Pinburgh conundrum


I agree I was just using it as the extreme case…I maybe know of one person who did, (hearsay, not confirmed) but knew about 75 people who went…so by that logic I am guessing maybe 25 people sandbagged…


I received the missing people and the positions, and I’m working it into the spreadsheets. I should have an update to the application this weekend.

I can set up the filtering in various ways, and was thinking:
By Seed (Range from 1 to 800)
By IFPA Ranking (Range from 1 to 40000)
Another Seed filter, grouping by 50 (i.e. 1-50, 51-100, etc.)
Another IFPA Ranking filter, splitting into equal 10% “bins”

If there are other ideas, please let me know.


There are no ‘points’ in Pinburgh. Just wins and losses.


Let’s say it was 5. Let’s say 5 people who were on their way to qualify for A with 34 points or more sandbagged. Well those 5 people affected the division standing of over 100 other players. If 5 more people got 34 points or more than all of the following people would’ve moved down a a division.

Tiebreaker in A Division - 53 players for 5 spots, record 33-27
Tiebreaker in B Division - 53 players for 7 spots, record 30-30
Tiebreaker in C Division - 28 players for 19 spots, record 27-33


I could be wrong… but i believe there are no tie breakers at the divisional break… everybody moves up


Correct. In A division this year there were 5 open spots but 53 players moved up. My point was that if 5 sandbaggers had scored 34 points or more then all of the people with 33 points would’ve been in B instead of moving up to A. This would also affect all the players that were tied in other divisions.


I’m always a fan of giving people the power to make decisions for themselves.

I hope one day to make the 30 hour trip to Pinburgh from Australia. Whatever the format, I hope it allows for maximum playing time (and I would never sandbag, only just learnt what that term means from this thread!)


As suggested, modify rule to require best competitive effort to win each game. True, this would do nothing to stop sandbaggers who have no problem lying. If this were the rule and after suspicious behavior you asked them if they were trying their hardest to win, they’re look you in the eye and say yes and make up a story to explain away their intentional bad play.

But it would make a difference for sandbaggers who are honest and believe in following the rules. As evidenced by this thread, you can currently both sandbag and play by the rules. If I were a sandbagger, I would have no problem doing it because it is not prohibited. But, because I don’t cheat and wouldn’t lie in a competition, I would stop sandbagging if the rule were changed because not trying my best to win each game would no longer be allowed. I think a not-insignificant percentage of the player base would do the same, and so it seems to me to be a worthwhile change to make. It wouldn’t completely solve the problem, but few solutions ever do, perfection is the enemy of good, and good is still, by definition, good.


KME should have clearly been DQ’d for forfeiting his Xmen game after two balls today in the Flip Out final :slight_smile:


Send me a link to the video and time code and I’ll let you know if I agree


There’s no video but I can describe it to you:

ZAC vs KME in a best of 3.

In game 1 of the match KME drains ball 2 of Xmen, and is down 188 mil to 20 mil.

He walks over and turns on WWE before Zach starts his ball 3. Zach asks if he concedes game 1. Keith responds that there is no way he’s interested in chopping that kind of wood. They move on to game 2 without either player playing ball 3.

Saving the energy he would have spent trying to grind back on Xmen, Keith went on to win both WWE and AC/DC in games two and three to win the tournament.

He absolutely did not try his best in game 1. I would say not even playing your third ball is the most incriminating evidence there is.


I mean in this context there was no hidden intent or benefit from giving up, that cannot be called sandbagging. Not sure that compare to the Pinburgh conundrum :slight_smile:


I just wanted to watch the expo tournament


Are things like this going to be considered for stern circuit events? I would be boring to watch someone forfeit a game because they didn’t want to chop wood for that long, or see someone chop wood for that long. Haha

not sure if this is a KME or Zach thing, but will games that tend to be extremely wood choppy be avoided for selection as I assume the tournaments will be broadcasted?


I disagree. I think it is incredibly entertaining to see someone concede a game in any sort of competitive match.

“Wow look at that! Player X finishes his ball with a HUGE score! Omg Omg!” “And now, look at this! Player Y is conceding the game! Incredible! Such a great score to beat - player Y has decided to give X the win!”

…And, it happens very, very rarely I don’t even think its a consideration.


Fair enough and if the commentors play it that way that’s fine. I was just thinking the whole, “I can totally beat that, but I don’t feel like it so let’s just give you the win and move on to game two” wouldn’t look good on a broadcast.


You see this in sports as well. The term “garbage time” exists for a reason. At some point if the Cavs are down 30 points with 4 minutes to play, Lebron won’t be in the game. At that point they aren’t putting forth their best effort to win the game, but rather conserving the energy of their stars to go to battle for the next game.


Definitely hasn’t happened since last year’s Flip Out final between ZAC and KME.

Zach forfeited on GOT. Keith forfeited on Star Trek :slight_smile:


It happens rarely because 4-player groups are all the rage, so there’s usually a chance to play for 2nd


I really do not like single/dual elimination format (randomness of assignment in most case) but there is something cool about head to head finals!