Player Of The Series

[WarBwastardo]

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?  

[Jon MW]

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.

[HaworthBantam]

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.

[WarBwastardo]

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.

[Jon MW]

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.

[Jon MW]

...
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.

[AMRN]

...
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.....

[HaworthBantam]

Speaking of which, an APAT HORSE competition would be fun.....

.....and might be something to consider for season 3, or maybe season 4...

[WarBwastardo]

...
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?

[Jon MW]

...
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.

[Swinebag]

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.

[HaworthBantam]

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    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.

[APAT]

da di dum.....dee de do......

[HaworthBantam]

da di dum.....dee de do......

Want some of my medication Des ?  

[Chipaccrual]

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)