APAt Has lost it

[lukybugur]

AWESOME!  

I feel well-informed now and re-submit my vote of 4,000 chips and a 12 minute clock.

I just hope Mr. Snyder and his Publishers aren"t too concerned about C0pyr1g*t  

[kinboshi]

Can you copyright a formula?  

[kinboshi]

By the way - here are the APAT live events for comparison:

(with the 150/300 level )

Chips    Minutes          Patience Factor      Skill Level

10,000  40                 32.96                    6
03,000  30                 09.68                    5

(and without the 150/300 level )

10,000  40                 27.47                    6
03,000  30                 08.19                    5

[Jon MW]

By the way - here are the APAT live events for comparison:

(with the 150/300 level )

Chips    Minutes          Pateince Factor      Skill Level

10,000  40                 32.96                    6
05,000  30                 14.17                    6

(and without the 150/300 level )

10,000  40                 27.47                    6
05,000  30                 11.91                    6

So the patience factor didn"t change much with the introduction of the 150/300 level. It makes you wonder why some people made such a fuss about it.  

[tumblet]

By the way - here are the APAT live events for comparison:

(with the 150/300 level )

Chips    Minutes          Pateince Factor      Skill Level

10,000  40                 32.96                    6
05,000  30                 14.17                    6

(and without the 150/300 level )

10,000  40                 27.47                    6
05,000  30                 11.91                    6

So the patience factor didn"t change much with the introduction of the 150/300 level. It makes you wonder why some people made such a fuss about it.  

[kinboshi]

A change of 17%?  I"d say that"s fairly significant. 

[AllanD23]

[Jon MW]

Only 5 live results count - out of your top 20 results that go towards your final ranking.

So I think consistency within the online tournament is likely to count for more than consistency within the live ones.

[AllanD23]

Only 5 live results count - out of your top 20 results that go towards your final ranking.

So I think consistency within the online tournament is likely to count for more than consistency within the live ones.

I understand how many results count jon, i"m saying the lower number of live events is balanced by the fact there are higher entries in the online tourneys so there"s no need to make the points any different...that way consistency in either will be about equally rewarded

(this is all based on my assumption that live events are given more points to be fair to those who can"t play online to give them a chance of winning, i think i read that in the forum, is that the reason? I would bet it"s far more complicated than my simple understanding. It"d be interesting to know how many people play the live ones but are unable to play the online ones...des?)

Apologies to all for my slight distraction to the tourney structure issues but it"s all part of the same package...

[RioRodent]

By the way - here are the APAT live events for comparison:

(with the 150/300 level )

Chips    Minutes          Pateince Factor      Skill Level

10,000  40                 32.96                    6
05,000  30                 14.17                    6

(and without the 150/300 level )

10,000  40                 27.47                    6
05,000  30                 11.91                    6

Where did 5000 chips come into it?  

[George2Loose]

Solution- flipaments.

One hand everyone all in 100,000 starting chips

[kinboshi]

By the way - here are the APAT live events for comparison:

(with the 150/300 level )

Chips    Minutes          Pateince Factor      Skill Level

10,000  40                 32.96                    6
05,000  30                 14.17                    6

(and without the 150/300 level )

10,000  40                 27.47                    6
05,000  30                 11.91                    6

Where did 5000 chips come into it?  

I thought that"s what we got in the Regionals - it was 3,000 chips....

[EvelcyclopS]

Ive read the posts here and agree mostly with a few of these points;

$20+2 Buy in. It worked before, didnt harm your entrants, and increases the viability of playing for 5-6 hours.

4000 Stack with 12m blinds will work, you can overdo deepstacks by giving people too many chips with too long a level.

I like the idea of reintoducing a password, as someone pointed out earlier, it didnt harm sign ups, and probably helps to keep the jingo bingo bango riff raff out.

I"d like to bring another idea to the fore, perhaps its too late for this season, but i could never work out why points were awarded on a final table only scheme. This means (although unlikely to happen) that the person who wins a 100ppl tourny, will win the same amount of points as a person who wins a 250ppl tourny. This  i hope you can see is massively unjust. The way i would award it, would be to have a  configuration depending on amount of entries. Also, i feel the places that get points should be increased to the cash point (whyshould those who are rewarded with cash not be rewarded with points?). To reach the last 20 players of an 200+ player MTT is a very good achievement, and i think it shud be rewarded by points. I believe, (with good evidence) that an implementaion of this strategy will maintain the quality of the leaderboard, but importantly mean that decent play will be rewarded.

Please consider this strategy, as i really do feel it makes more sense.

Apologies for length, its from my fathers genes...

[AllanD23]

ha, i"m not alone then, thanks evel :-) I posted something similar on a previous page about the points allocations (same message as the password one). It"s quite easy though, allocate points as you would cash, there"s plenty of payout structures that could be applied with a bit of rounding. Would also have balanced out the points in newcastle on saturday, only 2 or 3 getting points. The total points available could be 1 point for every 10 people, would work out ok.
This is also why i think 18 points is fairer for online tourneys with 200+ entrants, you could even spread the 18 points over 27 players if there was >300 players. It"s slightly easier to make the last 2 tables in these than FT so this should lead to a more exciting climax to the season with probably a few more people in with a chance. (i"m not bitter cos last season i beat 200+ to get 8 points whereas the scottish national winner beat half that and go double the points, not in the least bitter lol).
Due to the humungous length of my average post, i am beginning to wonder though, what"s your father"s name? :-)

Allan D

[Jon MW]

Ive read the posts here and agree mostly with a few of these points;

$20+2 Buy in. It worked before, didnt harm your entrants, and increases the viability of playing for 5-6 hours.

4000 Stack with 12m blinds will work, you can overdo deepstacks by giving people too many chips with too long a level.

I like the idea of reintoducing a password, as someone pointed out earlier, it didnt harm sign ups, and probably helps to keep the jingo bingo bango riff raff out.

I"d like to bring another idea to the fore, perhaps its too late for this season, but i could never work out why points were awarded on a final table only scheme. This means (although unlikely to happen) that the person who wins a 100ppl tourny, will win the same amount of points as a person who wins a 250ppl tourny. This  i hope you can see is massively unjust. The way i would award it, would be to have a  configuration depending on amount of entries. Also, i feel the places that get points should be increased to the cash point (whyshould those who are rewarded with cash not be rewarded with points?). To reach the last 20 players of an 200+ player MTT is a very good achievement, and i think it shud be rewarded by points. I believe, (with good evidence) that an implementaion of this strategy will maintain the quality of the leaderboard, but importantly mean that decent play will be rewarded.

Please consider this strategy, as i really do feel it makes more sense.
...

I agree with the first few ideas but I don"t agree with the idea of changing the points depending on the number of entrants.

Some could be against this idea purely because its better to know exactly how many points are on offer before you start.

This is a valid argument and could make a significant difference to the outcome of a championship, if the top of the championship is tight like season 1, then one win could provide a new overall leader. Although we are likely to get a number of runners for the final of season 1 because of the extra prize involved, normally, the last few tournaments of a season will have fewer runners because a lot of people who are no longer in the running won"t play once they see that there"s no chance of them winning the overall race (sad but true). If there were less points available for tournaments with fewer runners this would mean that if you did well near the beginning you would, on average, gain more points then if you did well at the end - and I think most people would agree that it would be fundamentally unfair to reward some and penalise others, purely based on where in the season chronologically they happen to hit good form.

However, I have a much simpler objection to this idea. That is that the ranking points should primarily reflect skill. I don"t think that the winner of a 1000 runner tournament is 10 times more skilfull than the winner of a 100 runner tournament. I would suspect that (a) they just happen to enter different tournaments, (b) they have a similar amount of skill, and (c) the winner of the 1000 runner tournament needed just a bit more luck (an extra coin flip or 2 to win). So would it be fair for 2 players with roughly the same skill to get different points, just because one choose to enter a different tournament and/or had a little bit of extra luck?