Can someone please explain the logic behind the SNG Monthly leaderboards? The rules state that the points are calculated by (small states or example) " take your average score across ALL qualifying tourneys and multiply it by 120, which means after 120 tourneys your overall score can go down as well as up! Qualifying tourneys for this leaderboard feature a buy-in between 1 and 5,000 chips (included)."
First of all and most obviously, I don’t see why Replay Poker would ever punish players for playing more. For example, if you have a good score after 120 tourneys, there is 0 incentive to play another as your score might only decrease. But more importantly, how the scoreboard is set up needlessly punishes those who play 6-seat or buy ins under the max (in this case 5,000).
All things being equal, a player who plays only 5,000 buy-in SNGs will score a much higher average than a player who plays any SNG with a lower stake (such as the popular 2,500 Orion league). Additionally, those who fire up a 6-person SNG will be needlessly punished because there is simply fewer points awarded on average to each of those in a 6 person tournament than those in a 9 person tournament.
I think what Replay was going for in awarding consistent players rather than players who may donk it up but play a lot would be to simply have a FIRST and BEST leaderboard. These leaderboards do a good job at awarding both good players and those who play a lot of games The current monthly SNG leaderboard just awards a weird combination of playing specific tournaments and playing an arbitrary amount of not too much.