Tournament Frustrations...

[rayj]

With the current top score of 69,000+, it's very easy to say screw it,no way to beat that.I know, at any give time you can hit a big score. But the tourney has beengoing for a few days and only the one 69k and a few 50k and 40k scores.To beat 69k, you need to average a 4oak on each deal and then some
(actually 345 points).

The odds of hitting anything big (like 12x 12x 12x Royal or even Aces w/kicker are VERY high you must admit that.(In all my play thus far, I was once dealt 4A's and drew the 3 kickers.2x 1x 1x).....I have a suggestion for Webman.Why not have two top winners?  One for single session score (like the current leader with 69k, and one for accumulated score (i.e add up all points for all sessions).  You save each score anyway. I know the leader with 69k would have an advantage for accumulated score also, but who's to say I won't play a ton more then him or her, thereby increasing my accumulated score?That way, it would encourage players to play more.Just a suggestion.....

[Webman]

Thank you for the feedback. It's always great to hear various opinions. Unfortunately this will always be the case in most contests. You definitely need a great series of hands and a lot of luck. But many contests are decided in the last couple days so at least you know there's always a chance. Anyone can win it at any time... with the right cards. With thousands of players, there are always sure to be a good number of frustrations. People easily lose sight of what a "good" session score is when comparing against the top scores, which are really once-in-a-lifetime types of hits for most players. But hopefully people enjoy it in the process as well.The best effort we made at "mixing this up" was the Extravaganza contest with bracket play. We may revisit that model at a future date, or come up with some other alternatives.We have considered a prize for top "cumulative" score in the past. But I fear you might not like the results of that either. Would you feel you had a good chance at that prize if I told you we have players that log more than 80 hours in a contest? Even with below-average scores the entire time, the prize would really be open to 4 or 5 players on the site out of thousands, because all those sessions add up. As much as we like return visits, we don't want to subject people to thinking they need to commit to any extreme amounts of play to have a chance at winning. So the present method is actually a bit more fair for the average player. Sure, the more you play the more chances which improves your odds. But someone could win any prize in a single session, which is important.

[EDC1977]

As moderator and webmaster, you can't please all of the people all of the time. Cumulative scoring would put me out as I have a limited time window for computer per diem. With luck being a key factor in any tourney, why would anyone change their formats? I have yet to place big in any of these online contests but you saw what happened at the VP.com booth last year. Such is life.

[vidopoker]

Why don't you let the player who complains the most about not winning be the winner?
 
Can I start? J/K
 
WEBMAN: I like what you did before on a previous contest. I can't remeber the exact way, but it was something to the effect of the first ten who hit 4 aces and a kicker (or something like that) also won a prize. that was really a nice opportunity for others than the top point earner to win.
 
of course, I didn't fit into either of those but that's the way the ball bounces!  

[BOOPSAHOY]

Yes Webman-or like on QQ you had the person with the most qq's win a prize! I also like when the game in the contest doesnt have multipliers-at least then you are relying on your SKILL more than your LUCK!

[damule]

I agree that a prize for cumulative score would be limited to those players that only have the time to play continuously. My suggestion would be a secondary prize for highest per game average with a minimum number of games; maybe 100 or 200 games played. This would also possibly reward a highly skilled player and not just a lucky contestant.

[faygo]

This game ......  Ok, when it does give you a 12x  it won't even deal a pair on the next hand, nada, nothing, zilch. Come on even any pair, paying or not, would be nice. And whats up with the pair of eights. I'm getting sick of looking at them. Someone want to trade a pair. I don;t care what it is , I'm just had it with the eights.  All this applies to 10x as well. This ... game just stares you right in the face and sticks it's tongue out at you. If my PC blew up it would be a blessing.
 
( I feel better now, thank you) 

[Webman]

The whine meter has gone up three notches. Good scores on the horizon!

[vidopoker]

Faygo,
 
I've been having the same issue. get 12x and get squat!

[BOOPSAHOY]

Me too videopoker and Faygo-When I see the 12x or 10x I just KNOW Im getting crapola!