Again, the tournament format won’t change as a result of the discussion about WPPR. Maybe WPPR should report it differently and that’s fine, but Pinburgh won’t ever put Jorian or KME or Rosa into B or C Division for Day 2. The only alternative is removing the player from the tournament altogether for Day 2, and that doesn’t seem like a good idea.


Have you considered not showing player standings on Day 1?


We don’t “report” anything . . . tournament directors submit their results to the IFPA :wink:


I don’t agree that being A restricted and ending up in the basement of A division for Day 2 is a “get out of jail” card. It’s quite the opposite! Jorian (and others who were A restricted that performed poorly on Day 1) were firmly “in jail” … facing the daunting task of being at a disadvantage in Day 2 to have to score even MORE points than their fellow A div mates in order to make A finals.

Also think about it from incentives: Is an A-restricted player incentivized to slack off on Day 1 to take advantage of being in the basement of A to start out Day 2? Not at all. Just the opposite.

On your point on rating, ranking, etc… Why would we want to judge the Rating, Ranking, and eff % of players only part-way through a tournament?? This also doesn’t make sense.

The only way that having A restrictions would provide an unfair advantage to those A-restricted players, would be a format that would have a non-lowest division have their scores from Day 1 be wiped clean, and everyone starting Day 2 on a level playing field. That would be unfair, and that’s the reason why A, B, and C division records do NOT reset for Day 2.


Well alright then! Pinburgh reports the results to the IFPA, and I guess they say it’s fine as is!


No, for a few reasons … the primary being that the cutoffs for divisions don’t generally change from year to year. If player standings were hidden, a player would still know to aim for 33-27 if their goal was to sit at the top of B.


Yes, in past years, the cuts have been right where they are now, except for this year’s half point [30.5] atop B. 34 to make A, 31 for B, and 27 for C in 2013, 2014 and 2015.


I am not really against level restricts and Jorian had a hard fight, I am just pointing out he had that chance and would not have if he played under a different name.

Bottom line is this is all within the IFPA rules. The format is endorsed because having min level restriction does not disqualify an event from endorsement. Rules are clearly presented ahead of time, and if someone doesn’t like it, they can not attend. Participants vote with attendance, and I would play pinburgh even without WPPRs and even without payouts, because it is ridiculously fun.


Wasn’t checking the forums but I already did this. Wanted to see how much Keith dominated. Chart on 2nd tab shows distribution (grouped into buckets of 2).


With 2700+ events per year that’s kind of how we have to roll. Even with Becker on board reviewing results we don’t have time to cross check anything outside of what the TD submits. If a player has an issue with the results they are welcome to submit an official complaint to the IFPA inbox and we’ll investigate.

For example, nobody has complained about the PAPA A results, and whether Mr. Al Mysterio may or may not have been on the actual standings :wink:


Since going to 4 divisions, the playoff qualifying scores have been steady, too:

A: 71 to get in (or tiebreaker) every year 2013-2016

B: 66 in 2016, 65 in 2013-2015

C: 62 in 2016; previously 61.5, 63, 62 in '15, '14, '13 respectively

D: 34 in 2016; same in 2013 and 2014, 33.5 in 2015


I went into the tournament thinking I was A restricted until the assignments at the end of day one (I did not pay attention to the top of my player profile obviously). Because they switched the A restriction from being a circuit finalist to a circuit finalist with 150 or more points, I was B restricted. Ended day one at the top of B and didn’t have too difficult a time of making the finals. I don’t have a point to this other than saying I was extremely disappointed that I didn’t make the bottom of A. While I’m probably in the minority, I know I’m not the only one. Escher told me he was disappointed to be in B.

My off the cuff guess that I base on absolutely nothing, is that only 25% or less of B restricted players would rather be in A knowing that their chance of making any money is much slimmer. Maybe a poll could be sent out to the B or C restricted players asking which situation they would prefer?


I like Cayle’s idea of winner takes all! That should take care of sand bagging :wink:


What is the sandbagging issue? Are people naming names? I want to be accused of sandbagging!

Anybody who “sandbags” effectively gets exactly 1 chance to do so, right? They will be bumped up the next year. I expect these sandbaggers to be the winners of B, C, and D division because they’re so good right?

So who do we have? Preston in B with just over 3 years experience playing and 55 events total. David in C with 2 years playing competitive pinball, and 102 events (a lot in 2 years! but still very new) and James in D who joined PPL in early 2013. For each of these players this is their biggest cash win ever! They will all be bumped up to a higher division for at least 1 year. Are any of these guys going to skip out on competitive pinball for a whole 2 years so they can drop down to that division again and play again? It doesn’t make any sense to me. Where are these cheating ringers who know exactly and precisely how to play to be the the best position to win?


I went back to look at 2013, when you could choose your division to play in, subject to player counts. They had 24 people tied for 12 spots in A. 13 opted for A, 11 opted for B, so the only one who didn’t get what they wanted was the one who opted for A but lost the 13-way tiebreaker. But this does say that a significant number of “B” players would rather not be in A.


2017 will be the first time I am A restricted in both PAPA and Pinburgh. I’m still coming to both. I’m thrilled to even be restricted. I’m still just as obsessed with pinball as ever and I want to continue improving my game. That’s not going to happen if my plan is to skip tournaments and let my rank drop for 2 years or w.e it will take.

One of the best things about Pinburgh is that after a minimum of 40 competitive pinball games on all eras of machines against players from everywhere in the world, it’s going to become glaringly obvious where you need to improve your game if you know how to look for it. Win or lose Pinburgh is your #1 opportunity to adjust and learn, or at least get a good idea of where you need to go to start learning.

The attitude that you are prevented from winning your due share from B, C or D division because of sandbaggers is one that I think that comes from a place where you aren’t able to reflect on your own play, or a perception of any player’s ability as being more static than it really is. With the huge growth in number of players, the only way top players are able to stay on top is by continuing to improve. Keith set the bar higher than ever before in Pinburgh with a 95-25 record in qualifying and had 1st in every finals group by a large margin. To me that shows that pinball is a game where you win by winning, not by getting lucky because your group didn’t have any sandbaggers in it.


I’m not going to name names, nor do I expect others to do so. But know that it is something that was done, has been done before, and will be tried again.

Also know that there is no intent to accuse the winners. Most of the people who make this decision appear to be doing so not because they think they will crush the lower division, but because they feel the higher division is far above their skill level. No one is a cheating ringer.


Tim, I think you’re looking at this from a different perspective than many of us. As tournament director I can say with 100% certainty that sandbagging does happen at Pinburgh, I don’t like it, and it’s an issue that needs to be addressed. It is not an issue of overpowered players deliberately dropping into lower divisions; that does not happen. It is an issue of players perceiving themselves as belonging to a specific division making anti-competitive actions to fit into their perceived division.


Would it be weird to group B,C,D players on Day 2 based on their scores from the final round of Day 1 (rather than total points)? Then if you wanted to bomb out round 5 to slip down a division - you’d be doing so at the peril of coming into the next day as a very low seed, rather than a high one.


This reminds me of a point I made on some other forum years ago (in relation to PAPA).

First I would like to say, that I really like the Pinburgh format and event. I recognised how brilliant the format is from the first Pinburgh. And I wish I could attend every time.

But, I believe that finishing high up in B, after a third competition day of strong performance, must be a greater achievement than finishing bottom A. However, the final ranking of the tournament as whole does not reflect this. And hence, neither the WPPR payout. And for PAPA. The latter for lower division players is zilch.

Maybe, a more fair final ranking would be to intertwined division finishes at some appropriate level. Likewise how the achievments are reflected by the prizes payed. And, in the case of PAPA, that the lower divisions were eledgible for WPPR at all.

Unfortunetly, a solution like this will encourage sandbagging even more.