Thanks to Tully and everyone who helped out!

It was so much fun, and also thanks to all the great players who showed up! I knew it was going to be a battle watching some of the crazy high scores in the first 30 minutes. Wow.

Seeing a 770M game on Dredd and watching Andy put up 41M on Big Buck (right before he played me on the same game - talk about intimidation) was incredible. Congrats to Eric S. for his great play - didn't even need double elimination in the B bracket!

Just an absolute blast!

Tully -

I had a great time and my first pinball tournament. My oldest son and my nephew also had a blast. When we got home they wanted to have a tournament on my table and we had to break out a deck a cards and put our names on them for placing

That's funny!

Thanks to Tully and all the helpers, and congrats to the winners!

I love this event, it's great to see the familiar faces, and meet some new people. This is one of my seasonal indicators, spring is coming! (I actually had a dream last night that it just stayed like this forever. perpetual winter.. terrifying)

If the Illinois guys stop showing up to Wisconsin events, will they even award a 1st place trophy, or just stop at 2nd?

We just do that to make them feel better.

I love having it at the Waunabowl for many reasons - but agree that limiting it to 50 or so is the right mix. Even then we had long lines for some games.

So would not change a thing. Can you bring Operation Thunder back? Was alot of fun.

Thanks to Tully and all that helped! Chris doing the scoring entries and rankings was a warrior. Tourney went real smooth. Alot of fun and great players. Thanks!
Cool placque, Tully! Thanks for having those!

\\

All I can say is there is a good reason that people travel a long distance to come play in WI events...

If you IL guys need any tips on how to put on a smooth event I am sure Tully is willing to charge you a nominal fee for the lesson. I will warn you that if you talk like that to the godfather in person you may not like the result...

It was a very smooth tournament - Tully you did an awesome job! Thanks for all your hard work and dedication. I look forward to this every year. Got to meet some new locals as well as lots of old faces as well. I also learned that I don't like Avengers. At all.

LOL! That game caused me a lot of dissapointinment and pain. I just didn't like myself much after about 6 go's at it.

Haven't had much time on Avengers other than that one at Waunabowl at league last week, and I can say I wasn't a fan of the magnets on the outlanes mod on it.

Only short line I saw was OT and that was toward the end of qualifying when I was scorekeeping. But I agree that the people limit is right for that number of games. Some long waits but that gave me time to meet new people and talk to "old" friends as well. Long waits also made it possible to get side tourney games in while waiting for your turn at qualifying games.

I think the 50ish person limit is spot on. If everyone showed up at 11 ready to rock then they could likely get 1 or 2 more plays in, but I think everyone was able to get through all 5 games plus 1 or 2 replays on key games it seemed? even if they did not make it till 1230????

That is part of what makes Wauna a fun place to play and talk pins with everyone.

The 50 person limit also prevented people from just dumping in more plays forever. I really think everything went as smooth as could be hoped for this year.

You have also convinced me to add a kids event for MRP this year. We need to continue to do more things to promote pinball to the younger generation!

and time to take a few pictures.

Of Neo. Will post the other 65 of Neo tonight after work.

I agree, Ralph, but everyone knows this will be in your collection next week and out the following week...

I told you, it's for the kids!

sounds like George Lucas talking about EP1, 2 and 3.

Your NOT getting my Trophy!

I don't think my 45 minutes of score keeping even moves the needle of the tmac volunteer-o-meter.

How about a pic of that beauty!

That was one of the nicest trophies I have ever seen. At first I thought it was for the WuanaAPinball Champ. Then I saw what it said. I asked Todd how he got it and he said Ken and Hilton made it. It was really cool.

In all fairness I just suggested we all kick in a few bucks to get tmac a trophy. I knew Hilton had a trophy guy so talked to him and he ran with it. He didn't even collect any money as far as I know. Came out beautiful!

You sir have offended the state in which I live , I challenge you to a duel on Cosmic Gunfight this Saturday .

Looks like I beat Eric S in the standings!!!

In other words, IFPA results are a little messed up.

I ran into that same issue last year. I finished 2nd in B (finishing 10th overall) but they award points based on how you qualify (I qualified 22nd) vs. how you end up so I only got 2 points for my finish vs.7 pts. for finishing 10th overall. I talked with Tully and Hilton and they confirmed that it is indeed correct. I believe it has something to do with the fact that top 500 IFPA players are unable to compete in B so they have to award pts on qualifying for B vs. how you actually finish.

Thanks Doug! See you Saturday!

that sucks. i qualified 24th, but finished 5th in B.

guess i better learn to qualify better.

I just looked on the website for the event to confirm and there was a playoff restriction >>> "IFPA/WPPR Points rewarded for final Qualification Position & final "A" Division Playoff standings." " ( You cannot play in “B” Division if you are ranked in the IFPA/WPPR overall top 500 )"

With a playoff restriction for B, then YES your final qualifying position will need to be used for reporting to IFPA if you did not make the A playoffs.

This is a legit way to ensure people do not sandbag into B and honestly I like it very much as it provides more incentive for B players to qualify well and play well.

What this also means is that is someone was top 500 IFPA but did not qualify for top 8 positions then they are not penalized for IFPA reporting which is fair. Basically it is a way to work within the rules of IFPA to also protect the B division playoffs from being run over by a good player that either puposefully played bad (it happens when prizes money is involved) or just so happened to play bad on a game or 2 during qualifying (also happens when some people show up very late and only get through each game 1 time).

In other words >> Kinpin had it right Qualify better

also, I would have much rather won a trophy than a few extra IFPA point ;(

just saying... I would happily have traded my ok play during qualifying for better play in playoffs...

Maybe make A division top 16 and B division 17-24 qualifiers.

I like this idea as well! And the chances that a top #500 player would qualify less than 16 are far less than not qualifying top 8.

Challenge accepted! Winner gets a beer. Loser also gets a beer.

don't cross streams....

May the schwartz be with you Doug!

Yeah due to the change in number of better players I agree that it may be worth evaluating top 8 vs top 16 for A???

I will say it really depends on the calibur of people that show up and you could opt to make a decision on the fly after you know who is registered...

For example, if 5 out of the 50 people that are registered are high ranked IFPA then you may want to stick with 8 for A???

If we only get a few top 500 guys out of 50 then 16 may be fair?

Hard to say exactly, but I think the 9-16 B players from this year would not have had as much fun if they were playing with 1-8 from this year???

For me it comes down to common sense. If I can look across a group of 50 players and pick a logical division (i.e. I would have bet good money at the start of the day that Tom K, Art, Chris T., and Chris F would all make A and I was right; also based on current playing I would have predicted that Mike S and Tim E would also make A) then that is approximately where a logical division should be. I think the division this year was pretty good!

If anything it appears many people did not read the rules in advance and understand that final IFPA position for B was based on qualifying slot???

Tully you could always have a caveat rule that states " if the B playoffs did not eliminate any players due to previous IFPA rank" then finishing position in B playoffs will be used for reporting final place to IFPA. Basically, this year there was no need to enforce the "top 500" rule since all people ranked 500 or higher made it to A on their own accord (barely).

I personally woudl always rather compete in a playoff with similarly matched players rather than play in a playoff when I can pick a logical winner before the play even starts...

If it's not a logistics nightmare perhaps have Saturday be qualifying all day and then do finals Sunday morning? I think the player count was perfect but sometimes it can take players a bit to get the feel of the games. If you can only play each twice (if you started right when it opened) that might prevent some of the late comers or "B" players from qualifying as high as they potentially could.

I would imagine most are shooting for as high as they can go (as they should) and not trying to limit themselves to B. That being said, I think expanding to 1-16 is fine. Just don't make it so the bracket goes 1 against 16, 2, against 15, etc. and the lower qualified players won't feel they're walking into something impossible. Or, give a bye to the top 4 or something like that.

Just curious, as a high ranked player>> what are your thoughts on a playoff starting out with 1vs 2, 3vs4, 5vs6, 7vs8?

Basically where you play someone else more similarly seeded early on? Pros/Cons?

I jave always like inverse seeding but it does require that your brakets are split correctly from the start for A/B as haveing a 1 vs 16 is not real fun for the 16 typically.

Hilton - We're actually OK with this. If everyone in B were the next natural batch of players from the final qualifying standings, and nobody was actually restricted from having taken part in that divisional playoff, then the final results can be adjusted based on the final playoffs.

I like this caveat and it would have worked this year.-Although Chris T was pretty lucky to squeak into that final "A" spot at the last minute!

The tricky part is making sure there's an incentive to qualify higher. When it's 1vs16 it's clearly better to be 1 than 16 but if it's 1vs2 some folks might intentionally try to be at the bottom half. For that I suggest having byes for round 1. With the promise of a bye I imagine everyone would want to be in the top group.

Yeah that should be incorporated for next year then.

Probably not appropriate to change things up from this year since it was not laid out ahead of time?

(It likely does not impact me either way as I finished in a similar spot as I qualified but still better to stick with the rules as laid out form the start).

note: I am just a helper with Wauna and respect however Tully wants to make things work. It is his show and I am just grateful he makes it all happen and is open to feedback!

back on topic >>>I am not a fan of byes... They can be debated if they are a pro or con depending on player preference of staying warmed up or getting a break... I also like people to keep playing as much pinball as possible.

Any other ideas to equalize the competition for round 1 but also incentivize people to try for the best spot?

Maybe not a complete inverse?
Something like >>>
1vs5, 2vs6, 3vs7, 4vs8 and 9vs13, 10vs14, 11vs15, 12vs16 ??

(Nobody asked me, but...)

I'm not sure if equalized round one competition should even be a goal. I think the goal should be to reward & incentivize top qualifiers, and to lay out the bracket in such a way that better players can meet in the later rounds. Would you rather see the two best NFL teams play in round one, or for the super bowl? There's a reason the 1 vs. 16 style bracket is standard in just about every competitive arena.

Byes are the ultimate incentive, but I somewhat agree with the arguments against them. Top qualifiers are rewarded by playing weaker competition in round one. Is skipping round one too big a reward for top players? It's debatable. Byes definitely lean more in the direction of cutthroat competition, and less in the spirit of everyone playing pinball together.

You really did not address my question for clever or better ways to actually equalize but still promote competition.

MY incentive is always to make an event that is the most fun for the most people which means doing things like splitting up playoffs into more even matched brackets and equalizing playoffs for round 1 where needed. I think for the good of competitive pinball it is very important to provide a reasonable fun factor for the regular folks while somehow meeting the reasonable requests of the top players at the same time. We need to nurture the competition and help everyone grow rather than squash the newcomers, take their money, and run away with all the points and trophies.

The flip side to your point would be that the best players SHOULD be able to play their way in to the finals no matter what the situation and if 1 and 5 meet up in the first round then maybe that is the price they have to pay in order to make an event so #16 has more fun.

I look at a first round match up of option 1>>>
1vs5, 2vs6, 3vs7, 4vs8 and 9vs13, 10vs14, 11vs15, 12vs16

to be way more balanced between competition and fun than option 2>>>
1vs16, 2vs15, 3vs14, etc...

With option 2 I can predict the winner of matches 1vs16, 2vs15, 3vs14, and 4vs12 the majority of the time.
With option 1, all 8 matches have a better chance of being both competitive and fun from the start.

While I do not want to see the 2 best NFL teams play in the first round, I am willing to make that sacrifice if it means the overall playoffs will be mostly even and fun matches to watch/play through the entire thing.

For me it is always about the greater good (fun in this case).

For me, the fatal flaw of this approach is that it incentivizes sandbagging. Savvy qualifiers would play the bracket instead of playing their best pinball.

Tough to sand bag 1 or 2 spots for a pump and dump. Also, there are always guys that qualify/ dont qualify on the last game of the qualifying portion of the day. if you were shooting for 14-16 at Wauna this year you would have ended up in 17th at the last second. That is incentive to not sandbag to the bottom.

In the provided scenario, wouldn't you still want to be 1, 2, 3, or 4 just to ensure you are likely avoiding the other 3 best people till after round 1?