Slipwater thank you for volunteering to run this on the forum. We are happy to go with whatever mechanism you finalise. I will contact you to sort out the final mechanism and will post some terms on the forum next week.
Thanks for everybody who contributed hopefully we can please most (if not all).
Hi Guys, Slipwater thank you for volunteering to run this on the forum. We are happy to go with whatever mechanism you finalise. I will contact you to sort out the final mechanism and will post some terms on the forum next week. Thanks for everybody who contributed hopefully we can please most (if not all). Cheers Sam Posted by Sky_SamT
sam, asking the forum was a bit of a waste of people's time.
On the back of feedback that we received following UKOPS XI, we wanted to give the forum a chance to put forward a proposed mechanism.
We are happy for Slipwater to run it along the lines of his Main/ Mini leaderboard which has been very well run all year. Obviously we couldn't utilise everybodys proposal but as I said we are happy with Slipwater's idea and I am sorry that you felt it was a waste of peoples time.
On the back of feedback that we received following UKOPS XI, we wanted to give the forum a chance to put forward a proposed mechanism. We are happy for Slipwater to run it along the lines of his Main/ Mini leaderboard which has been very well run all year. Obviously we couldn't utilise everybodys proposal but as I said we are happy with Slipwater's idea and I am sorry that you felt it was a waste of peoples time. Posted by Sky_SamT
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.
In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival : 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. Posted by aussie09
To be fair to Sky and Slippy...
1. Sky endorsed the Slippy approach part way through page 5 of this thread
2. Slippy having accepting the task of running the league table still appears open to comments on how it should work
Therefore I don't think any of the debate has been "wasted" as such
In Response to Re: UKOPS Player of the festival : To be fair to Sky and Slippy... 1. Sky endorsed the Slippy approach part way through page 5 of this thread 2. Slippy having accepting the task of running the league table still appears open to comments on how it should work Therefore I don't think any of the debate has been "wasted" as such Posted by Phantom66
I actually quite like Phantom's proposal, with the Gold/Silver/Bronze being allocated 5/3/1 points respectively. 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. Posted by hhyftrftdr
It's when you start to mix field sizes in, finishing positions in, that things start to get overly complicated. 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! Posted by hhyftrftdr
Simple is good but too simplistic and you could end up with someone who clearly should be player of the festival yet loses out due to the system chosen. Slips system (or any basic points system) at least makes sure one of the most deserving player wins it. 2 2nd place finishes are IMO clearly better than one win and 3 3rd place finishes are better than both. This isn't the olympics when the winner of an event is 99% skill. (And as such one gold is better than 2 silvers) - A lot of luck is required to win events (especially big field events) - To come 2nd in 2 events requires luck too but requires consistency and skill too. 3rd in 3 events again means even more skill and consistency.
The only slight problem with the points based system is the fact it favours those that can play in all events. But given the amount of events - especially with a lot of low stakes BI events, I think everyone at least gets a fair enough chance under this system. It's still very simple and easy to understand.
Simple is good but too simplistic and you could end up with someone who clearly should be player of the festival yet loses out due to the system chosen. Slips system (or any basic points system) at least makes sure one of the most deserving player wins it. 2 2nd place finishes are IMO clearly better than one win and 3 3rd place finishes are better than both. This isn't the olympics when the winner of an event is 99% skill. (And as such one gold is better than 2 silvers) - A lot of luck is required to win events (especially big field events) - To come 2nd in 2 events requires luck too but requires consistency and skill too. 3rd in 3 events again means even more skill and consistency. The only slight problem with the points based system is the fact it favours those that can play in all events. But given the amount of events - especially with a lot of low stakes BI events, I think everyone at least gets a fair enough chance under this system. It's still very simple and easy to understand. Posted by F_Ivanovic
Agreed on 1st bold point, Slips current one or my 5/3/1 suggestion would both have the same result in that scenario.
When you have additional break points for positions then you may get differences and 2 close contestants could benefit from one scheme over another.
Disagree on 2nd bold point. A deserving winner of the title will need Skill + Luck + Volume - the first 2 are facts of poker, the 3rd point is totally appropriate for an overall festival prize and I have no issue with that. Surely the fantastic prize itself and the bragging rights/prop bet opportunities of a leaderboard will encourage volume at all levels.
If you want to reward winners/top 3 a bit more above the rest - still fairly simple could be:
1st 10
2nd 7
3rd 5
4-6 3
cash 1
I think 1 point for cashing in whatever scheme is finalised is important to reward both the recs and players who put the volume in. Recs will like to see themselves on the leaderboard, even it is =750th with 1 pt. More volume should mean more cashes which may well be the differentiator between a few players at the head of the field with matching/similar high position finishes.
Simple is good but too simplistic and you could end up with someone who clearly should be player of the festival yet loses out due to the system chosen. Slips system (or any basic points system) at least makes sure one of the most deserving player wins it. 2 2nd place finishes are IMO clearly better than one win and 3 3rd place finishes are better than both. This isn't the olympics when the winner of an event is 99% skill. (And as such one gold is better than 2 silvers) - A lot of luck is required to win events (especially big field events) - To come 2nd in 2 events requires luck too but requires consistency and skill too. 3rd in 3 events again means even more skill and consistency. The only slight problem with the points based system is the fact it favours those that can play in all events. But given the amount of events - especially with a lot of low stakes BI events, I think everyone at least gets a fair enough chance under this system. It's still very simple and easy to understand. Posted by F_Ivanovic
OK, so you could still keep the medal idea, but instead of the winner being decided by number of gold medals, each colur of medal could be worth a nominal amount of points.
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.
I still think that's too simplistic. Finishing 2nd twice is better than finishing 6th twice but that leaderboard doesn't distinguish that. And getting 8 cashes in 33 events would equate to 24 points but 3 2nd place finishes would onl be 18 points. I think if you wanted a gold/silver/bronze idea you'd have to have 1st = Gold, 2nd/3rd = Silver, 4th-6th = Bronze.
@ Phantom: Promotions should serve 2 purposes.
a) To be inclusive of recreationals
b) To encourage volume for regs
The promotions needs to give recreationals that may only have the time and/or money to play a 4/5 events the chance of competing. Therefore although I initially thought giving points for cashing worthwhile I now don't like it. Cashing in 23 events would be fairly impressive but a REC that finishes 1st, 2nd and 3rd out of 6 events they play is clearly far more deserving of UKOPS player of the festival than a serial min-casher! And under your points system above they would only get 22 points.
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.
First of all, thanks to Sky for giving me this opportunity to produce the UKOPS Leaderboard. They have said they would back whichever system I implemented, which is a double-edged sword in all honesty, because as Uncle Ben said to Peter Parker: with great power comes great responsibility. But it's a fantastic prize on offer to the winner, so it's not something I have taken lightly, and I don't want to turn this into a pig's ear. I want it to be a success. I'm stubborn and very vocal about my opinions, but I'm not an idiot. I won't put into place something that only I like or agree with. As Phantom has said: I am absolutely still open to suggestions as to how to improve upon what I have, and I don't want anyone to feel cheated by the end result.
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...
Hi Slip, see my above post. I'm in agreement with your initial suggestion now and really don't see the need for gaining a point for cashing. As you said it increases massively your task in this but not only that but it further rewards volume too much. Not awarding cashing shouldn't affect the winner of the competition either - it might only be useful in a tied points scenario. Cashing 7 times and coming 2nd and 3rd might be better than someone that finishes 2nd twice but gets no other cashes but not by such a big amount that the other player isn't just as deserving as player of the festival.
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!
Completely agree the winner should be someone who puts in the volume, I have nothing at all against the prize going to someone who grinds every single UKOPS game, that's how it should be. Why on earth should someone be able to be called player of the series if they only play a quarter of the games.
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.
Comments
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.