Re: some issues
[ QUOTE ]
First, I'm really happy with how things have been going overall. I like the leaderboard and I think it adds some extra flavour to our weekly games. I'd like to think it has also helped to get more people playing on a regular basis.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.
[ QUOTE ]
We have had at least one tourney with only 8 players who were 2+2 at the time. (I say 'at the time' because one later became a regular). I calculated points for this and I think in the future I will calculate points for a main game no matter how many show up. This is problematic because some weeks are definitely easier than
others.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah except those non 2+2'ers keep having the nasty habit of winning. Its not like having a half 2+2 / half non game is a ticket to victory. In some ways I bet its harder because they are unknowns, I get the feeling that we're all starting to get really used to each other. I definitely attribute some of my recent failures to being too predictable, and that only matters if people know who you are (going a whole SNG with ATo as your best hand doesn't help matters any, but I digress.) Also, I suspect that some of these "nons" were lurkers trying their hand.
[ QUOTE ]
Still, I grow more wary each day about the idea of counting points on two tables. If we do start running second tables, I think I will not calculate points for those games. Opinions?
[/ QUOTE ]
I would like to see if a formally scheduled second table can draw enough people to justify counting it. If we can schedule the second table, and it starts drawing 12+ people every week, then I really don't see a problem counting it. If it continues to be a scattered 6-8 people then I can see the point.
[ QUOTE ]
Last night our NA leaderboard champ didn't get in and it seems like a silly way to lose a lead.
[/ QUOTE ]
I made a half-joking complaint about this last night but really it doesn't bother me. Most of the reason I was on top in the first place was I played every week. The leaderboard is fun but really I just have fun playing with y'all.
Which leads us to the rest, which I will resist quoting in whole. Basically I do think there is a problem with the way the leaderboard works in terms of giving a huge advantage to those who play every week. The idea of dropping your one or two lowest games would work (although as more and more people try and get into the main game, it will be harder and harder to hit a spot and thus the less and less this will help.)
An alternate idea is to base the leaderboard on average score - total divided by games played (and keep in the two game requirement so someone can't win one week and then stop playing to keep their top spot.) In addition I think it would be fun to have an all time leaderboard in addition to a rolling one. If you're using averages, then the need for the rolling one drops quite a bit. I'm sure there's some math reason this is bad that someone will chime in with, but I feel like its definitely the best way to go if you want to focus on performance v attendance.
Suddenly I also feel like the length of this post is disproportionate to the importance of the topic (length = great, importance = low) and I shoud be posting hand histories trying to figure out why I'm on my worst losing streak in two months.
|