Poker Forum > General Discussion
Season 6 Discussion
Jon MW:
--- Quote from: Chipaccrual on January 19, 2012, 17:38:48 PM ---
I no longer know anything, although some may question if I ever knew anything in the first place. My views are purely my own thoughts.
I agree the weighting needs sorting, but in principle I think that this style of ranking would offer a chance to compare all APAT players against each other, irrelevant of whether you play the league, or just online, or just live, or every event you can.
--- End quote ---
The weighting is pretty key.
If you have ranking points for the online league games, national games and omaha side events - too high a weighting could make the live results irrelevant but too low a weighting (for the league games for example) could make them irrelevant.
If we could balance out all those online points scoring opportunities with extra live events (regionals?) that would work ;D
George2Loose:
--- Quote from: AMRN on January 18, 2012, 23:33:40 PM ---
--- Quote from: MintTrav on January 18, 2012, 22:35:19 PM ---
--- Quote from: AMRN on January 18, 2012, 14:30:23 PM ---
--- Quote from: Chipaccrual on January 18, 2012, 14:19:20 PM ---
--- Quote from: AJDUK on January 16, 2012, 12:43:51 PM ---
--- Quote from: Chipaccrual on January 16, 2012, 10:35:22 AM ---
I think that the rankings are due a revamp.
I would like to see a structure that takes into account the buyin, number of runners, whether it"s live or online.
The top 10% should earn ranking points, with a multiplier based on buyin (which would also take into account a differential between live and online)
$10 (Equivalent to Online League) = 0.5
$20 (Equivalent to Online Side Event) = 1
$50-$100 (Equivalent to Online Main Event or Live Side Event) = 1.5
$120+ (Equivalent to Live Main Event) = 2
Some examples :-
WCOAP Main Event winner (based on 400 runners) = 40x2 = 80pts
National Event winner (based on 150 runners) = 15x2 = 30pts
Online Main Event Winner (based on 80 runners) = 8x1.5 = 12pts
Online League Matchday Winner (based on 120 runners) = 12x.5 = 6pts
--- End quote ---
^^^ This scoring seems to make the online pretty irrelevant?
--- End quote ---
I wouldn"t say it"s irrelevant, but simply reflects the fewer runners and cheaper buyins.
--- End quote ---
I like the weighting system, but in the example given, one person could win 13 online league MTTs with 120 runners in each - and be outranked by someone who just plays one solitary APAT event and happens to win the WCOAP ME..... surely beating 120 runners 13 times should outweigh a single event winner?
Principle is sound - just need the weightings to be tweaked, in my opinion.
--- End quote ---
I agree - interesting proposal but too much weighting for the WCOAP ME. It shouldn"t be worth almost three times the points that a normal National would get.
Online league winners don"t get any ranking points at present Steve - not sure whether Leigh is aware of a change of a change in APAT's thinking on this.
--- End quote ---
Spotted that, and presumed it might be a subliminal announcement....
--- End quote ---
A way of countering this is to have participation points for each event and perhaps having a points booster say after every 10 events. This will reward those loyal to APAT
dwh103:
Have the suggested type of points system if necessary - just ensure there is a minimum number of points available.
Chipaccrual:
Enough discussion, are we there yet ?
This is so tilting being out of the loop, it is unreal.
Fatcatstu:
--- Quote from: Chipaccrual on January 21, 2012, 06:56:07 AM ---
Enough discussion, are we there yet ?
This is so tilting being out of the loop, it is unreal.
--- End quote ---
theres an easy solution to that one isnt there...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version