It seems to me that anytime a TD or referee has to fall back on a rule that says a player must play to win it is a sign that the event hasn’t been properly setup. If there is an incentive for a player to lose a match to win something within the tournament then this is an incentive problem.
In Pinburgh the incentive problem seems to be one of the following:
Money. Lower finishers may receive more money than higher finishers.
Play time. People would rather get the chance to play on day 3 rather than finish as high as they could.
Prestige. Some people would rather be #1 in a lower tier rather than finishing as high as they could.
Now there are very good reasons that the staff may not want to change these incentives to prevent ‘sandbagging’. People may balk at giving all the money to the elite players. Having everyone play on day 3 may be too time consuming. I’m not sure how you’d deal with the prestige problem to be honest.
In the end, these are tradeoffs. Making it a moral issue doesn’t change the fact that the incentives are skewed. I for one am not terribly worried about sandbagging. I would police unsportsmanlike conduct. I would make tweaks that lessened the incentives to throw games. But I wouldn’t make large changes to the format (no prize money to lower tiers or four separate tournaments) just to prevent a players from optimizing their play for their desired outcomes.
Pinburgh is the most fun I’ve had at a tourney and I wouldn’t mess with it too much.
Ok. Perhaps the 24 people, give or take, comprising these 6 groups, give or take, could be entered into a head to head single elimination tourney for session 10 instead of the usual group play format used during the previous 9 sessions and using the same games pool they would have played in 4 person group play format with the other 194 groups playing the usual 2016 session10 format. The top finishers in the head to head tourney advance and join the group format qualifiers to fill out the playoff round.
Might be better off to think of ways to add an incentive to success in rounds 5 and/or 10.
Some options:
Rounds 5 and 10 could have different scoring like 6 2 1 0 - Maybe then people would be too greedy with the option of 1st places giving them a chance at huge gains. (also, I’m not sure I would be confident about the proper sandbagging strategy here, lots more of unknown risk)
Monetary prizes for certain totals in rounds 5 and 10. Say a 8 earns you $30, a 9 $40, an 11 $50 and a 12 $100.
Or an interesting twist… what about awards for round 5/10? Biggest jump? ‘Making the grade’… ‘From out to in!’… The medallions seemed like they were liked this year… maybe build on that and have some fun with it too. Consider donkey prizes for those who fell just off the cut or something. I mean, just be creative… maybe it just brings some fun to the event even if not monetary awards. Give them their 15 seconds of fame on the stage with Bowen… and just have some fun with the commentator too.
This would mean the sandbagging takes place in round 4, and now has an extra incentive, because plumetting your rank in round 4 (or earlier) means you have an easier round 5 (more chance at cash) AND you can still make sure your points total leaves you qualifying for the lower division you were aiming for
Problem - round 10 6/6/6/6 collusion leads players to game the system to all advance
Solution - any score card turned in for RD 10 with all 6s AND players are ranked 40 or less (or whatever the cutoff is) is forced to additional game. Player order determines 9, 7, 5 or 3 points.
This will put the best two in and the worst two out based on one additionl game. If people want to collude and put everything on a single unknown game let it happen.
It will delay tie-breakers but probably would stop collusion.
I also support the idea of simply letting it happen…if you’ve battled 9rounds and are in a place that the whole group can advance and no one wants to play for a bye on Saturday then so be it. It isN’t really different than earning a bye on Sat except you are eliminating yourself from having a chance to get two bye’s on Saturday.
pretty much anything that involves ‘playing another game’ I think will be shot down. Time is the big unforgiving beast in an event like Pinburg and while I think they have great control of it now… I doubt they want to go backwards here.
Idea: Simply do not allow those groups to advance 4 players.
If Round 10 6/6/6/6 happens, take it to some other total points measure to find the “winning 6’s” and the “losing 6s” This only requires a little additional addition by the scorekeeper and a minimal delay. No additional games or anything, just get slightly more granular.
If the problem is severe enough, you can call those groups “bubble groups” and only two (or one, whatever you need) get in per group regardless of final scores. So, if 7755 gets all 4 in, then making it a ‘bubble group’ still only sends the 7’s.
So everyone plays their best, stuff happens and it ends in a 4-way tie and they get punished and have to play a tiebreaker because it “looks” like collusion ?
Yea, players have enough on their minds just trying to win, no need to pile “avoid the number of the beast plus one!” onto it… Not sure what else to do except shame those who are caught colluding or sandbagging.
That’s how it SHOULD be. First, in this level of competition there’s no such thing as relaxing your game. Second, by winning first game, that top seed was now fighting for a single or double bye. Why shouldn’t they press for as many points as possible? Third, who knows where the cutoff was, but everyone knew losing 3 points could knock you down 100 spots. So if that top seed wins first game, then 0-0-0, they are at risk of being knocked out.
You state it was a problem for that top seed to go for as many points as possible. However, I think that’s precisely what they should have been doing.
That approach shows promise, but you still have the issue of 40th vs 41st in such tiering, where those two players likely have the same number of points. But perhaps the following variation of that can work: Suppose 40th place is at 66 points after round 9. Then first tier is all players with 67+ points. Players at the top are fighting for byes, at the bottom for survival. 6-6-6-6 is unlikely a good outcome for any group unless one or more players are willing to sacrifice a bye. Second tier is everyone tied at 66 points. Only some of them can possibly make it in, so this becomes more of a tie breaker; a tie at 6 points could be a loss. Third tier then starts with everyone who has 65 or less points, and at that point downward, you can go with players with equal points, because 6-6-6-6 means nobody advances, so everyone will play hard.
The main caveat I see with this approach is you could end up with a few 3-player groups among people fighting for spots. I’ve yet to play in a 3-player group, so I’m not sure if that’s a major issue or minor issue. This could be addressed with someone on the 67+ threshold being put in the tied-for 66 point group, for example, to ensure only 4-player groups. Having one such player with a point more won’t change that 6-6-6-6 is not a good group outcome for everyone, thus collusion is avoided.
I’m not talking about relaxing my game. I’m talking about risk, strategy, and which scoring opportunities to chase.
I did not say this. I would not criticize any player’s strategy that did not violate the rules or spirit of the tournament. Please do not mince my words.
Here were the 3 problems that I had which will hopefully make things clear.
This was not posted ahead of time.
Pinburgh Staff members have apologized for this mistake. People aren’t perfect, and the website wasn’t updated to match the official rules. We now have a discussion and an apology. All good here.
I made incorrect strategy choices for the situation I was placed in, due in part to my lack of understanding and preparedness of the situation for the group members I was in.
On Black Knight Ball 1 and 2 I shot for the loop to light locks on the upper playfield. Both times I did this I lost the ball.
On Terminator 2, I ignored a 15 million point hurry-up on Ball 2 to instead shoot for the lock target.
I made both of these decisions because I was Chasing the Top Seed’s aggressive play. Had I had time to look at the point totals of the players in my group, to understand things like:
bottom seed needed 9 points to qualify after game 1, so needed perfect 3s on each game.
top seed was within position to qualify with a double bye, but needed an 11 or 12 to do so, due to his 4-point lead over me.
Other middle seed needed about the same number of points as me, and was my actual competition in the group.
I may have made different pinball decisions. I believe I would have done so, but I do not have a time machine, so I cannot test this theory. I Did not understand these bullet points until Sunday. There were approximately 0 minutes between when I saw my group of players and when the round started. I also did not understand that the groupings were not in error until the middle of game 2, when a player in my group went to the front desk to ask about the situation.
Third (keeps autocorrecting to 1). The divergence in round 10 introduces a new set of circumstances in Pinburgh, which may have negative consequences for the competition or for some players competing in Pinburgh.
I would like to give my feedback regarding my personal experience in this new situation. I would also like to be a part of this discussion because I would like to maximize my chances of success in the upcoming Pinburgh tournaments. It is not every day that I have the opportunity to win $15,000 from playing pinball, so I feel that it is important for me to give feedback, or at least vent.
Rule #1 on BK. Never shoot the light lock loop until you have magna saves lit. I know you probably already know this but I just had to lay it out there!
On second thought, that should be rule #2.
Rule #1 on BK… Always hold right flipper up on the plunge…
