Big thousand tournament series
Read by 343 users
Points could be awarded to the first 6 10-6-4-3-2-1 so the bumps have more value. Another option is the first 33 like in the US Indy Car: the first 50-40-35-32-30-28-26-24-22-20-19-18-17-16-15-14-13-12-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5 each round leader 1 extra point.
And 1 game every week, then the best of the month will be the best and finally the year, why should there be some kind of massive line and some kind of average, specific points for each game and if it were that easy, then they probably still think that they are still offering a bonus, no nitpicking, the worst ones will be dropped, etc..
[i]posted by Sildur[/i] The first 6 could get points 10-6-4-3-2-1 so the punters have more value. Another option is the first 33 like in the US Indy Car, the first 50-40-35-32-30-28-26-24-22-20-19-18-17-16-15-14-13-12-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5, the leader of each round 1 extra point.
/another option is the first like in the US Indy Car, the first 33 50-40-35-32-30-28-26-24-22-20-19-18-17-16-15-14-13-12-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5 leader of each round 1 extra point/ If you criticize, then the last 5-st row doesn't seem to fit into this system. I'll copy one of the better points rows and this from the points distributed in biathlon, which I think is pretty good and also in the sense that the first 40 get points, which is completely enough! The winner gets 60 points, 2nd place gets 54, 3rd place gets 48, 4th place gets 43, 5th place gets 40, 6th place gets 38, 7th place gets 36, 8th place gets 34, 9th place gets 32, 10th place gets 31, and so on. The next place winners get one point less than the previous one.
I've thought of something like that myself. You should find an optimal time for this, my first thought would be a weekend afternoon, later in the summer, okay. If there are 4 tournaments per month, the top 3 could be included, keeping in mind that most people may not have the opportunity to participate in all of them, and in the year, then 52-13 or 38 tournaments. Mid-term summaries at the end of the month, quarter, half-year and year, then a trophy :). And there is no need for a minimum participation limit if the points system is ok. Figuratively, you can win the trophy even if you have participated in less than half of them, but the achievements are good and there is no average :D
proposed by myself: /the winner gets 60 points, 2nd place 54, 3rd place 48, 4th 43, 5th 40, 6th 38, 7th 36, 8th 34, 9th 32, 10th 31, and so on, the next places get one point less than the previous one/ is not good either. It is not logical, for example, that three 5th places are the same as 2 wins; or 2 tenths are better than 1 win? Or is it? The fact that the first 40 get points would be good, but the proportions should be adjusted.
Then still 50-40-35-32-30, etc.
[i]posted by rabapalm[/i] his own suggestion: /the winner gets 60 points, 2nd place 54, 3rd place 48, 4th 43, 5th 40, 6th 38, 7th 36, 8th 34, 9th 32, 10th 31, and so on, the next place winners get one point less than the previous one/ is not good either. Isn't it logical, for example, that three 5th places are the same as 2 wins; or 2 tenths are better than 1 win? Or is it? That the first 40 get points would be good, but the proportions should be adjusted.
This is completely logical in my opinion. Since we are already talking about the biathlon points system, then the one who collects the most points gets the trophy and it doesn't matter which places they get and from how many competitions they are obtained. In addition, it is known that both biathlon and the thousand are quite games of chance. Some are lucky with the wind, some with their cards. PS! I do not support deducting poor results, because it does not give anything in the big scheme of things. If necessary, I can prove it.
[i]posted by Rambo96[/i] [quote][i]posted by rabapalm[/i] proposed by myself: /the winner gets 60 points, 2nd place 54, 3rd place 48, 4th 43, 5th 40, 6th 38, 7th 36, 8th 34, 9th 32, 10th 31, and so on, the next place winners get one point less than the previous one/ is not good either. It is not logical, for example, that three 5th places are the same as 2 wins; or 2 tenths are better than 1 win? Or is it? That the first 40 get points would be good, but the proportions should be adjusted. [/quote] Prove it then. It is completely logical in my opinion. While we're on the biathlon points system, the one who collects the most points gets the trophy, and it doesn't matter what places they get and how many competitions they've been in. In addition, it's well known that both biathlon and the 1000 are games of chance. Some people are lucky with the wind, some with their cards. PS! I don't support deducting poor results, because it doesn't do anything in the grand scheme of things. If necessary, I can prove it.
/PS! I don't support deducting worse results, because it doesn't give anything in the grand scheme of things. If necessary, I can prove it./ It is still used in series of series competitions, but more like because not everyone can simply participate in all of them /Prove it then./ ??? Of course, there is some thinking, also about these 40 places. In biathlon, 10 extra points were added precisely because the field has become so popular, where there are often over 100 competitors in stages. If such a point line were "converted" to here, a series of a thousand, but with participants, for example, under 30 constantly, then you would get good points just for showing up. For comparison, I would bring the Nordic World Ski Championships, where towards the end of the season the elite didn't bother to come to the Russian stages and quite a few outsiders used the system and got a lot of points, i.e. a party of mice :D The points sequence should probably be interpolated, which also depends to a large extent on the number of participants, while not reducing the importance of the winners, i.e. the points received by the winners (top three) should remain constant... I had an idea that 66.6% (two thirds) of the participants could get points at each stage, i.e. the last third would be left out!? For example, 20 out of 30 or 40 out of 60; but 10 out of 15. How does it feel?
[i]posted by rabapalm[/i] /PS! I don't support deducting worse results, because it doesn't give anything in the grand scheme of things. If necessary, I can prove it./ It's still used in series competitions, but more like because not everyone can simply participate in all of them /Prove it then./ ??? Of course, there is some thinking, also about these 40 places. In biathlon, 10 extra points were added precisely because the field has become so popular, where there are often over 100 competitors in stages. If such a point line were "converted" to here, a series of a thousand, but with participants, for example, under 30 constantly, then you would get good points just for showing up. For comparison, I would bring the Nordic World Ski Championships series, where towards the end of the season the elite didn't bother to come to the Russian stages and quite a few outsiders used the system and got a lot of points, i.e. a mouse party :D The points sequence should probably be interpolated, which also depends to a large extent on the number of participants, while not reducing the importance of the winners, i.e. the points received by the winners (top three) should remain constant... I had an idea that 66.6% (two thirds) of the participants could get points at each stage, i.e. the last third would be left out!? For example, 20 out of 30 or 40 out of 60; but 10 out of 15. How does it feel?
we're still talking about a card game