My round 6 was terrible… I dropped down to 240. I could not believe I made it out of that nightmare.
2 Likes
I checked my file for 2016 and there were two players who missed the A cut by a point and were forced up but still made the final 40 for the playoffs - - Jorian and Sean Grant. A couple others made the cut on the number and got in, too. I think some on-the-cut people did in prior years, too, but I don’t have those details handy. Basically, if you make the cut for A, you’ve got a shot.
Further 2016 details [half points rounded down]:
44+ wins - - 100% - - 5 of 5
43 wins - - 60% - - 3 of 5
42 wins - - 57% - - 4 of 7
41 wins - - 50% - - 3 of 6
40 wins - - 57% - - 4 of 7
39 wins - - 20% - - 2 of 10
38 wins - - 31% - - 4 of 13
37 wins - - 25% - - 4 of 16
36 wins - - 13% - - 4 of 30
35 wins - - 7% - - 2 of 30
34 wins - - 7.5% - - 3 of 40
below cut: <= 33 wins - - 33% - - 2 of 6
Grouping, we get
44+ wins - - 100% - - 5 of 5
40-43 wins - - 56% - - 14 of 25
37-39 wins - - 26% - - 10 of 39
36- wins - - 10% - - 11 of 106
Note the forced-up players are on average higher ranked than most others making the 5-round cut.
3 Likes
It would be awesome if top-10 or top-20 on the world ranking could get an invite.
Didn’t get a ticket last year and not this year. Can’t really bother to arrange for vacation, hotel etc with a 300-400 spot on the waiting list.
Gratz to all people getting a spot.
2 Likes
Just because 4 groups on 4 games isn’t viable doesn’t automatically mean 3 groups on 3 games isn’t viable.
4 groups on 4 games doesn’t work because rounds would take longer than than the currently allotted 2:15/round. This would make a 5 round/day schedule unworkable.
3 groups on 3 games would take longer than the 34 minutes/game allocated to current rounds, but might be doable at 40 mins/game. If you ran 6 rounds instead of 5, you’re talking about an extra 45 minutes tacked onto the day. You have higher machine utilization and everyone is playing 2 fewer games. This should allow for more players on the same number of games.
The tradeoff of course is players play fewer matches and have to stand around waiting longer. 3 games per bank also screws up the nice era breakdown you currently have going. There are other considerations I’m sure I’m not thinking of as well.
My only point is I don’t think 3 groups assigned to banks of 3 is automatically not viable.
I’m in, and so, so thrilled to be going to my first Pinburgh this year.
…the waitlist is up to 440 people already! When the waitlist grows over 1,000 some future year, is it time to hold two Pinburgh sessions? …or a Pinburgh “second shift?”
Incredible to see so much demand! It’s awesome!
4 Likes
I know that this topic has become a mix of a few topics, but I know there were some data questions so I kicked up the old thread where I had originally posted my Pinburgh 2017 analysis.
I added a link to a Google Sheet with the data that I used in the data model, including round-by-round analysis by person. If people have more data questions feel free to use that thread.
3 Likes
Having an invite for the “top players” - however you define that - is elitist and I don’t like it. The heart of Pinburgh is its social aspect. People who do not care about winning that cup say this is their favorite tournament all year. People who don’t usually compete outside of their local leagues travel from around the world to be here.
Who are you to say their experience is less valid than yours and they shouldn’t have just as equal a shot at getting a ticket?
14 Likes
Yeah, I played in B in 2016 and in D last year (absolutely no sandbagging), and I don’t think I actually got 2 divisions worse in the intervening year. 
1 Like
Didn’t say their experience is less valid. If you look I qualified C division. So my entitled self would be in the ticket grab 
What I said was get the players out of the way we all know would never go without a ticket.
You don’t like the idea of inviting A/B divisions back. Fine invite c/d divisions back and let the top guys & new people fight for spots
There are several new people that have been trying the last couple years to get tickets that again this year were unable.
I’d make one exception for a guaranteed ticket, defending champ. You won last year, you should be able to defend.
Having said that, I’m sure if you won last year then you’re glued to your chair like the rest of us and aren’t likely to miss the window…
1 Like
Yes. Yes, I was. F5 F5 F5 F5 …
6 Likes
So how does setting aside X amount of tickets for people who have been there before help that situation at all?
1 Like
Since when is it a right of anybody to enter a pinball tournament? It’s a privilege! It seems like some people feel entitled to get a ticket because they REALLY want in.
Pinburgh is fun, so a lot of people want to get in, but the organizers can’t accommodate everyone with that wish. They’re already doing all they can imo. Sure, it stings not to get in (been there), but hey, that’s part of life.
I agree with Artimage that the defending champ should be the only one with a guaranteed ticket so that they get the chance to defend their title.
5 Likes
By taking traffic off the ticket site and potentially giving more than 30 seconds to secure a ticket.
…to secure a smaller number of tickets. You get that traffic wasn’t the issue, right? The issue was 1200 people wanting 840 tickets. There was absolutely no issue with server traffic.
4 Likes
It’s not a bad thing for people to challenge a process. There’s always room for improvement. Others voicing ideas might help spark something that might actually work. No need to get worked up over opinions or ideas.
Do you seriously think anyone on here thinks you guys will change anything based off opinions on the internet?
1 Like
I think many people think just this all the time. I also think people for some reason assume ALL of these options and ideas haven’t already been contemplated and dissected thoroughly.
8 Likes
I hope so! We take feedback seriously and change things every single year based on input we receive. If you think all of this hasn’t touched off lengthy internal debates, you’d be wrong.
But 1) I’m entitled to my opinion that setting aside tickets for top players, a suggestion many have made, is elitist; and 2) I was attempting to clear up your misconception that something other than supply vs demand had anything to do with the speed of the sell out.
10 Likes
I assume that you have considered a lottery? The advantage would be that people with a poor internet connection aren’t disadvantaged, and that people overseas don’t have to get up at some un-godly hour (3 am, in my case), to stare at a browser screen
A lottery would also mean that people who can’t be at their computer at the relevant time (say, because they drive an ambulance or some such) would get a chance.
A lottery certainly would be equitable.
2 Likes
I have a thought that does involve setting aside a small number of tickets, which I agree is bad, but hear me out.
I agree with others that economics says the price should be raised. The issue is I don’t like that this makes more elitist financially. So I suggest taking the extra money taken ($8000) by raising the cost and creating an aid fund to bring people who really can’t afford pinburgh the opportunity. Have people submit short essay and they can earn one of the aid tickets.
Probably a stupid and hard to implement idea. But I thought I would throw it out there.
1 Like