Pinburgh conundrum


What are all these “beef” references? I gather you’re using the term to talk about a thrown game, I’ve just never heard that phrasing before.


So for day 1 this year, B had 30 to 32 1/2 points, plus some people with fewer due to being restricted. The issue in this thread is that some people with 33 or more points would have preferred to play in B. If some of those players had, say, 40 points, they’d have a big edge on the rest of the B field. My idea is to cut that advantage in half. You can do that either by making day 1 points worth half as much or making day 2 points worth double. That way someone with an “earned” edge of 8 points, if they chose to drop down to B, would only have a 4-point edge. I chose doubling day 2 rather than halving day 1 just because I think it would be easier for people to follow that way.

So the “B+” player with 40 now has a different choice to make: keep that 40 and stay in A with a decent start for the A finals, or drop back to B and yes, have an edge, but less of one. There is thus still incentive do to well right up through the last game of round 5 since either way you get to keep some of your edge, but you’re now incentivized to not drop down because you only keep half of it if you do. Limiting that benefit to half also means that the “regular” B folks have a much better chance of overtaking you if the play well on day 2.

Hope this is clearer now.


I’d actually prefer it if it was just, say, $20 to charity and there were trophies and medals for finalists.


First time I heard the term “beef” in regards to pinball was on this years pinmasters stream. It’s pretty much Levi’s favorite word. heh. But yeah he used it similar to brick. “I beefed the jackpot shot and instantly drained” Seems like it’s use is being expanded. I blame the National Cattlemen’s association.


Beef is an ugly word for ugly times. Short, punchy, and angry. And you know it when you see it.

When I hear a bunch of idiots whining about how they are doing too well in pinburgh and plotting to suck just enough so they can take home big money (none of whom succeeded in this ploy) I can think of only one thing:


I’ll try to stop saying it but this is one meaty topic.


Right on.

The restriction rules were the same as 2016, except for the removal of Circuit Final participation as a restriction (which happened because Circuit Final expanded to a full 40 players, instead of top 20 with no replacements).


A lot of these posts stopped making sense to me a while ago but @Funtorium is just making me kind of want Arby’s.


@KevInBuffalo told me this weekend that in addition to the meat mountain, there is a Mount Italy. TMYK.


Sorry… still not making any sense of this. It’s not clear who your multipliers apply to or not… and if they apply to EVERYONE… and it’s just day 1 vs 2 what’s the point. Just follow your plan to it’s natural conclusion… zero out scores after qualifying. Qualifying is just for seeding/divisions. And you make the divisions desirable on their own merits (prizes, fame, whatever).

Mucking with the points is kind of off target. I don’t think the incentive is ‘Man, I got a huge head start on B… and I’m too far behind in A’… because there is no such thing today. To drop into B means to be within 3 points of EVERYONE… there is no point headstart by dropping into B. The reason people drop into B is because of the PLAYERS in B (and AVOIDING the players in A). It’s about their speculation on their chance of success against the field. People know in A that as the competition filters to only A players, the top starts to pull away.

The good news is, the cut still seems wide enough to cut into the meat of the competition. If you look at the cut-off, nearly 50 players in A were within 3 points of the cut-of… with similar outcomes in B.


Hence the real issue is that not everyone wants to play Pinburgh in the Pinburgh format. Many want to play Pinburgh as if it were PAPA, with chooseable divisions. But they still go to Pinburgh because it’s such a fun event and because they can game the system to some extent if they want to.

The next question is then, if money is out of the equation, i.e. you don’t get paid off for doing well in B, how many of those
people still want to play? And would that answer change depending on whether or not the A folks still get the $$, e.g. if the entry fee is still $100-ish to fund A, or if it’s $20-ish to just fund some hardware and charity? Under what circumstances will the “wanna-'B’s” play to win? I don’t think anything less than choosing division works for most of them - - that’s why I suggested allowing it, subject to suitable restrictions, in an earlier post.


We really need to get Arby’s to sponsor the Summer Open.


Works for Andrew Johnson.

Quick @Smack847, give his agent a call so they can also rep Levi :slight_smile:


Nah, just so people keep butchering his name he’s already got the perfect sponsor all lined up


Just my two cents:

If a 100 people sandbagged that is about 13% of the field.

There is no way all 100 of those people qualified for finals in the division they sandbagged to.

While I can see why this topic angers people, and make people feel they may have been robbed in some way, are the few people that do this really worth changing the current rules for?

I don’t think so.

I’ve been to 4 Pinburghs and it is the only tournament I spend excessive money to go to. All the changes suggested make it seem like Pinburgh would be less fun to go to (for me anyway).

If there were a vote, I would definitely keep the rule as are.

Just one opinion from an average player who loves Pinburgh just the way it is.


I don’t agree with that either. People are just trying to find the path that has the best payoff in what matters to them - not that they are against the model. For some that means bragging rights… for some that means “making playoffs” for some that is chasing the dollar.

My response to these kinds of questions is simple… Don’t Nerf the entire tournament just to deal with a minor subset of players. I think the ‘low A’ players are the most at risk simply due to the immense ramping of competition at the top of the stack.

Notice few people have been discussing the B/C line here in the thread… Its my opinion this is a problem in a specific band of the Pinburg population… not something happening everywhere in the population. So let’s not get too ‘universal’ with the fixes :slight_smile:


I was actually referring to 2015 but I’m not 100% on those restrictions


Levi is not allowed to OD on Beef on Wek in Buffalo! Of course, if he does it would probably open up another spot in the playoffs. If I do one thing in Buffalo, it has to be get a picture of Levi in line at the Beef on Wek food truck!:hamburger:


The restrictions in 2015 were also the same :wink:

The restrictions in 2015 were significantly wider than the restrictions in 2014, because of the expanded field. The field didn’t expand by a lot in 2016 and 2017, so it hasn’t changed, but it sounds like the general feedback leans toward expanding this for 2018.


He turned me on to Golden Chick and all it took was one weekend.


I totally agree and I would guess the actual number of players sandbagging isn’t remotely close to 100.