[FSPA] FSPA: MOM's Organic Pinball Results for 09/17/2018 (Meet #1)

Wed Sep 19 12:30:10 EDT 2018

Whoops, realized I had just been responding to Steve and not the group (if
anyone else cares...).

I just think tiebreakers should be not be decided by effective points.  If
Bath doesn't show up for two weeks, like I said earlier, I think that is a
situation where effective points make sense, for sandbagging prevention.

I actually did not realize that Tim had gotten two effective points from
his failure to play our first game - so I played TZ not knowing i had to
beat his score -  that's my fault for not knowing the rules.

Anyway, just consider getting rid of tiebreaker "2s" counting as real
points.  I realize I have only been playing competitively for 2 years (and
this is only my third season with FSPA) so take my argument for what it's
worth.

Thanks :)

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 12:23 PM steve <flynnibus at yahoo.com> wrote:

> "The tie was decided in Tim's favor by the fact that the last game he
> "played" (these were all his preplays) he won.  Twilight zone.  It had
> nothing to do with commonly played games?"
>
> It does... TZ was your 'last commonly played game'.  The theory is 'the
> final match' is where a tie is broken..  "last commonly played game" allows
> that model to extend to the situations where the last person may have not
> had a score... and the 'common game' idea is consistent with other ideas in
> the rules (like in playoffs) where not everyone plays the same games.
>
> The order of games matters (which is why people like me don't like it when
> groups hop around).  We try to keep the pre-play rules as consistent as
> possible with regular play.  So we don't make extra rules around "playing
> live vs playing via bank".  Sometimes you have to have accommodations (like
> 'last commonly played') simply for the practicalities of the situations
> that come up.  You don't want to add more complexity to the rules where you
> don't have to.
>
> You as the player playing 'live' did have several advantages for being
> there live.  You knew TZ was the tie-breaker game... you knew Tim's score
> to beat before you even plunged.  The preplay player does not know those
> things... and is the incentive for live play vs preplay.  These are
> advantages live players get without having to codify anything extra in the
> rules.
>
> I think the root rub here is the "valuing" of moving up.  The ladder is
> ONLY for handicapping the players (in who you play, and ultimately what
> division).  The thing that matters is league points.  And you still got
> more league points than Tim, and effective points never impact league
> points - only the ladder.
>
> Points are what you seek - not ladder rank :)  Score points and the ladder
> will take care of itself.. and that's the beauty of it.
>
> Most people see scoring above 12 and being able to stay in your group as
> bonus :)
>
> -Steve
>
> On Wednesday, September 19, 2018, 12:08:46 PM EDT, Stephanie Traub <
> stephsharer at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> The tie was decided in Tim's favor by the fact that the last game he
> "played" (these were all his preplays) he won.  Twilight zone.  It had
> nothing to do with commonly played games?  Why should the order of the
> games matter, ESPECIALLY when he wasn't physically there?  If Ghosbusters
> would have been the last game, *i* would have won the tie breaker.
>
> If Bath didn't show up for two weeks and *didn't' bother to do preplays*
> for them, I'm not saying he shouldn't get effective points.  I already
> stated that someone who didn't play for two weeks, i understand the point
> of effective points.  I'm saying that for tiebreakers, the person who
> showed up and/or bothered to do a preplay shouldn't be the one penalized.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 10:57 AM steve <flynnibus at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Ties are already decided by commonly played games which is more fair.
>
> The purpose of effective points is to ensure players do not articially
> drop in the ladder.  Doing things to push them down kinda defeats the
> purpose.
>
> Think of it this way... imagine bath is absent for two weeks and without
> effective points he would drop two groups down.  Now, for the next two
> weeks, everyone in those two groups would have to play a player well above
> their skill level... meaning likely 5-7 players impacted.  Effective points
> is the system that prevents that.
>
> Moving up hurts your handicapping.  Moving down improves it.
>
> Effective points is two per game as it is the average.  Their impact
> should be roughly in the middle to neutral.  In the case of your tie... Tim
> scored better than you in 2/3 games.  Why wouldn’t him moving up be in line
> with that?
>
> On Wednesday, September 19, 2018, 7:18 AM, Stephanie Traub via FSPA <
> fspa at fspazone.org> wrote:
>
> Another thing to consider is maybe, such as in this case, if it comes down
> to a tiebreaker (I had 13 pts and Tim had 11, 13 with the effective
> points), the person using effective points would lose the tiebreaker and
> would stay in the group. That would be more fair.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 7:28 PM Stephanie Traub <stephsharer at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Now that you say that i bet it will happen to me  and I’m totally blaming
> it on this one thing! 😂
>
> Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate it!
>
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 7:21 PM Joe Schober via FSPA <fspa at fspazone.org>
> wrote:
>
> Stephanie wrote...
>
> Based on how i read the standings as they are submitted  and published to
> IFPA, final league ranking is based on group order.  So if, say, league
> ended today, Rob WC (as an example) would be above me, even though he only
> got 3 points yesterday, because he is in a higher group.  So that's why i'd
> consider it an advantage.  No?
>
>
> Not really correct.  Final league ranking submitted to IFPA/WPPR is based
> on league points within division -- so all A players stacked in order of
> league points earned, then all the B players stacked in order of league
> points earned, etc.  So if league ended today, it'd be a single division
> (because divisions aren't established until a minimum number of weeks
> elapse), and the WPPR results would be submitted exactly in the order shown
> in the "Overall Standings" table, with you way above Rob.
>
> What you're probably thinking of: It is true that division assignments are
> based on your average group (more accurately, your average ladder position)
> across the middle 6 weeks of the season, so there is some small but
> non-zero chance that getting kicked up a group due to effective points
> could be just enough to nudge someone up a division.  Not saying that it
> *never* happens, but I suspect it's pretty unusual... and if margins are
> that close, it's probably just as easy to point to any number of games over
> the course of the season where a modest number of machine points one way or
> the other would have been enough to swing things.
>
> --Joe
>
> _______________________________________________
> FSPA mailing list
> FSPA at fspazone.org
> http://lists.fspazone.org/mailman/listinfo/fspa
>
> _______________________________________________
> FSPA mailing list
> FSPA at fspazone.org
> http://lists.fspazone.org/mailman/listinfo/fspa
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fspazone.org/pipermail/fspa/attachments/20180919/8be66fdf/attachment.html>