Every time I come back to this thread, I'm surprised to see how few new responses there are. This is the type of thing people in this forum would have jumped on in the past...
Anyhoo.... I thought about this some more last night and realized a few things. Namely, there is no need to overcomplicate it. Like, take this for example:
At first I thought this looked good and all, but really, what's the need for it? BB/100 is a perfectly good number and the most representative of one's win rate. So why bother grouping it like this? Why not just leave it as is?
So that leaves the points system for hands played per limit (and I think "per limit" is key here):
First, if that is a weekly chart, I think it goes too high. I'd much rather cap it at like 10k hands or something... I guess 20k, if some of you are REALLY playing a shitton, but I think JD's 55k played last month was about the most anyone has played around here in a long time. Also, I dont want the people who play 4000 hands per month to think they don't have a chance here. THOSE are the guys who should really get into this and strive to get more hands in.
I haven't thought about the points much, but I think the numbers above are too skewed. I mean, play 50k hands at .5 BB/100 and you get 250 points. That means, to tie, the guy playing 1999 hands (in one week, mind you) would need to be playing at 10 BB/100. Whoa... That's just too big of a difference. We should definitely reward playing a lot of hands, but not this dramatically. So we'll need to look at that more closely, IMO...
So, all of that said, I think the point system should simply be (for EVERY limit played):
BB/100 * (Hands Played Points) * (Table Size Multiplier) * (Limit Multiplier)
Add up your numbers for every limit played for the month, and tada.... you get your final score.