The players who play my (smallish -- 2 tables max) tournaments asked me to put a points system in place, so I did.
Now we have a complaint: the points system is inherently biased towards me. Since, by definition, there are no poker tournaments on weekends when my schedule has a conflict. Therefore, I get to play every game. Few other players get to play *every* game, since invariably each of them eventually has a conflict on one weekend or another.
The suggestion was made that we should normalize the points by sorting them using "points per tournament played" as the rating system. Just thinking about that, I can see that it removes some of the bias, though perversely it may create a bias *against* the people who play a lot: The more you play, the more your results will reflect a true average for you; the less you play the more a few days of luck might rocket you into the lead. Of course, there has to be a minimum number of games you've played before you can "qualify" in this per-game system, but even so playing fewer games magnifies any short-term variance (luck) vs. the people who play more games.
Any comments, wisdom, experiences good/bad on this are appreciated. This, of course, came up most recently when I rocketed from second place to first place by being able to play one weekend when the first place dude could not.
So far, my best answer to this issue is either "get your own damn tournament" or else "ok, never mind, points was a stupid idea".
