Originally posted by Sandman62:
Am I interpreting your two separate rankings systems right? The High Stakes players receive cumulative points for finishes, right? So this ignores how many points they've scored and only counts where they've finished (1st, 2nd, etc.).
Yes, the main goal is to win money. A guy who only comes in 5th in every lge isn't much of a player.
Originally posted by Sandman62:
So in both systems, it would likely take newer players several years to catch up to longtime members. Is there perhaps a third metric, "
Average Points Over Field Average"? Though these numbers wouldn't mean as much for someone w/ a year or two of experience, it would at least put them on the map. As it should be, one great season doesn't move you to the top of a career achievement list. An "avg pts over field" would simply be rewarding newbies who haven't proven anything yet but a good season or two. If they keep it up they'll move up the ranking lists quickly.
Originally posted by Sandman62:
In its most far-fetched scenario, someone could enter 50 leagues in a year and only win one, but if it's the right one, get a bunch of ranking points. What about those 49 losses?
a) Getting data on all players for every contest ever entered would be an impossible task.
b) Experience counts for something, I gotta believe 49 losses make the guy a better player.
c) If someone is willing to lose that often, I want to do everything I can to encourage him to keep playing!
d) This is how the main event ranking differs, bankroll doesn't necessarily help you there.
[ August 14, 2010, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
