An interesting article, to say the least. It brings to the forefront the thought of the strong second as well.
Perhaps a third offering for scoring could be provided. Sort of a revised PPSC that would encourage langer game play and fewer draws. Call it "winner take most" (WTM). The winner would get the ponts for all the SCs EXCEPT those held by second place. The second place would get the points for any SCs they hold. Sort of a cross between PPSC and WTA. Coding options could be revised to allow a "number of places paid out" instead of just WTA or PPSC. If you say seven, it's pure PPSC. If you say 1, it's pure WTA. If you say anything in between, the 2-N places get their PPSC, but the winner gets all the rest.
The computation of point distribution is easy to computer. Find the points per SC (always round down, even if the PPSC 1.9, it is still distributed at 1 PPSC). Multiply by the number of SCs held. Start at the bottom of the list. If that position earns points, give their share to them and remove it from the pot. After 2nd place has been completed, 1st place gets everything that's left.
So, a game that ends 18/10/3/2/1/0/0 with top 2 paid nd a 5 point buy in (35 point pot) would get 10 points to the second place and 25 points to the winner. If three got paid, third place would get 3 of the points and the winner would be down to 22. It still gives more to the winner than pure a PPSC gives, but provides incentives to fight and earn more than a draw would get for the other places, and first place would do MUCH better off than in a normal PPSC or a draw. Also, there would be no pot rounding issues as everything would be integerized/rounded down and the extra points would go to the winner.
Only the draw would lead to the site possibly "stealing" from the pot or giving extra points beyond the pot and this oculd be corrected by rounding down in the division of the pot and giving the modulus to the player(s) with the highest total SC count. If it's a tie and the modulus doesn't divide up evenly, those few remaining points (1 or 2 in most cases, never more than 5 as a 6 way tie is the highest possible) would be randomly distributed amongst the leaders.
Another option would be a poker toruny style of distribution. A 65/35 split to the top two positions (the money positions in a 7 person "sit and go") would give 65% (rounded up) to the winner and the other 35% (rounded down) to second. It still helps to reduce the draws as second place still takes in slightly more than a 3-way draw would take in. So a game with a 73 point pot would give 48 (47.45 rounded up) to first and 25 (25.55 rounded down) to second where as a three way draw on that same pot would be distributed 24 each with 1 point randomly given to someone.
Just some food for thought...
)
Who's up for a public press game!
)
)
)