Euro and NA Leaderboard Updates 20 Apr

[AleoMagus]

Ok, here are the leaderboard rankings for this week

Euro Standings
1 Helmetsky - 352 pts
2 Poker Jon - 226 pts
3 Stone_Eyes - 209 pts
4 The Strength - 155 pts
5 Profit - 137 pts
6 t_perkin 2+2 - 124 pts
7 Heyrocker - 122 pts
8 ByronKincaid - 118 pts
9 MobyDick - 102 pts
10 Ruddiger - 101 pts
11 Tosh27o - 59 pts
12 DrPhysic - 33 pts
13 Bingor - 29 pts
14 Senseless - 27 pts
15 SimonDiamond - 26 pts
16 debaser - 20 pts

North American standings
1 Toro85 - 176 pts
2 codewarrior - 152 pts
3 thomastem - 150 pts
4 heyrocker - 142 pts
5 Shub314 - 137 pts
5 Wadd - 137 pts
7 SimonDiamond - 134 pts
8 KURN - 126 pts
9 wayabvpar - 112 pts
9 jpg777 - 112 pts
11 XlgJoe - 99 pts
12 NotMitch - 79 pts
13 sawil - 60 pts
14 Husker66 - 53 pts
14 FloppedFlush - 53 pts
16 DrPhysic - 47 pts
17 MobyDick - 43 pts
18 skaboomizzy - 42 pts
19 t_perkin 2+2 - 31 pts
20 DaEvictor - 20 pts
21 VinnyTheFish - 18 pts

Congrats All
Brad S

[Simon Diamond]

2+2 SNG Series Homepage

Simon

[AleoMagus]

In the past weeks since the leaderboard was started, there have been a few things on my mind and I thought I'd voice a bit of it now

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.

There are some downsides though

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.

There has also been problems on the opposite end of the scale with too many players. I feel bad about players not getting in and it was at suggested by me that if we were to get at least half 2+2 on a second table we would count that game for points as well. Last night our NA leaderboard champ didn't get in and it seems like a silly way to lose a lead.

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?

The private tourney idea would solve this but I am not sure this is wanted anyways. We are a SNG forum after all. Are we just out to compete with each other or is the sng format important? Is the private tourney idea even possible? I'm for it personally (though it would throw my sleek points system out the window).

Another issue is the way in which points are accumulating. Is everybody happy so far? One thing which is definitely becoming evident is that it is an advatage to play in all the SNGs. Perhaps this is what we want, especially given the 'league' feel that these sngs have these days. Still it seems somewhat biased at times and not placing enough emphasis on performance.

If we do stick with the SNG format, I am contemplating an idea which might alleviate some problems. We could drop the lowest 2-3 finishes for the current ten week cycle in calculating players points. This would allow a player to play only 7-8 tourneys and still remain competitive. This might also protect against the unfortunate occurrence of not getting in once or twice.

I'm not sure if this would place an emphasis on performance any more than the current system, but it's about the best idea I have right now in that regard. I suppose if performance is all that matters to you, you can always look at the 'most profitable players' rankings.

So, How do players feel? Are people paying attention to the leaderboard? Are there any other issues or concerns? Ideas?

<FORM METHOD=POST ACTION="http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/dopoll.php"><INPUT TYPE=HIDDEN NAME="pollname" VALUE="1082581139AleoMagus">


Leaderboard
<input type="radio" name="option" value="1" />I love the leaderboard. It is why I play
<input type="radio" name="option" value="2" />The leaderboard is good. Adds to the game
<input type="radio" name="option" value="3" />Whatever. I dont really pay attention
<input type="radio" name="option" value="4" />I don't like it. It could be better
<input type="radio" name="option" value="5" />I hate it. Get rid of it

Regards
Brad S

[AleoMagus]

lol. so much for that last poll. this one will work



Thanks guys
Brad S

[critterdude]

My stats are off.

I have no money finishes or $$$ earned according to the site.

HULA, now here? Are we a little sore I moved in front of your ranking? [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[Simon Diamond]

I haven't updated the statistics page yet. I have a lot of other stuff to get on with tonight, but will try and do it ASAP.

Oh, and your HULA stats are updated (but don't ask why you are at 2-0 and not 3-0, because I don't update the individual statistics until the end of each week.)

Simon

[Simon Diamond]

My thoughts:

Last night our NA leaderboard champ didn't get in and it seems like a silly way to lose a lead.

It's buyer beware - everybody knows they fill up quick. It was unfortunate, but these things happen.

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?

I think there should be one main game each week that scores points. Where demand is high I think it is good to have a second game available, but scoring it is problematic. If you want to get rankings points, you are going to have to get in that first game - yes thats harsh, but I think the rankings need to have a stable structure. Mish mash rules like having to have half a SNG of 2+2ers to become eligible as a ranked game is not a good way to go about it in my opinion.

You said this earlier in your post "This is problematic because some weeks are definitely easier than others." A second game with only 9 2+2ers in it falls into that category (generally). So the players in the first game could well be getting penalised in my eyes.

I think one game should be scored for each leaderboard, then at least everyone knows where they stand.

The private tourney idea would solve this but I am not sure this is wanted anyways. We are a SNG forum after all. Are we just out to compete with each other or is the sng format important? Is the private tourney idea even possible? I'm for it personally (though it would throw my sleek points system out the window).

I don't think the private tourney route is the way to go with the SNG series. Conceivably they might not fill some weeks, which would ruin everything. Yes, stragglers get in sometimes but I think this adds to the events - and in the case of a few (Profit for example) they become posters here which is excellent.

Instead of berating the fact that a non 2+2er wins one of our games, we should really look at that and ask ourselves if we are playing well enough to prevent it happening. Adapting to different types of player is important right?

If we do stick with the SNG format, I am contemplating an idea which might alleviate some problems. We could drop the lowest 2-3 finishes for the current ten week cycle in calculating players points. This would allow a player to play only 7-8 tourneys and still remain competitive. This might also protect against the unfortunate occurrence of not getting in once or twice.

My initial thought was that 10 weeks might be too long. Personally, I would go with a 5 week rotation of results. Consistent performers will still be rewarded in the long run, and the people who do miss a game or two won't be affected as much.

Are people paying attention to the leaderboard?

I hope they are, to justify the effort you put in on the system. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Summing up, I think everybody in the organising committee needs to calm down a little - the games have picked up in the last couple of weeks (the US game especially). Whilst there are a few issues, nobody needs to panic and make rash decisions.

There is a week until the next SNG - my suggestion is to sit back and have a good think about these issues, thrash out some solid ideas and get a structure in place for next weeks games that will attempt to iron out some of the creases.

We cannot expect to get it right overnight, it may take time. In the mean time, thanks to Doc and the rest of the organising committee for all your efforts in organising these games. It is appreciated.

Simon

[Sheriff Fatman]

[ QUOTE ]
Another issue is the way in which points are accumulating. Is everybody happy so far?

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate it - surely 2 15th places and a 16th deserve better! [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[heyrocker]

[ 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.

[Profit]

i'm just hoping to get in so i can get my name on the board [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

The page looks great. Simon makes some good points. I'll post later when i have more time.