Thanks.

Josh,

Can you help me to get a hold of copy of this software and assist with getting a monitor setup working (just need some tech help with what it takes to get this working as I dont know how the software works)?

I would like to use this software and 1 of our locations is open to us putting in a large monitor to stream all currnet scores! I like the improvements you have made on the original concept and woudl liek to incorporate them.

Excellent question as the qualifying hours for the "league tourney finals" would be the sum of the normal business hours from start to finish.

http://www.neverdrains.com/dtm/

I like what the Level 257 monitor is showing and would like to know how to do that as well.

Sure sure...I didn't mean that. I just meant it would be in the best interest of a location if they were already having a league, to add this type of league at the same time. So I can go to my league night and play all the games, and then right after play for my self picture league (I'm sorry I cannot continue saying Super Selfie)? Thus having 2 chances for points, and getting more people interested in playing.

thanks

email sent!

Here is a question about the tournament format I have in mind.

Assuming 16+ players participate.
Unlimited attempts on 8 pins for xx hours (say, 6 hours).
Goal: get one of the 8 highest scores to qualify.

A max of 8 players are qualified for quarter-finals. Which will be in a direct elimination format, best of 3 games.

A player with 2 highest scores would get 1 bye
A player with 4 highest scores would get 2 byes (i.e., directly goes to the final).
(No more than 4 highest scores registered - one has to stop playing during Q if holding 4 highest scores)

Would you endorse that format? (The number of players qualified can be any value between 2 and 8 )
What would be the TGP?

I see. It's true that in principle a single (exceptional) game would allow you to qualify, but that's an unlikely event. This format allows a player to arrive at the last moment and still get an chance, but the "average" player will fight his way for the full 6 hours on all 8 games...

May be I'll revert to classic Herb style format then.

Can someone help me understand the Division restrictions? I just played in LAX in the B division of classics. So apparently since there were players that did not qualify for A, but were too high of an IFPA rank to play in B, the final standings of the classics tournament after the A division were locked in based off their qualifying standings. This stinks for the B division players that did really well and thought they finished around 30th overall, but were more like 45.

If this is the case, then how does PAPA work? I assume there are players every year that are highly ranked that don't qualify for A but are restricted to play in something lower. Does that mean whomever qualified 1st in B, gets the crown for B division? I am pretty sure that is not how that works at PAPA.

Does the type of tournament dictate this result? If so, I want to make sure and avoid running those types of tournaments.

Anytime you restrict a division based on skill level, gender, or age (excluding bar rules) you lose the ability to gain WPPR points from it. The old saying I've heard is whenever you're wondering if something should be WPPR eligible ask yourself, "Could Keith Elwin participate and win in this tournament?"

PAPA A and Classics are the ONLY divisions that get WPPR points at PAPA. B, C, D, Juniors, and Seniors are not eligible to receive WPPR points.

I see B division playoffs as something more for the fun of it anyways. I know it was a big stepping stone for me. B division was a great chance for me to get my feet wet without having to play the top level guys.

The other alternative is to have no restrictions on B division at major events. But then that opens up another can of worms as the skill level would be huge from the top seed in B to the last qualifier.

Okay then I am all for unrestricted over all divisions. If an A player wants to purposefully tank in qualifying so that they can play and win B division, they still only finished 25th overall, didn't win any money (in most cases), and their points they were awarded were way less. Plus, they still have to beat the other people in B to win. There were some damn good players in B division classics at LAX.

I disagree. B division is there to provide a finals competitive option for lesser skill level players. We should not allow an option for people to purposefully tank and play in a lower division. Because sadly, this would happen.

I would like to see a combination of sorts for big events like PAPA.

Restriction but ONLY for the money and trophy aspect of it. If someone wants to sandbag into a lower division then let them but if they win B and are a top 200 player then no cash and no trophy for them.

It would pretty much take care of any sand bagging I would think. Yet it would allow every single player to get a final position.

If there are 200 people in A, then the person winning B would be 201. It basically gives the player the choice of division and would also allow points for all.

I say let them do it. The ones that do it will be pretty obvious IMO and like I said, they still have to beat the other people in B. I just played in the KY state championships and watched someone who has never play in a tournament before win. It just makes the victory that much sweeter IMO

They will be obvious, and nobody will like it, and all the money prizes in lower divisions will go to players who don't belong there.

Also know that at PAPA, a new player can select any division, there is no low end of restrictions, just a high end.

In my opinion, division restrictions are necessary in any event with substantial prizes for lower divisions.

Fair enough. Then how about if you don't make A and are restricted from B, you're eliminated?

The B division issue has been raised in Australia recently. We don't have enough players to risk running a separate division which would draw people away from the main IFPA event so its a tricky issue.

At my next event I'll run a B division as part of the main event. Everyone does their qualifying in the main draw. Lets say there are 16 through to the open finals. If you come 17th that is your IFPA placing for the overall event. However after that is finished you get a shot at B division providing you meet eligibility criteria (in this case, you need to be <= 1500 rating, and >= 1000 rank). The top 8 guys who don't make the final, but meet the criteria go into a B division final. Its important to note that B division has no impact on IFPA ranking for the event, its simply for the fun of competing with similarly skilled players.

If you meet the criteria but make the open finals you are ineligible for B division.

Keeps it fun, and doesn't spoil the total points available. Obviously not needed at the big events in the US, but since in Australia we struggle to get 50 rated players to even the biggest events, the back of the field can have some fun and experience finals without having to compete against the same 10 guys every time.

Yeah just so many different formats to choose from, and I'm glad it's that way, as there is definitely something for everybody. Herb style is definitely my least favorite. Pinburgh is the ultimate format IMO. Hoping I can get a chance to go this year.

How did some one who has never played in a tournament win a state championship. Only way to be in a state championship is to play in local tournaments and qualify....

Okay one tournament, but still.

So we are talking about Drew Donohue, right?

Per IFPA's data, it looks like he qualified for the 2015-2016 KY SCS with only 2 events in the state and with less than 6 WPPR points and 3 rated events *lifetime* prior to the SCS and goes on to beat Trent A. in the finals. That is pretty amazing

espn ocho?

Doesn't Pinburgh restrict people to A Division also?

Maybe finals, but in qualifying, you are playing everyone and after the first few rounds will be playing people with similar skill levels. I tracked a few people last year and in early rounds, the swings could be huge. Have a rough round 1, and get placed near the bottom. Crush it and now you are in the top 50%, a swing of 350 places. Things settle down a little bit as qualifying goes on, but it was a lot of fun. The web site for that wasn't the best thing ever, but was really informative once you played with it a little bit. They had live updates to a Google Sheets doc for division finals, so I got to watch an in-state player march through to C-finals.

From what the IFPA results say, everyone that played in Pinburgh got IFPA points. For PAPA, anyone that didn't make A got zero points.

The difference being that in PAPA, you can choose what division you play in. So if you pick anything other than A, you knowingly (or at least you should know) give up your chance at WPPRs. I think in the first version of D, I still qualified for that. IIRC, they changed the requirements and then I wouldn't have been able to play it. As of now, I'm ~100 spots too high to qualify for C at PAPA. C is where expect to land in Pinburgh, and I'd rather make the finals than not in that division.

with PAPA, do they use ALL players to calculate base value of the event? or just those in A division?

They would not use b,c,or d to calculate since they cannot win the tourney. At Papa, Adiv and Classics 1,2,3 are the only tournaments earning wpprs. The big difference with Pinburgh is that everyone plays day 1 in one huge open group, so anyone who enters Pinburgh has a chance to win the tourney.

Wow.

I got to play against Drew in the first round of finals at Louisville 2016. He goes by Booski. Nice guy. In a group with myself, Adam Leffkov and Brian Dye he destroyed us all on Metallica. Like 130M,67M, 36M, 32M. Sadly neither one of us advanced past that round.

Players choose their division upon arrival at PAPA, so there is no "making A". Any player can compete in A. Most choose not to, so they don't receive any points.

At events like Louisville and California Extreme, rather than have players choose A or B up front, players are judged to be "B eligible" or "casual eligible", and the B finals are based on performance in the main division. Think of those B finals as "bonus events". Some of this was spurred by IFPA's decision to only count top-division play for points; at LAX, everyone's qualifying play counts for points, even players who would otherwise have self-selected a lower division.

Thanks Bowen. That makes a lot of sense. I just wonder if at PAPA there is a way to get points for all those people that either didn't qualify for A or chose another division. That is a lot of people that would get points that could then bring those points back home to their local events, thus contributing towards the increased points that are awarded to their local events. This would help with the SCS debate on keeping state championships with more local/regional players too. Just a thought.

I know alot of people dog on KY SCS and say that it is the easy way out....Just to give Booski proper credit here, he not only beat Trent in finals he actually played the other 2 top 100 players and beat them including the 2 time defending KY SCS champ. In the semis he beat one of our better Cincy league players. So I would by no means say he had it "easy"! He was also on his "home" turf, he does work there and plays the games there alot and knows them pretty well. It goes to show that he held up by making the main finals at LAX, that he is a very good player. He is also a really nice guy! I know that KY doesn't have alot of events, but it does have its share of good players just like southern Ohio. Which proves the point that as far as SCS goes it really is not that much to do with quantity but quality of those that play...
It is great that PAPA has made LAX the final PAPA circuit event and thus brings in great players from all over and they run a great tourney...but sometimes I wonder how it would be if more of the local players would get a chance to be showcased and compete for the title. I know there are alot of good players in KY and Southern Ohio area that competed and some that didn't compete. One of our Cincy group actually won B division, and others qualified in classics A and B. Some of us didn't even compete because there was no communication of the fact that there even was going to be a B division.
I'm glad Booski is actually going to Vegas to compete, and he is excited to get the opportunity to go. It is also great that someone from KY actually won the SCS!

Phoebe

IFPA makes the decisions about how points are awarded, not PAPA, so you'd have to take it up with them, and they've already explained why they choose not to give points to lower divisions. The PAPA format has been the same for 13 years. Players choosing A Division will earn points, everyone else won't. Pinburgh awards points to all 700 players.

It does seem silly not to award points to the players in other divisions of PAPA. There is lots of "meaningful" pinball being played which can differentiate players. I realize that not everyone is eligible to compete in the other divisions, but that shouldn't make it worth nothing. Not sure how it should be calculated, but zero points seems like a lost opportunity...

I think that's the thing, there is no good way to calculate it that is fair and doesn't create perverse incentives, is there?

There is something to be said for: if you want points, then you have to play in the top division...you can't self select into a lower group and expect to earn points - that is going to cause all sorts of issues with people playing below their level (who aren't restricted) just to accumulate points. Granted, cash payouts for all divisions already creates that incentive.

I hear you, but we in the B and C divisions played hard for 4 days. There were lots and lots of games played, among strong competitors. I just can't believe that all of that data would be worthless for differentiating the relative skill level of those players.

I have no idea whether there is a fair way to calculate points. Perhaps not. I trust that Josh and the IFPA crew have considered every option. But, they keep refining it. Perhaps they can figure out a way.

Just to throw out a radical idea...what if people could play heads up matches for points. Perhaps the "net" points would be zero, but a few points could shift from the loser to the winner. I'm sort of thinking about horse racing's "match" races, or heads-up poker matches.

It's not worthless, but this discussion started out being about points - which ranks people even if they're not playing each other directly.

However, it'd be cool if adjustments could be made to your IFPA *Rating* based on playing in competitions that aren't awarding points.

Perhaps a better analogy for my idea of competing for points is the way they do chess ratings.

If you play someone ranked higher than you, you stand to earn quite a few points with a win. If you lose, you don't lose as many points. I'm not sure how the exact calculation works with chess, but I think playing for points would be a lot more fun than playing for dollars.

Can you imagine Keith Elwin playing head-to-head against Bowen with real points on the line? On PAPA TV? I bet everyone would love that.

Or perhaps you and I meet up at the 1up on a random Sunday for some real heads-up competition? Sounds fun, and a legitimate method of ranking people. Chess has used this method for years. They have a mechanism to do rankings for tournaments, as well as heads-up play. Why can't pinball have both, too?

Just brain-storming.

I also remember being shocked when I went to my first PAPA in 2009 and discovered that I would be playing in B div for no WPPR points. But if you really think about it, it's makes sense. All events to gain WPPR's must be open to all competitors. So a B div or C div has all the very best players excluded from participating. Same reason that women's leagues are not WPPR eligible, since all the men are excluded.

PAPA World Championships are different from just about any other tourney in the world in that YOU declare which division you want to play in BEFORE you begin.

There are lots of rated tournaments in chess that are not open to grandmasters.

We did.. PARS graded all the H2H matches, but I think it's dead now.