PM me Josh - I can pull any kind of data you think would be interesting to analyze.

Josh (safe to assume it's never Zach posting to Pinside)

NO kids?
How does that work for events at bars that by meany local laws can be NO one under 21

I don't feel this is IFPA's fault, since there are competing interests. It's IFPA's goal to promote competitive pinball, and by having any event worth a large number of points, it means there will be more events. My comment was in response to Frax's suggestion that the balance between events should be tipped further in favor of small events.

In professional tennis and golf, there are events worth 50 to 100 times as many ranking points as smaller events. I'm not saying that should happen here, but IFPA's original concept of "minimum 25, maximum 50" for points events is a limiting factor.

Referencing this specific situation, I feel it is far, far more challenging to make the top 4 or even top 8 of a large event with a difficult field, than to win an 8-player event. I do feel it should be worth more, and that the base points for an event should be based on both its size and quality. Currently, neither is part of the IFPA system (except for launch parties) and it looks like both are being incorporated for 2014.

It's just my opinion, and there are clearly reasons to make other decisions. It all depends on the goal of the system. Unfortunately there are multiple goals. In this case the goal of promotion counteracts the goal of accurate rankings.

I'm confused by your reference to "Josh", is that you?

As always, much respect to the work done by volunteers to raise interest and to run events in the first place.

the base points for an event should be based on both its size and quality.

Would love to know what kind of value you would put on "size", and what factors you would include in the determination of "quality". It's the mathematical evaluation of those two metrics that we're having problems with. Any suggestions we're definitely looking for input.

Good question, and I don't know. Josh, what's policy on 21+ tourneys?

Up to the establishment and out of our hands, so they are still eligible.

I know at gameworks the owner used to give Henderson a bracelet after 9pm and he had to stay by the pins. Other 'real bars' aren't as accommodating.

I'll be there, Josh, if all but one of the out of state people go elsewhere.

I would dislike for the 'quality' aspect to limit points for certain events. I personally dislike pump and dump but know others that really enjoy them. I see a purpose for many different styles of events as variety is the spice of life.

Pump and dump, one and done, golf, chaos, trick games (reversed flippers, one handed, etc) are all fun when you get a variety of styles.

My personal favorite is pingolf. I would hate to see this downgraded because you only get 1 play on each game.

I'm with you Hilton . . . any changes that could potentially reward one format over another format will only lead to the 'most valuable format' being used in favor of all other available formats.

The only way I would support changes based on 'quality' would be where each designated format has certain characteristics that would deem it as a full value version of that format. Pingolf for example could be something where you need 9 or more holes to qualify for full base value . . . any amount of holes less than that and it can cut into that base value, with 1 hole being the least valuable version of the Pingolf format.

Theoretically I agree with Bowen 100%. There are certain characteristics of tournaments that lead to 'better results' from the data used to generate those results compared to others. Choosing what that criteria is, how to get that criteria submitted from the tournament directors into the IFPA, and then how to mathematically value how that criteria impacts the base value is the challenge we are facing.

Interesting. So if the system is not very accurate then how can you use it to make an argument about which tournament is harder ?

well it maybe it's more of an city to city thing and places that are no kids all the time vs no kids after X time.

With no kids after X time it's easier to get a way with an well the event started before the cut off time. But that is still up to the owners and they don't want to lose there Liquor license

well maybe events, leagues, ect with an caped number of people should have less points based on the number of people with open events with no points taken off and that helps drive open events vs limited ones.

Penalizing tourneys that happen during the week has me stumped as well. Some people can't participate during the weekends due to work or family time. Plus the fact many events happen on the weekend and it's hard not to over lap a new tourney on an existing one.

There is no need for organizers to be penalized for this as long as they run 4 events within the calendar year.

This is to try and balance a tournament held from 7pm-10pm on a Wednesday night, with those held for 30+ hours over an entire weekend.

Should the organizer run their event 4 times, the 'duration' of the tournament becomes much more fair when being compared to typical weekend annual tournaments and the efforts those organizers put into making those events happen.

I guess this is as good as any place to post this-

I have been campaigning in our local forums to debunk this common myth:

Myth: The unlimited pay to play qualifying is not a fair system since people can buy their way in.

It is long winded, but I think it bears stating and I am sure it will receive lots of feedback from both camps.

My opinions/analysis:

In the unlimited qualifying format (aka Herb format) or as some say “pump and dump”, it does take money to compete and chances are one or two entries will not get one invited to the dance (i.e. the finals). I seem to recall reading Keith Elwin made it into PAPA one year on one entry, but Keith is quite the exception to the rule.

For us mere mortals, one reason multiple entries are needed is that as the qualifying progresses, people learn how the games are reacting such as feeds out of scoops, the severity of the tilts, the speeds and angles and what strategies work or fail. Hence the scores generally improve as time goes on.

Eventually the scores plateau and toward the end of the qualifying time allotted, there are less changes in the scores (more people are voiding, or dumping, over and over). There are cases where last minute changes occur in the qualifying rankings (I think this is called being Belsito’d) but by and large there are not that many dramatic changes if the scorekeepers have been on top of the data entries. The cream has risen to the top.

In the unlimited format, time has shown over and over, that in the end, many of the same names appear in the top qualifying slots. These common household pinball names in the world rankings or on a smaller scale, the known players in your local playing area, cannot also be the wealthiest players in all of pinball.

Where the discrepancies in the top 16 names at an event come from is when those top players are limited in playing. These happen at one and done formats such as launch parties or other restrictive events.

I like to use the analogy of baseball hitters for sports fans. The absolute best hitters in the world are successful about 4/10 times. That is god-like status in baseball, but still less than 50% success rate and batting can be argued to be purely athletic skill.

So in a game like pinball with some luck as part of the equation, should a pinball player’s rankings and results rely on one chance at a game to show how good he is? I say ‘no’. Over the long haul it is clear who is consistently playing well, versus a person who has one lucky game.

As such, a block of unlimited qualifying over 2 days usually settles this debate. Also the unlimited qualifying allows easy dismissal of a fluke when the world champ suffers from 3 house balls. Pinball players will naturally have terrible games now and then similar to the baseball hitter who strikes out or grounds out etc., but in the long run, despite occasional poor results, we know who the better pinball players are. The same type of analysis applies to the hitter that gets that rare HR now and then, but has a 0.098 batting average or the pinball player that has that one miraculous game but can’t make the qualifying cut.

To suggest that someone can buy his or her way into qualifying at a major pinball tourney is discounting the fact that the player must have some pinball skill. (Going back to baseball: Maybe he is a solid batter as opposed to a super-star batter). Basically, either the pinball player (batter) has the long-term skill or doesn’t.

As an aside: Frankly, I would be more skeptical of those 3 ball, one and done formats where someone claims to be “the best”.

In the unlimited pay to play composite scoring formats, throwing money at a game(s) might land a player in the finals, but that theory only holds to an extent. Statistically after 20 tries a player might have 1 or 2 breakout games, so that is why some people “go for it” and throw money at a game. However, in a composite scoring tourney with 16 qualifying spots, the math is that a player needs to average 16th place or better on not just one game, but on multiple games to make it to the finals and that involves a degree of skill, not deep pockets. (The math is slightly different when the format is say, best 5 out of 7 since not everyone has the same subset of games). In any event, the idea is similar-one great game, whether it was “bought” or not will not cut it.

Also, some people want (but do not need) to spend more money depending on where they fall on the qualifying list. Those on the bubble want to qualify in the top 16 (invite to the dance), others jockey for position: top 8 (one bye in the finals at some events), top 4 (two byes in the finals at some events), and number 1 (two byes and choice of game or position every time and sometimes special cash prize for top qualifiers).

For those campaigning to limit the entries, are afraid of pump and dump, or suspect that someone can buy their way in, I say let the spendthrifts try. If Mr. Moneybags throws tons of money at it and they make it and you don’t, just accept that they played better than you that day and get them next time. They didn’t get there simply because they had more money. Remind yourself; even the “rich players” can’t qualify if they don’t have some skill.

Also for the opponents cringing at the Mr. Moneybags types-Don’t let them influence what you do. By knowing your skill and pinball tourney budget (I feel everyone should have one), you’ll know when it is prudent to cut bait and stop throwing good money after bad. A pinball maxim is that some days the pinball gods will not be smiling upon you regardless of your skill.

Therefore if the next major event you compete in is an unlimited pay to play, don’t worry about those guys hitting the ATM over and over-it probably won’t matter. Play within your budget and just have fun competing with the best players in the world.

I am going to close by saying what by now I think should be obvious: The best-known pinball players are just really good.

Enjoy-

Shouldn't consistently good players be able to rise to the occasion no matter the format?

My problem with pump and dump is that it encourages lesser players to attempt to pay their way in when as you state there are a select set of individuals that typically excel in the pump and dump format (i.e. they can string together a good ticket eventually/ after a few tickets even if it is not on their first ticket). This leads to the lesser or avg players typically seeding a larger portion of the pot for the same names to win. In the short term this may be advantageous to the prize pool of a single event but definitely discourages repeated competition for avg players.

I believe I've already privately given you my suggestions for these, and there isn't one right answer. A reasonable approximation of "quality" is the number of games of pinball one would have to play to win an event, but there's still much that is subjective.

Asking events to report on their format (in advance of the event) could also help players who are more inclined to go for elimination tournaments or golf formats instead of best-game qualifying formats.

Right now the unlimited best-game qualifying format is king mostly because it drives the largest prize pools, and can operate with a limited supply of machines. Hopefully, sponsorships or a larger player base can increase the prize pools so that other formats can be used. I'm a fan of the "limited best-game" format where you only get a specific number of tickets to play; right now that format tends to limit the prize pool severely enough that attendance is affected.

Also, hi to "other Josh", now I know who the other other Josh was talking about!

How many games played to win an event represent enough for an event to be worth full value? Should any tournament that has less games than "X" simply be a percentage of "X" straight up? Should it be tiered into different percentages of "X"?

Any other factors to quality besides simply the numbers of games one would have to play to win an event?

Any opinion on how you would handle the size of the event? You seemed to knock the other Texas event for having only 8 players. How many players do you feel are enough for an event to earn full value? Would you do a straight up % of that based on the actual number of players?

We need some help on the 'math end' of things, and I hear you're almost as good at math as you are pinball

First and foremost, I have great respect and appreciation for anybody who is trying to further competitive pinball, especially Josh and everyone involved with the IFPA. I'm looking forward to the championships.

I don't think there is ever going to be a ranking solution that makes everyone happy. I see the IFPA model as being good for attracting new and casual players to the scene, but less than ideal for semi/serious players. The main issue I see is the disproportionate point differential between first, second, third and the rest of the pack in IFPA, and less emphasis on the point distribution based on the quality/nature of the event as opposed to it being a new venue/host.

As it stands we now have at least two separate 'world championships'. It's confusing and obviously, if you win one, then that is the legitimate one, and the other one isn't. I don't know how that gets resolved. But I do recognize that everyone involved in the hobby is doing this to further the sport and has good intentions. So while not perfect, it's still a good time to be into competitive pinball, with lots of opportunities.

The one and only reason I don't like the pump and dump is the lines. I could not care less about people buying their way in. I go to a pinball show for the whole event including playing games out on the floor, watching speakers, drinking/eating and socializing. Unfortunately the vast majority of the time devoted to playing in a tournament is not actually spent *playing*. It is spent sitting in line. I'd be a lot more serious about tournaments if there was a limit on games, so I can get my qualifying over in a couple of hours and enjoy the rest of the show. As things are now I am simply not willing to sit in line and grind it out (at the expense of everything else going on at the show) to try to qualify. Not sure how giving everyone the same limit is in any way anything other than fair? Not to mention the cream will still rise to the top, but it might give a lesser player who is on fire a chance to sneak in once in a while. I'd say limit to five tries per game. Make it $10 per game if you are concerned about pot size.

Changing the value of a tournament based on format is tricky. If that happens then people will only run the formats worth the most points, which gives players less choice in what tournaments to play in.

It's scary how 50% of the feedback we get is this kind of opinion, and 50% of the feedback we get is that the system is only designed for serious players and is worthless to anyone out of the upper tier of players.

It's our way of trying to reinforce the phrase - jack of all trades, master of none

Clearly this gets resolved by someday having the same person win them both

These are all matters of opinion so anything I say is clearly WRONG!

The declaration of an event as "full value" is a stigma to any event that isn't full value. If you were to go this route, you'd want to spin information the other way, and say that each game adds value, with a potential cap in place for events where there is a lot of play. Big examples: Pinburgh = 52 games, IFPA = 40 games, Expo = 17 games, PAPA = 14 games. For launch parties, it would be either 1 or 2 games, depending on whether there's a final round. Given what you said about Pingolf, it sounds like you might want 9 games as your cap.

You can do the same for the number of players; more players = larger base, with a potential cap. I don't have a formula handy but you'd look into something square-rooty or logarithmic. That's saying that a 32-player event should be worth more than a 16-player event, but not twice as much; same for 64 over 32 or 128 over 64.

I don't know whether those sorts of changes would make sense for WPPR, given players' expectation for how it works already, or whether such changes would be seen as "good" or "bad" in general.

My overall recommendation would be to keep the 25-point base for all events. Add value to a tournament not just based on its "rankings" and "ratings" of players, but also its size and some measure of its format.

We need to unify the titles!

Even though I'm in an area that doesn't have large events, I think there's something to this--especially for annual tourneys.

I really applaud IFPA for running the world champs this way.

Obviously, anyone outside of the USA or Central Europe could never qualify for the Champs if it wasn't set up this way.

Yeah, now that New Zealand has electric power and automobiles, things are looking up.

Out of interest (and in comparison to Fraxs Texas stats) the Auckland comps are averaging 20-25 competitors to our monthly tournaments. I had 44 at my tournament a few weeks back. Lowest was 12 because the meet coincided with a big concert. But generally we have 20-25 every month. Which is pretty cool for a town of 1m people. Also all our tournaments are in private houses, as we don't have any public venues with more than one machine LOL! If we had a decent public venue, we could advertise and get 50-100 punters a month, no issues.

cheers
rd.

Have a ladder match

I want to point out that the part you quoted is not my position, but rather what I think is a myth or misconception among many people either new to the format or who are frustrated seeing people attempt over and over.

Regarding the fixed tries per game, I assume you mean that in a 5 bank setup with 5 tries max, a player could buy 25 tickets and use them as they desire.

I am not sure it solves your line concern though.

As we had discussed, I think fixing attempts encourages people to wait around and not to play as they are waiting to see what other people do, what the feeds and tilts are, and how hard the game is set up. Also 25 games will take a long time to play as well.

Basically I would agree that somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 tickets for $100 at a 5 bank with a 3/$10 price setup is enough attempts to settle the qualifying debate.

Also I still think there will be those that say it is not fair that someone should be allowed to spend x dollars on the event when there are only people who can afford y dollars.

Interesting discussions. I am sure Josh has heard it all before.

Agreed.

I feel that the PAPA circuit and the current unlimited pay to play system at least allows for the potential of a large prize pool that will attract the upper level players who live out of town to come to more regional events. (I know I like seeing the big players come to my state).

It is understood that players are not making a living playing pinball and going show to show is not cheap. There has to be at least some financial incentive for the upper level players to make the trips. (I doubt the WPPR points are basis enough).

This fee/entry concept is very tricky:

If the number of qualifying entries is fixed and the pot is too low, this will discourage people from traveling to compete. (Who is flying in for a one and done or two and done worth only a few dollars?)

If the number of qualifying entries is fixed, but a higher flat entry fee is assigned to generate the pot, then some people will not understand why they are forced to pay that much. For example, the average player may spend $100 at a tourney to qualify, but telling every participant they have to pay $100 drives away any casual person just wanting to try out competitive pinball. In a 3/$10 pay to play format, casual people can jump in for a limited amount of money and at least say they played with the best. People can pay to play as little or as much as they choose.

I am sure much of this is a tired debate to the tourney veterans and organizers.

There probably is not one correct solution even if someone guaranteed each event was worth X dollars. The the number of tries will be debated and on and on.

Speaking for myself, I am extremely happy just to have more IFPA events to play in my home state

The good news is: We're debating about how to play more pinball.
Play more pinball! Have a Merry Christmas, everyone!

You would be surprised. I'm pretty sure that WPPRs are enough for some players.

I'm not a fan of the pump and dump/donate all day style tournament.
Yes, they make for the largest pots, but there are some disadvantages:

If any games break down and are unfixable, there is a major issue. Do you just keep the scores that you have and use them? Do you void all of the scores on the game (I have seen this done)?

The format is labor intensive as many (or all) scores have to be written down. This adds to the wait time.

Most players will only play one player games as they try (unsuccessfully) to qualify and will never play against another opponent in a multi-player game. This can get frustrating as players play the same games, by themselves, over and over again.

The wait time can get huge at these events.

The games play differently as they get dirty, kickouts change from day to day, tilts can get looser, etc. Over the course of hundreds of plays, the game will not necessarily play exactly the same, but the scores are compared against each other as though the game does play the same.

Most of the tournaments that I have run lately have been bracketed or "Pinburgh-style" tournaments where people get to play each other in 2, 3 or 4 player games. There are always optional sidepot buyins for those that wish to play for higher stakes. True, nobody wins a huge amount of money at these events, but then nobody spends too much either.

And I usually do have a pump and dump side tournament on one game.

You are correct-I probably would be surprised at the fight for WPPR points- For me, I found competing for bragging rights in the State series a very enjoyable experience in my home state

Also bear in mind that, until recently, such a policy would be very difficult to track -- players could exchange tickets, for example. With software that handles entry assignment as well as scoring, the system can now track how many entries a player has purchased, so it is possible to implement such a maximum. Without this, the maximums would have to be set very low, as they are in European events (typically "one play on each game + X do-overs" where X is 0, 1, or 2).

For what it's worth, the most frequent player at this month's Pinballz event did not qualify for the top 16.

Ha!

I think pinball is more involved than saying good players should be able to perform well no matter the format.

Since pinball is still somewhat luck based, the more restricted a player is, the more likely luck will prevail. In a skill/luck based game like poker for example, a player is not forced to go "all-in" each time they face an opponent based on whatever cards he is dealt. They can play hands, figure out betting patterns, gather information. Sort of like what the unlimited qualifying in pinball encourages.

In pinball, there has to be some period of time for adjustment to the game setup even if a player is an expert on that game title. (Not all AFMs play the same for example). A 30-second ball launch won't suffice to learn the game-but I do understand why it is used.

Looking at the effect of restricting the entries on the casual player or even semi-serious player for example: Some games are setup on "hard" software settings. If a casual tourney player has only played a game on factory or never even played the game, they might not even understand how the game plays or what the changes are since they have never played that way.

If the argument is that it is a pinball tourney, that players should be skilled in the rules in all settings and players should study more, then that solution will not please the masses either as now all casual players are punished for having to know everything in a few attempts.

Limiting entries greatly favors the player who knows the intricacies of the rules since they are not figuring out what to do. With unlimited entries, a player can at least pay to learn.

If the opinion is everyone should have the same amount of games and have the same constraints, it is back to how many games?

Pinburgh (which I have not been to, BTW, but have read about) uses a fixed number of games, and seems to work since the player is given many games to play over the long haul. It is iterative. However if the rounds were reduced to say 2 or 3 total rounds, the results would probably not be as meaningful and would seem more of a roll of the dice to determine outcome.

I think there are a lot of interesting theories

I agree with this approach 100%. It also like the idea of using a logarithmic scale for adding a "bonus" value based on number of players and games played, in addition to the rankings and ratings system already in place.

I'm sure some people won't like it, but there should really be limits on the number of points available for events that are unable to draw enough competitors. Perhaps 1 point for each player up to 25, at which point the "full" points are available, seems fair to me.

-Jay

I actually prefer the P&D format.

Keep scores, replace broken game with a working game (different title typically). I believe at least one currently available flavor of tournament software will allow you to do this.

With the ipads and the right software, wait times are minimal.

Big shows like CAX and Seattle are adding qualifying positions ONLY for casual players. Besides those slots restricted to only casual players, a casual player can also qualify with the big boys. There has never been as many qualifying spots available to casual players as there are these days. I very much miss my casual eligibility.

That's all on the tournament organizer. You have to have enough games for each division and the games need to be set up properly (short ball times). If a tournament's wait times run long at an event, I'm going to ask beforehand what changes have been made to speed things up the next time the event is held. No excuse for long wait times.

My experience has been the opposite. Games used in a P&D are typically shopped out and playing as they should at the beginning of the tournament. Sure they get tired at the end of a weekend, but generally speaking, they're prepared to last all weekend and play as you would expect them to play. Other formats, like match play or pin golf, games are often in rough shape. The thought seems to be: 'Everyone has to play it that way, so why should we shop it out?'. All too often lately I've run into a game that's noticeably leaning in a match play tournament. I don't care to wager any money at all on a game that's leaning. Same goes for dirty games. I might play them for fun, but not for money.

Match play is definitely favored here in the bay area. Setting up a P&D is harder, which probably plays a part. Folks do like the low/fixed cost of match play.

One game? That's not a P&D. That's a TOP's tourney. d

So you keep the scores for the broken game and those scores count (to the advantage of those who got to play the broken game), but how do you replace the game? Especially with a different title.
Is there now one more title for players to qualify on? So if the tournament director intended for there to be n games on which scores are used for qualifying, now n+1 games are used for qualifying?

It is a little more involved than a TOPS tourney as everyone's best score is recorded .

I didn't say that games were in worse shape at P&Ds, rather that if the way that a game at a P&D plays changes over the course of a tournament, certain players may receive an advantage.

in an "unlimited multi game play" format (stop calling it pump and dump or herb style) ,even if a game breaks down and can not be repaired, here are the options:
1) if its early enough, give the players who have played that game free entries to play the "new" game.

2) if its very late in the tourney, just keep the scores as they are. other people should have played earlier is the way i look at it, esp in a long qualifying hours event. those who show up on the last day or last hours of qualifying in a multi day/hour qualify event, should consider playing in the beginning.

3) if you have, for example..10 games in the lineup but only 5 or 6 best scores on games are used towards your "standing", then even if you pull a game or 2, everyone is still safe. that is the best scenario.

if you have enough games, enough score keepers , constant updates, and games set up correct...there won't be massive lines.

I think some folks are over thinking the subtleties of how games change etc.

I have no problem with P&D format although personally I feel like it might be nicer with a limit, but then I have never really thought it out aside from the general "if someone is rich and plays enough they probably can have a good qualification" but thinking that out, they probably would get weeded out in the first round of finals if they got in based on their 'lucky' scores from massive amounts of entries.

Having played in a several of these type tourneys I don't have a problem with them, like phishrace.

Also for the points basis and all I think the system can be improved, but it's also pretty damn good for what it is. I feel like a bunch of us folks who enter tournaments aren't as worried if we're mis-ranked by a few spots. After all, pinball is a bit wild and hopefully we're all playing for fun. I am not sure there's that many folks, no matter how good, that could actually make a living from competing in pinball tournaments. (At least not with the cost of living here in SF

As I mentioned before, my biggest issue with Pump and Dump is that the same handful of names consistently show up at the top of the player list.

This format is thus geared mainly towards a false premises that even a less skilled player could get lucky and win. Thus leads to people of less skill disproportionately seeding the cash prize for the same core group of top players. As others have stated, the reality of P&D is that the cream rises to the top. This format provides false hopes and crushes dreams

Put a reasonable limit on P&D and you can improve an event in numerous ways. Most notably you are limiting the number of scores that need to be entered into any system. You are capping/ limiting those that have no control or self limitation and would try to buy their way in. At the same time you are ensuring that even good players must show up to play and do so consistently (I have seen times where good players have established good scores on everything but 1 game that eludes them and then they play that game constantly till they finally get a good game)

Side note > are some of these slick ipad based score entry softwares available for free to tournament directors?
What PAPA had this past year was GREAT!!! Where can I get that? I also would love to see the IFPA get some great software and provide it to tournament directors for free as incentive to run more events. I typically use Scott's pinball software and he is making vast improvements based on feedback, but it does not yet have some of the slick features that I saw on the PAPA software (electronic entry purchase, multiple score entry on tablets with one time sign in, live website updating so people can check their scores)

Whysnow,
Same handful of names seem to show up in other formats also.

In P&D, a less skilled player can get lucky and qualify for finals with more game attempts. This player is less likely to win in finals as tries are limited but the possibility remains. There is no false premise. There may be ignorance combined with self delusion of skill level.

Playing one game that eludes is strategy. Why eliminate this choice? P&D is not unlimited. It is limited by time. Tournaments also can reward for extra time. - like for those who bring games or volunteer. I think this is a good thing.

I have limited tournament experience and this (my first) year has been one of observing and learning. My first major (MGC) I got lucky with a high score and 100 pts. on one of the games. My goal was simply "B" finals. I didn't invest much money -I am sure less than "Same handful of names". My other major attempt was expo and it was easy to know when to stop investing. I am a less skilled player, not a dog, but love the pressure of competition. More accurately I love the competition resultant adrenaline and respect and embrace the need to learn from experience. Pump and Dump doesn't take advantage of someone who doesn't learn and attempt to change accordlingly. That would be a personal problem not a format problem.

Be careful with brackalope for any double elimination event that does not exactly fit into standard 8 person brackets (i.e. 8, 16, 24, 32, etc...) as it does not correctly assign finishing poisition. It has a major flaw where is given a final place advantage to anyone that randomly got a bye in round 1. For example, if you have a record of B, L, L and I have a record of W, L, L, then you will still have a better finishing position than me even though you did not have a single win.

This error continues on for all senarios of win/loss record and basically getting a bye in brackalope double elim format is a huge and unfair advantage.

This is the software I typically run
http://scottdanesi.com/WP/?page_id=161

great stuff and getting better all the time. I plan on donating a protion of the proceeds for the next MRP event to Scott and would love if tournament directors using it would do the same. Even better would be if the IFPA could either get a software for directors that is similar to the PAPA one or maybe subsidize Scott to get a few more tweaks that finsih polishing it to perfection. It has had huge improvements in the past few months! thanks SCOTT!

This is definitely the track we've been heading down . . . it's just reallllly hard to get the math right.

If we find a way to make it work, it would remove the need for us to even have something called a 'periodic tournament', or a 'side tournament'. Every single event would be graded on its own attributes, and every single event would be listed separately on a player's IFPA resume.

Assuming we take the 'quality' metric as # of games played to determine a winner, and use the minimum as 10 for full value taking a linear approach, and take the 'player count' metric as 1 base point per player up to 25, we wouldn't care about whether something is a launch party, or a classics tournament, or a tournament that happens every month. To your point we wouldn't care if a tournament happens during the week, or how long the tournament runs for (3 hours vs. 30 hours).

The launch party that you won that we ended up nuking with our change would have been calculated this way:
player count = 12, quality metric = 2 (assuming it was the standard launch party of 1 attempt plus 1 final game) . . . this would lead to a base value of 12 X 20%, or 2.4 WPPR points, plus the Rating and Rankings boost of 1.55 WPPR points. Total for the win would be 3.95 WPPR points for that tournament.

The Gameworks tournament I won this past December, that simply got added into my resume with the other monthly tournaments at Gameworks for the year would have been evaluated as it's own distinct event:
player count = 11, quality metric = 4 (we did brackelope single game, single elimination) . . .
this would lead to a base value of 11 X 40%, or 4.4 WPPR points, plus the Rating and Rankings boost of 4.66 WPPR points. Total for the win would be 9.06 WPPR points for that tournament.

Is that good? Is that not good? How does that value fit with how the value would be calculated across the other 1500 events from this year? How does this kind of change globally make the actual rankings themselves look (i.e. if I end up ranked #1 after these changes then the rankings would be considered a complete farce)?

Combine that with the bigger question as to whether this kind of WPPR system change staggers the enthusiasm for people to run events (the points Hilton brought up), especially if they don't have the time to invest in a format that allows for 10 games to be played, or if they don't have the player base locally to be able to get anywhere close to the player count we end up using.