Pinburgh conundrum


#323

Head to head finals is great when you get to watch a match like this! (@Smack847 was player 1 and Escher was player 2 trying to chase him down…)


#324

That’s a good head to head game of X-Men


#325

I need to get better at xmen :frowning:


#326

I’m just going to wait for it to leave Trent’s inventory.


#327

I’ve conceded a game in head to head finals once.
I was down over 200 million heading into ball 3 on Family Guy in the first of a best of 3. Just saw no point in wasting time and energy trying to chase down such a massive score.

I also prefer head to head play in finals. I find it much more exciting as a player, and far easier to follow for a spectator knowing someone is 2-0 up or 2-1, etc. rather than trying to work out the combinations of pts for all players in a 4 way final.


#328

RIP tournament schedule, though. :wink:


#329

This is something I hope commentators help out with in the future. Talk more about the current state of the round, who has what, and what the possible outcomes are. Also flash to another scene on the stream that shows the current round and where everyone stands pointswise. Matchplay can help with this if the tournament is run through there.


#330

I have seen a bunch of attempts at this, when the commentators were incorrect, though. Now it seems standard that announcers say “I won’t do math on the air.” I like it when the broadcast has the numbers right there and the viewers can do it themselves if they want.


#331

I once tried to get @haugstrup to write an addition to Match Play which would automatically calculate all the possible outcomes for finals scenarios and display them. Maybe if we pressure him it will happen!


#332

Since it’s not really related to the running of the tournament, anyone can do it! Doesn’t have to be inside Match Play!


#333

I think just having the current results on the screen with the commentators talking about it while everyone else looks at it is plenty. Then they can interact with the chat to get a good idea of what is still possible to happen if they don’t want to do math. Haha


#334

Math is Hard.


#335

Yeah a visual of the permutations would be great. In the ‘standard’ 4-2-1-0 3-match PAPA style playoffs there’s often a TON of ways to get in even when you lose match 1.


#336

All tournaments on Matchplay are fun


#337

I know this is a bit out of nowhere but, has there been thought about restricting the money won instead of the division played? Meaning if a player is restricted to A, then they would only be eligible to win money in A. If they don’t qualify for A but C instead, the player would play in C on day two and could win C finals, but couldn’t win the money for C due to their restriction. Congrats on that trophy tho.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot since Pinburgh. I had a blast at Pinburg. I hung four with my friends, met new folks, learned from mistake both on and off “the field”, all of that was great. That said, one thing that bothered me is the fact that I out played some folks I know on day one, but ended up in a lower division than because of restrictions. This meant that I finished lower in the final standing despite having a better day on and possibly a better over all tournament. I did the math, I would have still be in the upper end of E division eitherway, but some other higher ranked players should have been their with me based on their play. It just made me feel like I was competing against people and their achievements, instead of just them.

I get we want to prevent tanking, but if folks are thinking that tanking is in there best interest, then I feel like that points to a flaw of the faulty incentive system. If you restrict the money, it’s in no restricted player’s interest to tank, and then at the end of the tournament the final results more accurately reflect what happened over those three days. Is there something I’m grossly overlooking here?


#338

So then the first player that wasn’t restricted to a higher division would win the top money prize? It seems then the big cash money winner could potentially be like 20-30 spots down. Haha


#339

I bet that would make them want to come back. :slightly_smiling_face:


#340

Yeah I wouldn’t care about that at all, just seems weird.

I think the current rules just put those restricted players into purgatory in a sense. Most of those restricted players that get forced into the higher division have no shot of coming back.

I have zero data to support this claim. Haha

I also bet the difference between 300-500th place at pinburgh in terms of WPPRs is negligible. I think once you’re eliminated from A, your goal is to win whatever division you’re in. Not necessarily maximizing WPPRs. At least that’s how I am wired.


#341

Yes. Having a player like Keith Elwin win Division C at Pinburgh would be difficult from a perception standpoint. Other C finalists would be pissed to encounter such a player in finals, and he wouldn’t be happy with it either. If you add the restriction that a top player can’t win money in C, done would probably just abandon Day 2 rather then play for nothing but pride and spoiler.

Also, generally players don’t know or check on others’ payouts, so the general perception would be that the top player won C and its cash.


#342

At least twice, A restricted players have come back from that Day 1 deep hole to qualify for finals.

The only other realistic option, to me, is elimination. An A player makes A, or they are gone. And I don’t think that is the right choice.