If someone enters 9 weeks, and is in the top 20 6 times, is that better or worse than someone who enters 20 weeks, and is in the top 20 8 times?

All the systems so far reward persistent participation.

i think we all 3 (JT, Andy, Koma) are partially right

1. its like JT said that finishing 20th with 60 entries would be better than winning a 30-entry round, even if you give points only to the TOP 20, as long as you give someone beating 60% of the pack (the 20th of 60) so many more points than someone who beats 90% (5th of 50).

2. its more difficult to win a 60-entries round than a 30 or 50 entries round.

3. so you have to give the top positions more points not in a linear way like 30,29,28,27... , but something like 30,25,21,18,16,15,14,13... , or to say it in percentages 100%,80%,65%,55%,50%, ... ,3%,2%,1% of the number of entries.

2. 68

3. 34

4. 15

5. 22

Andy, i think its not good to measure the top points at the number of entries because someone has not really a better guess when there are 40 entries than 50, but donating him 10 more points is a 25% increase. So a fixed number of awarded places is more significant. For example i got a TOP 10 overall ranking, meaning 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1 points are given to the TOP 10. For tied places the points are shared, meaning two T1 will get 9,5 points each, and 3 T2 will get 8 points -- (9+8+7)/3 -- .

Assuming this i get the following Overall ranking

1 Brian O - 0+0+4+8+8,5 = 20,5
2 Jahiegel - 0,33+10+0+9,5+0 = 19,83
3 Mark - 0+9+10+0+0 = 19
4 Josh W. - 0+0+8,5+9,5+0 = 18
T5 Koma - 8+0+6,5+0+0 = 14,5
T5 BSK - 0+8+6,5+0+0 = 14,5
7 KennO - 0+0+0+7+5,5 = 12,5
8 Johnny Twisto - 0,33+6+0+5,5+0 = 11,83
T9 Kris - 10+0+0+0+0 = 10
T9 Elkboy - 0+0+0+0+10 = 10

With your scoring system, one gets more points for winning a week with more entries. Maybe that's a good thing. But one could also finish 20th out of 60 and get more points than someone who wins a week with 30 entries.