In Response to Re: UKOPS XVII is here - with a £5,000 LEADERBOARD : Why would this make it better? As you say, its the same. Posted by hhyftrftdr
hello harry
take your favourite sport, how are points awarded?
if it is premier league footie, imagine that each game was 13 points for a draw and 39 points for a win. it becomes clunky. consider calculating where your team stands, e.g. grasping quickly how many wins spurs need nearing the season end, when leicester's lead is 113 points.
the principle is that the base unit is always one point. thereafter the points awarded is a multiple. if the scoring requires awarding say 2.5 points the base unit is doubled to eradicate the decimal point. in which case, 1 and 2.5 points becomes 2 and 5 points for simplicity. where no decimal point occurs there is no need to double the points in the scoring system.
rugby is an example of this doubling. 2 points for a conversion, 3 points for a kick, 5 points for a try. the relationship between the scores is maintained. it would be clunky to have 1, 1.5 and 2.5 points (incidentally, for me it would be much better for rugby to adopt a 1, 1, 3 points system).
ukops points scale is fine. i am not suggesting any change in how the points relate to each other. i am simply pointing out that as every award (there are 8 different ones) is divisible by 5 it is unnecessarily clunky. the relationship between awards can be maintained by using 1 point as the base unit, not 5.
the benefit is people can see more easily what it means to play and win one more tournament. a small tweak, but meaningful.
In Response to Re: UKOPS XVII is here - with a £5,000 LEADERBOARD : hello harry take your favourite sport, how are points awarded? if it is premier league footie, imagine that each game was 13 points for a draw and 39 points for a win. it becomes clunky. consider calculating where your team stands, e.g. grasping quickly how many wins spurs need nearing the season end, when leicester's lead is 113 points. the principle is that the base unit is always one point. thereafter the points awarded is a multiple. if the scoring requires awarding say 2.5 points the base unit is doubled to eradicate the decimal point. in which case, 1 and 2.5 points becomes 2 and 5 points for simplicity. where no decimal point occurs there is no need to double the points in the scoring system. rugby is an example of this doubling. 2 points for a conversion, 3 points for a kick, 5 points for a try. the relationship between the scores is maintained. it would be clunky to have 1, 1.5 and 2.5 points (incidentally, for me it would be much better for rugby to adopt a 1, 1, 3 points system). ukops points scale is fine. i am not suggesting any change in how the points relate to each other. i am simply pointing out that as every award (there are 8 different ones) is divisible by 5 it is unnecessarily clunky. the relationship between awards can be maintained by using 1 point as the base unit, not 5. the benefit is people can see more easily what it means to play and win one more tournament. a small tweak, but meaningful. Posted by aussie09
Thankfully this is a poker site, where players have to be at least 18 yrs old to participate, and generally speaking will at least have a decent grasp of maths. So the leaderboard points system is absolutely fine as it is.
Your system would be great if we wanted to simplify stuff down to toddler or primary school level though.
In Response to Re: UKOPS XVII is here - with a £5,000 LEADERBOARD : Thankfully this is a poker site, where players have to be at least 18 yrs old to participate, and generally speaking will at least have a decent grasp of maths. So the leaderboard points system is absolutely fine as it is. Your system would be great if we wanted to simplify stuff down to toddler or primary school level though. Posted by hhyftrftdr
In Response to Re: UKOPS XVII is here - with a £5,000 LEADERBOARD : you are clearly a people person, harry. Posted by aussie09
Have you considered that Sky might have used this leaderboard points system so the figures are embellished to a degree? So you're getting 50 points for the win and still 5 points just for making the money, instead of 10 and 1 respectively.
It's a leaderboard, the first of its kind for UKOPs, and maybe they feel it looks better if people have large points totals and are chasing 50 points every time they enter an event.
Ultimately its the same, but maybe it looks a bit more all singing all dancing, when people come to check their progress (and that of their friends), if people are racking up larger totals.
I personally think the points system should only be in decimals, working in multiples of pi. Everyone knows their pi times table dont they? Posted by gazza127
Comments
take your favourite sport, how are points awarded?
if it is premier league footie, imagine that each game was 13 points for a draw and 39 points for a win. it becomes clunky. consider calculating where your team stands, e.g. grasping quickly how many wins spurs need nearing the season end, when leicester's lead is 113 points.
the principle is that the base unit is always one point. thereafter the points awarded is a multiple. if the scoring requires awarding say 2.5 points the base unit is doubled to eradicate the decimal point. in which case, 1 and 2.5 points becomes 2 and 5 points for simplicity. where no decimal point occurs there is no need to double the points in the scoring system.
rugby is an example of this doubling. 2 points for a conversion, 3 points for a kick, 5 points for a try. the relationship between the scores is maintained. it would be clunky to have 1, 1.5 and 2.5 points (incidentally, for me it would be much better for rugby to adopt a 1, 1, 3 points system).
ukops points scale is fine. i am not suggesting any change in how the points relate to each other. i am simply pointing out that as every award (there are 8 different ones) is divisible by 5 it is unnecessarily clunky. the relationship between awards can be maintained by using 1 point as the base unit, not 5.
the benefit is people can see more easily what it means to play and win one more tournament. a small tweak, but meaningful.