Yeah, I think limited qualifying is generally more fun for people who are unlikely to qualify in either format. I would imagine that as you go down in the standings most people aren’t playing many entries because they feel they are just throwing their money away. No data to back anything up, but I would guess that a decent amount of people lower in the standings would be willing to spend more money on a limited qualifying than they are currently spending on entries in an unlimited format.
1 Like
I usually analyze my stats after each event. Here is a recent analysis from the APE
Bowen recently came down to the APE and just dominated.
He played 8 entries total games in the main and was top qualifier. No surprise. And he easily won the main. There is a reason he is a repeat world champion.
Using Karl’s history feature, I calculated at the APE it took me 12 meaningful plays to reach 391 points in the main (383 was the cutoff). That is less than 3 attempts per game avg on a bank of 5.
The history showed plain as day I wasted way too much time, effort and money on games I should have stayed away from. There was no reason to keep hopping around or keeping chasing a higher score, other than I enjoy playing in qualifying.
Examples: My first game on BSD was 214MIL which would have earned 83 points which is fine- why waste 9 more attempts?! Silly. Reason? I thought I could do better. I squeaked in a 257MIL. Guess what- still 83 points.
I chased on WH20. My first score of 210MIL would have been worth 75 points. Take it, move on. My thinking here was I tried more knowing this game would show up in the finals unless I could drive the bus. I never could get the hang of that upper shot on this particular game and it showed. So, I really wanted to be able to drive the bus in at least one of the rounds to avoid having this game used against me. And it was 
On ST I reached a solid qualifying score in 4 plays, top 3 in 7. I wanted to play this more, but no good reason to do so. Wish I had practiced more, since I really played poorly on it on the finals.
Same thing with MM. I was at 80 points on MM in 4 plays. Should have practiced more.
On TA I was where I needed to be at 75 points in 2 plays, in the 80s in 4 plays and top score for 100 points in 7 plays.
Had I just used these 5 games and not jumped around:
1 game on BSD 83 points
1 game on WH2O 75 points
4 games on ST 78 points
4 games on MM 80 points
2 games on TA 75 points.
12 games for 391 points. Would have been 11th out of 16. Good enough.
It took me another 12 meaningful plays to reach 433 for 3rd qualifier. (I calculated how many more plays it took me on each of the 5 machines that counted to reach the composite scores.)
So for me, 12 plays to qualify in the main, 24 plays to be top 3. Bowen: 8 plays to be top qualifier. Pretty awesome.
The history feature is a valuable tool and instructive. I’m glad Karl provides it for our use.
1 Like
very good points in Greg post.
Poker tournaments with rebuys or re-entries effectively make all the blind levels until the end of the rebuy period an unlimited qualifying process.
I would pay (a smallish) amount to play poker against Phil Ivey if we only got to play for an hour. There is no way I would pay to play for 3 days against him - I’d be crushed. A smaller number of attempts is better for the little guys. They have a better chance to win/advance.
I’d play in a regular WSOP event, even knowing there were many players better than me (and I did, last year). But I would never play a rebuy WSOP event. Many/most players who are better than me are going to rebuy many times. Oh, and also many players who are worse than me will also rebuy many times.
1 Like
I think it’s also worth mentioning that one’s view of “fairness” in pinball depends on the player.
Many of the above comments are stating that the “most fair” event is the one where the best players always win/advance. But the inherent randomness in pinball is what keeps lessor players coming back for more. They have a chance of beating the top dogs. For those players, allowing better players to have an unlimited number of attempts seems decidedly unfair.
What is better for the growth of pinball? The same 20 guys (yes, it’s all dudes) making the finals of every tournament, or a few unknowns making deep runs once in a while? Hint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneymaker_effect
9 Likes
Very very well put.
Are we defining the growth of pinball as “Those who want to play” or “Those who want to watch”? Both drive growth in some way. If its the latter, then people like to watch the rockstars. You want to watch the best do their thing, and you want the best to win. Poker is a little different, in that the increased luck factor drives the fact that anyone can win, but the viewership is also drawn in by knowing that those people can win several million dollars. If its the former, then there’s some points to be made there. I think these questions are all very dynamic in our current scene, and the next few years are going to be really interesting.
1 Like
I like setups were the best players are most likely to win. I think there is huge value in giving other players something to play for. I would like to see more things like TPF did with the novice and women’s cahmpionship (sorry couldn’t resist). I don’t know if 500 is the ideal cutoff, but having something else to fight for is fun.
I am trying to convince our local super selfie league to have a trophy for top unranked player each month to get more people into the sport.
Unlimited Herb with fixed payouts (a’la TPF 2015) is awful. No one has mentioned that yet. That should be right out as a format.
2 Likes
No one has mentioned that because no good tourneys do it. I guess PAPA does in a sense but I don’t believe they make a profit from it and even if they do, the money goes straight back into keeping PAPA in existence. PAPA is the best tourney in the world (IMO) so I’m 100% OK with that.
1 Like
And it is 
… oh, right, except for PAPA, whose fixed payouts are quite generous.
I like the point that Shep made about there being a soft ceiling to the number of entries anyone can make, regardless of how deep their pockets are. The time limitations are the true limiting factor. So back to my earlier question. Would you attend(or do you think you would enjoy) an unlimited number of entries for a set fee?
Example: Twelve hours of unlimited qualifying on a bank of 12 games. Your best 7 game scores count. Entry fee of $75. Top 16(or 24) play on the second day in PAPA or Pinburgh style matches.
1 Like
We have events like that in Florida. The Point Monsters Championship for example, follows this model.
So everyone has the exact same opportunity to play.
And looking at the IFPA results, it is easy to see same names seem to qualify, and the same names seem to make the final 4.
Unlimited Herb is far and away my favorite format. I think some very important considerations have been missed in this thread. Generally, unlimited Herb tourneys are large events. The format alone won’t make it a good tournament.
Probably the two biggest considerations that haven’t been mentioned is the introduction of Novices divisions to UH tourneys and payouts to all qualifiers. Those two things make a huge difference. The payouts further down have encouraged me to play in more tourneys. If I get something back, even if it’s less than I’ve spent on Q, that’s a win in my book. Points plus a little cash back. Novice divisions with smaller payouts makes the noobs think they have a chance to finish in the money, which is often very possible. I’ve helped a bunch of guys thru novice division at CAX, then seen them come back for more they next year. I enjoy that immensely. Priceless.
For me, qualifying in Herb is the best. I can come early when the coils are still cold, later when everyone is at dinner, or any time in between. I can also pretty much spend as much time as needed to help novices. The fact that not many other sports other than pinball can offer unlimited qualifying is something to be celebrated, not derided. Pinball is different. That’s good!
Two other things that haven’t been mentioned is the number of games and setup. Both are huge. Big shows like TPF and CAX should have 14-15 games, not 12 or less. If you’re expecting more than 100 players, get enough games. If you don’t have enough space, don’t do it. At least one good setup guy is extremely important. Every big tourney has at least one game that plays long, which everyone figures out quickly. But if you have 3 or 4 long playing games, that’s a disaster. I helped setup at CAX for years and learned a ton. Setup for any big tourney isn’t easy, but very important.
As I mentioned earlier, format alone doesn’t make or break any tourney. A large unlimited Herb is a lot of work, but fun for everyone (including novices), when done properly.
3 Likes
I just think its a personal preference, some folks like chocolate ice cream and some folks like vanilla. You’re never going to get 100% agreement that a specific format is better then another.
Personally, I went to FPF this year and the unlimited qualifying was a failure with the amount of people and limited amount of machines. Staying in line for 30 minutes for one qualifying attempt? not for me
I heard Magfest people were rewarded with a small amount of “Magfest dollars” . I dont play pinball to get rich, but $5-$25 of Magfest money for a top 16 finish isn’t for me.
Larger PAPA Circuit events that have a lot of machines / staff the unlimited qualifying format works well. If you don’t like it then just skip the event.
The only issue with this is that people who have 7 decent scores can just sit in line and cradle a ball / slow down the attempts people can have on that table.
One can still do this at other events but there is a monetary cost since they are paying for those attempts.
2 Likes
http://neverdrains.com/ifpaVegas/index.php?pageDisplay=finals
Two females made the finals last weekend.
The limited amount of machines was a big problem for FPF this year. It was not an issue previous years as there were more machines available to play on than required to form an entry. That seems to be a key ingredient in a successful fast moving tourney. It was simply a shame there were not enough tourney games in 2015, and I think that issue resulted in the long lines and sunk FPF for returning circuit status in 2016.
I and other local players have talked in length with the promoters and organizers of the show and they assure us big changes are in the works for this year. Losing PAPA circuit status is a big blow to our state after working so hard to build it up. Hopefully FPF will make it in 2017.
Would love to see all of the out of towners return to Florida. It is very enjoyable playing with great players from around the USA.
2 Likes
As a general guideline, entry-qualifying-style events seem to need at least 1 game for every 10 players [including any classics or other side events] to keep the lines down to a tolerable level. Fewer than that and you’re asking for trouble.
1 Like