I’ve played 4 Pinburghs now, and inconsistency is my name. I have qualified into D (lowest at that time), A, B (Finals) and this year was B restricted because of making B finals, but should have gone into D without the restriction.
I really struggled to rise up from the bottom of my B division restriction this year, but I had my fair share of games that I was the wrong side of ‘just another couple of bumper hits’ and I’d have had another point. In previous years I’ve been the other side of that (my opponent missed by a tiny score, so I scraped an extra point)
I think the format is pretty near perfect. I love the fact that these tiny failings have such an impact. I love the way that after a bad round you drop and face ‘easier’ players, so have a chance of a bounce back (in theory at least). I love the way every year we always have a discussion about what could be done better, and yet fail to find something better than the way things are already.
There’s a reason this tournament sells out in seconds every year, and I think discussion like this is very healthy, but the vast VAST majority of players are quite happy with the way things are.
Greg Poverelli and Johan Genberg were restricted to A Division and both had a day one record of 29-31. 330 people had better day one records, but will finish below Greg and Johan in the final standings due to restrictions. Those 330 folks didn’t even have the opportunity to try and beat Greg and Johan. I can’t justify that in my head, so maybe I’m missing something here. Can anyone explain to me what I’m missing?
Last week was my second Pinburgh and I’m a relatively new player, so take what I have to say with a grain of salt. I was a was bumped from B into C because of the restrictions. It sucked because I had to tell everyone that I was in C division, but I don’t see an easy want to resolve the issue. It only effects a small number of participants, so they can do what I did and “just get over it”.
You’re never going to find the perfect system that fits 100% of the peoples’ expectations. I think it’s really good how it is right now.
On a side note, a huge thank you to everyone that was involved in putting that show / tournament together. The sheer logistics and the behind the scenes work that had to go into that, is mind boggling.
I made a comment to someone that just cleaning the glass on all those machines (both sides) would take forever! I don’t even want to think about the poor soul that had to level them all!!!
Last thing I have to say on this topic, thank you @PAPA_Doug for hearing me out. I don’t like how the restrictions work, but I love Pinburgh. It’s just part of the format that bugs me but there are a ton of things that bug me about all formats. Being relatively new to competitive pinball, I recognize that I might be coming from a different perspective and I what I think is best or fair might not be the same as everyone, and I appreciate the perspectives of those of you that have been doing this a while.
How about offering the vocal minority that is cranky about being bumped the option to voluntarily restrict themselves BEFORE the tournament starts? heh.
Clearly we just need to add another full day of qualifying rounds to get a better picture of skill vs luck, right?
I ended up in D this year, after making B last year - it is what it is. I think the vast majority just take the spot they end up in and are fine with it. I’d hate to see any large changes made just on the influence of a few upset players.
The restrictions aren’t arbitrary. They’re based on previous record. If you play consistently well enough to be a top ranked player then you’ve earned that restriction. Similarly if you’ve played well in the previous Pinburgh and made your way into X Division finals, then you’ll be restricted to X division the following year. The solution to ‘why is player X restricted and bumped me out’ is always - play better.
I remember the year I got into A, and as happy as I was to have made that, it was well above my comfort level so I struggled hard and I think ended up ranked below some of the players that were A restricted but had played well on the second day and finished above me. I think I also made a post about the ‘unfairness’ of this shortly after, but looking back now and with the experience of multiple rides through the tournament and the discussions (like this) that follow - I take back any complaints I made
That’s what I’m saying. Restrictions are earned. You’ve shown you can do it. Everyone who was knocked down a division, did you end up winning it? If you felt it you should have been higher, then in theory you should have placed higher. So what was everyones results when they got bumped down because of restrictions?
Well… does a higher IFPA ranking necessarily mean that someone is a “better” player? It means someone travels to a lot of IFPA ranked tournaments and does well at them. I know plenty of local-only players who are very skilled, but aren’t ranked highly because they don’t usually travel to WPPR-heavy tournaments. Should someone earn a spot in A Division through strong play at Pinburgh or through their success at other tournaments throughout the year? Personally I’d prefer the former.
I think sandbagging in Pinburgh was alive and well maybe three or four years ago, but times are changing–competitive pinball has grown exponentially in the past few years. There was strong play across all of the divisions this year and I never played an “easy opponent” in my entire day 2 in D Division. The competition was fierce in E Division finals and included people who were definitely not amateurs. Anyone still trying to sandbag at Pinburgh 2020 is naive, IMO.
In this day and age yes that’s exactly what that means. Playing on the same location well and competing in a major tournament are two very different skills. I’m sure there store a lot of golfers who play well on a PGA course but they aren’t playing in the open. Pinburgh is proof of that. You need to be able to adapt and play consistently well no matter the location. Knowing a location and playing off site is a very different skill set. If those players did travel to those tournaments I’d be willing to bet that they wouldn’t perform near there “on site” skill level.
This!! The IFPA has encouraged location camping when they lifted the location event limits. The effect of that is now being felt at Pinburgh as players aren’t restricted to where they should be due to a lack of Wppr’s earned from travelling across thier state or nationaly.
1 Example: A former Chicago Expo main event winner could have played in E division this year at Pinburgh.
If a player plays in a finals at a Major event, let alone win one, they should be restricted to “A” regardless of IFPA rank as the players ability has shown they have “A” ability. Just a lack of event activity has kept them lower ranked.
I’ve wondered the same thing. I’m curious what the rationale behind divisions in the first day are. I ran a swiss style league once and we didn’t break out into divisions, just the quartiles and it was fun to see some players be able to move back up with good play again.
I’m sure there would be various strategies for determining bracketed finals. With how close the numbers are I think intentionally trying to sandbag to make a specific finals would be difficult.
I wasn’t close to the cut line, but I still had the same initial reaction to being “stuck” in C; I was wishing I had the opportunity to play my way back up (though I likely wouldn’t have).
But then I played in C against fantastic competition without worrying about WPPRs and had more fun with competitive pinball than I’ve had in some time. And I eventually started to play better. While I wonder if things could be improved, it’s just such a spectacular event.
Pinburgh etiquette question: are we expected to write the exact scores on the scoresheet? Or can it be rounded (in cases where insignificant digits don’t matter)?
My opinion: write the full score down unless all players agree otherwise.
In truth - it doesn’t matter at all, only the rank 3/2/1/0 matters. But some of us like to photo the scoresheets at the end of the round so that we’ve got something to look back on and compare against our friends or whatever.
I just do rounded as long as the difference isn’t too insignificant. If it’s something like AFM, Jackbot or JM, I’d probably just write down the millions for instance.
I feel this is highly the exception versus the rule… I wrote a whole response to WPPR calculations and the difference between local and traveling players… You aren’t getting top 100 playing only locally.
Even if you do win one big tournament.
I feel the divisions accomplish two things:
Allow the distribution of prizes and money to all skill levels
Give inexperienced players a feeling of high level competition with ‘something on the line’
I would love to see an analysis of players who were bumped up to a higher division because of restriction. I know A division lost 12 positions to players below the A cut - effectively taking spots from other players based on that days performance.
And you shouldn’t be able to get top 100 if you only play locally! You need to play on all courses to get an idea of your skill and against all players.
I’d also like to see the data of the people who did drop a division on how they finished.
