[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
We want the buyin and field size to affect the amount of points distributed.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, Phil Ivey, Jesus, Doyle, Chip Reese are a weaker game at the $10 table than Joe Schmoe (sorry, all of you Josephs out there :P ) Jim Dandy and whoever affords the $50 buy-in?

Why does everyone equate buy-in amount to increased skill level, rather than mainly bankroll size? Yes, the better players are in the bigger games in the REAL WORLD, since they can make more money there. But plenty of goofs buy in to the WSOP ME, I'm sure. If there was a good way to rank quality of field, then buy-in amount would be truly understood for what it is= amount of available cash to gamble with.
Sorry, end of mini-rant.

" We decided no more than the top 20% of the field can receive points. What we came up with for buyin weighting is that points would equal the pot for the first game, 1.25 x the pot for the second, 1.5 x the pot for the third, and 2 x the pot for the fourth, or some variation. This way largest and most expensive tournaments pay out the most points. "
Field size, yes. Buy-in amount is irrelevant and shouldn't be overweighted. In fact, the $50 winners already benefit- more money for same accomplishment (first out of X players)

"We want to maximize participation, and therefore it would be better to give weight to a player who "cashes" points in a higher percentage of his total tourneys played."

I think you'l find the opposite. If no one (with few or no points) has a chance to recover after a few tourneys, you're likely to get less players, not more, in my estimation. I think everyone who plays should get points, or at least have it set up so that early leaders are not uncatchable if I have a bad run of cards in the first few tourneys.

" The idea of this point system is to award the players who can consistently perform well. Thus, we feel that a player who plays 3 of 12 tournamnets and finishes first in all 3 is not as worthy of the title as a player who receives points in 8 of 12 and has the same number of points."

That's a good idea, in one way. However, if I can finish 8th eight times, should I have the same points as someone who finished 1st three times in the same fields?

I haven't fully balanced out yet the variables in my own tournament system. Search Home Games using "tourney points" or "tournament points" back a few months ago and see what you get for other ideas.