You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
** JACKPOT SYNDICATE ** NEW RULES FOR NAPS AND REMOVERS FOR 2018 **
StayOrGo
Member Posts: 12,181
Hi guys, here are the NEW RULES for 2018. I will add to this/amend it throughout December. Feel free to post comments/suggestions:
NAPS:
COMBINED LIVE AND NON-LIVE: There will be MONTHLY, QUARTERLY and YEARLY TABLES, however the QUARTERLY tables will not be calculated in running. It will simply be a case of adding the three monthly totals together when the quarter ends.
LIVE ONLY: There will be QUARTERLY AND YEARLY TABLES: (QUARTERLY will not be calculated in running), just a snap shot at the end of each quarter. (Calculated by subtracting the previous quarters from the yearly total)
Quarterly tables are by calendar months JAN-MAR, APR-JUN, JUL-SEP and OCT-DEC. This is to assist those who are more interested in JUMPS/FLAT etc.
The minimum participation for all tables will be 70%.
Monthly and Quarterly tables will be based on TOTAL PROFIT, yearly tables will be based on AVERAGE PROFIT.
Players will have two months (Jan and Feb) where their yearly totals will be valid (even if less than 70%). If a player drops below 70% at any time after 28th Feb, then they will no longer be on the yearly table, but can still participate in the monthly/quarterlies. (This is to make administration easier, by effectively getting rid of the N/A's.)
MONTHLY's will be recorded for all players including those with less than 70%. At the end of the month those less than 70% will not be counted in the final MONTHLY table.
REMOVER'S:
It has been brought to my attention that the scoring system for the remover's is slightly flawed and doesn't penalise picking winners enough. (several players have lower win per selections ratio's and are lower down the table than those with higher wins/selections ratios)
Clearly the most important task of the removals process is NOT PICKING WINNERS, as such the scoring has been adjusted. Also the points for losers 20/1 or greater has been reduced to 1pt:
New scoring as follows:
Losers:
5/1 or less: 5pts
11/2-15/2: 4pts
8/1-11/1: 3pts
12/1-19/1: 2pts
20/1+: 1pt
Winners:
5/1 or less: -14pts
11/2-15/2: -16pts
8/1-11/1: -18pts
12/1-19/1 -20pts
20/1+ -22pts
70% will also be the minimum participation for your score to "count" on the leader board, although you can still participate regardless of your participation percentage.
THERE WILL BE QUARTERLY AND YEARLY REMOVER TABLES.
BALANCING SCORES AFTER NON-PARTICIPATION:
Please note, to balance removal scores if a player doesn't participate he will be given the average score for that particular day. He is allowed one of these per month and three additional ones per year upon request in advance. If they fail to participate more than once in a calendar month and haven't used their request then they will be allocated the lowest score achieved on that day.
This is to avoid big biases when the scores are really high or really low.
Any comments, feel free to post here. Nothing is final yet, until 31/12/17
Cheers,
G
P.S. The order on the removals will be based on the players 2017 finishing position for full time players then part time players, then NAPS only. This should hopefully be better aesthetically and also those that did well in 2017 as they won't need to tab across so much. NAPS will be ordered by 2017 GO-LIVE finishing position.
NAPS:
COMBINED LIVE AND NON-LIVE: There will be MONTHLY, QUARTERLY and YEARLY TABLES, however the QUARTERLY tables will not be calculated in running. It will simply be a case of adding the three monthly totals together when the quarter ends.
LIVE ONLY: There will be QUARTERLY AND YEARLY TABLES: (QUARTERLY will not be calculated in running), just a snap shot at the end of each quarter. (Calculated by subtracting the previous quarters from the yearly total)
Quarterly tables are by calendar months JAN-MAR, APR-JUN, JUL-SEP and OCT-DEC. This is to assist those who are more interested in JUMPS/FLAT etc.
The minimum participation for all tables will be 70%.
Monthly and Quarterly tables will be based on TOTAL PROFIT, yearly tables will be based on AVERAGE PROFIT.
Players will have two months (Jan and Feb) where their yearly totals will be valid (even if less than 70%). If a player drops below 70% at any time after 28th Feb, then they will no longer be on the yearly table, but can still participate in the monthly/quarterlies. (This is to make administration easier, by effectively getting rid of the N/A's.)
MONTHLY's will be recorded for all players including those with less than 70%. At the end of the month those less than 70% will not be counted in the final MONTHLY table.
REMOVER'S:
It has been brought to my attention that the scoring system for the remover's is slightly flawed and doesn't penalise picking winners enough. (several players have lower win per selections ratio's and are lower down the table than those with higher wins/selections ratios)
Clearly the most important task of the removals process is NOT PICKING WINNERS, as such the scoring has been adjusted. Also the points for losers 20/1 or greater has been reduced to 1pt:
New scoring as follows:
Losers:
5/1 or less: 5pts
11/2-15/2: 4pts
8/1-11/1: 3pts
12/1-19/1: 2pts
20/1+: 1pt
Winners:
5/1 or less: -14pts
11/2-15/2: -16pts
8/1-11/1: -18pts
12/1-19/1 -20pts
20/1+ -22pts
70% will also be the minimum participation for your score to "count" on the leader board, although you can still participate regardless of your participation percentage.
THERE WILL BE QUARTERLY AND YEARLY REMOVER TABLES.
BALANCING SCORES AFTER NON-PARTICIPATION:
Please note, to balance removal scores if a player doesn't participate he will be given the average score for that particular day. He is allowed one of these per month and three additional ones per year upon request in advance. If they fail to participate more than once in a calendar month and haven't used their request then they will be allocated the lowest score achieved on that day.
This is to avoid big biases when the scores are really high or really low.
Any comments, feel free to post here. Nothing is final yet, until 31/12/17
Cheers,
G
P.S. The order on the removals will be based on the players 2017 finishing position for full time players then part time players, then NAPS only. This should hopefully be better aesthetically and also those that did well in 2017 as they won't need to tab across so much. NAPS will be ordered by 2017 GO-LIVE finishing position.
Comments
Looks good , however despite being the one who suggested changing it and agreeing with doubling up of minus points there is still an advantage of picking low priced horses.
The effect of doubling up is the following differences
5-1 and under diff between W or L 15pts
11-2-15-2 diff 16 pts
8-1-11-1 diff 19pts
12-1 over diff 22pts
So picking short priced winner/loser as a remove is still encouraged as it gives better rewards and less penalty.
Must be a way to make the penalty of a loser similar despite the price of the horse, whilst encouraging people to pick losers at shorter prices.
Sorry to confuse again
Vaigret
I will revise OP, that's why I have put it out early to get feedback/suggestions.
Cheers,
G
We could even go -16,-17,-18,-19,-20. (Including a new 20/1+ threshold)
Or should we just have a "cart blanche" -20points for any winner?
Thanks for the feedback.
What do you think?
G
What is the best balance do you think?
Winner picked
5/1 or less: -15pts
11/2-15/2: -16pts
8/1-11/1: -17pts
12/1+: -18pts
that means if you pick a winner it is a 20 point diff to a loser and people should then try to avoid picking a winner whatever its price.
Think that should sort it, I think
V
So:
5/1 or less: -16pts
11/2-15/2: -17pts
8/1-11/1: -18pts
12/1-19/1: -19pts
20/1+ -20pts (Only 1pt for a 20/1+ loser in 2018)
OK with that?
Cheers,
G
I have probably picked more winners than anyone percentage wise and sitting in 2nd which is not what the process is about so agree a change is necessary.
I like to pick short priced horses as much as possible but under the new system it would be more beneficial to just pick outsiders long term and that is not what the process is about.
I will continue to use the same system for my removal process and hope it proves helpful and will fully agree with any changes that are made.
V, Snuffer has a point I think, a linear 20 or 21 point difference between a winner and loser would be an encouragement to only go for the outsiders where possible, as statistically they have less chance of winning, so less risk.
Cheers,
G
So we need a system whereby the optimal way of getting a good score is in line with that purpose.
The feedback from you both is appreciated, it is worth spending some time on it, so we get it right for 2018.
So I am happy for conversations to continue and for any further input.
Cheers,
G
Would like to hear other removers thoughts on the subject going forward.
OK, so to keep things consistent we could also make it -22pts for a winner 20/1+
So Winners:
5/1 or less: -14pts (Difference between winner and loser 19pts, currently 10pts)
11/2 - 15/2: -16pts (Difference between winner and loser 20pts, currently 10pts)
8/1 - 11/1: -18pts (Difference between winner and loser 21pts, currently 11pts)
12/1 - 19/1: -20pts (Difference between winner and loser 22pts, currently 12pts)
20/1 and over: -22pts (Difference between winner and loser 23pts, currently 12pts)
We will wait to hear back from Vaigret and the others.
Cheers,
G
Should make the calculations easier and more competitive.
"If you pick a winner ,you get nil points. Game over.
You only calculate the losers points on a clean sheet.
Like the jackpot,one loser and you are out.
We need a system that allows for people to remove the odd fancied runner or two, just not too many.
It is too extreme in nature for us to get value from it.
Perhaps we should do it like show jumping, 4 faults per winner. That may actually not be a bad idea. No negative points for losers, but 4 faults. :=)
The leader board could be based on average points per fault, or average points per winner, which is effectively the same thing. Although, to be fair, this would probably lead people for going for all the outsiders too, as statistically that would be the best thing to do under your proposal.
Good to think outside of the box though. :=)
Cheers,
G
When I do the removers spreadsheet and "set" the number of removals my aim is that people remove most, but not all of the outsiders, and "force" people to have to remove some "in-betweeners" so to speak in the 5/1 to 8/1 range. If people want to remove 4/1 shots or less they can, but I try not to force them to do so.
The statistical "value" as far as the Jackpot is concerned is determining whether specific 5/1 - 8/1 shots should be in, one, two or three perms, whether 9/1-11/1 shots should be in one or two perms and if 12/1 shots + should be in the perm at all.
So this is the area where I pay particular attention to the removals data. So we need a process that supports that kind of breakdown and I don't think an all or nothing will.
Cheers,
G
Well we have some feedback , which is good. As to the 4 faults I think that just gets too confusing having two scoring systems, I am sure we can get a balance with just a points based system and also that we are pretty close.
We have to base the points on what we want from the removers system and that is losers. As you know my initial thoughts were based on a jackpot a few days ago when I proved you could pick all the low priced horses in your removals, have 6 winners(there can only be one in each race) and still get a very good score averaging over 2pts per removal. Then last time we did the removers you had 0 winners and scored only 7 more points than me with two. That cant be right although I wouldnt have changed anything as if Dusky Legend hadnt fell at the last and Jameson had stayed on a true line I would have had 3 winning naps and loads of removers points. IF IS A BIG WORD THOUGH.
As i said before I think we are nearly there with the points now and I dont mind your latest
5/1 or less: -14pts (Difference between winner and loser 19pts, currently 10pts)
11/2 - 15/2: -16pts (Difference between winner and loser 20pts, currently 10pts)
8/1 - 11/1: -18pts (Difference between winner and loser 21pts, currently 11pts)
12/1 - 19/1: -20pts (Difference between winner and loser 22pts, currently 12pts)
20/1 and over: -22pts (Difference between winner and loser 23pts, currently 12pts)
whatever scoring system we have I wont change how I do my removals/naps as I cannot go against my betting stance of trying to get value. I also respect your view re statistics and can see how that works as well. What we need and i think we now have is a system that comes up with a good balance between the two.
Hope above makes sense, feeling a bit dicky at mo
V
I think this will hopefully make "not picking winners" the first priority, and picking horses for their "points value" secondary, which is how I had always intended the process to work, but the current points system favours it the other way around.
Of course there will still be some value to be had if you do pick short priced losers, but it will hopefully stop people going for "too many" short priced horses and focus the attention on the primary objective.
Appreciate the feedback from you all.
Cheers,
G