Amateur Poker Association & Tour
Poker Forum => World Championship of Amateur Poker (WCOAP) => Live Archive => Live Poker => WCOAP 2008 - 2012 => Topic started by: RioRodent on August 04, 2008, 09:32:44 AM
-
How about some kind of "Player of the Series" ranking?
Either just for fun (read "Bragging Rights") or perhaps a small prize... Medal or seat to a National in S3? (It may help sell a few more seats?)
Maybe points scored for FT appearances... 9 for 1st place - down to 1 for 9th place.
8)
-
Agree, this sounds a good idea.
Will Apat be present over the three days (Wed,Thu,Fri)
-
I"m all in favour even if it is on a purely infromal/unofficial basis
-
Great idea. I"d extend the points from 1st to 20th though.
-
Des.
Any news on this?
-
I"d certainly support it for fun and add an APAT polo shirt for the winner. Same points for all events?
-
I"d certainly support it for fun and add an APAT polo shirt for the winner. Same points for all events, apart from Razz which should have double points?
Sounds good
-
I"d certainly support it for fun and add an APAT polo shirt for the winner. Same points for all events, apart from Razz which should have NO points?
Sounds good
FYP
-
I"d certainly support it for fun and add an APAT polo shirt for the winner. Same points for all events, apart from Razz which should have NO points?
Sounds good
FYP
:"(
People are so mean about Razz.
-
I"d certainly support it for fun and add an APAT polo shirt for the winner. Same points for all events, apart from the main event which should have double points?
Sounds good
FYP
-
I"d certainly support it for fun and add an APAT polo shirt for the winner. Same points for all events?
OK then... re. points - my original suggestion was FT"ers, however I would agree that is a bit restrictive... Ian suggested final 20, but in a field of 25 (last time I looked at Stud) this seems to be too many. Plus, assuming Razz & Stud are 8 handed, then 17-20th will happen while still 3 tables... will ayone be paying full attention to finishing order at this point?
My new suggestion would be the final 16 places...
1st 20 pts
2nd 17 pts
3rd 15 pts
4th 13 pts
5th 12 pts
6th 11 pts
.
.
14th 3 pts
15th 2 pts
16th 1 pts
This means there will only be two tables left when the points start, so I"m sure exit order will be accurately documented... there is a small bonus for those in the last few places, but not so large that the 4 winners (assuming there are 4 different ones) are can still easily be caught by anyone doing reasonably well in more than one tourney.
Whad"ya think then?
-
Looks like a winner to me.
-
This is very similar to the points structure I use in the Poker League I run, and it works very well.
Gets my Vote.
-
I"m all in favour too.
-
To make this work, the recording of places will have to be manageable and not overly favour those in the smaller of the four events - namely the Stud and Razz. I would suggest points are allocated to the final 9 in the four events.
-
Will the size of the field determine how many points are allocated for final table places?
Final table of Stud with only 30 runners shouldn"t receive the same points as final tabling the main event with 200, unless I"m on that final table obviously.
Can a maths boffin devise some sort of pro rata points system based on number of runners and perhaps bonus points for having nice eyes like mine?
Or to make things simple just double the points for the main event places?
20 pts for winning a side event
40 pts for winning the main event
Maybe bonus points for FTing more than one event?
-
Will the size of the field determine how many points are allocated for final table places?
Final table of Stud with only 30 runners shouldn"t receive the same points as final tabling the main event with 200, unless I"m on that final table obviously.
Can a maths boffin devise some sort of pro rata points system based on number of runners and perhaps bonus points for having nice eyes like mine?
Or to make things simple just double the points for the main event places?
20 pts for winning a side event
40 pts for winning the main event
Maybe bonus points for FTing more than one event?
In the absence of a HORSE event then a "Player of the Series" is going to be recognition of all round skill.
If there is a pro rata scoring system depending on however many enter, then the winner of the main event will win overall.
Keeping the points system simple and just for the final table will ensure that the person who wins "Player of the Series" is the best all round player - not just a good hold"em player.
Bonus points for more than one FT is good though.
-
Bonus points for more than one FT is good though.
Jon, wouldn"t the "bonus points" be the points they gain being on that final table ?
Maybe I"m missing something (not for the first time) but if points are only going to final tablists then I don"t see the point of bonus points.
-
If we end up with four completely different final tables, four different winners, then the main event winner should be the POTS.
But I also think although the main event winner ought to get more points than the winner of the side events because the field is so much larger, it shouldn"t be so much more that it gives him/her an advantage that makes the points allocations in the other events irrelevant. So bonus points for FTing in more than one event can go some way to neutralising that advantage if that makes sense?
For example the main event winner only plays that event and is awarded 40 pts.
Someone else plays all the events, finishes 5th in each of the three side events but no where in the main event and is awarded 36 points. Arguably that"s a better all round performance than just winning the main event so the bonus points for FTing in three events should be enough to raise his/her total to over 40 pts.
I think that makes sense. A bit.
-
Bonus points for more than one FT is good though.
Jon, wouldn"t the "bonus points" be the points they gain being on that final table ?
Maybe I"m missing something (not for the first time) but if points are only going to final tablists then I don"t see the point of bonus points.
I did consider that.
But if, for example, you give 9 to 1 points for 1st to 9th places.
Then I think for somebody to get two 9th places is better than somebody just getting one 8th place.
If they got, say, 2 bonus points for reaching 2 final tables, then this redresses the balance a bit.
-
...
But I also think although the main event winner ought to get more points than the winner of the side events because the field is so much larger...
Beating more people in one hold"em event doesn"t make you a better "all round" player - it just makes you a better hold"em player.
If you take the winners for example - being the best Omaha player should rank equally to being the best Hold'em player.
-
...
But I also think although the main event winner ought to get more points than the winner of the side events because the field is so much larger...
Beating more people in one hold"em event doesn"t make you a better "all round" player - it just makes you a better hold"em player.
If you take the winners for example - being the best Omaha player should rank equally to being the best Hold'em player.
Agreed!! And this is probably why the WSOP HORSE winner is nowadays considered the true world champion as opposed to the ME winner.
Speaking of which, an APAT HORSE competition would be fun.....
-
Speaking of which, an APAT HORSE competition would be fun.....
.....and might be something to consider for season 3, or maybe season 4...
-
...
But I also think although the main event winner ought to get more points than the winner of the side events because the field is so much larger...
Beating more people in one hold"em event doesn"t make you a better "all round" player - it just makes you a better hold"em player.
If you take the winners for example - being the best Omaha player should rank equally to being the best Hold'em player.
Surely this only applies if the field sizes compare. It"s debatable which game requires more skill, but the disparity in field sizes has to be taken into consideration because working your way through a bigger field is a skill in itself isn"t it? If the field sizes don"t matter shouldn"t the prize pools be the equal too? If only 9 runners entered an event they"d still get the same points as the main event winner.
Why are the side events not ranked if they"re comparable to the Hold "em main event?
-
...
Why are the side events not ranked if they"re comparable to the Hold "em main event?
But this isn"t the ranking race.
If you see the "Player of the Series" as measuring all round ability then the different field sizes don"t matter - all that matters is who are the best Omaha, Razz, Stud and Hold'em players - and how do they compare.
If you see the "Player of the Series" as the one who wins the most money,or some other measurement, then the field sizes matter.
-
I wouldn"t bother with points for this
The player with the most cashes in the WCOAP should win it. If this involves more than one person then count back in terms of wins, seconds and thirds.
A points system would not neccessarily give an accurate indication due to the fact that there are only 4 events with different structures and field sizes.
-
The fact that points are equally available, regardless of dicipline, may inspire players to learn other forms of the game, ready for next year.
If I"d been able to play this season, I"d have been playing the Omaha and HE events - obviously as badly as normal ;D Next season I"d like to be able to play all 4 (or more) events, after a little coaching from the likes of Jon.
I think the bottom line here is that the points idea was supposed to add a little fun to the proceedings, and not to be taken too seriously. We"ve also got to look at the amount of admin this kind of thing takes to sort out, and I think for the sake of the sanity of Des and the team it should be kept as simple as possible.
-
da di dum.....dee de do......
-
da di dum.....dee de do......
Want some of my medication Des ? ;D
-
Hears my thought for what it"s worth.
Can we not have a forum vote on it based on half a dozen nominations made by APAT. This should then cover all players that final table/cash in more than one event, plus any other significant efforts over the five days.
To try and put a points system on it when there are different field sizes and structures is very difficult.
Let the people decide and hopefully it will be based on genuine recognition and not a popularity vote.
(I"ll now hide and wait for the criticism)
-
Hears my thought for what it"s worth.
Can we not have a forum vote on it based on half a dozen nominations made by APAT. This should then cover all players that final table/cash in more than one event, plus any other significant efforts over the five days.
To try and put a points system on it when there are different field sizes and structures is very difficult.
... it will be based on ... a popularity vote.
(I"ll now hide and wait for the criticism)
-
Bonus points for more than one FT is good though.
Jon, wouldn"t the "bonus points" be the points they gain being on that final table ?
Maybe I"m missing something (not for the first time) but if points are only going to final tablists then I don"t see the point of bonus points.
Wow thats a lot of points -- obv you win ;D
-
Da Da De.....Dum Dum De Dum....
-
How about maybe just hand out lollies to FTer"s?
-
How bizarre!!
Two weeks ago a points system was proposed, 3 people responded (favourably), and then no other interest.
Now with less than a week to go we seem to have a lot more interest?
Whilst this was originally suggested as just a bit of fun... I certainly feel that all events should score points equally. After all, all four events will provide a "World Champion of Amatuer Poker".
Yes, points will be a bit easier to come by in the Omaha, Stud and Razz, by virtue of the smaller field sizes. But I see nothing at all wrong with players who are "supporting APAT" and playing all four events, having a decent chance of taking this "title" and an APAT shirt.
Those that get deep into the cash in the Main Event (ie FT) are going to be well rewarded for their prowess at NLHE. I don"t think the ME winner will be too miffed at someone who can actually play more than one poker variant winning a T-shirt!
Awarding points beyond the FTs will keep more people interested... there"s nothing like seeing your name in a list to boost the ego a little! (You can"t imagine how deflated I was the other day to find that I"m not in the top 100 APAT moneywinners!! :"()
C"mon don"t be tight... lets have points down to 16th, this will likely split any ties in the case of all four events having completely different final tables.
I"m quite willing to collate all the points and post the table each day.
-
Money Talks.......................But it don"t sing and dance,and it don"t walk.
-
Money Talks.......................But it don"t sing and dance,and it don"t walk.
Whooosh! :-\
-
How bizarre!!
Two weeks ago a points system was proposed, 3 people responded (favourably), and then no other interest.
Now with less than a week to go we seem to have a lot more interest?
Whilst this was originally suggested as just a bit of fun... I certainly feel that all events should score points equally. After all, all four events will provide a "World Champion of Amatuer Poker".
Yes, points will be a bit easier to come by in the Omaha, Stud and Razz, by virtue of the smaller field sizes. But I see nothing at all wrong with players who are "supporting APAT" and playing all four events, having a decent chance of taking this "title" and an APAT shirt.
Those that get deep into the cash in the Main Event (ie FT) are going to be well rewarded for their prowess at NLHE. I don"t think the ME winner will be too miffed at someone who can actually play more than one poker variant winning a T-shirt!
Awarding points beyond the FTs will keep more people interested... there"s nothing like seeing your name in a list to boost the ego a little! (You can"t imagine how deflated I was the other day to find that I"m not in the top 100 APAT moneywinners!! :"()
C"mon don"t be tight... lets have points down to 16th, this will likely split any ties in the case of all four events having completely different final tables.
I"m quite willing to collate all the points and post the table each day.
You"ve got my support on this one
-
Top money player= Best player. Ian.
Having said that, a league is always a bit of fun.
Oh and the little ditty"s from Neil Diamond.
-
Top money player= Best player. Ian.
Whilst that logic is difficult to argue against, it"s not really relevant to this series. Top money winner will be winner of main event. Brian.
Having said that, a league is always a bit of fun.
Exactamundo.
Oh and the little ditty"s from Neil Diamond.
Got that bit. 8)
-
I"m with Alan on this one. If you start awarding points for the diff. field sizes, then obv. the ME winner will have most points. Top 16 gives everyone a chance to pick up some points along the way and makes the whole week a bit more fun. At the end of the day it"s a T-Shirt, let"s not get too technical.
-
Okay, we run with points going to the top 16 of each event and I accept Alan"s offer to run this comp as I will largely be on my own over the first three days of the WCOAP festival. Officially, we will only be recording cash placings in all events.
-
Okay, we run with points going to the top 16 of each event and I accept Alan"s offer to run this comp as I will largely be on my own over the first three days of the WCOAP festival. Officially, we will only be recording cash placings in all events.
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:DnxAxkQEi_CATM:http://www.lydieparties.com/assets/images/suprised.jpg) Next thing you know Des will get a round in each day whilst he"s doing nothing
-
Des? A round??
Surely not! ;)
-
And after one event we have....
(http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s71/RioRodent/APATPOTS.jpg)
-
And after two events we have a new leader. Congatulations to Warren Jackman for making the final table of both the Omaha and the Razz.
Apologies to those tied for a place not showing the correct Position number... that"s down to the software not collator!! (I will manually edit the final table)
(http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s71/RioRodent/APATPOTS2-1.jpg)
(http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s71/RioRodent/APATPOTS2i.jpg)
-
And after the third event, we have a new leader in the Player of the Series race....
(http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s71/RioRodent/APATPOTS3-1.jpg)
(http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s71/RioRodent/APATPOTS3.jpg)
(http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s71/RioRodent/APATPOTS3i.jpg)
-
Here is the final WCOAP "Player Of The Series" table. Over the 4 events, 50 players scored points, so well done to all those that scored on more than one occaision.
(http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s71/RioRodent/POTStop10.jpg)
(http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s71/RioRodent/POTS11-20.jpg)
(http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s71/RioRodent/POTS21-40.jpg)
(http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s71/RioRodent/POTS41-50.jpg)
-
Well done Dave. I think anyone that managed to accumulate points in more than one event deserves a round of applause. But there can be only one winner.
What does he win again ?
-
Well done Dave. I think anyone that managed to accumulate points in more than one event deserves a round of applause. But there can be only one winner.
What does he win again ?
A round of applause, and.....
I"d certainly support it for fun and add an APAT polo shirt for the winner.
-
Well done Dave. I think anyone that managed to accumulate points in more than one event deserves a round of applause. But there can be only one winner.
What does he win again ?
A round of applause, and.....
I"d certainly support it for fun and add an APAT polo shirt for the winner.
Will it be green ?
-
Well done Dave. I think anyone that managed to accumulate points in more than one event deserves a round of applause. But there can be only one winner.
What does he win again ?
A round of applause, and.....
I"d certainly support it for fun and add an APAT polo shirt for the winner.
Will it be green ?
With envy?