As is immediately apparent, by any imaginable algorithm JP Massar was
the winner of the best all-around...
I believe the correct algorithm for determining best overall should as
follows:
For each tournament, assign the number X / (number of entries), where
X is your place finish, as a score.
Multiply all the scores for a given individual together.
The person with the smallest score is best overall.
This is certainly one reasonable way to do things. It's equivalent to
just multiplying your two positions, since everyone's score will
be a fraction with this as the numerator and the same denominator (the
product of the number of entries in the two tournaments.
The downside of this system is that your position matters even when
it's well out of the money. When I'm playing a tournament, if 9 places get
paid, I don't care whether I finish 20th or 10th, and will freely make
risky plays that make me finish 20th rather than 10th when they fail,
if they will let me finish 9th rather than 10th when they succeed.
I would get more prize money by taking this risk, but would decrease
my expected all-around player score.
Another disadvantage of this system is that it requires accurate records
of bust-out order all the way down to the bottom, which is not always
available.
An alternative technique is to assign a point score for each finishing
position, like
1st 20
2nd 15
3rd 10
4th 9
5th 8
6th 7
7th 6
8th 5
9-12 4
13-16 3
17-24 2
Lower 1
And then award a total score that is the product of your score in the
individual events. Product rather than sum is used because the intent
is to award all-around players, who do well in all events, rather than
just players who did well in total.
Andy Latto
andyl_-_AT_-_harlequin.com