This sounds… less than fun? Pro gets to beat up on scrubs all night, and middling players unlucky enough to draw him might drop below the playoff cut line. Sure, they get a drop score. But other players get to use that drop score for a typical lackluster night.
6 Likes
This is why Andy isn’t invited to our monthly anymore.
1 Like
BAPA has always welcomed guests. I enjoy guests at league no matter what their skill level is. I see the rest of those schmoes every week.
BAPA has a minimum 4 weeks to qualify for playoffs and I don’t believe they report anyone who doesn’t play in playoffs. If your league has playoffs, that’s an easy way to leave them out. Can still be scored regularly for the week or two they play, tossed for missing playoffs.
1 Like
When i ran a league guests were put on the weekly results sheet on a separate line. They were shown their results but had no effect on league participants.
You can see an example on this sheet, week 1:
4 Likes
Is the next update of the sheet going to include rank changes with 6.0 for 251-1000?
Thanks, I did miss it! I was just combing the top OP only for changes about 251-1000. Thanks for linking that!
Now that you got me to check the sheet again, I noticed the addition of SOS rank and %.
What is that?
It’s an attempt to give a boost to players who find themselves playing a harder set of opponents compared to the average top 1000 player. It was in response to some players that felt their Eff% was lower than it should be because they only played “really good players” (compared to other players that seemed to have inflated Eff% values due to not playing in events that had “really good players” in the field).
“Really good players” = players in the top 250
SOS % is the percentage of opponents that you’ve played in all of your active events that were in the top 250.
Currently messing around with adjusting Eff% for players that we deem to have played a tougher set of opponents compared to their peers (providing a boost to that value where appropriate).
For example, you have an Eff% of 30.35%. Your SOS% of 28.57% represents that of all of the opponents you’ve played in your active profile, 28.57% of those players are in the top 250.
We’re currently using 25% SOS as the benchmark, so your ‘boost’ would be 28.57%/25% = 114.28%.
This would create an Adj Eff% of 34.68% that we would use in place of 30.35%, causing you to move up 11 spots due to your “difficult schedule”.
6 Likes
Uuuh, nice! 
But looking at the sheet, it appears that the SOS also only applies to top 250?
Those are the only players we care about with respect to the “PRO” rankings.
1 Like
The average in the list is 20.99%, so perhaps using 21% would be better, especially since you’re not applying any downward adjustment for those with below-average SOS.
Far easier to implement if we use a fixed number versus calculating another moving average.
25% had a nice ring to it as I imagined the top 1000 players showing up to Pinburgh which would make that field 25% full of top 250 players.
I can certainly understand anyone with a strong SOS arguing for a bigger bump, but I can also understand those players that feel their SOS% isn’t something that’s within their control based on their access and opportunity to compete as much as their peers.
2 Likes
One other tweak, I think the adjustment should be capped, e.g. no more than a multiplier of say 1.20.
Because? Who do you feel is over-ranked due to too much of a boost?
Just saw the post on the IFPA website. I’ll admit that I’m confused about the following:
Previously the finals format must include an elimination format that includes a minimum of 10% of the participants to be eligible. This elimination format must include a round where a maximum of 4 players remain. We are adding the requirement that any meaningful tiebreakers to either receive a bye, advance to finals or advance through rounds within finals cannot be done through an automatic tiebreaking process. These tiebreakers must be played out.
- Elimination format with minimum 10% of participants ← Same as before, right?
- Maximum of 4 players remain ← I’m confused by this one. Can you share examples of OK and not OK formats that reflect this rule?
- Tiebreakers ← Significant positions must be played out thought actual play, right? Why is this viewed to be a problem currently?
OK - going from 8 players to 4 players from semi finals to finals.
NOT OK. Having 8 players left and declaring the winner after that round of play.
I think currently you can use auto tie breakers in finals to advance or get a bye in finals. That won’t be allowed anymore. Have to play a tiebreaker game.
and will that ban 1 ball ones or strongly say no to them?
what about the max 50% rule does advancing tied players to finals over that an issue?
Doesn’t say anything about how you have to play the tiebreaker, so a one ball I believe could be implemented. I am not a fan of the rule our league uses qualifying position as the advantage tiebreaker. It makes qualifying a real strength and when you got 50+ people you fought your way to get the tiebreaker advance going through playoffs. No big deal one more ball or game it is I guess, I am more confused if it only applies to 200% tournaments or anything over 100%.