WPPR formula change to v5.3 for 2017!

[pinwizj]

@gammagoat

https://www.neverdrains.com/2017/playerIndex.php?disp=player&pid=163

Played 1 game, despite playing 6 entries correct?

Played 1 game

@gammagoat

https://www.neverdrains.com/2017/playerIndex.php?disp=player&pid=188

Less certain here. Did they play 3 games or 5? They played BBH and CFTBL but voided the entries. Doesn’t change wether they are included or not, but it is a good example.

Played 3 games. Voiding a game = Not playing that game.

[Snailman]

@PressStart

It’s exactly the same as a tournament. I’ve had to deny leagues their entire year of play because they took more than 50% of their players into a final. If they want to run a final that determines the final positions of their players it can’t have more than 50% of the players participating in the final otherwise the “season” is deemed as not meaningful and excluded from the TGP calculation.

To clear up any confusion, this 50% or less rule applies only to the “final that determines the final positions of their players” aka the “A” division finals.
It’s my understanding that we can have EVERY player in league enjoy some finals action, but 50% or more of them need to be in a finals group/bracket that isn’t part of the “A” division finals used to determine the league champion.

[Snailman]

@PressStart

How is the 50% participation rule understood? Is it “of sessions”? Or games, like unlimited qualifying?

It’s games, just like unlimited qualifying.

If you have a league that plays 10 games of indirect qualifying a night, for 2 weeks, in order to be able to include a player in the final rankings, that player would have had to play 10 games in the league over the 2 weeks.

I thought that the 50% participation rule for leagues was 50% participation in # of sessions that count toward finals qualification. Example, if you have 8 league sessions, and get to drop lowest 2, then any player that attends at least 3 sessions is allowed to be counted.

Please clarify. Thanks!

[hisokajp]

@Snailman

I thought that the 50% participation rule for leagues was 50% participation in # of sessions that count toward finals qualification. Example, if you have 8 league sessions, and get to drop lowest 2, then any player that attends at least 3 sessions is allowed to be counted.

Please clarify. Thanks!

They have to qualify for each session/tournament and also for the overall league. If a league format has indirect play that people may end playing less than 50% of the game that counts then they would not be meaningful for that one session.

Thy could still play 3 other session as a meaningful player and count toward the overall result though.

[PressStart]

@Snailman

To clear up any confusion, this 50% or less rule applies only to the “final that determines the final positions of their players” aka the “A” division finals.It’s my understanding that we can have EVERY player in league enjoy some finals action, but 50% or more of them need to be in a finals group/bracket that isn’t part of the “A” division finals used to determine the league champion.

Correct, you can run a B division with the remaining 50% if you want and that is fine also.

But if you include more than 50%, you can still include the players in the final ranking, it’s just the games played don’t count toward TGP.

@Snailman

I thought that the 50% participation rule for leagues was 50% participation in # of sessions that count toward finals qualification. Example, if you have 8 league sessions, and get to drop lowest 2, then any player that attends at least 3 sessions is allowed to be counted.

Please clarify. Thanks!

Nope, games played

As an example, each session, the league could be playing 8 games with indirect qualifying. So if you play a full 4 weeks in an attempt to actually qualify, that would be 32 games total.

You could have a casual player that shows up for 2 of the 4 sessions and only plays 3 games each night, meaning if we did it by session the player would be able to be included, even though they only played 6 of the 16 games that the other people included played.

[Snailman]

@PressStart

Nope, games played

If that’s the case, then I’d suggest correcting the language on the IFPA website in the Overview of Changes for 2017: “For leagues, this means that players must participate in at least 50% of the sessions of the regular season to be included in the final standings submitted to the IFPA.”

Rankings Information – 2024

[PressStart]

We will updated the verbiage, but technically if someone is only playing (as per my example) 3 of 8 games on a night, they are not participating in 50% of the session.

[Snailman]

@PressStart

if someone if someone is only playing (as per my example) 3 of 8 games on a night, they are not participating in 50% of the session.

Absolutely. In my experience, our league participants play all the games of a session when they show up. But I understand your point.

[pinwizj]

@PressStart

As an example, each session, the league could be playing 8 games with indirect qualifying. So if you play a full 4 weeks in an attempt to actually qualify, that would be 32 games total.

You could have a casual player that shows up for 2 of the 4 sessions and only plays 3 games each night, meaning if we did it by session the player would be able to be included, even though they only played 6 of the 16 games that the other people included played.

Technically the rule for leagues imposes as many 50% rules as possible.

So if it’s 4 games across 8 weeks, a player must play in at least 16 games total, AND play in at least 4 weeks total, AND to count for any one of those weeks must play at least 2 out of the 4 games that week.

[chuckwurt]

You’re right but I read that as they just need to play in 50% of the sessions, no matter how many games were played in each individual session. I think total games played being the verbiage would eliminate that confusion.

Edit. Looks like it’s 50% of games and sessions per Josh.

[Snailman]

@pinwizj

Technically the rule for leagues imposes as many 50% rules as possible.

So it’s not meeting 50% of the 50% rules?

[soren]

Thanks for clearing this out.

[pinwizj]

@Snailman

So it’s not meeting 50% of the 50% rules?

I had enough back and forths with Francesco about what the 50% rule “meant” . . . my response ultimately was:

“I’m going to try and f*ck you any way I possibly can”

[genex]

that could be taken a variety of ways - hopefully just the “IFPA way” and not personally

[MrMCarlson]

I just had a flash of a t-shirt that says, on front:
“I’m going to try and f*ck you any way I possibly can…“
and on the back:
”…the IFPA way.”

[hisokajp]

@genex

that could be taken a variety of ways - hopefully just the “IFPA way” and not personally

was just thinking the same, glad someone else wrote it

[hisokajp]

@MrMCarlson

I just had a flash of a t-shirt that says, on front:“I’m going to try and f*ck you any way I possibly can…“and on the back:”…the IFPA way.”

Would go well with a “VOID AND REQUEUE” cap for upcoming PAPA Herb

[chuckwurt]

How does it work for home leagues where there are sessions in multiple states? Do you only get credit in the state that the majority of the sessions are in?

I think I remember this was supposed to change for 2017.

[pinwizj]

@chuckwurt

How does it work for home leagues where there are sessions in multiple states? Do you only get credit in the state that the majority of the sessions are in?

I think I remember this was supposed to change for 2017.

It was a 2016 change.

Multi-state TOURNAMENTS are only counted in the state where finals are held.

Multi-state LEAGUES are counted in every state where there is activity played.

[jay]

@pinwizj

Multi-state LEAGUES are counted in every state where there is activity played.

So let’s say I’m running a league that has 6 regular meetings plus a finals and we drop the lowest scoring meeting. If I hold 5/6 meetings in State C and 1/6 of those meetings in State N, and only one person shows up and plays the State N meeting, everyone still gets counted towards state rankings in both C and N?