Best 20 results within a State/Province/District will count for each player


#41

Was July '18 data incomplete when you made this? Or did July really fall that short of the predicted total?


#42

One could run with that data point and declare the $1 fee a failure :slight_smile:


#43

It was half way through July if I recall. I really need to rerun this, just haven’t had time. What the hell…lets see if this southwest wifi will let me make a bunch of IFPA API calls…


#44

Okay that took less time than I expected. figure updated.


#45

Wuuuut? No one ever does that. :wink:


#46

Maaaaaaaaaaan I was counting on all that outrage to make my job easier!!

giphy


#47

The abundance of circuit/major league events in PA makes it such that having a higher seed gives you a pretty darn good chance (excluding out of staters; I’m not expecting KME to visit for example), albeit not a 100% guarantee of an easier path.

Change my mind…?

Also edit because I didn’t read the whole discussion:

I agree with that on a local level in some senses; I’ve definitely not felt bad that I had to visit a prospective pinball seller/grab food and drinks with Sarah’s out of town brother/catch up on laundry/visit family as I would in the past. In some cases, I would try to flex the smaller of those events in with pinball…a recipe for disaster.

I know for a fact that my spot is NOT comfy though. With no PPL WPPRs this season for me + PPO on the horizon, I’m going to go for quality and not quantity coming down the stretch, saving energy for when it really needs to come out!


#48

Looking at this another way, you could argue the EV for the not-higher-ranked players is higher, because without better players in front of them they are likely to finish better and get more points.

In other words, 4th place in a lesser field might be worth more than 10th place in a stacked field.


#49

I have not heard people complaining of the cap in our state.

What has been driving participation in our state this year is the potential for Super State status. The potential of a jump from 16-24 spots has inspired new TDs to put on events and individuals to open up their homes to encourage participation.

The extra 8 spots makes a huge difference.


#50

Agreed. And as a player that is kind of locked into the top 24, if we get to super state, I’m gonna really push for that bye. I love the changes that have been made.


#51

I just wanted to chime in and say I really like the 20 event rule. 20 is a good number where I’m located at least, maybe a little high actually. But having a cap keeps it from a “let’s see who can play in the most events” to a combination of hitting that 20 cap and doing the best in those 20 events counted. I can see the cap playing a bigger effect in states with many more players/events, where in that case I feel I’d really be in favor.

Thinking out loud:
Say there’s 60 events I could have possibly played in. I end up playing and doing comfortably well in 30, rounding out some good finishes that fit under the 20 cap. Having a cap of 20 on events counted keeps Joe-persistent who has nothing better to do than from playing in all 60, does half as well in those events, but then would still somehow considered an equal player rankings-wise. 20 is enough events to reward consistency throughout a year, but not to be overpowered my persistence. And still allow people to have an outside life from pinball if that’s possible(ha ha).


#52

Good luck on the run from 13th (I’m not counting DeFeo; travelling usually isn’t his cup of tea)! It’s a nice guarantee to have a guarantee at double the 1st round pay and some time to relax. I like the 24-player concept!


#53

Update on Michigan SCS standings with and without caps using all data up to Dec 19th.
Data sorted by Current SCS position (Column H)


#54

Final numbers for 2018. Expanded to the top 30 players since they have a chance at competing in the MI SCS due to Declines / Outs. Pretty interesting what event per location caps result in position changes.

**Players in RED not attending SCS as of Jan 5th.


#55

None of the top 16 are impacted, no matter how you slice it?

Also insane that Aaron won 40 of the 42 events he played. That’s god-level stuff right there.


#56

Why would you ever want to limit the number of events counted per location? That makes no sense to me.

Oh this arcade is the only place that holds tournaments within 3 hours of you? Sorry only your best 5 count!


#57

Here is Ohio, Unlimited vs 20 Event Cap

It squashes a bit of the low value grinding (Bowers and Trombetta) in favor of the higher value / fewer events players (Wamsley and Case). I suppose that’s a good thing but overall it didn’t change too much.


#58

Simple, to get people playing each other instead of camping at one spot to play the same players over and over.


#59

Still. Does more harm than good imo.


#60

I’m not sure I like punishing people who like their local crowd like that. Here in Maryland, we have a couple of locations where a lot of the playerbase doesn’t really move around. They like their weeklies/leagues, it’s fun for them, so they just do that and basically nothing else. I don’t think they should be hamstrung trying to qualify for SCS because of that.

I know the debate on whether limiting to 20 actually has any material impact on final qualifying standings, but it feels better. The effect of a closed group of people camping one location’s weeklies for the entire year is mitigated by taking top 20, instead of allowing all 52 to aggregate.