(Topic ID: 185543)

Are you in favor of the IFPA changes for 2018? POLL

By pinlink

2 years ago

Topic Stats

  • 513 posts
  • 106 Pinsiders participating
  • Latest reply 1 year ago by Blitzburgh99
  • Topic is favorited by 13 Pinsiders


Linked Games

No games have been linked to this topic.

    Topic poll

    “Are you in favor of the IFPA changes for 2018 regarding the $1 entry fee?”

    • YES 215 votes
    • NO 212 votes

    (427 votes)

    Topic Gallery

    There have been 14 images uploaded to this topic. (View topic image gallery).

    pasted_image (resized).png
    pasted_image (resized).png
    MeanMeanest (resized).jpg
    85c588a29c8804b1e95223ed060880e7_one-dollar-bob-on-make-a-gif-one-dollar-bob-gif_320-180 (resized).png
    download (resized).jpg
    Screen Shot 2017-04-10 at 3.40.48 PM (resized).png
    IMG_4979 (resized).PNG
    pasted_image (resized).png
    IMG_1567 (resized).png
    pasted_image (resized).png
    bop (resized).jpg
    large_uAvG211cGNKSFyPzXFVMZzjkBB8 (resized).jpg
    download (resized).jpg
    1mlwhh (resized).jpg

    You're currently viewing posts by Pinsider Spraynard.
    Click here to go back to viewing the entire thread.

    #285 2 years ago

    I propose we allocate a portion of the pot to give participation trophies to all the snowflakes in Wisconsin.

    #355 2 years ago
    Quoted from Jdawg4422:

    This is completely inaccurate for Az atleast. Data from 2016 is way less than 2017 and thats good, we want pinball to grow. With this new rule i see it going backwards.
    Lets just look at the top 50 people in AZ. Just adding up the total events for those 50 people we have $421 through the first 3 months(first quarter). So if you times that by 4(4 quarters in a year) you get $1684. And 1684*.75=$1263 in total for SCS in az if the same amount events are to be ran in each quarter. Thats just the first page of people there are 2 more pages.(granted they prob have less events as they are not ranked very high)
    Also now take the total events 1684 and divide by 50(the number of people used in this stat) and you get $33.68 per person for the year on average. compared to the average from that chart of $4-$6 per person it is off by quite a bit.
    Anyone can take stats and skew them to say what they want them to, I like how he uses median and it shows so low for every state because of all the people that played one event during the year. When those people are not an average representation, playing one event just because you happened to be there.

    The analysis was on 2016 data. Yes, the 2017 results will likely be different, and very likely to be higher than what was observed in 2016. My goal was not to predict 2017 or 2018, but to describe 2016.

    You can't cherry pick extreme outliers in your state to claim they are "the average representation" of the player base. The unfortunate truth is that the typical player does not attend thirty tournaments in a year. As I explain in the analysis, 75% of all players in 2016 (at a national level) played in 5 or fewer tournaments.

    Here is a vector of the number of events attended by the 177 AZ players in 2016.


    Yes, if you take a subset of your highest activity players, your mean $/year value will be much higher. But they are outliers in your dataset--the majority of players simply don't attend that many events. (For what its worth, the mean value of the highest activity 50 players for 2016 is $15.76.)

    And no, I did not "skew the stats to say what I wanted," I did what any sane statistician would do. Further, I reported both the mean and the median. I explained that the median was better to use in this case because of extreme outliers, which you can clearly see in the AZ data above. If you wish to look at the mean, it is there for you to observe. Even if you go with the mean, the numbers are still very modest.

    If you think my computations are wrong, I encourage you to examine the code and data on github and double check my results.

    #363 2 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    but yet those players combined are paying almost half of the total prize pool and also the most likely to be turned off by this new fee.
    $75 generated from 1 event players
    $50 from 2 event players
    $45 from 3 event
    $40 from 4 event
    $180 from 5-10 event
    a combined $390 from 1-10 event players
    (total of 153 players)
    $566 from 11+ event players (total of only 24 players)
    clearly shows that the people NOT playing for SCS (153) far out number the ones serious about playing for SCS (24). They are asking 87% of the casual playing population to fund over 40% of the prize pool.
    Would liek to see the vector fo WI events/players form 2016
    (I have no idea how to pull it)

    At a national level, 75% of the low activity players (1-5 events/year) are contributing 25% of the total pot. Not an insignificant amount, but far from the majority.

    Here is your data for WI:

    Just like the national average, 75% of the players in Wisconsin played in five or fewer events in 2016. They also would have contributed about 22% of the pot.

    #372 2 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    using the 2016 WI data some interesting facts:
    474 unique players.
    406 players that played in 10 or under events (casual) would have accounted for $992 of the prize pool. These are the people most likely to be lost from IFPA events under the new fee based structure. In other words, WI stands to discourage over 85% of the current competitive pinball population from playing in future IFPA events. I term this as a bottom up errosion of the player base and bad for pinball.
    68 players that played in 11 or more events (pro) would have accounted for $1762 of the prize pool
    Digging a bit deeper with another important data point...
    The minimum # of events played by ANY 2016 SCS attendee was 25. If we use that as a split point, then you have the following:
    439 players played in 24 or less events (i.e. little to no chance statistcially of even making SCS or a chance to win back any funds) and accounted for $1503 of the prize pool
    35 players played in 25 or more events (i.e. had a reasonable shot of making SCS) and accounted for $1251 of the prize pool
    This means that in WI, we would be asking for 92% of the playing population to pay in to a prize pool that mathematically ONLY the top 8% have a shot of recouping any funds.
    That 92% of the population would be contributing 54% of the total prize pool.
    At the same time, WI would have double and in some cases triple the prize pool of adjoinging states (MN and IL in particular), so now there is greater monetary incentive for people from adjoinging states to travel out of state for only the big events and thus be eligible for a prize pool in excess of $2250 at SCS.
    I see this as a top down erosion of large events and ectually creates an incentive for in state TDs to NOT create large IFPA sanctioned events but rather to focus more on smaller regional events which dont promote the larger aspect of the sport and influence travel.
    It all becomes a bit of a sticky wicket. Interesting to look at the numbers.

    You are worried about discouraging players from competitive pinball who, by your own definition, are not that into competitive pinball?

    The good news is that you can easily manage those 70 active players with a google sheet! No custom website required.

    #375 2 years ago
    Quoted from Jdawg4422:

    The unfortunate truth is that if you want compete at SCS you must enter thirty tournaments a year in AZ. The people that are playing one to two tourneys a year are those who just happened to be at the arcade at the time and dont care about ifpa. No one outside the top 50 will be competitive for SCS. So that is the base of people I am comparing. Why include the 1's and 2's if they are not going to be a part in the end for SCS. Also I bet most of those 1's and 2's fall off if we start charging anything. As of rigth now its free and they are all ready at the arcade. bottom line is if you want to compete for the SCS more than likely you must compete in around 30 tourneys or just be really good and do very well in the couple of big ones.

    Should players who only play in one or two events have a shot at the SCS? Is that a fair test of skill? Most would say no. For what it's worth, I wouldn't be opposed to having a cap on the number of events that contribute to a players state ranking, similar to how the world rankings are computed.

    #381 2 years ago
    Quoted from Wolfmarsh:

    I think a lot of this math makes assumptions about how people will report results to the ifpa right?
    I believe in the other thread, ifpapinball said a group could just report their year results once and only pay the $1 per person per year. Maybe I misunderstood that.

    You are partially correct. A TD who runs 12 tournaments per year could conceivable treat all events like a single event and only submit once to the IFPA. This single would cost a lot less in fees, but it would also be worth a lot less WPPRS.

    #382 2 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    This is absolutely correct. In fact our old WPPR system limited locations to only submitting annually. If they submitted more than once a year, their points would be divided out by however many events they held.
    Rather than shifting back to that 'old way', we leave that option open to the individual tournament directors to figure out. They are more than welcome to submit annually which would make the fee $1 per player per year.

    Wait a second, now I'm confused. You're saying I can submit the results of my monthly tournaments all at one time, and they'd still be worth full value?

    #384 2 years ago

    Has to be a typo. 7-8 Events per month would make JNX one of the top 20 most prolific players in the entire IFPA database. Like top 99.9999th percentile.

    #386 2 years ago

    Edit: over the line. sorry about that.

    #394 2 years ago
    Quoted from JNX:

    weekly events are for IFPA points, correct? 4
    The local selfie league plays for points every other Saturday. 2
    The monthly tournament makes another. 1
    Am I misunderstanding which events would be taxed/ pay the fee?

    It depends on how the TD submits them to the IFPA. A weekly league might only get submitted once at the end of a season.

    #398 2 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    yup, numbers that perfectly demonstrate IF you are trying to build pinball nd the sport of competitive pinball, then it seems rather obvious not to forcibly charge people $1 so they can fund the prize purse for the top 8% in the state and top 1% in the nation...

    Those data are from 2016...when there was $0 fee. The vast majority of your player base was clearly content to casually play in a few tournaments per year. They were never going to become highly competitive players. Maybe with the new policy you lose a few of these casual players because they refuse the horrible injustice of contributing a few dollars to the state purse in exchange for entry into a local event? So what? They aren't your target audience. Or more likely, the added prestige of the state championships will drive a different set of players to cross over to the next level-- ones who actually have a competitive spirit and a drive to win.

    The attrition rate in competitive pinball is just terrible--why defend the status quo? I trust Josh Sharpe's judgment on how to build a competitive player base.

    #401 2 years ago
    Quoted from JNX:

    really? LMFAO. Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.
    Competitive spirit=/= sitting there and taking it
    Whether it's pinball, or more importantly, life itself; I'm absolutely fine with my will to win and drive for results. But we're just talking about a hobby, right? Now all of the sudden we're judging people's character over a discussion of principle and a topic upon which, most of the participants( payers) have been given no say in the verdict.
    We can agree or not, and that is just fine. Stop it with the personal shots. You're better than that.


    Quoted from JNX:really? LMFAO. Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.
    Competitive spirit=/= sitting there and taking it
    Whether it's pinball, or more importantly, life itself; I'm absolutely fine with my will to win and drive for results. But we're just talking about a hobby, right? Now all of the sudden we're judging people's character over a discussion of principle and a topic upon which, most of the participants( payers) have been given no say in the verdict.
    We can agree or not, and that is just fine. Stop it with the personal shots. You're better than that.

    Dude nothing I said in that quote was directed towards you or anyone personally. Are you reading what I wrote or reading into it?

    #405 2 years ago
    Quoted from JNX:

    I quoted your post. It said what it said," ones who actually have a competitive spirit and a drive to win."
    So what do the other players have?
    Don't back out now. Own it, at least.

    I seriously think you misread the situation man.

    First off, I was speaking specifically about players who attend a couple of tournaments and never return. Somehow you managed to think that was about you, even after we established earlier in the thread that you are a highly active player. I was simply making a point that catering to people who have no interest in competitive play is a waste of time. Again, that is clearly not you.

    Second, saying things like "people who do not have a competitive drive will not engage in competition" is not an insult, any more than saying something like "people who are not academically inclined will not go to college" or "people who are not socially inclined will not attend parties." People have different personalities that draw them towards different activities. Competitive people will want to engage in competition, and noncompetitive people will avoid it.

    Promoted items from the Pinside Marketplace
    $ 18.99
    Matt's Basement Arcade
    $ 75.95
    Cabinet - Shooter Rods
    Super Skill Shot Shop
    $ 369.00
    Cabinet - Decals
    $ 157.00
    $ 89.99
    $ 369.00
    Cabinet - Decals
    $ 40.00
    Lighting - Backbox
    Rock Custom Pinball
    $ 10.00
    Cabinet - Other
    Docquest Pinball Mods
    $ 16.95
    Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
    From: $ 19.50
    Apparel - Unisex
    $ 209.99
    $ 89.99
    Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
    Lighted Pinball Mods
    $ 60.00
    Gameroom - Decorations
    The Pinball Vault
    From: $ 218.00
    $ 239.99
    Lighting - Led
    $ 29.95
    Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
    $ 48.25
    Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
    The MOD Couple
    $ 90.00
    Lighting - Under Cabinet
    Rock Custom Pinball
    $ 109.99
    $ 48.00
    Cabinet - Other
    ModFather Pinball Mods
    From: $ 175.00
    Gameroom - Decorations
    Pinball Photos
    $ 125.99
    Cabinet - Toppers
    Little Shop Of Games
    $ 30.00
    Playfield - Other
    Filament Printing
    $ 150.00
    Various Other Swag
    Test item Out of stock
    Pinside Shop

    You're currently viewing posts by Pinsider Spraynard.
    Click here to go back to viewing the entire thread.

    Hey there! Got a moment?

    Great to see you're enjoying Pinside! Did you know Pinside is able to run thanks to donations from our visitors? Please donate to Pinside, support the site and get anext to your username to show for it! Donate to Pinside