Season 6 Discussion

[1TRW1]

APAT rankings - should they be proportional to the size of the field?

Is it right that the winner of the live WCOAP Main Event has to go through 400 players and gets 18 points, and the winner of an online NLH event has to go through say 60 players and gets 18 points as well?

This isn"t sour grapes on my part, quite the opposite - I benefited from this this year winning the World Online where the field from memory was only around 70 players.

[Foggy]

Very good point

I would like to put forward the the majors, carry more points than the online series

[Swinebag]

Very good point

I would like to put forward the the majors, carry more points than the online series

not so much live over online but number of runners

there should be a sliding scale - say top 10% get points starting from 1 to whatever..

so 59 runner event like last night - top 6 get points, 1 for 6th up to 6 for winning
414 runner event like WCOAP - top 41 get points, 1 for 41st up to 41 for the bink.

I certainly have benefited from the points system this year, as did all the people in season 2 who won live regionals that got 10 runners

[AJDUK]

Would prefer to see it back to seperate online rankings and live rankings. The two are very different and I was surprised when they were merged for this last season. Plus, not everybody plays both.

[Swinebag]

though rankings are pointless if there isn"t any added value for the winner

[AMRN]

not so much live over online but number of runners

there should be a sliding scale - say top 10% get points starting from 1 to whatever..

so 59 runner event like last night - top 6 get points, 1 for 6th up to 6 for winning
414 runner event like WCOAP - top 41 get points, 1 for 41st up to 41 for the bink.

Love this. On the face of it, this could be a perfect solution.

[Jon MW]

not so much live over online but number of runners

there should be a sliding scale - say top 10% get points starting from 1 to whatever..

so 59 runner event like last night - top 6 get points, 1 for 6th up to 6 for winning
414 runner event like WCOAP - top 41 get points, 1 for 41st up to 41 for the bink.

Love this. On the face of it, this could be a perfect solution.

The problem - in general, rather than specifically APAT - is that league numbers tend to decrease the further you progress through the season, significantly impacted by people stopping playing when they realise they have no chance of winning.

If the number of points were tied to the number of runners then this would lead to fewer and fewer points being available throughout the season and so this process would get accelerated.

In practice the demand for APAT seats is still high enough throughout the season for this not to cause such a large impact, but I don"t think you can take that for granted - I don"t think something should be introduced which could reduce the demand for APAT seats like this could.

But the live tournaments do have more runners than online, if the rankings continued as combined then this suggestion would rebalance the rankings a bit, and would do so in a way that would stimulate demand for the live tournaments rather than suppress it.

[SirPercival]

Would prefer to see it back to seperate online rankings and live rankings. The two are very different and I was surprised when they were merged for this last season. Plus, not everybody plays both.

^^^ this

[Chipaccrual]

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

[PHIL_TC]

Would prefer to see it back to seperate online rankings and live rankings. The two are very different and I was surprised when they were merged for this last season. Plus, not everybody plays both.

^^^ this

+2... oh... and Sundays for online nationals x

[AJDUK]

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

^^^ This scoring seems to make the online pretty irrelevant?

I"m not sure there"s much wrong with the scoring system that we have already - I just wouldn"t have merged online with live.

If we did split them again, I think we could perhaps offer 27 points places (27 for 1st etc) for WCOAP ME as a tweak but I wouldn"t change much else.

[AceOnTheRiver]

+2... oh... and Sundays for online nationals x

this

Would prefer to see it back to seperate online rankings and live rankings. The two are very different and I was surprised when they were merged for this last season. Plus, not everybody plays both.

and this

[1TRW1]

not so much live over online but number of runners

there should be a sliding scale - say top 10% get points starting from 1 to whatever..

so 59 runner event like last night - top 6 get points, 1 for 6th up to 6 for winning
414 runner event like WCOAP - top 41 get points, 1 for 41st up to 41 for the bink.

Love this. On the face of it, this could be a perfect solution.

The problem - in general, rather than specifically APAT - is that league numbers tend to decrease the further you progress through the season, significantly impacted by people stopping playing when they realise they have no chance of winning.

If the number of points were tied to the number of runners then this would lead to fewer and fewer points being available throughout the season and so this process would get accelerated.

In practice the demand for APAT seats is still high enough throughout the season for this not to cause such a large impact, but I don"t think you can take that for granted - I don"t think something should be introduced which could reduce the demand for APAT seats like this could.

But the live tournaments do have more runners than online, if the rankings continued as combined then this suggestion would rebalance the rankings a bit, and would do so in a way that would stimulate demand for the live tournaments rather than suppress it.

Sorry Jon, I"m not sure I agree with this. Even with 18 points for an online main event towards the end of this season there has only been 10-15 players in contention, so for the vast majority of players the number of ranking points on offer doesn"t govern whether they play or not.

A fairer ranking system - whether combined or splt - must surely take precedence.

[Jon MW]

not so much live over online but number of runners

there should be a sliding scale - say top 10% get points starting from 1 to whatever..

so 59 runner event like last night - top 6 get points, 1 for 6th up to 6 for winning
414 runner event like WCOAP - top 41 get points, 1 for 41st up to 41 for the bink.

Love this. On the face of it, this could be a perfect solution.

The problem - in general, rather than specifically APAT - is that league numbers tend to decrease the further you progress through the season, significantly impacted by people stopping playing when they realise they have no chance of winning.

If the number of points were tied to the number of runners then this would lead to fewer and fewer points being available throughout the season and so this process would get accelerated.

In practice the demand for APAT seats is still high enough throughout the season for this not to cause such a large impact, but I don"t think you can take that for granted - I don"t think something should be introduced which could reduce the demand for APAT seats like this could.

But the live tournaments do have more runners than online, if the rankings continued as combined then this suggestion would rebalance the rankings a bit, and would do so in a way that would stimulate demand for the live tournaments rather than suppress it.

Sorry Jon, I"m not sure I agree with this. Even with 18 points for an online main event towards the end of this season there has only been 10-15 players in contention, so for the vast majority of players the number of ranking points on offer doesn"t govern whether they play or not.

A fairer ranking system - whether combined or splt - must surely take precedence.

like I said

... In practice the demand for APAT seats is still high enough throughout the season for this not to cause such a large impact

but I don"t think that this demand should be taken for granted

I think it"s also better for people to know in advance how many ranking points are available for an event before they enter it. If the number of ranking points were tied to the number of entries then this wouldn"t be the case.

[PantsMan]

+2... oh... and Sundays for online nationals x

this

Would prefer to see it back to seperate online rankings and live rankings. The two are very different and I was surprised when they were merged for this last season. Plus, not everybody plays both.

and this

What they said.