(Topic ID: 138272)

WPPR formula change to v5.2 for 2016!


By ifpapinball

4 years ago



Topic Stats

  • 446 posts
  • 57 Pinsiders participating
  • Latest reply 3 years ago by ryanwanger
  • Topic is favorited by 10 Pinsiders

You

Linked Games

No games have been linked to this topic.

    Topic Gallery

    There have been 4 images uploaded to this topic. (View topic image gallery).

    12669318_946183265472677_2067917693_o_(resized).jpg
    Stl_(resized).jpg
    Mpin_(resized).jpg
    lvl257_(resized).jpg

    There are 446 posts in this topic. You are on page 9 of 9.
    #401 3 years ago
    Quoted from Russell:

    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.

    As Josh mentioned, what you're describing is exactly what is already in place and dubbed "IFPA Rating". You start at 1200 and move up or down. The only reason it gets ignored is because it isn't the default sort on the player rankings page.

    Based on comparing our ratings, I think it's pretty accurate.

    #402 3 years ago

    I'd say we are pretty evenly matched. Is there any mechanism in place to allow official heads-up matches?? Or, would it not count for anything because the entry would be limited...? Don't get me wrong, I think the system is very well designed as it is. Frankly, it's much more sophisticated than a niche hobby like pinball probably deserves. But, even a good thing can be improved.

    #403 3 years ago

    I got ~9 points for finishing 46th in A at papa, the bottom of A div was less than 1 point.
    How many points should someone get for B division that would be fair to me, when they didn't have to play ANY Adiv players? How many to be fair to the players that tried in A, but ended up getting less than 1 point?
    B div at papa is great fun for all that play in it, but when you don't allow any top players to play in it, it is simply NOT an open tournament.

    #404 3 years ago

    @Russell: I'm certain there is at least one other thread (if not 3 or 4) here that discusses your exact point, that addresses your arguments and others. I didn't find it immediately with my first search, but I'd encourage you to look for it and read through it.

    It tends to crop up every year within days after PAPA world championships end.

    #405 3 years ago

    DNO, I honestly have no idea how it should all be calculated. It just feels weird that I get (a tiny amount of) points for finishing 15th at the 1up on a random Sunday, and none for playing 4 days at PAPA.

    It certainly seems that the top finisher in B should receive fewer points than the last place finisher in A.

    The analogy of chess tournaments is appropriate, I think. There are lots of tournaments with restricted entry criteria based on rating/ranking, but the results still affect those involved. Perhaps the answer lies in the difference between ranking and rating. I've never really spent enough time understanding the difference.

    Snailman- For me, it is much more interesting to discuss this in real time, rather than to search and read an old discussion. Sorry if it's repetitive. Feel free to skip or drain.

    #406 3 years ago
    Quoted from Russell:

    It certainly seems that the top finisher in B should receive fewer points than the last place finisher in A.

    Last place in A received 0.12 WPPR points .... Where would you like the start the B value in this case

    #407 3 years ago

    As I've said, I don't claim to know how many points things should receive. It seems like a nearly impossible and certainly thankless task to try to create a fair system.

    I hope everyone is open to discussing issues that we identify. Shutting down discussion never really seems like a good move. I'm simply pointing out what I see as a flaw. Conveniently for me, I'm not really offering a solution.

    #408 3 years ago

    The discussion is great, and like others have said this has been a popular one. Over the last 10 years there's been talk about B division WPPRs 10 times.

    It's simply against our rules to endorse tournaments that are restricted based on age, gender, race, skill, etc.

    Papa B division is skill restricted. It may be a great tournament, but it simply doesn't qualify for endorsement.

    #409 3 years ago
    Quoted from Russell:

    It certainly seems that the top finisher in B should receive fewer points than the last place finisher in A.

    Huh? I know you earn your way into "A". But when push comes to shove in the final tournament you think it is better (worth more) to lose to everyone in "A" than to beat everyone in "B"? Sorry, I have to disagree with that thought.

    #410 3 years ago
    Quoted from Taxman:

    Huh? I know you earn your way into "A". But when push comes to shove in the final tournament you think it is better (worth more) to lose to everyone in "A" than to beat everyone in "B"? Sorry, I have to disagree with that thought.

    Funny enough there was a pretty awesome discussion about 8 years ago on rgp2 when I posed the question:

    "1st place in B division = X place in A division"

    Solve for X

    I can remember going through past PAPA B winners, analyzing how they did in future A division performances, while others strictly just gave a 'gut feel' answer. Would love to see people try to solve for X now that's it 8 years later, and the pool of players is 10X what it was then

    #411 3 years ago

    What do you think the answer is? Roughly.

    #412 3 years ago
    Quoted from Russell:

    What do you think the answer is? Roughly.

    I was one of the few people that knew exactly how it felt because I won B division (back when it was Pinburgh in 2000), and then proceeded to play in A every year since then.

    IMO there's no comparison, it's simply a different beast, and I'm not just saying that . . . I LIVED that.

    It was entertaining to pull this thread back up and read it, here's my post from September 2008:

    "PAPA 7 B finalists at PAPA 8 A, average finish = 47th percentile
    PAPA 8 B finalists at PAPA 9 A, average finish = 19th percentile
    PAPA 9 B finalists at PAPA 10 A, average finish = 17th percentile
    PAPA 10 B finalists at PAPA 11 A, average finish = 45th percentile

    Average of the averages for all 'new' PAPA's looks like 32nd percentile. That equates to roughly 31st place at PAPA 11, which
    according to wppr7.xls is 4.5 WPPR points. That ~30th place finish seems to be the most popular vote in comparing the two divisions, and
    if there was a gun to Zach's head that I either had to pull the trigger or give 4.5 WPPR points to the B winner."

    There's obviously a TON more data now on how B finalists perform in their next year at PAPA A. Anyone that has more free time than me is welcome to calculate those figures.

    Sticking with the 32nd percentile, that would be 82nd place at PAPA 19, which would be 4.6 WPPR points to the B winner.

    Hell of a coincidence that 8 years later, and all these iterations of the WPPR system later, my estimate hasn't changed

    Josh

    #413 3 years ago

    Couldn't help myself . . . here's how last year's B finalists did at PAPA A this year:

    Joe Lemire (1st place in B at PAPA18) finished in 66th place at PAPA19 A division.
    Ryan Case (2nd place in B) finished in 117th place at PAPA19 A division.
    Tony Pierce (3rd place in B) finished in 73rd place at PAPA19 A division.
    Don Johnson (4th place in B) finished in 60th place at PAPA19 A division.

    Average finishing position of 79th place (35th percentile) which would be 5.08 WPPR's.

    #414 3 years ago

    More fun with numbers . . .

    PAPA17 B finalists:

    Rod Lawrence (1st place) --> 72nd out of 98 at PAPA18 A
    Matthew Clark (2nd place) --> 68th out of 98 at PAPA18 A
    Mike Szilagyi (3rd place) --> 81st out of 98 at PAPA18 A
    Gabriel Devine (4th place) --> 66th out of 98 at PAPA18A

    Average finishing position of 72nd place, which is 27th percentile, 88th place for PAPA 19 . . . 4.13 WPPR points.

    #415 3 years ago

    This is really interesting stuff. Having seen this, it seems that the lower finishers in A are not receiving enough points given the difficulty of the task they have accomplished. PAPA 'A' is hard!

    #416 3 years ago
    Quoted from Russell:

    This is really interesting stuff. Having seen this, it seems that the lower finishers in A are not receiving enough points given the difficulty of the task they have accomplished. PAPA 'A' is hard!

    They are receiving the exact same amount of points as any other tournament based on our distribution model. That difficulty is already being accounted for.

    A similar percentile finish at the Texas Pinball Festival got a player 1.7 WPPR points.

    This values PAPA A at a 3x premium over one of the biggest national tournaments we have. How much more of a premium should it be worth?

    #417 3 years ago

    IMO I believe the PAPA and Pinburgh should be worth 5X the points, the tournies are the hardest to win have the greatest level of competition and really determine who are the best players int he world. The other tournies that are majors are not full open tournies and they should be kept at 3X as you still need to qualify for them ie top 64 in the world but are not fully open to everyone...

    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    They are receiving the exact same amount of points as any other tournament based on our distribution model. That difficulty is already being accounted for.
    A similar percentile finish at the Texas Pinball Festival got a player 1.7 WPPR points.
    This values PAPA A at a 3x premium over one of the biggest national tournaments we have. How much more of a premium should it be worth?

    #418 3 years ago
    Quoted from bcrage88:

    IMO I believe the PAPA and Pinburgh should be worth 5X the points, the tournies are the hardest to win have the greatest level of competition and really determine who are the best players int he world. The other tournies that are majors are not full open tournies and they should be kept at 3X as you still need to qualify for them ie top 64 in the world but are not fully open to everyone...

    Whether the other majors are full open tournies or not (and the EPC definitely is), the level of difficulty is based on the players that participate.

    Hardest to win? Based on what?

    Greatest level of competition? PAPA and IFPA this year literally had as similar of a field as you could get since they were run back to back. If you have the same group of players in both events, which one has a "greater" level of competition?

    Right now comparing that 30th percentile level:

    Texas Pinball Festival --> 1.7 WPPR's
    European Pinball Championship --> 3.7 WPPR's
    IFPA World Championship --> 3.9 WPPR's
    PAPA World Championship --> 4.4 WPPR's

    PAPA has a 13% premium over IFPA, and that's mainly because of the limited IFPA field.

    Looking at the numbers here's a quick comparison of the competition:

    # of top 10 players that participated --> PAPA = 9, IFPA = 7
    # of top 25 players that participated --> PAPA = 23, IFPA = 19
    # of top 50 players that participated --> PAPA = 41, IFPA = 38
    # of top 100 players that participated --> PAPA = 67, IFPA = 49

    I'm certainly not seeing a 167% premium here for PAPA over IFPA based on that level of competition, and having played in both, BOTH are extremely hard to win. YMMV though

    #419 3 years ago
    Quoted from Russell:

    This is really interesting stuff. Having seen this, it seems that the lower finishers in A are not receiving enough points given the difficulty of the task they have accomplished. PAPA 'A' is hard!

    I think what you need to consider is that this is a PAPA event that is scored by the IFPA. So the IFPA is not running this tournament, they are just awarding the points. If PAPA were to receive more points from the IFPA, they would need to run it differently. Honestly I don't see how PAPA could be awarded more points. 105th place got over two points. That's a ton of points. Without knowing if there is a max to the points awarded by the IFPA, I have to think this tournament is close to that.

    #420 3 years ago
    Quoted from chuckwurt:

    I think what you need to consider is that this is a PAPA event that is scored by the IFPA. So the IFPA is not running this tournament, they are just awarding the points. If PAPA were to receive more points from the IFPA, they would need to run it differently. Honestly I don't see how PAPA could be awarded more points. 105th place got over two points. That's a ton of points. Without knowing if there is a max to the points awarded by the IFPA, I have to think this tournament is close to that.

    PAPA is awarded the maximum points our formula can offer. Maximum base, plus graded at 100% TGP.

    #421 3 years ago

    When you limit participation you limit the opportunity for full competition in my mind, when you have a tourney like Pinburgh where you have to get through 700 people in order to win the tourney, ultimately the best gauge competition is there... Of course you can argue if those 700 people are not in the top rankings etc, but IMO anytime you have this much competition it can't be compared to the rest of the formats. PAPA is kind of the same in that there are just as many participants they just choose to play in lower divisions. Thou your mathematical may not show the premium if you took a poll and asked the players which two tournaments are the hardest to win I bet the majority would tell you PAPA and Pinburgh. Great discussion!!!!

    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    Whether the other majors are full open tournies or not (and the EPC definitely is), the level of difficulty is based on the players that participate.
    Hardest to win? Based on what?
    Greatest level of competition? PAPA and IFPA this year literally had as similar of a field as you could get since they were run back to back. If you have the same group of players in both events, which one has a "greater" level of competition?
    Right now comparing that 30th percentile level:
    Texas Pinball Festival --> 1.7 WPPR's
    European Pinball Championship --> 3.7 WPPR's
    IFPA World Championship --> 3.9 WPPR's
    PAPA World Championship --> 4.4 WPPR's
    PAPA has a 13% premium over IFPA, and that's mainly because of the limited IFPA field.
    Looking at the numbers here's a quick comparison of the competition:
    # of top 10 players that participated --> PAPA = 9, IFPA = 7
    # of top 25 players that participated --> PAPA = 23, IFPA = 19
    # of top 50 players that participated --> PAPA = 41, IFPA = 38
    # of top 100 players that participated --> PAPA = 67, IFPA = 49
    I'm certainly not seeing a 167% premium here for PAPA over IFPA based on that level of competition, and having played in both, BOTH are extremely hard to win. YMMV though

    #422 3 years ago
    Quoted from chuckwurt:

    Honestly I don't see how PAPA could be awarded more points. 105th place got over two points. That's a ton of points.

    Getting 105th place at PAPA meant having 4 crappy games and 1 'ok' game on your 5 game run. If I did that I would retire

    (And I point that out on purpose just because 105th place was David Peck)

    #423 3 years ago
    Quoted from bcrage88:

    Thou your mathematical may not show the premium if you took a poll and asked the players which two tournaments are the hardest to win I bet the majority would tell you PAPA and Pinburgh.

    It's going to depend on who you ask, and what their perspective is.

    Ask Keith Elwin and he'll tell you PAPA is by far the easiest

    #424 3 years ago
    Quoted from bcrage88:

    PAPA is kind of the same in that there are just as many participants they just choose to play in lower divisions.

    IMO this is laughable.

    Those that played in B and C division didn't make PAPA A any harder. They had as much impact on those results as my 4 year old

    #425 3 years ago

    Understood... The same can't be said for Pinburgh and would be interested in hear you arguments there...

    In the PAPA format having 5 good games in one entry IMO shows the strength of the format, having the B,C,D didn't change the results for the A div players, but it did show the strength of the field in that there were ton of participants who played at PAPA but felt they were not good enough to compete at that level or chose to go lower at the prize money was more attainable.

    In every open tourney format you have the same, we just create B or consolation formats to give some prizing to those competitors due to the sheer size of the tourneys, and those are still considered in the strength in size even thou many of those participants didn't have a hope in hell in making it to A div.

    These major events are showcase events, like in Golf "The majors" they should be worth way more than a regular event, a regular event no matter how many people participate in them should not be able to get no where near the WPPR points for them. I would like to see a 200 point standard for the two majors (PAPA/Pinburgh). a 120 point standard for other majors and a up to 40 max for normal events. To be considered top player in the world you should have to do well at the majors...

    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    IMO this is laughable.
    Those that played in B and C division didn't make PAPA A any harder. They had as much impact on those results as my 4 year old

    #426 3 years ago
    Quoted from Russell:

    It certainly seems that the top finisher in B should receive fewer points than the last place finisher in A.

    If you care about points, and this is the case, would you have played in A? Wouldn't lots of B/C/D players who care about points do the same? You could jump ahead of 300+ players in points just by choosing A, no matter how poorly you play.

    (I do still think it would be cool if your Rating was affected by the results though).

    Is this the only tournament where this discussion matters? Or are there other tournaments that let you self select a division?

    #427 3 years ago
    Quoted from bcrage88:

    These major events are showcase events, like in Golf "The majors" they should be worth way more than a regular event, a regular event no matter how many people participate in them should not be able to get no where near the WPPR points for them. I would like to see a 200 point standard for the two majors (PAPA/Pinburgh). a 120 point standard for other majors and a up to 40 max for normal events. To be considered top player in the world you should have to do well at the majors...

    Points are calculated using a standard formula that applies to all events...though the four majors are already given a 50% boost. I like that it works this way. Attract all the best players in the world to your tournament? Awesome, it's worth a ton of points. No reason it should be worth 1/5th the points just because it wasn't arbitrarily declared a "major".

    #428 3 years ago
    Quoted from bcrage88:

    To be considered top player in the world you should have to do well at the majors...

    The "top players in the world" are already mostly attending these tournaments. Now you want to further muddy the waters by making it an absolute hard requirement that you have to have the ability to slack off for weeks out of the year, and be able to afford to travel to all of these, just to even have a chance to sniff the air? No thanks. They already get enough benefit from being able to do so.

    #429 3 years ago

    Nope I think what I am trying to say is that major tournament should mean something. I agree it sucks to have to travel but if you want to be considered the best pinball player in the world shouldn't you have to a little to be considered?

    200 Points - Pinburgh/Papa
    120 Points - Other Majors
    80 Points - PAPA Circuit Event
    40 Points (maximum) - All satellite events

    40 points of WPPR is nothing to sniff at you get 20 of those on your profile you are top 10. In the world of super selfie leagues and manipulated satellite events setting a standard will help in ensuring all satellite events are on equal foot but still leave you room to get maximum participation. It also gives the city an incentive to try to get they tournament up to a PAPA Circuit event. At the same time 40 points is a lot and if a person just wants to play local they can still be near the top in the world they just probably won't be the #1 player which in my opinion they shouldn't.

    Quoted from Frax:

    The "top players in the world" are already mostly attending these tournaments. Now you want to further muddy the waters by making it an absolute hard requirement that you have to have the ability to slack off for weeks out of the year, and be able to afford to travel to all of these, just to even have a chance to sniff the air? No thanks. They already get enough benefit from being able to do so.

    #430 3 years ago
    Quoted from bcrage88:

    Understood... The same can't be said for Pinburgh and would be interested in hear you arguments there...

    Let's do the math . . .

    # of top 10 players that participated --> PAPA = 9, IFPA = 7 (Pinburgh 7)
    # of top 25 players that participated --> PAPA = 23, IFPA = 19 (Pinburgh 18)
    # of top 50 players that participated --> PAPA = 41, IFPA = 38 (Pinburgh 33)
    # of top 100 players that participated --> PAPA = 67, IFPA = 49 (Pinburgh 53)

    All those hundreds and hundreds of players doesn't make the tournament any more difficult to win. After Day 1, 80% of the field doesn't advance to the A division.

    IMO the thing that makes tournaments the "hardest" are the quality of players that play, regardless of the format.

    Here's the world ranking of the champion over the last 5 years:

    PAPA --> 10,2,11,11,3
    IFPA --> 4,3,2,4,3
    Pinburgh --> 4,14,3,127,2

    Outside of one Pinburgh winner, anyone ranked outside the top 25 in the world simply 'doesn't win these majors'. They are ALL HARD.

    Quoted from bcrage88:

    In the PAPA format having 5 good games in one entry IMO shows the strength of the format, having the B,C,D didn't change the results for the A div players, but it did show the strength of the field in that there were ton of participants who played at PAPA but felt they were not good enough to compete at that level or chose to go lower at the prize money was more attainable.

    People can argue that in the PAPA format I can throw entry after entry after entry, and after playing poorly for 3 days, catch lightning in a bottle on a run. With Pinburgh/IFPA format you can't survive playing that poorly because every game matters. I don't think either format deserves any preferential treatment over the other. Both grade out at 100% TGP (max value).

    Quoted from bcrage88:

    These major events are showcase events, like in Golf "The majors" they should be worth way more than a regular event, a regular event no matter how many people participate in them should not be able to get no where near the WPPR points for them. I would like to see a 200 point standard for the two majors (PAPA/Pinburgh). a 120 point standard for other majors and a up to 40 max for normal events. To be considered top player in the world you should have to do well at the majors...

    Awesome you mention golf because I LOVE golf. They do something similar with their ranking system, if the same group of players show up for a "Major" as a "Non-Major" there is a boost given because of the prestige of the Major. That boost is 25%. Not 300%, not 500%, not even the 50% that we do . . . it's 100 points instead of 80 points.

    Your example now separates 2 levels of majors for no objective reason, and that separation gives a boost of 67% for PAPA/Pinburgh over IFPA/EPC (when I'll argue that IFPA and EPC are harder to win than either PAPA/Pinburgh for various reasons).

    At the end of the day rather than arbitrarily giving these insane boosts in points for certain tournaments, we let the players playing and the format used decide a majority of the value of the tournament (like most ranking systems). It's a far more OBJECTIVE approach, which is something we've migrated to with every iteration of the WPPR system over time. Going back to this SUBJECTIVE approach is a huge step backwards IMO.

    #431 3 years ago
    Quoted from bcrage88:

    200 Points - Pinburgh/Papa
    120 Points - Other Majors
    80 Points - PAPA Circuit Event
    40 Points (maximum) - All satellite events

    So the IFPA should be allowing another organization to dictate the value of tournaments? For a tournament to get on the PAPA Circuit this year it needed to win a popularity contest. There's an event on the PAPA Circuit this year that has had less than 30 players compete in the event over the last couple of years. To give that tournament DOUBLE value over something like Texas Pinball Festival (one of the nation's biggest events running over the last 13 years) is so completely subjective for no quality reasons whatsoever IMO. Not to mention the extreme bias of PAPA Circuit events being North American events. Do we tell the rest of the world you don't matter?

    We've created a system that I believe objectively measures the strength of tournaments extremely fairly. We give a nice boost for the FOUR greatest tournaments in the world because of the prestige they've earned in the competitive pinball landscape, and we leave the rest alone and let math do it's thing.

    #432 3 years ago

    Gagno got 142.86 points for PAPA... not even counting all the side events there. Robert alone walked with 216.91 points on his main profile?! Classics 2 was worth 89 points. Classics 1 was worth 89 points. Classics 3 was worth 86 points. 406 points available for players to claim if they swept everything. I don't see any reason on earth that this SHOULD be 464 points. It's unbalanced enough already to require travel and being competitive in these specific events to reach the top levels of IFPA. There doesn't need to be a de-facto rule in place for this to occur, which is exactly what further incentivizing these tournaments would do.

    Pinburgh was worth 106 points, and I could make the argument that getting 1st at PAPA is mathematically 'easier' than 1st at Pinburgh.

    PAPA circuit final was worth 56.... so you think an event where only 40 people are allowed should automatically be worth 80 points? Sorry, I just don't get it.

    #433 3 years ago

    This is a good discussion, and Josh, as always, has thought through every concern. The key point to understand is that WPPR is made to identify the best 5% of the players in the world, so the points provide little to no value to the other 95%. I'm actually more interested in a useful ranking system for the other 95% of the players.

    #434 3 years ago
    Quoted from Baiter:

    This is a good discussion, and Josh, as always, has thought through every concern. The key point to understand is that WPPR is made to identify the best 5% of the players in the world, so the points provide little to no value to the other 95%. I'm actually more interested in a useful ranking system for the other 95% of the players.

    Go to the WPPR rankings, sort by IFPA Rating, enjoy

    And I'll agree on the 5%. Outside of the top 2000 players it's probably not the most accurate system one can come up with.

    #435 3 years ago

    Josh, is there a way to tell how "hard" a tournament is in terms of top-to-bottom? I'm not a statistics guy, but I wonder...is it "harder" to finish, say 50th in PAPA 'A' compared to another event that awards a similar amount of points. In other words, perhaps the difficulty of a tournament is not determined only by how hard it is to finish #1. Do you get what I'm asking?

    #436 3 years ago
    Quoted from Russell:

    Josh, is there a way to tell how "hard" a tournament is in terms of top-to-bottom? I'm not a statistics guy, but I wonder...is it "harder" to finish, say 50th in PAPA 'A' compared to another event that awards a similar amount of points. In other words, perhaps the difficulty of a tournament is not determined only by how hard it is to finish #1. Do you get what I'm asking?

    Thats tough because no other event besides other majors award a similar amount of points. Also 50th out of 121 at PAPA is different than 50th out of 700 at Pinburgh, which is different then 50th out of 64 at IFPA.

    Here are the points awarded for 50th:

    Papa - 8.83
    IFPA - 2.88
    Pinburgh - 13.36

    In that case 50th at Pinburgh is by far the most valuable. Over 6X the value of IFPA.

    PAPA is 3X the value of IFPA.

    That makes sense in terms of percentile finish. 50th at IFPA is only beating 14 players, but at Pinburgh you're beating 650 players. That's where the decay in value across finishing positions really shows the true over value of the tournament.

    1 week later
    #437 3 years ago

    Jumping in here with a question so that maybe othes can see the answer also

    With the new WPPR 5.2, how will a Round Robin tournament be in regards to TGP and wppr?
    If there is 10 players, double round robin, will that be 18 games counting for the TGP? (beat the other 9 players twice).

    #438 3 years ago
    Quoted from Edenecho:

    With the new WPPR 5.2, how will a Round Robin tournament be in regards to TGP and wppr?
    If there is 10 players, double round robin, will that be 18 games counting for the TGP? (beat the other 9 players twice).

    That's correct! We see that format used quite a bit actually.

    #439 3 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    That's correct! We see that format used quite a bit actually.

    yeah its a great format for deciding the best player amongst a group of people, eliminating more of the randomness a knockout tournament often can introduce. Also a good social format

    #440 3 years ago
    Quoted from Edenecho:

    yeah its a great format for deciding the best player amongst a group of people, eliminating more of the randomness a knockout tournament often can introduce. Also a good social format

    Can you expand more on how this format works? I am all for less randomness and more social aspects haha

    #441 3 years ago
    Quoted from chuckwurt:

    Can you expand more on how this format works? I am all for less randomness and more social aspects haha

    Sure, its quite basic really, I use matchplay-app for setting and executing this.
    So Double round robin is that every player plays two games against every other player. Thats it, really.

    One game against every player, makes it slightly more lucky/unlucky ball, but with a double round robin then usually if a player wins both he is the better..that evening at least Will probably also have a small playoff best of 3 games with the top 4, but thats just me. I like 4 player matchplay.

    #442 3 years ago
    Quoted from Edenecho:

    Sure, its quite basic really, I use matchplay-app for setting and executing this.
    So Double round robin is that every player plays two games against every other player. Thats it, really.
    One game against every player, makes it slightly more lucky/unlucky ball, but with a double round robin then usually if a player wins both he is the better..that evening at least Will probably also have a small playoff best of 3 games with the top 4, but thats just me. I like 4 player matchplay.

    how do you decide what games the players play each match?

    #443 3 years ago
    Quoted from chuckwurt:

    Can you expand more on how this format works? I am all for less randomness and more social aspects haha

    In this format, every player will play head to head matches against the field.
    Each player will play every other player in the event.

    For Example ... a round robin event with eight players ...

    Player One will play Player two through Player Eight.
    Player Two will play Player three through Player Eight plus Player One.
    Player Three will play Player four through Player Eight plus Player One & Two
    Player Four will play Player Five through Player Eight plus Player One through Player Three.
    ...
    Player Eight will play Player One through Player Seven.

    After 7 rounds, each player would have played a different opponent in each round.

    Marcus

    #444 3 years ago
    Quoted from chuckwurt:

    how do you decide what games the players play each match?

    If I am to have it at my place, where i have got and twd, it wont be a problem hehe, but else Matchplay will randomize and assign games for people each round. Have you tried Matchplay? (matchplay.events )

    #445 3 years ago
    Quoted from Edenecho:

    If I am to have it at my place, where i have got and twd, it wont be a problem hehe, but else Matchplay will randomize and assign games for people each round. Have you tried Matchplay? (matchplay.events )

    Yeah I am familiar with the app, so I will give it a go and might try something different like this for our monthly tournaments.

    #446 3 years ago

    I use round robin very often without an app like this: Divide players into two groups (randomly)...and draw a big grid for each group on the whiteboard. Names of the group go across the top, and down the side. Then just show it to the players and have them self-organize. Look at the board, see who you haven't played, pick a game randomly (that neither of you have played yet), and then come back and write down your result.

    Once people understand, it's really easy. Play is pretty much continuous: you don't have to wait for rounds to finish, and the tournament director doesn't even have to constantly go around telling people what their matchups are. It pretty much runs itself.

    It can even accommodate people who arrive a little late. Just add them to the grid.

    I'll then have the top 2 from each group (based on W/L record) advance to a 4 player bracket for finals.

    Promoted items from the Pinside Marketplace
    $ 49.00
    Cabinet - Other
    Chrome Candy
    From: $ 220.00
    Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
    CzTV Mods
    $ 90.00
    Lighting - Under Cabinet
    Rock Custom Pinball
    $ 48.00
    Cabinet - Other
    ModFather Pinball Mods
    $ 132.00
    $ 23.25
    Cabinet - Shooter Rods
    The MOD Couple
    From: $ 99.00
    Lighting - Under Cabinet
    Rock Custom Pinball
    $ 19.95
    Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
    ULEKstore
    $ 55.00
    Lighting - Interactive
    Rock Custom Pinball
    $ 15.00
    Playfield - Decals
    Metal-Mods
    $ 159.95
    Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
    pinballmod
    From: $ 9.99
    From: $ 40.00
    Lighting - Interactive
    Professor Pinball
    $ 25.00
    Cabinet - Other
    Filament Printing
    $ 10.00
    Electronics
    Yorktown Parts and Equip
    $ 7,499.00
    Pinball Machine
    Star Wars Premium Out of stock
    Operation Pinball
    $ 109.95
    Cabinet - Armor And Blades
    Hookedonpinball.com
    $ 1,000.00
    Playfields
    Pinball Playfields
    $ 12.00
    Cabinet - Other
    Siegecraft Electronics
    $ 89.95
    Cabinet - Shooter Rods
    Super Skill Shot Shop
    $ 9.99
    Eproms
    Matt's Basement Arcade
    $ 7,499.00
    Pinball Machine
    Classic Game Rooms
    From: $ 140.00
    From: $ 7,500.00
    There are 446 posts in this topic. You are on page 9 of 9.

    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