Thought I’d give a quick update on this post. The predictions I posted at the beginning of year have been remarkably accurate. There doesn’t really seem to have been much of a fee effect. The annual growth remains unabated.
As always: good analysis. Nice predictive model!
How does the model ‘see’ suppressed players like myself? I have played approximately the same number of events this year, only without submitting results for points.
just looking at the graphs without raw numbers, Jan & Feb 2018 seem to be outliers and then there is a pretty consistent number above 10000( 7different months, so far.) That is pretty damned positive from an overall health of the ‘sport of pinball’ perspective.
What is the expected payoff, or “increase of interest” generated from the $1 fee? If the current growth trend was predictive without the fee being a factor, will 2019 tell the story?
Suppressed players should still be submitted in the results to make sure they are impacting the value of the tournament appropriately.
We of course can’t track any events where that data wasn’t submitted to us.
unless the TD offers an opt-out option, correct?
Opt out option isn’t just a suppressed players thing. That’s available for anyone at the discretion of the TD.
- Well, the technical answer is that the model doesn’t handle them at all. The model simply tries to predict the overall number of players. That said, if players were dropping at a greater rate in 2018 than in prior years, then we would see that the predictions would have been consistently higher than what was observed. That didn’t happen.
- I wouldn’t call jan and feb outliers. There is always a lull in the winter months. It seems there is a seasonal effect every year. Spring/Fall are the most active seasons, and Winter/Summer are the least active seasons.
- So, the hypothesis is that adding money to the SCS will improve overall interest. Since the payouts don’t happen until 2019, I think it’s safe to say any benefits of the fee won’t appear until 2019. If growth outstrips predictions, then you could say that it was a success.
Yeah, i think there’s some confusion about what a suppressed player is. @JNX I don’t think you are suppressed, because your IFPA profile is still active. What we’ve been doing is just letting you opt out of submissions altogether.
yeah, i never really delved into details. 1. I still got to play and 2. I didn’t pay the fee.
Ultimately, I didn’t want my stance against the fee to affect others, including the TD. I am now going to start playing as a rated player again, rejoining the herd.
I would challenge that the measure of success would be accelerating growth to the same percentage that the fee comprises local prize money. If entry fee is $5, then taking a dollar from that would make the growth over normal projections need to be 20%. If it is $10, then the uptick in growth would need to be 10% over the regular projections.
Admittedly an aggressive target, but there needs to be a bang for everyone’s literal buck.
Do you feel that there is still a need for the 5 played event rule for new players, now that the $1 fee has been established? On the flip side, should a TD have to pay a $1 fee for a player that essentially doesn’t count towards the value of the tournament. Figured I would stir the pot…
Let me settle that pot down for you
9 posts were split to a new topic: Five game “experience” requirement for IFPA rating (split from Fee Effect thread)