By the time any of this matters it will be the end of 2024, which puts any of your activity in 2021 being worth 0, any of your 2022 activity being worth 50% and any of your 2023 activity being worth 75%.
I feel it’s far better to use the data we have now (the good and the bad), regardless of the excuses as to why you would have or wouldn’t have played an event, because everyone’s current ranking is based on all of that data. Even with your top 20 card, your best event was an 8 Fair Strikes Classics event, your 6th best event was a 3 strike knockout. To say you wouldn’t have played the 4 strike knockout at the Super Series we should really be removing all the ‘good’ knockout events you have on your profile as well.
Yes the dynamic distribution of WPPR’s is a real thing, because it doesn’t get harder at a linear rate to finish higher in the standings. I can speak from experience that it’s far more challenging to WIN an event versus coming in 2nd (insert rimshot).
That continues down the line. Advancing from the top 16 to the top 8 is more than just a linear step in difficulty. Advancing from the top 8 to the top 4 is more than just a linear step in difficulty. That’s one of the most important parts of the WPPR distribution formula IMO as it mirrors the real world challenges of actually finishing higher in the standings against your peers.
I encourage people to not think about what types of events they are going to play less, and concentrate on how you can get better at the events you’re not so good at.
Degree of Difficulty of a player’s highest-WPPR events will have more impact on how much they might drop than anything else. Example: playing in a Major with dozens of top players present and finishing where your ranking would statistically place you. In Jokton’s case, his “biggest WPPRtunity” was The Open, where he finished 81st. By coincidence, his entering rank of 388th ranked 81 amongst the participants, so he finished exactly where he would be expected to. But his WPPRs for this event were 20.68 out of 294.39, an eff% of just 7%. So while he did as well as expected, his overall eff% will drop because this was a harder than average event for him and counts more heavily than any other.
In general, the more “tough” events you attend, the worse off you’ll be unless you consistently over-perform at them.
The IFPA championship will be perhaps the worst for this due to the combined effects of its mid-sized field (where WPPRs drop off faster than at larger events) and high value. At the 2022 IFPA, only 5 of the 64 players received WPPRs at or above their average efficiency level - see table below. Ironically, playing in IFPA greatly reduces your chance of re-qualifying for it under 6.0. Put three of these in your 3-year experience period going forward and you’ll get hit three times unless you’re one of those rare (less than 10% of the field) people who did extremely well.
Other heavyweight small-field events will have similar impacts.
Not expressing an opinion here, just number crunching and illustrating.
I think the stern pro circuit is only for points earned at stern pro circuit events
what about state points?
and what about people who play in one state get an lot of points but it’s under top 15 ?
also the excessive play will that lead to that player not getting the full value of the points for the state?
state points are an little like stern pro circuit but it’s just about all events in state vs pre picked events.
Exactly, thanks for the analysis, Bob.
Another good example is state finals, it already almost not being worth it for the winner in smaller states, now the losers will get hosed by the eff% affecting all other events. For example, in Georgia, Daltons #1 win didn’t even make it to his active total (well, it’s not now anyway). My 5th-8th place finish netted me 1.34 pts at 8.84 eff%, the rest at 9th-16 netted 4.35 eff% (sorry @tommyv). I assure you the play that day was fantastic. Would I want to attend next year? Yes if I wanted to play for fun, but maybe no if it will negatively affect the rest of my 'good" wins.
As for the D82 events, yes I probably still play the lower strikes events in a mixed format like it had, but going to other events that focus on a type I usually don’t do well, I will probably sit out next time. I do foresee this driving me to smaller events where I know I will do better, but then I will lose the experience I gain from playing better players like I do when I travel.
Is there any way to take into consideration the field of participants of an event, so that eff% is not so brutal when you play the best and beat a bunch (but not all) of them?
Well, color me confused again. I don’t understand how your efficiency can decrease when you finish exactly where your current rank places you. Shouldn’t it be no effect? I understand the math works that way, but what’s the reasoning for that?
Imagine there are 2 tournaments: one with the top 5 in the world all competing worth 90 points for first and one where none are competing worth 80 points. Seems to me if you think you are the “best” player of the 80 but know there are 5 people “better” than you in the 90, it’s way better to do the 80 point tournament since its 5x “easier” to finish first.
I wonder if this will lead to people waiting to register for a tournament to see who’s already going to it…
… it won’t, and I realize the system is designed this way, and the scenario I mentioned isn’t really a problem, I’m just thinking through the various possibilities, and obviously this would only effect a very very small amount of players
The value of each circuit event will be impacted by the v6.0 change, but the ability for players to accumulate WPPR’s at the circuit events towards their standing will not be impacted.
All of these arguments, picking and choosing events that you will play in and won’t play in order to benefit your ranking etc seem pretty nuts to me. Basically what you are asking about is how to best play the system so that you can falsely inflate your ranking. Surely just go to the events that you enjoy. Surely just play, play the best that you can, always. Are the little numbers you receive more important to you than playing really well, having a really competitive test of your skill?
The idea that anyone would not play in IFPA or EPC or INDISC because it might negatively impact their efficiency rating and in turn their ranking is frankly ridiculous. These events are the pinnacle of our sport. They should be hard. But if the central reason someone wouldn’t attend one of those events is because there is a high likelihood that their rank would drop, then I think they need to re-evaluate why they are playing
I agree, all of these conversations are senseless. Just play pinball folks! The rankings are cool, but having a setting to playing pinball with all you cool cats is way better.
Judging the reasons for other’s decisions also “seems pretty nuts”. People play for many different reasons. Obtaining a high ranking is one of them. If that is one’s goal then the rational course of action is plan your pinball activity to maximize your ranking.
It sounds like you don’t play for that reason. I don’t either. But I can assure you organizers of major events and many of those players take that into consideration. It’s one of the reasons the proposed changes are put forth and feedback on them is solicited.
Completely agree, we all enjoy the hobby for different reasons and of course wppr collecting and climbing the rankings is one that many enjoy. I don’t judge. Each to there own absolutely.
It just ‘seems nuts, TO ME’. You do you, as long as fun and enjoyment are there, then it’s all gravy
I put my data out there for informational purposes so that players who DO care about their rank can make better-informed decisions about when and what to play in. Personally, I go to events that I find fun and give extra credit to ones which have an attached show (vs. tournament only) and to ones where I have a decent chance of picking up some hardware. Cash prizes don’t count for much in my case (which is why I’m fine with PATZ being all-charity and have made the trip there multiple times and why I’d still go to IFPA if it was European-style and didn’t have any cash prizes).
Re “The most accurate ranking system” …
I recall a prior discussion from 2011:
“This is where the IFPA’s biggest goal can lead to conflict with trying to make the most accurate ranking system. Our #1 goal has, and will always be, to get more people playing in tournaments, and to get more tournaments started for players to participate in.”
The truth is I used to fear that making changes to the system to make it more accurate actually had a chance at leading to decreased participation. The dollar fee was the biggest one, with so many warning shots about how we were putting the nail in the coffin of growing the player base to pad the pockets of the elite. Numbers continued to grow despite those fears . . .
That lack of fear that I’ve developed over the years has allowed us on focusing on accurately ranking players as the #1 goal. Check back in 12 years as this may once again flip (pun intended)
