invitro
New member
- May 4, 2012
- 2,337
- 0
- Thread starter
- #141
Here is another idea I am comtemplating. I might sometime, I don't know when but probably not soon, decide to make high scores on different tables be worth different amounts. Like, a #10 score on a table whose top 100 scores include 40 of the top 100 players, would be worth more than a #10 score on a table with 15 of the top 100 players.
I would do this using the IFPA method of valuing tournaments. (So if doing this is a good idea, then it may add a plus to using IFPA's WPPR ranking points formula.)
This would be a systematic way of doing something I've wanted to do anyway: make TotAN worth less, or maybe nothing at all. And this method might help with the limit-to-23-tables rule, as tables on fewer platforms should have fewer top 100 players. It would also make newer tables worth less, as fewer players have had the time to put a good run on them (should JY be worth the same as AFM? I don't think so).
Any thoughts on this? The first thing to do would be to make a list of the number of top 100 players in the top 100 scores for each table, which I want to do anyway, and will probably do soon.
I would do this using the IFPA method of valuing tournaments. (So if doing this is a good idea, then it may add a plus to using IFPA's WPPR ranking points formula.)
This would be a systematic way of doing something I've wanted to do anyway: make TotAN worth less, or maybe nothing at all. And this method might help with the limit-to-23-tables rule, as tables on fewer platforms should have fewer top 100 players. It would also make newer tables worth less, as fewer players have had the time to put a good run on them (should JY be worth the same as AFM? I don't think so).
Any thoughts on this? The first thing to do would be to make a list of the number of top 100 players in the top 100 scores for each table, which I want to do anyway, and will probably do soon.