I may have found a quirky pitfall. It relates to the math about how one of the new WPPR formula v5.3 rules seems to amplify the importance of one of the existing WPPR formula v5.2 rules.
It's a little complicated and a bit iterative, so bear with me. It won't come up very often, but it's not vanishingly rare either.
The new rules state...
[O]nly players that participate in at least 50% of the games used in determining those qualifying positions will be included in the final results.
The existing rules state...
For tournaments where fewer than 50% of the field is removed in the qualifying process, the IFPA considers this ‘seeding’ and will not increase the TGP.
The issue is with measuring the size of "The Field" in the new context. Does the field include ALL players who participated in qualifying? Or does it just include players who participated in at least 50% of the qualifying games?
Further, the wording of the new rule does not contemplate multi-phase qualifying formats, which cause a problem that we'll unexpectedly come to later.
* Assume a monthly Selfie League with 6 machines, for which all 6 scores count for each player.
* Selfie qualifying play is unsupervised, therefore 0% TGP contribution.
* The top 12 people are eligible for the playoffs.
* Playoff format is best-of-7 head-to-head (uncommon, but see below).
* Top 4 qualifying players get a bye for the first round.
* 32 people play during the month.
* 22 people collect all 6 scores, 10 people collect 2 or fewer scores. Therefore, only 22 players will be eligible for WPPR points
In this example, how big is the field and what percentage of the field has been removed in qualifying? Is the field 32, so (32-12)/32=62.5% of the field has been removed? Or is the field 22, so (22-12)/22=45.5% of the field has been removed? Or is the field just 12, as will be explained later?
It seems you could argue that "The Field" includes all participating players (32), even if they just played one game. If so, then everything else is simple. It opens you to somewhat abusive formats ("first game free"), but those have mostly been neutered with last year's rule change. It also means that upon submission, the TD would have to note how many non-WPPR eligible players participated (10 in this case). That's doable, but I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea if the TD is not submitting names to back up their claim.
Things get more complicated if "The Field" excludes people who didn't play 50% of the qualifying games. If this is the case, it (unexpectedly?) affects the first round of playoffs, since now "the IFPA considers this ‘seeding’ and will not increase the TGP".
TGP is now calculated as a Top 8 best-of-7 format. The round of 12 contributes no TGP. Fine.
But here comes the quirky pitfall...
This, in turn, means you've now slipped into one of those weird two-phase qualifying formats: (a) an unlimited qualifying phase where 6 games count and (b) the first 'playoff' round where 7 games count. So (with the existing wording of the new rule), players who have played less than 50% of 13 games aren't WPPR eligible. Only the 12 players who qualified for playoff spots are WPPR eligible. The other players 20 are not.
You may claim that my example was somewhat contrived because the playoffs used an uncommon best-of-7 format. It was. But I actually did that to make the discussion simpler.
[Why? It starts getting really complicated when you use more common formats, like 5 of 8 games qualifying with 3-game 4-player matchplay playoff rounds, because you start spiraling into an iterative calculation where you limit the field, which affects which rounds are seeding, which further limits the field, which could further affect seeding, which... etc.
All of a sudden, you have to start counting how many irrelevant qualifying games people played, because it will affect whether they achieve 50% of the total games played and, therefore, whether they show up on the WPPR list.
And, by the way, are 4-player matchplay groups twice as valuable for determining minimum game count as head-to-head (like they are for TGP)? Sheesh!]
In thinking through this problem, a solution could be to tweak the wording of the new rule to specify that it relates only to the first phase of qualifying...
[O]nly players that participate in at least 50% of the games used in the first qualifying phase will be included in the final results.
Perhaps that is a little ambiguous (what is the first phase? does it mess up formats without qualifying?), but something along those lines would at least prevent the iterative problem.
Lastly, I'll acknowledge that because these are subtle points, it may not be worth changing the wording at all. Maybe it's better to leave it as is and simply clarify interpretation (in a forum like this) ahead of time. That's completely fine too. Just wanted to raise awareness about the pitfall.