In Response to Re: * * * £1,000+ guarantee leagues * * * : hi pad, as you asked i had a look at your figures and yes you are in the top 36,000. . i stopped posting jackpot updates because of being flamed too often. as i did it for fun, so we can all see who has a chance, when the fun part disappeared i stopped. i have posted a few jackpot updates to richard's and anna's show threads recently. Posted by aussie09
Ta Rob,
Whoo Hoo @ first bit! lolz. Shame about second bit. Always enjoyed following poss jackpot news.
In Response to Re: * * * £1,000+ guarantee leagues * * * : Ta Rob, Whoo Hoo @ first bit! lolz. Shame about second bit. Always enjoyed following poss jackpot news. Some inspirational players on those lists. p Posted by Glenelg
funny.
your figures are good too. as underplaying it really as i was unsure whether you wanted me to post the accurate numbers.
In Response to Re: * * * £1,000+ guarantee leagues * * * : funny. your figures are good too. as underplaying it really as i was unsure whether you wanted me to post the accurate numbers. Posted by aussie09
Prob rather not know numbers tbh. I just play for fun and have had a few nice binks which helps. Really enjoy playing and have surprised myself at how far I've progressed but realise I have a long way to go.....
TommyD would clearly be 1st if he put in the volume that Matt put in TommyD is good, but so is MattBates. There's only one way to decide this................. FIIIIGHT!!
TommyD would clearly be 1st if he put in the volume that Matt put in TommyD is good, but so is MattBates. There's only one way to decide this................. FIIIIGHT!! Posted by F_Ivanovic
Don't wanna moan, but think these show more major flaws in the points system (assuming you want to use it for something like player of the series, or anything that's designed to show the best player/results).
The ones at the top of the page (up to and including last night's £1k+ events for Dec).... StayorGo is TOP of the leaderboard for winners with a very very impressive 4 wins, 10 FTs and 14 cashes, yet doesn't even make the top 10 table for points.
As Ivan said, the best players often take risks pre-bubble to get a stack and give themselves the best chance of FT/winning, that's why wins/FTs have to outweigh just cashing a fair bit.
3rd place in the points table has 0 wins, 1 FT and 22 cashes and yet StayorGo can't even make the top 10 with 4 wins an 10 FTs! It's clear to see surely that the latter is far more impressive. Same goes for PhilAny2Q, he has the joint most FTs and twice as many wins as anyone else (4x as many as most) and still a decent number of cashes... I don't get how he isn't higher.
Don't wanna moan, but think these show more major flaws in the points system (assuming you want to use it for something like player of the series, or anything that's designed to show the best player/results). The ones at the top of the page (up to and including last night's £1k+ events for Dec).... StayorGo is TOP of the leaderboard for winners with a very very impressive 4 wins, 10 FTs and 14 cashes, yet doesn't even make the top 10 table for points. As Ivan said, the best players often take risks pre-bubble to get a stack and give themselves the best chance of FT/winning, that's why wins/FTs have to outweigh just cashing a fair bit. 3rd place in the points table has 0 wins, 1 FT and 22 cashes and yet StayorGo can't even make the top 10 with 4 wins an 10 FTs! It's clear to see surely that the latter is far more impressive. Same goes for PhilAny2Q, he has the joint most FTs and twice as many wins as anyone else (4x as many as most) and still a decent number of cashes... I don't get how he isn't higher. Posted by Lambert180
hi paul,
it's good that you're not moaning.
these figures are fine. it is a judgement issue on one aspect alone, which is points. it doesn't matter whether your judgement is different. these are the figures.
these are £1k+ games with a average field of 300/400, consider how much better someone is coming first is compared to FT and cashing.
if you want a table that gives you a picture of what you want simply make one up.
In Response to Re: * * * £1k+ leagues * * * : hi paul, it's good that you're not moaning. these figures are fine. it is a judgement issue on one aspect alone, which is points. it doesn't matter whether your judgement is different. these are the figures. these are £1k+ games with a average field of 300/400, consider how much better someone is coming first is compared to FT and cashing. if you want a table that gives you a picture of what you want simply make one up. rob Posted by aussie09
I think I just mistunderstood the thread, I assumed it was to get some real data so you could display your scoring system to see if it was better or worse (obviously that's very subjective) than the one Slip wanted to use for UKOPS. So I was just saying I wouldn't like this kind of points distrubution for something like that, especially if there's a prize on the line, but obviously all the tables in terms of actual results are great.
RE: the bolded bit... if they're doing it consistently then the person winning them is usually gonna be signifiacntly better. The best MTT players tend to have fairly low ITM %s because mincashing isn't how you make money, it's all about top 3 finishes and that involves sacrificing some mincashes and even some FTs to give yourself the best chance of winning. Mincashing isn't really that hard, about 10% of people do it every comp and if someone has an 'i wanna mincash at any cost' mentality then it's easy to get ITM probably 25%+ but they'll very rarely ever win one.
hi paul. it is easy to pick one comparison with minimal info and conclude this or that. i havent time now but will demonstrate tomorrow the sense. whatever your formula is it will appear flawed when using anecodotal evidence. but as i said ,it doesnt matter, its just a judgement call.
My system gives points according to how much the players name is worth in scrabble. Has as much validity as some of your rankings aussie. Nice work and that but that points table dont make much sense, innit. Posted by TeddyBloat
if you wish to identify your "best player" the considerations are really straightforward. if you want to find out who the player who wins the most tournaments then refer to the "winners" table. likewise, the one who wins the most money see the "returns" table, and the players who make the biggest profit, take the most bounties or bubble the most they each have a table. my personal choice of these is either profit or winnings.
however, the quest to identify the best player is complicated when you poll several games with different field sizes and buy-ins. this is the only time when a points system is of any value.
the choice of points is the key. the scoring system i use for field sizes averaging over 100 players and with a number of events over 100.
win
10 points
final table
6 points
cash
3 points
bubble
2 points
top quarter
1 point
i can measure and score other elements but to identify the "best player" in a month (300 games) or a year (3,600 games) this is sufficiently accurate whilst remaining simple.
the scale of points is important. for my league, i consider that someone finishing in the top quarter is the starting unit to measure. thereafter, cashing is three times as good as a top quarter finish. a final table finish is twice as good as cashing. in an average 100+ runner game, the difference between FT and winning is fine too.
i am readily able to debate the points. the funny thing is that it doesn't matter as it is only your judgement call versus mine and neither will be proved right or wrong.
for me, this points scale remains the best scale to determine the best player in a mixed buy-in, mixed field size, multiple event race.
regards rob
ps on a different thread for ukops, i suggested a different points range as there are fewer games (33) and in response to the brief that it should motivate volume play throughout. 1st 10 points, 2nd 8 points, 3rd 6 points, 4th 5 points, 5th 4 points, 6th 3 points, 7th - 10th 2 points and cash 1 point. fewer games means that more elements are measured to discriminate between performances to determine the "best" player.
Personally I don't see how FT can be deemed only twice as good as cashing. I think FT should warrant at least 4 (and maybe up to 6x) as much as cashing and I imagine most people would agree (although field size is OFC a factor. Less than 100 runners and it seems fair to award cashing 3 and FT 6 but more than 200 runners which a lot of main and mini events are then a FT should definitely be 4x more than a cash. Also, no distinction for FT finishing place either.
I don't think a larger sample size cancels out these factors either - sure, the better players are at the top anyway but that's mostly cause they've played a lot of games and all have plenty of FT's wins - but you can't really distinguish between them well since cashing is scored too highly and thus amount of games is a large factor!
I get that you want it simple although confused how working out the top quarter in each game for 1 pt could be simple?! :P
Personally (trying to still keep it still fairly simple) I'd go something like: (assuming 100+ runner fields)
1st = 12 pts
2nd/3rd = 9 pts
FT = 6 pts
7th-10th = 4 pts
10th - 20th = 2 pts
Cash or bubble = 1 pt
I think in terms of spread it works out better. FT is 6x better than a min-cash -reasonable. But only 3x better than a 10th-20th and slightly less than 2x better than 7th-10th.
In Response to Re: * * * £1,000+ guarantee leagues * * * : thanks greg. 37,000 players so far in 2014. i am running something at the moment as i am interested in seeing who are the top 10 players over the last 5 years. Posted by aussie09
In Response to Re: * * * £1k+ leagues * * * : Sadly, no, not you, or even GaryQQQ. The honour surely must go to the player with this screen-name...... zzzzzzzzzz Posted by Tikay10
Too many letters surely? ;-) Oil get moi coat.........
At last an explanation of the points system Personally I don't see how FT can be deemed only twice as good as cashing. I think FT should warrant at least 4 (and maybe up to 6x) as much as cashing and I imagine most people would agree (although field size is OFC a factor. Less than 100 runners and it seems fair to award cashing 3 and FT 6 but more than 200 runners which a lot of main and mini events are then a FT should definitely be 4x more than a cash. Also, no distinction for FT finishing place either. I don't think a larger sample size cancels out these factors either - sure, the better players are at the top anyway but that's mostly cause they've played a lot of games and all have plenty of FT's wins - but you can't really distinguish between them well since cashing is scored too highly and thus amount of games is a large factor! I get that you want it simple although confused how working out the top quarter in each game for 1 pt could be simple?! :P Personally (trying to still keep it still fairly simple) I'd go something like: (assuming 100+ runner fields) 1st = 12 pts 2nd/3rd = 9 pts FT = 6 pts 7th-10th = 4 pts 10th - 20th = 2 pts Cash or bubble = 1 pt I think in terms of spread it works out better. FT is 6x better than a min-cash -reasonable. But only 3x better than a 10th-20th and slightly less than 2x better than 7th-10th. Posted by F_Ivanovic
hi ivan.
i acknowledge that yours is a fine scale. mine is too.
there are 300 games a month and 3,000 a year. the average field size is 200. 11% of the field cash, 2.7% final table. as a mathematician you will know that yours, although fine, is unnecessarily complex and when applied is simply over-engineered for this purpose.
there are a number of scales more complex than ours too. for this particular quest they all do the same job and identify the same best player.
Comments
and for the year to date.
a total of 36,815 players in 3,014 games
Ta Rob,
funny.
your figures are good too. as underplaying it really as i was unsure whether you wanted me to post the accurate numbers.
clubs
The ones at the top of the page (up to and including last night's £1k+ events for Dec).... StayorGo is TOP of the leaderboard for winners with a very very impressive 4 wins, 10 FTs and 14 cashes, yet doesn't even make the top 10 table for points.
As Ivan said, the best players often take risks pre-bubble to get a stack and give themselves the best chance of FT/winning, that's why wins/FTs have to outweigh just cashing a fair bit.
3rd place in the points table has 0 wins, 1 FT and 22 cashes and yet StayorGo can't even make the top 10 with 4 wins an 10 FTs! It's clear to see surely that the latter is far more impressive. Same goes for PhilAny2Q, he has the joint most FTs and twice as many wins as anyone else (4x as many as most) and still a decent number of cashes... I don't get how he isn't higher.
hi paul,
it's good that you're not moaning.
these figures are fine. it is a judgement issue on one aspect alone, which is points. it doesn't matter whether your judgement is different. these are the figures.
these are £1k+ games with a average field of 300/400, consider how much better someone is coming first is compared to FT and cashing.
if you want a table that gives you a picture of what you want simply make one up.
rob
RE: the bolded bit... if they're doing it consistently then the person winning them is usually gonna be signifiacntly better. The best MTT players tend to have fairly low ITM %s because mincashing isn't how you make money, it's all about top 3 finishes and that involves sacrificing some mincashes and even some FTs to give yourself the best chance of winning. Mincashing isn't really that hard, about 10% of people do it every comp and if someone has an 'i wanna mincash at any cost' mentality then it's easy to get ITM probably 25%+ but they'll very rarely ever win one.
hi paul. it is easy to pick one comparison with minimal info and conclude this or that. i havent time now but will demonstrate tomorrow the sense. whatever your formula is it will appear flawed when using anecodotal evidence. but as i said ,it doesnt matter, its just a judgement call.
if you wish to identify your "best player" the considerations are really straightforward. if you want to find out who the player who wins the most tournaments then refer to the "winners" table. likewise, the one who wins the most money see the "returns" table, and the players who make the biggest profit, take the most bounties or bubble the most they each have a table. my personal choice of these is either profit or winnings.
however, the quest to identify the best player is complicated when you poll several games with different field sizes and buy-ins. this is the only time when a points system is of any value.
the choice of points is the key. the scoring system i use for field sizes averaging over 100 players and with a number of events over 100.
the scale of points is important. for my league, i consider that someone finishing in the top quarter is the starting unit to measure. thereafter, cashing is three times as good as a top quarter finish. a final table finish is twice as good as cashing. in an average 100+ runner game, the difference between FT and winning is fine too.
i am readily able to debate the points. the funny thing is that it doesn't matter as it is only your judgement call versus mine and neither will be proved right or wrong.
for me, this points scale remains the best scale to determine the best player in a mixed buy-in, mixed field size, multiple event race.
regards
rob
ps on a different thread for ukops, i suggested a different points range as there are fewer games (33) and in response to the brief that it should motivate volume play throughout. 1st 10 points, 2nd 8 points, 3rd 6 points, 4th 5 points, 5th 4 points, 6th 3 points, 7th - 10th 2 points and cash 1 point. fewer games means that more elements are measured to discriminate between performances to determine the "best" player.
Personally I don't see how FT can be deemed only twice as good as cashing. I think FT should warrant at least 4 (and maybe up to 6x) as much as cashing and I imagine most people would agree (although field size is OFC a factor. Less than 100 runners and it seems fair to award cashing 3 and FT 6 but more than 200 runners which a lot of main and mini events are then a FT should definitely be 4x more than a cash. Also, no distinction for FT finishing place either.
I don't think a larger sample size cancels out these factors either - sure, the better players are at the top anyway but that's mostly cause they've played a lot of games and all have plenty of FT's wins - but you can't really distinguish between them well since cashing is scored too highly and thus amount of games is a large factor!
I get that you want it simple although confused how working out the top quarter in each game for 1 pt could be simple?! :P
Personally (trying to still keep it still fairly simple) I'd go something like: (assuming 100+ runner fields)
1st = 12 pts
I think in terms of spread it works out better. FT is 6x better than a min-cash -reasonable. But only 3x better than a 10th-20th and slightly less than 2x better than 7th-10th.
The honour surely must go to the player with this screen-name......
zzzzzzzzzz
i acknowledge that yours is a fine scale. mine is too.
there are 300 games a month and 3,000 a year. the average field size is 200. 11% of the field cash, 2.7% final table. as a mathematician you will know that yours, although fine, is unnecessarily complex and when applied is simply over-engineered for this purpose.
there are a number of scales more complex than ours too. for this particular quest they all do the same job and identify the same best player.
cheers man.
no, that's fine, pad. that's probably a variant of scrabble. omahabble.