I am looking for clarification on the TGP effect of a rule introduced in Pinburgh that I think can be very valuable in a Match Play environment:
Tournament officials may declare a player as a winner of a game in progress; that player will get a record of 3-0 for that game. This will generally occur only if the pace of the tournament is at risk due to exceptionally good play. The affected player must stop play immediately. Any other player reaching the same score in that game will also receive a 3-0 record.
If this rule were implemented, how is this counted for TGP purposes?
My presumption:
Player is Stopped Between End of Ball 2 and Before Ball 3 is Complete -> Entire Round is 2/3
Player is Stopped Between End of Ball 1 and Before Ball 2 is Complete -> Entire Round is 1/3
Player is Stopped Before Ball 1 is Complete -> Entire Round is 0
Extending this further, how does a game set to 5-Balls affect this calculation, especially after Ball 3 has been played?
I anticipate it would receive full value for the game. When itâs implemented itâs because a player has played so long they are probably uncatchable on that game. No reason to penalize the event because one or two players blew up a game.
I think players have been told to stop before and iirc someone else in the group matched the score and they both got max points (3) for the game.
Not necessarily names and intimate details, but more broadly Iâm curious in how it played out. The player was presumably crushing some game and⌠what, the TD stepped in and said âyouâre good, you can drain nowâ? Then how did it work out with the other players? Was this on ball three? With players left to play? etc
World Poker Tour causing Pinburgh to go off schedule by 3 days. I believe it was Andrei Massenkoff who was told to stop at 100 million, saving the other 842 players from having to wait even longer for the next round to start.
All the other players would then earn first place if they also hit the 100 million score . . . Andy Rosa chopped some wood and hit it as well.
Wait. I donât know about that. There are a lot of factors that played into this decision and it wasnât possible to complete on 1-ball, because Andre was playing his third ball when it happened. All games in Pinburgh have the opportunity to be mercy ruled, but no games in Pinburgh have a mercy rule score. IMO it should be looked at as a rarely used TD discretion tool, only implemented because the other 800+ players had already been waiting well past the next round start time. I am more bothered by the extra point that then existed.
Should count as FULL, based on the intent of TGP, rather than the ad-hoc wording of it. TGP is there to ensure that âenough pinball is playedâ to fully sort the players. Thereâs certainly âenoughâ being played in a mercy rule case.
Your forget that a mercy rule can be ANYTHING . . . how about a mercy rule on AFM of 1 billion points? What about 500 million? What about 250 million? I can picture FLR drooling over the opportunity to exploit TGP with all sorts of unreasonable mercy rule scores
a. Any player who reaches the maximum possible score on a machine that has such, will receive that score as their total. For example, Guns n Roses stops scoring at 9,999,999,990 points.
It does seem appropriate (using this logic) to award the game x/3 or x/5 value according to what ball was in play at the time. If youâre awarding 1/3 because itâs possible to play long enough to âcall itâ on ball one then every game should be 1/x value.
As Adam mentioned, even at 1/3rd value Pinburgh still grades out to 100% TGP.
As a way to avoid any type of exploitation of this mercy rule, which I havenât seen used anywhere else so far, using 1/3rd value for everything is completely fine with me.
Outside of Pin-golf, we have no interest in tracking the average number of balls played for any games with mercy rules. Pin-golf was super close to being lumped into the 1/3rd TGP group. It was mostly out of our selfish need to have Pin-Masters grade out to 100% TGP that we created a custom system to handle this grading.
In league finals we âmercy Ruledâ @snailman once during ball 1. He had already put up 30 something million on X-files on ball one with no signs of letting up. The other 3 of us in the group agreed that we were conceding to him and would be playing for second place on that game as we were under a time crunch to finish before the arcade closed.
Would this be considered a mercy rule, thus the quotes above?
Can we get more details?
