S4 Online National League 1 - Matchday 1

[fraac]

Just occurred to me that with 140 players and only the top 9 scoring over just 10 matchdays the overall results may be well within variance. Maybe have the number of scoring players as a function of the number of entrants. 18 felt better for today, for example.

[APAT]

We"ll definitely look at the structure for the next leg.

[shozboy1]

maybe points scored by players could mirror those who make the money as per betfair"s structure?

[fraac]

maybe points scored by players could mirror those who make the money as per betfair"s structure?

I like that.

[MintTrav]

Just occurred to me that with 140 players and only the top 9 scoring over just 10 matchdays the overall results may be well within variance. Maybe have the number of scoring players as a function of the number of entrants. 18 felt better for today, for example.

Gotta agree cos we had four players still in with fifteen left and only one of them scored points, the others finishing 10th, 11th and 15th for nothing.  Please backdate the scoring system to include the 1st game.

[AJDUK]

Please backdate the scoring system to include the 1st game.

and last season

[Grimstar30]

Just occurred to me that with 140 players and only the top 9 scoring over just 10 matchdays the overall results may be well within variance. Maybe have the number of scoring players as a function of the number of entrants. 18 felt better for today, for example.

Gotta agree cos we had four players still in with fifteen left and only one of them scored points, the others finishing 10th, 11th and 15th for nothing.  Please backdate the scoring system to include the 1st game.

that would have been moi! gutted to a) miss the money and b) miss the points.. argh!

[rivertaff]

Just occurred to me that with 140 players and only the top 9 scoring over just 10 matchdays the overall results may be well within variance. Maybe have the number of scoring players as a function of the number of entrants. 18 felt better for today, for example.

But wouldn"t this just favour the bigger teams?

The deeper the points go, the advantage would surely move to the bigger teams.

With only 9 players scoring and cream rising to the top, wouldn"t quality and not quantity win the league?

[Noe]

\weeeeeeeee....  Happyyyyyyyyyyy...  I won the Northern game...  you know...  thr big one with the most players (151)...  weee......

Congrats!  

[duke3016]

that was Carl on my account FML - he came round after winning and used my compter to post -- must have been the win that did it

[Shogun112]

LOL....

I thought I was logged on as myself....  DOH...

I was a bit excited as I just won the Division 1 league game, welllll happy....

hehe...

Well done everybody in the Liverpool team...  Are we winning?

Cheers
Carl..

[fraac]

Just occurred to me that with 140 players and only the top 9 scoring over just 10 matchdays the overall results may be well within variance. Maybe have the number of scoring players as a function of the number of entrants. 18 felt better for today, for example.

But wouldn"t this just favour the bigger teams?

The deeper the points go, the advantage would surely move to the bigger teams.

With only 9 players scoring and cream rising to the top, wouldn"t quality and not quantity win the league?

Any scoring system favours the bigger teams: that"s built into the luck component of poker. My complaint last year was the bigger teams had an unfair edge. The new divisions have helped a lot. Now the weightings feel off in this other way, to me anyway.

Note that APAT have a (possibly orthogonal) motive to continue allowing bigger teams an advantage, as this encourages growth of the tour.

[beansisdaman]

Just occurred to me that with 140 players and only the top 9 scoring over just 10 matchdays the overall results may be well within variance. Maybe have the number of scoring players as a function of the number of entrants. 18 felt better for today, for example.

Gotta agree cos we had four players still in with fifteen left and only one of them scored points, the others finishing 10th, 11th and 15th for nothing.  Please backdate the scoring system to include the 1st game.

Um, I don"t think it"s appropriate to ask APAT to change the scoring system just because it would benefit your team from the results yesterday... In fact asking for the scoring system to be backdated to give you guys a better result is out of line IMO. If they finished outside of the points the rules should not be changed to benefit them, DUCY?

[fraac]

Just occurred to me that with 140 players and only the top 9 scoring over just 10 matchdays the overall results may be well within variance. Maybe have the number of scoring players as a function of the number of entrants. 18 felt better for today, for example.

Gotta agree cos we had four players still in with fifteen left and only one of them scored points, the others finishing 10th, 11th and 15th for nothing.  Please backdate the scoring system to include the 1st game.

Um, I don"t think it"s appropriate to ask APAT to change the scoring system just because it would benefit your team from the results yesterday... In fact asking for the scoring system to be backdated to give you guys a better result is out of line IMO. If they finished outside of the points the rules should not be changed to benefit them, DUCY?

Whom it benefits is incidental. I wouldn"t expect the system to be changed until next season anyway.

[BOINGBLITZ]

However, or even if you change the scoring system, you just CANNOT do it until the end of this 10-game season. You CANNOT move the goalposts once the game has started.
 The dynamics of last night"s FT would have been totally different had 18 players scored instead of 9 and therefore you cannot alter it retrospectively.
 Likewise therefore, you cannot alter the forthcoming games for the same reasons.
 If anything is to be changed, then do so for the 2nd set of 10 games.
Personally, I like the way this is scored. I think it is spot on.
If teams have more players, so be it. We at Walsall had 9 I believe last night compared to much bigger turnouts by several other teams, yet we still made 2 to the FT and finished 2nd.
What next.......shall we handicap those players who enter the "Professional" live games with less chips aginst us amateurs because they are too good for the rest ?
This system is proven to work. Please leave it alone.......though you can return the stating stacks to what they should be !!