think of is to award Gold/Silver/Bronze medals
Gold = Win
Silver = FT
Bronze = Cash
Where overall winner is based on no of golds and only if tied do you count silver and then bronze as they do in the olympics?
That way you have to win at least one event to be player of the festival - which sounds good to me.
There may be a situation where only 1 player gets more than one win - if they are they only one would anyone begrudge them the title?
If, as-is likely there is a tie with 33 golds, or say 2 double golds, then having FTs and then cashes count as tie-breakers would also seem fair to me.
I know it skews 100% toward winning but is that such a bad thing? Or do we want to reward consistently pretty good?
You could obviously convert to points e.g. gold=5, silver=3, bronze=1 and tally up the points as an alternative which would give people more of a chance of catching up/overtaking leaders in the last few events.
Going back to my previous post we may all have our own preconception of what sort of results constitue the most deserved winner - but they may not pan out in reality - so we are back to the nominations + vote idea.
In nominating everyone could use their favourite scoring scheme to justify their selection - or we could just have a popularity contest!
Comments
All right.
The top 5% of runners are awarded points.
The top ten players are (example numbers only) awarded the following:
25 – 22 – 19 – 17 – 15 – 13 – 10 – 8 – 6 – 4
…and the remainder gets 1 point.
Better?
the best i can suggest is
1st 10 points
2ns 8 points
3rd 6 points
4th 5 points
5th 4 points
6th 3 points
7th - 10th 2 points
cash 1 point
no tiers, no bonus points, small range, award cashers, smooth intervals in the range.
I think the most important thing is that a player joining halfway still thinks it's worth trying and the second most important is that it's really easy to explain.
How about a freeroll is played for the prize and to get into the freeroll you have to cash twice in any event throughout UKOPS?
Obviously you could argue that someone may cash really early in two and not bother playing again but that won't effect too many. For most players you are in contention until the third last event and for some the 2nd last and it's super easy to explain.
You could make the freeroll a live thing at DTD and give some other prizes or hold it online.
Sorry to throw a spanner in the works late on.
It's good to have Neil's input on the thread - I feel as though I've made it now.
Though this is open for misinterpretation.
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.