Right. As promised, here is how the table would have looked in the old way.
What stands out to me: - The final standings weren't greatly affected. Those who pull out the big results are going to do well in the league either way, but the leaders' margins were noticeably bigger. - WAREZ played the most, with 31 games, and ended up losing out on 49 points. But we can see it didn't cost him much in overall finishing position; another way to look at it is he wasn't able to brute force a higher finish with a mountain of low-scoring results. Spearsy had the next highest volume and missed out on 18, but his finishing position actually improved. - Allan, myself, Boxster, and a number of others played fewer than 15 games and in some cases only registered points on two days, and those people mostly had better finishing positions than they otherwise would have. - Comparing Asho28 and stokefc hints at some unfairness. They played a similar number of games, with similar FT and win stats, but stokey got quite a few more points because he won on more days. Instinctively, it doesn't seem very fair but I think it's in the spirit of the league that someone who had a more sustained run of results through the week does better.
I've only had a quick look but off the bat, these results are great and seem to reflect exactly what I hoped for: people who win tournaments are hard to beat; you can't buy a good finish by playing everything; you can be competitive with only a small number of results.
Finally, let's all laugh at @Asho28, who would have won a prize this week using the old system but lost out to @stokefc. I'll pay for you to play the Mini out of my own pocket, if you're interested, in the interest of fairness, since this was not pre-announced.
I am also going to see how the results would look using an average of points per game, as suggested by @Asho28, but that may have to wait until later as it's a little bit of coding effort and I have other things to do today.
Looks like @Asho28 is the only one that looses out then. Its hardly surprising that its the same top 6 in both formats, nor that they were also the 6 that played the most games.
The current scoring system overall has a slight benefit imo, although technically i would have less chance of winning as i only play on average 3 evenings a week, previously i could try and hit those 3 days hard if i so wished.
If sticking with the current best result have you considered actually adding earlier games to the list as apposed to taking games away.
best score per night and best 5 (or 4) from 7 nights would encourage players to play more, numbers seem to drop of last week this would still give interest to until Friday at least.
Whatever you decide i'm sure everyone will be supportive. Good luck.
I haven't made a decision on whether we'll carry on with this scoring format or not.
I've seen a lot of good ideas being offered for the scoring system. Perhaps select a different one each week, announced on the Sunday. Obvs that's on the basis it doesn't cause a lot of work each week for @waller02 .
I think its important players know in advance the format for the upcoming week.
A final data set for your consideration, this is what happens when you only count everyone's best 7 games through the week. This was the other idea that keeps coming up.
Again, the results are broadly similar with just a few notable changes. But it does overcome the issue of limiting people to one game per day, which seems to be a sticking point. What stands out is that most people didn't even put up 7 qualifying scores, but it was a fairly low volume week so it's not the best test case. Most likely we would use a lower number, perhaps best 5.
I'll give everyone a chance to have a look at these and share any thoughts they have. Sorry to overload everyone with information, I know most people do not have strong feelings either way. I'm just trying to be transparent in how I'm going about this.
And yes, typical that for once I would've won a token if the old system would've been used last week. I did like the new format though, and I feel that this or best x scores across the week which @aynaricol suggested would be the best way forward. In hindsight, too many logistical issues with average points per game which I previously threw in as an idea.
@NOSTRI , as mentioned on the Discord, no need to give me a free entry to a mini. Will have to try harder this week.
Congrats @aynaricol for the win this week, and the other podium finishers. Good luck with your prize games.
As for my thought for the scoring, with the scoring system of last week, I think the discussed small unfairness aspect would be much more prevalent if/when a player manages multiple deep finishes on the same day [regardless whether they play across 1 day or 7]. As a result, it would be quite unjust not to be rewarded for any win/final table.
Also, I admit that I was one of the players who regularly played the highest number of games. I would put that partly down to when I played, I played the whole MML schedule and not because I played every day. That's probably why I did so well, because I had a number of small scores counted, which I agree, was an advantage over players who played fewer games.
That's why I feel a scoring system based off the total of the best x-number of scores over the course of the week would be a bit fairer. It would still allow the players who perform the best over the course of the week to generally come out on top, and at the same time, eliminate the advantage that the mass volume players have with all their smaller scores being added.
However, thanks again for all the effort in running this competition. It's very much appreciated, and I'll certainly be playing regardless of which scoring system is in place.
Never let it be said that I don't listen to feedback. The MML will now use a format where your best 5 results of the week will be counted.
Having tried a few different things and listened to other people's comments, it seems to me this is probably the best available option for scoring the league.
Thanks for being patient while I experimented with this. I know it's annoying when something keeps changing.
I think this is a record in the MML: four of the final table in the 18:30 Bounty Hunter were MML contenders. @aynaricol, who won last week's league, came out on top to secure an early lead. @lewjax79 also got a win in the late Deep Stack.
@Asho28 managed to be the first to set 5 scores, although one of them was zero, which gets him into second place for now. I expect people will catch up quickly as they get more results booked.
Here's the new table. It should be fairly self-explanatory. The blue blocks show your 5 highest scores so far, even if they're zero. If the block is empty, you don't have 5 scoring results yet. The number at the end is the total.
That all looks great now. I spent all afternoon working on it worrying how it might look once posted on the forum but it's come out pretty good. If you struggle with any of the formulae going forward then don't hesitate to ask, I enjoy this stuff.
That all looks great now. I spent all afternoon working on it worrying how it might look once posted on the forum but it's come out pretty good. If you struggle with any of the formulae going forward then don't hesitate to ask, I enjoy this stuff.
Thanks Waller for all your leadership shown here and no doubt behind the scenes.
@aynaricol has extended their lead slightly, @WAREZ is the first to 5 non-zero scores and jumps into 2nd, and @Asho28 has dropped to third. My favourite thing about this new format? It's still pretty hard to predict who will win at this point, with lots of zeros and blanks still out there.
Comments
What stands out to me:
- The final standings weren't greatly affected. Those who pull out the big results are going to do well in the league either way, but the leaders' margins were noticeably bigger.
- WAREZ played the most, with 31 games, and ended up losing out on 49 points. But we can see it didn't cost him much in overall finishing position; another way to look at it is he wasn't able to brute force a higher finish with a mountain of low-scoring results. Spearsy had the next highest volume and missed out on 18, but his finishing position actually improved.
- Allan, myself, Boxster, and a number of others played fewer than 15 games and in some cases only registered points on two days, and those people mostly had better finishing positions than they otherwise would have.
- Comparing Asho28 and stokefc hints at some unfairness. They played a similar number of games, with similar FT and win stats, but stokey got quite a few more points because he won on more days. Instinctively, it doesn't seem very fair but I think it's in the spirit of the league that someone who had a more sustained run of results through the week does better.
I've only had a quick look but off the bat, these results are great and seem to reflect exactly what I hoped for: people who win tournaments are hard to beat; you can't buy a good finish by playing everything; you can be competitive with only a small number of results.
Finally, let's all laugh at @Asho28, who would have won a prize this week using the old system but lost out to @stokefc. I'll pay for you to play the Mini out of my own pocket, if you're interested, in the interest of fairness, since this was not pre-announced.
I am also going to see how the results would look using an average of points per game, as suggested by @Asho28, but that may have to wait until later as it's a little bit of coding effort and I have other things to do today.
Its hardly surprising that its the same top 6 in both formats, nor that they were also the 6 that played the most games.
The current scoring system overall has a slight benefit imo, although technically i would have less chance of winning as i only play on average 3 evenings a week, previously i could try and hit those 3 days hard if i so wished.
If sticking with the current best result have you considered actually adding earlier games to the list as apposed to taking games away.
best score per night and best 5 (or 4) from 7 nights would encourage players to play more, numbers seem to drop of last week this would still give interest to until Friday at least.
Whatever you decide i'm sure everyone will be supportive. Good luck.
Again, the results are broadly similar with just a few notable changes. But it does overcome the issue of limiting people to one game per day, which seems to be a sticking point. What stands out is that most people didn't even put up 7 qualifying scores, but it was a fairly low volume week so it's not the best test case. Most likely we would use a lower number, perhaps best 5.
I'll give everyone a chance to have a look at these and share any thoughts they have. Sorry to overload everyone with information, I know most people do not have strong feelings either way. I'm just trying to be transparent in how I'm going about this.
Thank You and well played to the other winners can i play the mini on Saturday please @Tikay10 much appreciated
Thanks @NOSTRI and @waller02 for all the hard work you put in
@Tikay10 can I please play tomorrow's main? Many many thanks
And yes, typical that for once I would've won a token if the old system would've been used last week. I did like the new format though, and I feel that this or best x scores across the week which @aynaricol suggested would be the best way forward. In hindsight, too many logistical issues with average points per game which I previously threw in as an idea.
@NOSTRI , as mentioned on the Discord, no need to give me a free entry to a mini. Will have to try harder this week.
As for my thought for the scoring, with the scoring system of last week, I think the discussed small unfairness aspect would be much more prevalent if/when a player manages multiple deep finishes on the same day [regardless whether they play across 1 day or 7]. As a result, it would be quite unjust not to be rewarded for any win/final table.
Also, I admit that I was one of the players who regularly played the highest number of games. I would put that partly down to when I played, I played the whole MML schedule and not because I played every day. That's probably why I did so well, because I had a number of small scores counted, which I agree, was an advantage over players who played fewer games.
That's why I feel a scoring system based off the total of the best x-number of scores over the course of the week would be a bit fairer. It would still allow the players who perform the best over the course of the week to generally come out on top, and at the same time, eliminate the advantage that the mass volume players have with all their smaller scores being added.
However, thanks again for all the effort in running this competition. It's very much appreciated, and I'll certainly be playing regardless of which scoring system is in place.
Good luck at the tables everyone, see you there!
@aynaricol & @stokefc
No problem for your requested free entries, leave it with me.
Morning,
That's all sorted for tonight. I'm expecting a bold display & a deep run from you. GL GL.
Never let it be said that I don't listen to feedback. The MML will now use a format where your best 5 results of the week will be counted.
Having tried a few different things and listened to other people's comments, it seems to me this is probably the best available option for scoring the league.
Thanks for being patient while I experimented with this. I know it's annoying when something keeps changing.
Last night's results will be posted shortly.
I think this is a record in the MML: four of the final table in the 18:30 Bounty Hunter were MML contenders. @aynaricol, who won last week's league, came out on top to secure an early lead. @lewjax79 also got a win in the late Deep Stack.
@Asho28 managed to be the first to set 5 scores, although one of them was zero, which gets him into second place for now. I expect people will catch up quickly as they get more results booked.
17:15 £100 Rebuy (77 runners)
13. @Asho28 (9)18:05 £200 Bounty Hunter (111 runners)
8. @stokefc (14)10. @Asho28 (12)
18:30 £1,000 Bounty Hunter (275 runners)
1. @aynaricol (62)3. @2Geronimo (36)
4. @Asho28 (31)
5. @thedazzman (28)
8. @tomgoodun (22)
19:05 £50 Nightly Micro (123 runners)
17. @alyssammy (10)20:00 £500 Bounty Hunter (283 runners)
22. @bbMike (13)41. @Asho28 (10)
53. @WAREZ (9)
20:30 £1,500 Mini Marksman (327 runners)
17. @Summers119 (16)22. @waller02 (14)
26. @bbMike (13)
30. @aynaricol (12)
36. @GunRood1 (11)
42. @thedazzman (10)
54. @Allan23 (9)
21:15 £200 Deep Stack (100 runners)
1. @lewjax79 (38)7. @WAREZ (14)
17. @johno77 (9)
20. @conroymvp1 (8)
Here's the new table. It should be fairly self-explanatory. The blue blocks show your 5 highest scores so far, even if they're zero. If the block is empty, you don't have 5 scoring results yet. The number at the end is the total.
x
Yup, leave it with me bud.
Some nice results last night, with @stokefc, @Enut, @mcglynn07, and @conroymvp1 all making final tables.
20:30 £2,000 Mini Gold Rush (468 runners)
12. @WAREZ (23)30. @tomgoodun (15)
61. @JACKDAW (10)
17:15 £100 Rebuy (70 runners)
3. @stokefc (18)10. @spearsy136 (10)
18:30 £1,000 Bounty Hunter (246 runners)
4. @Enut (29)49. @Boxster (8)
50. @aynaricol (8)
19:15 £300 Deep Stack (119 runners)
3. @mcglynn07 (24)9. @MAXALLY (14)
19:40 £100 Deep Stack (74 runners)
9. @alyssammy (11)11. @WAREZ (10)
20:00 £500 Bounty Hunter (257 runners)
35. @WAREZ (10)37. @hhammerhea (10)
43. @MAXALLY (9)
21:15 £200 Deep Stack (70 runners)
6. @conroymvp1 (13)14. @aynaricol (8)
@aynaricol has extended their lead slightly, @WAREZ is the first to 5 non-zero scores and jumps into 2nd, and @Asho28 has dropped to third. My favourite thing about this new format? It's still pretty hard to predict who will win at this point, with lots of zeros and blanks still out there.
@NOSTRI
I must say, the new results table layout looks really good.