I like real world examples, so here’s one:
From PAPA 18, Here’s ticket A
The Walking Dead…250,433,230…14…74
Total Points: 186
Finishing position - tied for 26th place (missed the cut by 2 points)
Here’s ticket B
Total Points: 212
Finishing Position - 18th place (made the cut by 24 points)
So it’s pretty “simple”, really which is a “better” PAPA ticket ? Under the current scoring system, ticket B is better because it’s worth 26 points more than ticket A. So the current system values “3 bombs and 2 goose eggs” over a “five solid, above average scores”
However, if you were to expand the scoring out to 125 or 150 instead of 100, ticket A becomes much stronger (because it’s two “zero” games will begin contributing points to the ticket almost immediately whereas ticket B’s two goose eggs will continue to be goose eggs in any scoring system and will bleed away to obscurity…).
So really, it comes down to whether you want your 5-games-per-ticket scoring system to value a run like ticket A more or ticket B more, and for most players, it really won’t matter an iota because they will still qualify no matter what system you use. And change is hard, and different, and scary, so it’s always easier to stick to what you know, but I can tell you that my approach to a PAPA ticket would change a lot if the scoring system changed, because right now, there’s tremendous value in having a couple of top 20 bombs on your ticket and you can definitely get in with just 3 out of 5 big games, whereas with any deeper scoring scale, playing all 5 games above average becomes essential.
Personally, I think that @Sanjay’s Ticket A was more deserving of a place in the finals of PAPA 18 than my own ticket B (I don’t subscribe to @pinwizj’s what’s-best-for-me-is-best-for-everyone’s philosophy ), and that the PAPA scoring system should definitely increase it’s fidelity to keep up with the volume of games being played in qualifying. #MakeAllFiveGamesCount!