2009 Season - Second Half

So Method A with Jeff's factoring seems to work... we'll play that at the next game!

I'm happy with method A with jeffs suggestions. I think whichever method we go for the result will probably be the same. Olly on top..

Method A.

That could work - and cap it at top 6 players, ie if more than 12 players (rare) then stop after top 6.. So in a 6 player game only top 3 get points? And then which method jeff; in a 4 player game does the winner get 6 or 4 points? (Jeff replied Method A to this)

Ok, that's Method A with 0.5 factoring built in. I vote for this too...

I get what you are saying and like the new scoring.

I have one question though. Why is it better to come last in a 4 person game (1 point) than last in a 12 person game (0 points)?

It would be better if the number of places you give points to is a factor of the number of people playing, i.e half.

So if there are 4 people playing first 2 get points, (4 for 1st, 3 for second). Everyone else gets nothing.

In a 12 player game, first 6 get points.

It may be a bit more complex but i think it is fairer. If you come last in any games you don't deserve a point, rather a kick in the nuts from everyone else. That would make people start playing better eh?

I like Method B. But you know me... I don't mind either way.

Hey Dudes,

Before the new season starts (next Thurs) I want to get the scoring right. So this last season (last 6 months) was better than the 2008 season when it was based on pure winnings.

Quick reminder lesson (I’ll try not to waffle ;) on the current scoring:

1. It is based on AVERAGE so that anyone can join at any time in the season and after 10 games (so they get a decent, fair average) can be on the scoreboard and challenging. If it were not an average the people who play most would win and frequency of play would overwhelm quality of play.
2. It is based on POINTS and not CASH as we change the prize money frequently (depending on how rich we feel) and we want a consistent method of scoring.
3. Together these give us AVERAGE POINTS which I think works very well.

The problem with the current scoring is this:

• If you come 1st in a 4 player game you get 4 points.
• If you come 8th in a 12 player game you get 5 points.

So you get penalized for playing in smaller games. Coming 8th is rubbish. Most of our points are around the 3 or 4 level so that means that if you play in a big game there’s a good change of increasing your average.

This method was good because coming first in a 12 player game is far harder than 1st in a 4 player game. But this also meant that the cash out and points were not 100% in synch (they wont be exactly but should be similar). So you have Davy as a prime example who is 4th of the table based on points but has lost $90.

I have 2 suggestions for the next season’s scoring – please vote on the one you like or suggest an alternative:

Method A) Like it is now, but you only score from 6th last to first (ie. Top 6 places):

• 6th place gets 1 point
• 5th place gets 2 points
• Etc.
• 1st place gets 6 points
• Anything above 6th place gets nothing

This example assumes your were playing 6. If you were playing 4 then first place would get 4. This is good because coming 1st in a 6 player game is harder/better than coming 1st in a 4 player game.

Method B) Like it is now, but you only score from 6th last to first (ie. Top 6 places) but you start from first down:

• 1st place gets 6 points
• 2nd gets 5 points
• Etc.
• 4th gets 3 points
• Anything above 6th place gets nothing

The difference with this one is that you get 6 points for coming first regardless of the size of the game.
So if you are playing a 4 player you get 6 points for winning and 3 points for coming last (ie. 4th) whereas in Method A you would get 4 points for winning and 1 pt for coming last (4th).

Please give feedback…