(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


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).


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

    #1 4 years ago

    Since the release of WPPR v5.1 back in April 2015, the IFPA has continued investigating ways to make the World Pinball Player Rankings more accurate for how we rank players across the globe. This latest change to the formula is not nearly as extensive as the change to version 5.0 where we completely overhauled how the value of a tournament was calculated.

    These latest changes will be incorporated into WPPR v5.2 which will be implemented starting January 1, 2016.

    Please note that for all 2015 IFPA related activities (qualifying for 2015-16 SCS, 2015-16 ECS, IFPA13, etc), version 5.1 will be used for that qualification process.

    Below is an overview of changes for the updated 2016 formula:

    - The IFPA will no longer endorse tournaments that don’t have a DIRECT play component as part of the format. DIRECT play represents multiple players playing against one another on a given game (head-to-head or in a group). Many tournaments use an INDIRECT qualifying system where everyone plays the same game (PAPA style qualifying, Best Game qualifying, Pin-Golf). Those tournaments that use an INDIRECT qualifying system must now run a Finals round that consists of DIRECT play between the finalists to crown the winner. A tournament must advance a minimum of 10% but no more than 50% of those players to the Final. Examples of tournaments no longer eligible for WPPR points would be simple high score tournaments without finals, or Pin-Golf tournaments where you simply play your round/rounds.

    - Originally WPPR v5.0 rules used the longest theoretical path to determine the number of meaningful games used for TGP. This made for situations where the tournament was being given credit for a “longest path” that had an extremely low chance of actually happening. We are changing this to ‘expected value’ for # of rounds played for bracket/strike/match play tournaments. We’ve included a detailed breakdown of a few approved qualifying and finals formats, and the number of games that should be counted towards the TGP value here: http://www.ifpapinball.com/tgpguide2016

    - RATED players will be the metric that is used to determine the Dynamic distribution part of the WPPR points awarded for an event. For example a tournament with 300 players in which only 50 were rated will base the dynamic distribution of points as if it was a 50 player tournament.

    - Match play formats or formats that utilize PAPA style group finals with 4-player groups will be allowed to count each meaningful game played at 2X. For example, a 3-game round with 4-player groups will now count as 6 additional games added to TGP instead of just 3. This is detailed in the TGP Guide under the “PAPA Style Match Play” approved format.

    - The IFPA no longer gives additional credit to matches that are longer than 7 games towards the TGP calculation. For example, best-of-9 matches will still only add 7 games to TGP.

    For full detailed information on the 2016 formula, visit (http://www.ifpapinball.com/menu/rankings-information-2016). Any questions please don't hesitate to contact us at ifpapinball@gmail.com. Please check back when for announce that WPPR v5.2 has been implemented for 2016 as the details may always change prior to launch.

    #6 4 years ago
    Quoted from desertT1:

    I'm not understanding the new guide. Can an explanation be given using the same player count? What if we use best of 3 on the winning side, but single game on the elimination side?

    Andreas posted the link. We now explicitly lay out what it's worth in the 2016 TGP Guide - http://www.ifpapinball.com/tgpguide2016

    Just click DOUBLE ELIMINATION under the approved finals format and it should hopefully take you to where you can view the details of that format to match what you're running.

    Quoted from desertT1:

    Also, if the decay is no longer factoring in non-rated players, what happens when your formula has a non-rated player in the order? Let's say there are 10 players, 9 of them ranked. Does the non-rated player split the difference of the player above and below them? What if they come in last? You guys might have really hosed up my cool "points estimator" spreadsheet with this one (but it's needed because of the influence SL quantity of non-rated players can have on the decay) and to make amends should create a page where we can plug in info to guess at points earned.

    So this rule change isn't about the Non-Rated player not being able to EARN those dynamic distributed points. It's simply about how that dynamic distribution is impacted from 1st to last place for ALL PLAYERS. If 10 players play and 9 of them are rated, the formula will behave like it's a "9" player tournament with respect to the distribution of points to all players, instead of a "10" player tournament. That one Non-Rated player can finish in 1st, 3rd, last . . . doesn't matter one bit.

    #9 4 years ago
    Quoted from EmLover1970:

    No more 'best of 17' nonsense.

    You CAN . . . it will just count for 7 though

    #13 4 years ago
    Quoted from pinballcorpse:

    If only 10 people participate in a high score event for example, then I could see an argument made for invoking the 10% rule which automatically generates the winner and for tourneys less than 20 players, the 10% rule is begging for interpretation.

    That 10 player high score event doesn't consist of direct play, so it wouldn't be endorsed.

    I think it's safe to assume in order for "DIRECT" play to actually occur, you have to actually play someone else for that to happen . . . so the 2 player minimum for tournaments <=10 players is kind of implied

    #14 4 years ago
    Quoted from desertT1:

    I saw that but there is a qualifying portion and a finals portion, and since it also say there isn't a need for a finals in that format, it's a little confusing. It also says that qualifying is applicable if half the players are eliminated. If you have 4/8/16/32... players, the first round can be qualifying. If you have, say, 9 players is that first round still qualifying? You won't eliminate half the field unless you include those clones named Bye.

    Straight up double-elim tournaments are fine. You don't need to run any sort of qualifying for that tournament to be endorsed.

    Should you run a qualifying portion, that portion simply has to reduce the field by at least 50% to be counted as "meaningful".

    If you have 32 players qualifying, that means your bracket would have to include 16 players or less for the qualifying games to be included in the TGP count.

    If you have 9 players qualifying, that means your bracket would have to include 4 players or less for the qualifying games to be included in the TGP count.

    Quoted from desertT1:

    So in the new system, what used to be 21 meaningful games (head to head, double room, 2 of 3) is now 11? That's a pretty big drop. I know you discussed how there were grading out advantages to some formats, is this a way of reeling in this format compared to a linear event?

    There's definitely a drop because when you look at the Expected Value of rounds played by the winner of the Double Elim tournament, there's ALWAYS one player in the final that plays out of the winners bracket (he represents 50% of the expect number of rounds). The other 50% is made up of all the possible losers side combinations. This year we were always taking the longest possible path through the bracket, even though that rarely actually happens.

    Best of 3 matches are also no longer valued at 3X for games played. It's based on an average match length of 2.5 games (since matches can end 2-1 or 2-0).

    Quoted from desertT1:

    In the formula, it doesn't allow for ghost places. If you have 10 players, it assigns a point value for those 10 players. If you have 10 players, but want to calculate decay for 9 players, somebody is going to not have a chair (n value) to sit in. The only way to assign that non-rated player points for the position they came in is to do something like taking the average of the player above and below.

    This is already happening with respect to the DYNAMIC distribution of points. In reality only the top half of players receive any DYNAMIC points from an event. For 2015 this was the top half based on the 'all players' count. For 2016 this will be based on the top half of the 'rated players' count. There's still a portion of the formula where the points are distributed in a LINEAR fashion. This portion won't change between this year and next year.

    So let's just take a tournament with 20 players, only 6 are rated.

    2015 --> the top 10 finishers receive DYNAMIC points, all 20 players receive LINEAR points based on their finishing position
    2016 --> the top 3 finishers receive DYNAMIC points, all 20 players receive LINEAR points based on their finishing position

    #24 4 years ago
    Quoted from jlm33:

    Guess you will allow some flexibility during the tourney then. For example :
    Assume I organize a tourney with 32 players expected to participate to the qualifications, top 16 reaching a direct elimination phase. Only 30 of the 32 expected players show up. What should I do?

    Like was mentioned there is no flexibility on the IFPA side for this, so build that flexibility on your side with the format. I often recommend simply adding the line that no more than 50% of the participants will advance. That will cover you for unforeseen absences.

    #47 4 years ago
    Quoted from jlm33:

    Qualifications on 9 different pins, one game on each. On each game, points awarded to each player from 1 (highest) to 16 or 24 (lowest / worst). Total score is sum of these 9 scores (best card is 9 points, while the worst noob would finish last on all games and get 144 points if 16 players)

    The 8 players with lowest totals are qualified for the next round (a tie breaker may be required). They are seeded into two groups of four:

    Each group plays four 4-player games, PAPA format (awarded 4-2-1-0; highest wins 4. Max ideal score after four games is 16). The top two players in each group proceed to final round... (a tie breaker may be required). Again, the final four will play four 4-player games, PAPA format.

    Number of meaningful games : 9 + (2x4) + (2x4) = 25. Correct ?

    Would that be OK? Seems to be doable in a reasonable timeframe (a looooong afternoon and most pins with short ball times).

    I read this as Herb style qualifying (limited attempts - i.e. 1 attempt) --> that's 9 games

    You are then running an approved DIRECT style final, PAPA Format, 4-player games, 4 games each --> that's 16 games towards TGP

    [yes I used our tgp2016 link to help me decipher that because even I get confused]

    25 games . . . 100% TGP for this format!

    #48 4 years ago
    Quoted from ryanwanger:

    I was hoping that 3 player games would get a 1.5x multiplier, but I guess that isn't super common and only makes things less clean.

    3-player games aren't super common, and our feeling is that we should be able to push those formats into 4-player games. Even if the player number doesn't divide by 4 well, we plan on giving the "2X" benefit to the organizer for incorporating the 4-player games as effectively as they can.

    This is really more about the timing issue that was causing the PAPA style formats to lose favor to Head-2-Head formats because they took twice as long, but weren't given that credit on the TGP side. This allows us to give no benefit to either style final with whatever time an organizer has to run their final.

    It also does help keep this super clean . . . and it's already messy enough

    Quoted from ryanwanger:

    Dory Hill uses a format where it's 18 holes of pin golf on day one, and then split into an A and a B and play 9 holes on day two, always playing in foursomes. So while the play is not strictly elimination match play, it certainly feels like direct competition because you *are* competing against the players in your group (just not exclusively)...and everyone is playing the same machines with the same targets.

    I definitely get it having run Pin-Masters (which is the biggest casualty of this rule being implemented). As a player in that final I can tell you that the mindset is really "do as well as you can" which screams INDIRECT play . . . versus actually playing in a match against another competitor in a direct manner and not needing to do as well as you can, but being able to play the situation (conservative vs. risky approach).

    There's no doubt that Pin-Golf is easily the most exploitable format to add games to TGP because we don't enforce par scores. So while we set up a kill course for Pin-Masters, I know of many Pin-Golf tournaments where you can blow through 9 games in a half hour. Adding this DIRECT play component makes it tougher for the organizers for sure, but I'm okay with it (as a Pin-Golf organizer myself).

    #50 4 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    Hypothetical for calculation please:

    20 people on 4 game qualifying = 4 games
    Top 4 in 4 game match playoff = 8 games
    Top 2 in best of 7 = 7games?

    19 games in total. Is this correct?

    Mostly correct. Best of 7 is only 5.5 games towards TGP (which will be counted as 6 since we do whole numbers). So it would be 18 games total.

    Should we go the route of saying "We see what you're doing there to add the 7 games on the back end" and end up limiting tournament organizers to ONE qualifying method, and ONE finals method . . . you'll be the first to know Hilton

    For now though, you're good.

    #51 4 years ago
    Quoted from WaddleJrJr:

    So this update would make many league styles and Pingolf styles worthless, including the current IFPA Pinmasters format?

    Seems wrong to make those formats that are extremely fair and extremely difficult to win be completely worthless. Basically what this update will force the Kidforce league to do is to no longer have your pointage be determined by 10 weeks of PAPA style play (60 meaningful games) where how you do in every single game matters, and instead change the system so all that play is basically meaningless, and all your points instead come from one day of head to head finals.

    It makes it worthless if the organizer doesn't introduce a DIRECT style component to the format . . . and yes this includes the IFPA directly for our Pin-Masters.

    You are welcome to do QUALIFYING in this indirect manner, and then simply advance those players to a final consisting of DIRECT play.

    See my "THAT'S SPORTS" comment regarding all your points coming from the finals of an event

    Leagues are welcome to get around this by making their season consist of DIRECT play, but that's of course much harder to do because it requires players showing up at the same time to the same place.

    You'll notice the leagues with HUGE player counts get this by having an INDIRECT style format, where leagues with match play formats can't get handle that kind of player count.

    This change limits the ability for those leagues to cash in on this INDIRECT play without the need to run a DIRECT play component (and yes, I'm looking at you SuperLeague).

    #54 4 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    just to be clear I am only trying to come up with a fun format that is enjoyable to all the local players and also challenges them to play in different styles of play. I think of it like competition training for the WI crew (and from this year and based upon the number of players going up int eh ranks, it seems to be working for WI)

    I could give 2 shits about points anymore on a personal level. Fun to compare with my buddies but does not do much for me besides that (and I enjoy playing more now that I do not care).

    I get it for sure . . . it really comes down to if we see EVERY tournament finish with a "best of 7 final between the last 2 players" whether it's trying to exploitative or not, it does end up backloading these games played by a very limited number of players.

    We have no problem with what you're doing, it's more about where we see the general competitive pinball movement go with all the formats we get submitted to us.

    #56 4 years ago
    Quoted from jlm33:

    Another naive question:
    After a qualification round, I want to run a direct single elimination format, while awarding byes for the best players.
    For example:
    Top 16 qualified; 1-4 get two byes; 5-8 get one bye.
    Best of 5 games for entire bracket.

    Do you simply apply the formula listed for Best-of-5 Matches for entire bracket (which gives 12-22 players –> 16 games towards TGP)?

    Or do you recount the number of meaningful games and chose shortest / longest / Average path?
    Average = 16 works nicely here because:
    - If you qualify 9-16 and win, you will have played 5 rounds x 4 = 20 games (longest)
    - If you qualify 5-8 and win, you will have played 4 rounds x 4 = 16 games.
    - If you qualify 1-4 and win, you will have played 3 rounds x 4 = 12 games (shortest)

    It's a great question!

    We're currently working on those numbers for some of the more popular bye structures and will have those explicitly listed on the TGP Guide.

    There's definitely some math to work out here, because you know for sure that the top 4 seeds with represent 50% of the finalists (so that shortest path while it's only true for 25% of the field, it's actually 'mathematically true' for 50% of the field).

    #62 4 years ago
    Quoted from Tbgolfen:

    I am concerned that the proposed understanding of direct/indirect is unnecessarily limiting and conflated. Golf is a good example to use in this case.

    The confusion/misunderstanding from my view centers around the nature of the competition. Pinball and golf are competitions ultimately between the player and the golf course/pinball machine (skilled players understand this better, hence why they don't get as nervous/anxious about who they are playing with!) and not each other. In golf as well as pinball, we play or perform in groups of four (sometimes in groups of 1, 2 and 3). However, the "activity" of the competition is between the player and the golf course/pinball machine and NOT the other competitors. Compare these to other games like chess, poker, tennis, hockey, football, boxing etc. where play requires a head to head matchup or the "game" cannot be played. In pinball and golf, it is considered unsportsmanlike conduct to make contact or impact the play of your playing partners in anyway (I have tilted through games and I have been hushed several times by Andre, Sorry!).

    This requirement of head to head (direct play) is not necessary in golf/pinball. To artificially insert this into the rules is to unnecessarily limit and confuse the heart of these styles of competition. For example, I believe 100 people playing the same golf course/pinball machine during a specified time period and determining the winner by score is 100% direct play (contextual to golf and pinball). To suggest otherwise is false and weird (no disrespect intended at all). A tournament with 4 people playing head to head (determining the winner by high score) versus a tournament with 100 people playing the same game one at a time and determining the winner by high score is clearly less competitive. A golf/pinball tournament with 1 hole/game versus 18, 36, 54, and 72 is also less competitive. Lets keep our rules in line with what cultures around the world already agree upon. Pinball culture is already niche enough.

    To define indirect play in golf/pinball would be some variant of using a scorecard to "create" games. In this case, the tournament advertises that 10 rounds of competitive golf/pinball is played while only 1 physical game is played. The other 9 games are created from a single physical game through some imaginary games created using odd numbered holes against even number holes, etc. I would agree that golf/pinball tournaments of this nature should be considered single games played and not multiple games played to determine the winner. We do these cardoffs in golf for betting but not for tournaments.

    Another reason this matters is in the case of makeup and play ahead rounds where competitors miss a league night, etc. In my opinion, the new rule of direct play to be consistent would eliminate play ahead and makeups during the finals (direct play) of a tournament. Once again, this seems unnecessarily restrictive. Why put the emphasis of competition on the group and not the activity of playing the pinball machine?

    Playoffs as well should not be heralded as the best way to determine a winner. Soccer or futball is the number one sport around the world. The British Premier League (BPL) is arguably the top league or at least in the top 3 leagues in the world. They determine the winner by an entire season record with NO playoffs. Playoffs is just one way to determine a winner not the BEST way.


    Great points Tim, and something the IFPA Directors have discussed at length.

    At the heart of comparing the score of a game played, it's the most logical for that game to be compared to as many results as possible as the most accurate representation of the meaningfulness of that score. You see it all the time in match play finals. Everyone plays the same machine, and someone puts up the 4th best score out of the 16 finalists, but the 3 higher scores were from guys in his same group. That guy earns a bit fat ZERO, while the other groups have lower scores but net out more points.

    The problem we've seen with respect to WPPR point exploitation is the ability for the INDIRECT formats to rack up both players and games played much easier and faster compared to DIRECT formats. You don't need all the players in the same place at the same time, so the window of being able to accommodate more people and play more games inherently pushes the advantage towards this style of event.

    The original rule being proposed was to force organizers to implement a qualifying portion and a finals portion, or some mix of allowing 50% of the TGP to be from qualifying and 50% of the TGP from finals . . . but the subject of the BPL actually came up from the European Country Directors. Often times they have no "finals" but rather they run a Swiss style format that simply ends when it's over. This is where distinguishing between DIRECT and INDIRECT play started, and ultimately where we ended up.

    It's not about not believing that INDIRECT play isn't a good judge for the skill levels of the players participating. Similar to the artificial 2X boost for 4-player games, it's about trying to limit the disadvantage of tournaments that happen to choose DIRECT formats and their ability to earn WPPR's similar to those that run INDIRECT formats.

    I had figured this rule would get a ton more backlash than it actually has so far . . . but it's definitely something we're sticking with.

    #65 4 years ago
    Quoted from Tbgolfen:

    The rub for me is not in the equalizing of formats (awesome) but in the elimination of legitimate formats by all reasonable standards of related competitions. Why unnecessarily eliminate a format on an artificial rule of head to head that pinball does not require? It is a test of skill against a machine AND then compared to others. It is not and will not be a head to head game. Why? What about single player EM's as they don't offer head to head play? Should we eliminate all machines that don't offer 4 players? Should we require 6 player games since six million dollar man and other games allow for 6 players? At some point in a moment of consciousness, you must admit that the rule is nonsensical in that what it fixes (equalization of formats) it simultaneously breaks (legitimate formats).

    Single player EM's are fine. For the IFPA World Championship we actually play all EM's as single player since we don't trust the scoring reels of players 2 through 4.

    This enforcement of including some sort of direct play doesn't eliminate formats IMO. It may limit the ability run JUST an indirect format from start to finish, but there's an opportunity to still make a majority of the structure of the tournament be run in an indirect manner.

    We're not saying you can't run Herb style tournaments. We're not saying you can't run Pingolf tournaments. We're simply forcing an additional component to get some portion of those players in the same place at the same time for the culmination of the tournament.

    "Sticking with it" just means it's our plan for 2016. It's the best way we've found for us fix the equalization of formats problem, and I'll simply disagree with you that it doesn't actually "break" legitimate formats. I welcome the additional dialogue.

    #68 4 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    what is the TGP value for an inverse waterfall style of heads up playoff?

    for example, 8 people qualify for a playoff.

    8 v 7; best of 3
    winner v 6; best of 3
    winner v 5; best of 3
    winner v 4; best of 3
    winner v 3; best of 3
    winner v 2; best of 3
    winner v 1; best of 3

    Ladder Format which is outlined in our TGP Guide, actually 2-player ladders aren't because they suck for TGP

    8 player ladder - 2 player matches with best of 3 would be 4 games counted towards TGP.

    #69 4 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    A different but similar style of 4 player match play

    8v7v6v5; match play 3 games
    3winners v 4; match play 3 games
    3winners v 3; match play 3 games
    3winners v 2; match play 3 games
    3winners v 1; match play 3 games

    This has a TGP of 17 meaningful games played (including the 2X boost for 4-player matches).

    #73 4 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    another quick question. With match style play what are the points awarded to each player typically per game?

    7, 5, 3, 1
    4, 3, 1, 0

    What works the best here?

    I remember playing in a match play once where the points for place did not work out very well and I lost 1 out of 3 which meant I was out even with a 2nd, and 2nd on the last 2 games.

    Most popular are:

    10-5-1-0 (hasn't been used in a while)

    The big decision to be made is whether you want a linear distribution of points from 1st to last or not. Giving preferential points to actually WINNING a game played is what PAPA does with their 4-2-1-0 system, and what my dad and Epstein did with the original 10-5-1-0 PAPA scoring system.

    #74 4 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    Can you break down the games of value in this one for me? I want to make sure I am understanding how it gets to 17?

    4 player match play

    8v7v6v5; match play 3 games
    3winners v 4; match play 3 games
    3winners v 3; match play 3 games
    3winners v 2; match play 3 games
    3winners v 1; match play 3 games

    The breakdown is far too complicated for me

    Taking the 2X boost out of it, I know that while the longest path is 15 games played, you're guaranteed that one of the players in the final 4 will only have to play 3 games (the #1 seed). So 3 games played counts for 25% of the expected number of rounds the winner is going to play.

    In essence you are creating a tiered bye structure that moves the expected value down (since the higher seeds continue to have shorter and shorter paths to victory).

    The expected number of games played for the eventual winner of those 8 players with that bye structure turns out to be 8.7 games played.

    We double that for the 4-player matches to 17.4, and then round that to 17 meaningful games played for TGP.

    #77 4 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    mathematically is there one that ends up with fewer ties after 3 games?
    I ask as I am sure someone smarter than me has already done all the permutations and run the stats on probablity.

    I'm sure someone smarter than me has as well . . . but that person ain't me

    #83 4 years ago

    CrazyLevi pretty much hit it on the head.

    We originally went down the path of trying to water down the indirect style events, but you get a few players out of 100 actually willing to put in the time to play as many games as we tell they have to . . . and they will. If it's 50 games instead of 25, they will play 50. If it's 100 instead of 25, they'll play 100.

    The other path we went down was only including players in the standings that "fully participated" in the league/tournament, so anyone that didn't play a full card would be removed from the standings completely. That quickly got talked out of happening because it now required additional work from the organizers to monitor who had fully participated, and worse it would still be possible for a player that didn't fully participate to win the event (but then not actually be counted).

    For WaddleJrJr, I can only say if you're willing to play DOUBLE the number of indirect games for your league, I don't see the problem of saying "Just play the same number of games you were before, but add a extra 4 player match at the end for the top 4 regular season finalists" (assuming you have 40 or fewer players in your league)

    To me that's far easier to implement on the organizer's side, rather than making people show up double the amount of time, or triple, or 4X or whatever the mathematical equivalent would be.

    #84 4 years ago
    Quoted from sleethering:

    I wonder what percentage of Superleague players play all 25 games every month. Maybe 5%?

    Should be interesting to see how they adapt to the 5.2 system and where the event value shakes out.

    No need to wonder . . . LIVE STANDINGS are online.

    Here's August:


    524 players were registered, and I would guess somewhere around 30 players actually filled out their full 25 game card.

    You can click and view each player so some people finished higher in the standings playing less games compared to other players.

    #86 4 years ago
    Quoted from sleethering:

    Wow... Just at a glance, it looks like over 80% of the players submitted fewer than 5 scores for the month.


    (I know of one player that's included in the standings that knows Super League exists, and had no idea he had signed up because he had no intention of signing up)

    #89 4 years ago
    Quoted from Aurich:

    But it seems to me that all you have to do is require that any qualifying Pingolf tournaments are structured such that everyone is there at the same time. Honestly that's the only way I've ever played, so I'm probably missing all kinds of variations.

    But take this tournament for instance:


    Woo hoo, placed 30th out of 45. Thing is, that was Pingolf, and all 45 of us were there in person together, playing over the same time period, and then all hung our for the announcement of the winners.

    It seems like that's in the spirit of what you're asking for, no? Wouldn't just requiring everyone there at the same time be the easy solution to that?

    It's definitely the spirit of what we're going for . . . but this isn't specifically about Pingolf tournaments.

    The bigger culprit is the Herb style qualifying where it's impossible to enforce all players be there at the same time, because the format is designed to be 'come and go as you please'.

    The bigger issue with Pingolf is the ability for organizers to set easy goals for players to play through games quickly.

    The options considered were throwing out Pingolf as an endorsed format because you aren't forced to play a minimum of 3 balls. The problem for me personally is that I think Pingolf is an AWESOME format (as seen from us running Pin-Masters).

    Second option was making each game count for 1/3rd of a meaningful game played because you COULD reach your goal on one ball, but now you're talking about playing 75 holes to be able to grade out to 100%.

    The third option was lumping Pingolf into the other 'indirect' style formats, and allowing them to still count each hole as a game played, but ensure there is that direct play component where players aren't waiting around to see who won, but rather actually playing that FINAL GAME between 2/3/4 players to see who wins.

    #92 4 years ago
    Quoted from WaddleJrJr:

    The reason I'm defending this format so strongly is because I do think that it's the best test of skill and consistency out there, and it'd be nice to have it be an option to be used for a league that is dedicated to using it fairly, without trying to exploit the system for as many WPPRs as possible.

    Using a finals day to determine points would be an easy option to use, however having so much ride on one day versus having been determined by all the play leading up to that point seems to remove some of what makes that format so challenging to win.

    What the Super League is doing is pretty ridiculous, and it's unfortunate that such a situation is able to kill an entire format.

    For sure . . . every decision we make has casualties of war for those doing things the "right way".

    Consider yourself a casualty, and enjoy your finals

    #96 4 years ago
    Quoted from Wizcat:

    I'm also not looking forward to these changes
    In the UK we have regional league meets where 20 or 30 players might meet 6 times a year. At a meet we basically play indirectly on each machine (averaging around 7 machines per meet), ranking our scores on each machine to determine best overall at that meet. I've always felt it played fairly, best players usually at the top
    The change in rules seems to want these events to play as a qualifying session, then as a direct-play elimination session. That simply isn't feasible in the time (usually around 6 or so hours) currently allocated. Playing solely as direct-play seems hugely unfair also to anyone unlucky enough to be drawn against the top seeds, and likely to be eliminated early. Similarly it awards the chance of a lucky game eliminating a top player early
    You can certainly argue 'thats sports', but this random factor will play havoc on determining the consistently good players from those that get lucky. Particularly at meets with a large percentage of EM style machines for example. Trying to run a fair competition that still awards WPPR points will certainly be a challenge, for tournament organisers, and players. I suspect a new player travelling a few hours to a meet, only to be eliminated early would probably think twice about coming again.
    So it seems there is a choice between running a fun casual event, or a WPPR scoring event. These seem like mutually exclusive choices for the small events/leagues, and contradicts the aim of IFPA in promoting pinball to new players
    I still feel the best way to address to super league problem is simply to state that all players must be present on the same day for non-direct competition. That plus the changes so that only ifpa ranked players are considered would probably have fixed the super-league issue immediately, and still have left the smaller leagues with a chance to bring new players into competitive pinball.

    We run a small league in Chicago (36 players), and have since 1998.

    We meet once a month over 6 months, play 5 machines per meet. We then use the 7th meet for finals.

    The top 8 players qualify for the A division final which is a celebration of the culmination of the league season, next 8 qualify for B, next 8 qualify for C. It's a double elimination best-of-3 tournament where the winner of our league season is crowned.

    The 'random factor' playing havoc on determining who the best players in the league are isn't something that I feel is accurate IMO. Playing pressure people on finals days is what separates the good players from the great players, and personally I couldn't imagine our league ending without this culmination final tournament.

    The WORST player in our league (my wife usually), gets to play in all 6 monthly meets and will typically not qualify for finals. She'll earn her WPPR's for 33rd place or whatever and had a blast being a part of the league for that season.

    It is possible to have your cake and eat it to.

    For most leagues it's an easy change to meeting 5 times per year, and then having that 6th meet be the finals for various skill divisions for that particular season.

    #99 4 years ago
    Quoted from GravitaR:

    So this is why the tourney at Pinball Expo is taking 128 people into the Main playoff bracket this year?

    Since this year's Pinball Expo is still under v5.1 I HOPE this isn't the reason.

    Expo's normal format is still fine. It's standard Herb qualifying (indirect) + head to head finals (direct).

    Nothing really needed to be changed for WPPR purposes. Now changing it to not be such a slog . . . that's a question for someone else

    #101 4 years ago
    Quoted from Tbgolfen:

    Here is a shot in the dark. I believe your problem is a perpetual problem and not a solvable problem (permanent solution)as is true in all free markets. Lets not make the IFPA into the SEC. You will be chasing the solution not realizing your stuck in a cycle.

    Your problem is with tournament directors who intendedly and unintendedly (no need to judge their interior motives) are attempting not only to maximize wppr points but to exploit the system. A simple sniff test with a little bit of leadership can remedy the problem. The super league referenced above does not pass the sniff test. It is clearly designed not in the spirit of competition but in the spirit of exploiting the system. Easy solution. IFPA refuses to endorse the tournament on the grounds of the following hypothetical policy.

    We're definitely in the band-aid business with respect to creating a ranking system that works. The difference is we do realize we're stuck in a cycle (and have been since 2006)

    The term passing the sniff test was one that I used for many years, however there was a overwhelming push for WPPR to become a more objective based system. WPPR v5.0 was really the first step in that direction of evaluating a tournament based on objective measures.

    The sniff test isn't a simple one because in reality there's nothing "wrong" with Super League. It's the exact same format (Herb style qualifying) that many tournaments use that are perfectly acceptable. I believe it's designed both in the spirit of competition while also benefiting by being able to capitalize on the objective measures that makes a tournament valuable for WPPRs. To say one event can't run the exact same format as another event because of 'sniff test X' (maybe X is because it's a high traffic tourist location, maybe X is because it's NOT an expo type show) . . . doesn't sit well with me.

    Like all changes we make, there's always the chance we're going to ruin competitive pinball, the number of players playing starts decreasing and the number of leagues and tournaments starts decreasing. So far none of our version iterations have caused the train to go off the tracks, but I'll admit this enforcement of direct play could be that silver bullet.

    The good news is that we can adjust the following year if we see things start to crash, while being able to attribute it to this rule change.

    Appreciate the feedback . . . and I'll agree with you, we are absolutely destroying the Pin-Golf format that consists of all indirect play

    #112 4 years ago
    Quoted from WaddleJrJr:

    So theoretically when it's 25 or more people playing the exact same game, it could be possible for that to be done all in one game as a totally wild "what if" situation, which totally wouldn't be fun because of how much waiting there'd be, but it brings about the question that is this what it takes for competition to be considered point-worthy? Because basically these types of league formats are the same as a direct competition, but instead of being directly compared to 1 or 3 people you're being directly compared to many more than that.

    This is what a 'high score tournament' is. It's still "competition", and still plenty fun, but it's definitely INDIRECT competition.

    For those that watched PAPA TV last night they get into talking about Pinburgh and the magic of the Match Play format. The situational decisions that get made in the moment can alter strategies in a big way, and that's incredibly exciting stuff.

    #115 4 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    I find it to be exceptionally boring and relies more on ability to know the game better than to play the game better. JMHO.
    I prefer "play the game better" sort of competition for pinball.

    I consider part of playing the game better is having the knowledge of the options available.

    Bowen used to write up these tidbits in the old school rule sheets ... What to do on Judge Dredd if you're down 10mil, 50mil, 100mil. If the answer was to always do the 'same thing' just do it longer or better I find that kind of boring.

    To each their own though

    #119 4 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    That is partly why I think the direct requirement is a step in the worng direction (although completely understand it as a casuality of the sports continueed growth/ desire to level the direct/indirect competition value).

    THIS . . . Hilton nailed what this added rule is really about.

    We're NOT saying that indirect style tournament suck, we're not saying they aren't a true test of skill, we're not saying they don't belong as a major component of most 'good' tournaments (they do). We're trying to stop the trend of direct tournaments going the way of the dinosaur because of the disadvantage that those style of events have to attract more players and play as many games towards TGP in the same amount of time.

    This was the same reason why the 2X rule was put into place for 4-player groups. I personally don't feel that comparing a score to more other scores gives that "game played" any more value. To me it's still one piece of data. BUT, when we see PAPA style finals becoming less and less prevalent, we want to level the playing field for organizers to know they will be getting WPPR compensated in the same fashion as head-to-head events for the same amount of time invested. (and we are planning on adding the 1.5X rule for 3-player group formats)

    #126 4 years ago
    Quoted from CrazyLevi:

    This happened to me at a DC/Maryland league event. I was just there for work and playing a game of TZ when a guy asked me if I wanted to be a league player THAT NIGHT.

    It was fun and I won both games we played.

    Months later I find I'm in 85th and last place in a several months long league I had no idea I joined.

    I'd love to get removed from those stats if possible.

    This is an interesting one because the argument here pushes us towards the "fully participating" debate that we've had on our Directors forum for pretty much this entire year.

    Is it better to simply wipe those players from existence and require some sort of minimal rate of participation (the most popular number thrown around is 50%).

    So you can safely go join a league for a night, or play in a tournament knowing that you won't have this 85th place result sitting as a black eye on your resume because you didn't "fully participate".

    The bad side of this are the number of players dipping their toe into the competitive pinball water by spending $3 at Pinball Expo to play ONE GAME, knowing they will then become a "World Ranked Pinball Player". My hope is that the rankings is a tool to help bring them into the fold, but with this rule those players would also cease to ever exist in the rankings unless they jumped in with more than a toe dip.

    This is one of those crossroads we often run into of 'promotion of the sport' battling 'accuracy of the rankings'.

    #127 4 years ago
    Quoted from desertT1:

    Josh, how is Pinmasters going to be structured differently now to account for 5.2? That information will help others who would like to continue to do pingolf formats but need an idea on what to do at the end.

    Rather than "finals day" being a third round of play for the top 16 above the cut line with scores being carried forward, we're going to break those 16 into groups:

    1/8/9/16 will play 3 holes, same Pin-Golf scoring (so minimum score of 3 for a round, maximum score of 30). After those 3 holes the top two players advance.

    2/7/10/15, 3/6/11/14, 4/5/12/13 will do the same thing.

    That will be the "DIRECT" style Pin-Golf format that we'll use for the last day to crown the winner.

    #128 4 years ago
    Quoted from Baiter:

    Herb format is arguably a better qualifier than match play because of the inherent randomness of pinball.

    I don't think you'll get a ton of people to agree with you on this. This format favors players that can blow games up but lack consistency, while other formats focus more on consistent quality play compared to dropping bombs (PAPA Style and Match Play fall into that IMO). I don't believe one is better than the other, because I don't necessarily believe that a player that can inconsistently drop high scores is a better player than someone who can consistently put up above average scores.

    Quoted from Baiter:

    Golf and Nascar are good examples of similar individual skills competitions that are very strict about having, say, 2 qualifying attempts per participant, and the qualified participants compete side by side in the finals (which is what you seem to be shooting for as the standard). In other words as you are pondering the validity of Pingolf or a Superleague as a stand-alone without finals, the qualifiers themselves should be up to the same scrutiny. There are obvious solutions to keep the Herb format and keep it fair (concurrent attendance, max entries per game/bank, etc).

    This is definitely where 'unlimited' Herb shines the light on the format really being about dropping bombs, with players not having to worry about where any of their bad games fit in. 100% of those bad games played are ignored with respect to the data used for qualifying. Limited Herb is better IMO because there's a chance those "bad" games end up as part of the data used for your qualifying standing.

    The problem we've seen is in places where you have a Herb style format, and the barrier to entry to be competitive requires a significant investment (both in time and money). The exploit comes from having a small subset of players that do in fact play those required number of games (boosting TGP), while the larger subset of players that don't are still included in the standings (slowing the decay of points distributed to all the 'interested' players at the top of the standings.

    I do also have a personal problem with some of the indirect formats, and finishing your 'round' or whatever, and having no idea if you've won or not (or who the winner actually is). This happened out in Sweden with the Pre-IFPA tournaments. Everyone raced around playing their 25 games of Pin-Golf, or High Score, or whatever, you turned in your card and then by the next morning the tournament director was able to tally everything up and let those who won know that they did. I had no sense of where I was at any given point in time throughout my 25 games played besides "play as well as you can".

    For a tournament to play out that way was about as opposite of a feeling compared to everyone watching that Pinburgh final happen as it unfolded. You can call it forcing the drama if you want

    #131 4 years ago
    Quoted from ryanwanger:

    Take this with a grain of salt, because I haven't played a herb style tournament yet, but is this really a thing? Someone pays $3 to get ranked, plays one game, and then somehow gets hooked on competitive pinball?

    I'm rather certain that having "beginner" tournaments, which would be available only to new(ish) players, would do a much better job bringing new people into competitive pinball *even though they wouldn't award WPPR points*.

    From my experience running local leagues/tournaments with newbies, pitching WPPR points to someone who hasn't even competed yet is putting the cart before the horse.

    No clue but I know the Modern crew has made this argument to me that players have given the league a shot when they're in the store to become a world ranked player. Whether that translates into them coming back again, or venturing out into other competitive pinball related activities . . . I have no clue.

    BUT it does help increase our global player count

    #133 4 years ago
    Quoted from genex:

    I've even seen "Internationally Ranked Pinball Player" on a resume

    Now THAT is funny

    1 month later
    #145 4 years ago
    Quoted from desertT1:

    So for grading of the finals only:
    Best-of-1 Matches (4 player matches – 4th place get strikes – receives 2X bonus for 4-player games)
    ◾8 players –> 20 games towards TGP
    ◾9-10 players –> 22 games towards TGP
    ◾11-14 players –> 24 games towards TGP
    ◾15 players –> 26 games towards TGP
    That is 2 games because of the 2x bonus.
    Best-of-1 Matches (3 player matches – 3rd place get strike – receives 1.5X bonus for 3-player games)
    ◾6-7 players –> 10 games towards TGP
    ◾8-9 players –> 11 games towards TGP
    That is 1.5 because of the 1.5x
    Then, the 2-player would be one game.
    So whatever leads up to this finals, add 4.5 games to TGP. What is IFPA's stance on half games when submitting results?

    We always round up . . . so you could add 5 games by running your final 4 in the method you posted above.

    1 week later
    #149 4 years ago
    Quoted from swampfire:

    This probably (mostly) answers a question I have. Our league is normally 24 players, and we play 4-player matches on 6 games concurrently (if the host can support this). If we have some players out and as a result we have some 3-player matches, does that affect the TGP for the meet? What if the majority of the matches become 3-player, because so many people are out? Is this something I need to report when I enter my league's results?

    Thanks Josh!

    We've actually added in the 1.5X bonus for 3-player games. Still working on making sure that gets updated properly in our TGP Guide, but it's getting there.


    For purposes of counting 2X or 1.5X, when in doubt just ask me. The intention for the 2X bonus is that you run 4-player groups as effectively as possible based on the player count. Obviously certain player count numbers make things more challenging. We'll figure it out together

    #150 4 years ago
    Quoted from swampfire:

    "I'm down 50M points, and it's last ball. It's time to throw a "Hail Mary" pass and go for Crank It Up."

    This is the biggest part of "Direct play" to me . . . the way the situation at hand changes your approach to playing the game at hand.

    The data you learn ball-to-ball in a direct match ends up influencing so many strategic decisions for me. Not just score of the other player, but what features that player already played that you haven't. Down 50mil on Metallica going into ball 2 where your opponent already played all his MB's and CIU is vastly different then being down 50mil and your opponent has Sparky and/or CIU lit.

    #157 4 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    Playoff TGP format value question.

    Round 1: Players ranked 8, 7, 6, 5 play 3 games match play with 4, 3, 2, 1 scoring and top 2 continue on.
    Round 2: Previous 2 winners play along with those ranked 4, 3 play 3 games match play with 4, 3, 2, 1 scoring and top 2 continue on.
    Round 3: Previous 2 winners play along with those ranked 2, 1 play 3 games match play with 4, 3, 2, 1 scoring and top 2 continue on.

    I assume this has a value of 18 games towards TGP (each round is 3 games w 2x multiplier since 4 player; 6x3 = 18)?

    So if I used 7 games in qualifying round before playoffs then this would rate out at 100%?

    It's not that simple because of the byes you have. I'd have to phone a friend (Dave Stewart) for him to actually calculate out this EV.

    I'm not a huge math guy, but maybe someone on Pinside can figure this out . . .

    There's a guarantee that 50% of the players in finals will only play 1 round (so that's 3 games valued at 2X) - 6 games towards TGP

    The other 50% of the finalists have a chance to be the 2 players that only played round 2, or the 2 players that played round 1 and 2 (because 2 of the players in Round 1 definitely won't win). I don't know how to exactly work through the EV calc for the rest of the players, but maybe 50% chance it's 12 games played, 50% chance it's 18 games played, so that EV is 15.5?

    50% chance of 6 games = 3
    50% chance of 15.5 games = 7.75

    That would make it a total of 11 games played for TGP for this final, plus the 7 games played for qualifying . . . so I'm getting 18 games TOTAL for TGP, but YMMV depending on the level of math genius calculating this

    #159 4 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    Would be great to know the hard numbers if we can get a phone a friend. This is a format Id like to use for an upcoming event and would like to get it all squared away in advance.

    I have zero idea how to calculate it correctly.

    Got it! I actually had it in our master spreadsheet under common playoff formats.

    I was NOT RIGHT lol.

    TGP for this format would be 8 games for finals, 7 games for qualifying . . . 15 games total = 60%

    #161 4 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    Ok. If we went to 4 games per playoff round what would it be?

    That would be 10 games towards TGP for finals, 7 games towards TGP for qualifying . . . Total of 17 games = 68%

    #163 4 years ago
    Quoted from chuckwurt:

    If I were to have a bank of 4 games and approximately 12 people show up to play, what would be a good format to use?

    It really depends on your motivation for the event. How long do you want the event to go for? Do you want people playing all the time, or do you want an equal amount of hanging out/socializing.

    With 4 machines, it means you could do groups of 3 and have everyone playing all games all the time (then you're only as fast as your slowest group). You could do head-to-head but then you could only have 8 players playing at-a-time, so you'll have 4 players sitting around drinking/hanging out while the others play (not necessarily a bad thing - depends on your motivation).

    I always find it best to talk with those 12 people playing and see what a majority of the group would find most entertaining.

    #168 4 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    I am trying to figure this all out.

    Since no matter what the final 4 pack will be playing 4 games of match play with a 2x since 4 player games, that = 8 TGP value.

    How do the previous 2 rounds of 4 person match play only add another 2 games?
    I cant wrap my head around this math.

    I was trying to figure it out too . . .and it turns out I was right! (that 780 Math on my SAT 20 years ago finally comes in handy - while my 490 Verbal continues to haunt me on a daily basis)

    I've added a section on the TGP Guide - http://www.ifpapinball.com/tgpguide2016

    It's called "Common Playoff Structures (including byes)", and breaks down the EV of many common bye structures.

    If you look at the chart for 4-player Common Playoff Structures, yours would be the third row down (8 players, top 2 with 2 byes, next 2 with 1 bye).

    Expected number of rounds played is 1.75 for Finals.

    At 4 games per round that would 7 games played . . . with the 2X bonus for 4-player games you would be at 14 games for TGP. Add in the 7 qualifying games and you would be at 21 games.

    If you look in the green section on the same row you can see the amount based on games per round (1 game per round = 4 for TGP, 3 games per round = 11, 4 games per round = 14, 5 games per round = 18).

    #171 4 years ago
    Quoted from pinballcorpse:

    Column A

    WPPR point 5.2 value for a given tournament

    Column B

    The 2 digit match number on a pinball machine

    ( ) Column A > Column B
    ( ) Column B > Column A
    ( ) The 2 quantities are equal
    ( ) The relationship cannot be determined from the information given

    Recalling the SAT and GRE days as well

    The answer is always "C" right?

    #175 4 years ago
    Quoted from jay:

    Unfortunately, pinball is man vs machine at all times forever and a day. No amount of phenagling the semantics can change that. You play your game, against the machine, and compare results at the end, regardless of format, number of players, number of balls etc. If you're making game choices that are different, based on a situation with another player, that's a decision you've made for yourself. The other player has no direct impact on that, as you still have to execute against the game.

    Edit replace "INDIRECT PLAY" with "SINGLES PLAY", and "DIRECT PLAY" with "MATCH PLAY".

    Semantics defeated!

    #178 4 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    Just remembered about the time % increase for unlimited qualifying. Is that still in effect for 2016?

    If so then I am thinking:

    Qualifying of greater than 20 hours = 20% TGP
    12 games for Qualifying round = 48% TGP
    Playoff of 3 rounds; 4 player games per round; with ONLY 3 games per round = 11 games = 44% TGP

    That will max it out and save some time on the back end.

    All my calculation correct?

    thanks for verifying

    A+ Hilton . . . give yourself a gold star!

    #186 4 years ago
    Quoted from goatdan:

    If you do, let's say, a PinGolf competition, and tell everyone who plays in it to come back for a single round of match play at the end, and the top 50% are put into a match play that counts, and the bottom 50% are put into a "consolation" bracket that you don't count, would this count? In the case of something like a single night PinGolf tournament, where all the players will be there anyway, trying to tell them which people need to come back when that might not be known until the last moment seems difficult. Seems more fun to toss everyone into a final bracket and let anyone who shows up play, with the bottom 50% knowing that they are just playing "for fun" and not to change their rankings.

    Assuming you have 60 players, and advance 30 to this match play portion, how exactly are you going to crown the winner based on one single round of match play?

    Quoted from goatdan:

    Along with that, can you just explain the reasoning for the direct play cutting off at 50% of the bracket? I see no abuse that could be done to the format if you used the entire qualifying for seeding, but I'm probably missing something.

    The 50% rule cutoff is only about being able to count those Indirect qualifying games as "meaningful" for TGP. There are tournaments that are straight up bracket-and-go where 100% of the players compete in Direct Play fashion and that's perfectly fine.

    #190 4 years ago
    Quoted from bkerins:

    If your opponent has 100 million on Medieval Madness, you're going to play differently than if they have 10 million. Or, you should anyway

    Doesn't sound like Jay would

    #194 4 years ago
    Quoted from jay:

    Of course, but situational decisions abound in all formats of pinball, they exist in qualifying, pingolf, pinbowling or whatever and you still have to execute those against the game. It's not like becuase someone grabbed a huge jackpot with some player position luck or blew up ball one that we all stop and applaud and move to the next game. Until every player has drained their last ball, the game is winnable by any player regardless of what a previous player has done.

    We can agree to disagree. Pingolf/pin bowling the score you are going after is fixed, so the strategy is typically decided (for me at least) before plunging ball 1.

    Same with qualifying when you're chasing a score. Like AC/DC qualifying I'm far more likely to avoid cashing out my cannon jackpot going for that 'home run' qualifying score.

    In a 'live match' (I'll stop saying "Direct") the fun part is the target score you are aiming for is a variable in the equation depending on the situation. Of course you can always win if you haven't drained your last ball, but as Bowen mentioned its knowing what it takes to win in that situation that can dictate the strategy taken to get there depending on the deficit.

    1 month later
    #197 3 years ago
    Quoted from TomGWI:

    Our league runs a 4 player match ups with a scoring system for 5 rounds ( 1 game per round)every month. We are now going to do a final 4 player of the month 3 game PAPA style playoff.
    Sometimes due to numbers of members showing up we have to have some 3 player groups.
    If I am reading the TGP guide right, each round would be 2x as well as the playoff games
    So 5 X 2 = 10 games
    Playoff 3 X 2 = 6 games
    Total meaningful games is 16 games
    TGP = 64%
    Is this correct?

    That's correct (and sorry I haven't gotten back you over email yet about it)


    #202 3 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    For example >> Lets say 15 people show up. Qualifying rounds are then Three 4-player groups and One 3-player group. The 4player = 2x. The 3player = 1.5x TGP multiplier. With 4 groups you have a 75% chance of playing in a 4 player group. That should adjust the round value to 1.875. (2+2+2+1.5)/4 = 1.875

    An alternate example lets say 13 people show up. Qualifying rounds are then One 4-player group and Three 3-player groups. You now have a 75% chance of playing in a 3 player group. That should adjust the round value to 1.625. (1.5+1.5+1.5+2)/4 = 1.625

    If this is not the case, then what would stop people from running qualifying rounds with One 4 player game in order to get teh round a 2x multiplier and then have all other match ups be heads up?

    We're not going math crazy over this. The goal is for organizers to run 4-player groups as efficiently as possible in order to get that 2X multiplier.

    Typically a tournament designed to run 4-player groups is based on some sort of advancement of qualifiers by a round number of 4.

    For tournaments that are "We'll be doing groups of 3 or 4 depending on how many show up" we'll go with 'majority rules'. So if you end up with more 3-player groups than 4-player groups, it'll be 1.5X.

    #205 3 years ago
    Quoted from chuckwurt:

    So if I have 12 show up, I want the qualifying round to be 3 groups of four if I want the most points awarded?

    You got it!

    2 weeks later
    #209 3 years ago
    Quoted from chuckwurt:

    if I have 24 for qualifying, will the points awarded to the winners be more or less depending if I take 8 or 12 people to A division finals? looking to get max points here.

    It will make a difference depending on your finals format.

    For example if you ran a Double Elimination bracket, best of 3 matches for both Winners and Loser bracket:

    8 people --> +14 games to TGP
    12 people --> +15 games to TGP

    #211 3 years ago
    Quoted from chuckwurt:

    Groups of four with 4,3,2,1 scoring on the four games in the tournament. Top two advance until 4 remain. Then winner is of the final four is the champ. Same scoring for the final four.

    8 players would be +16 games towards TGP.

    12 players how would you plan on doing your second round? 3 groups of 4 with top two advancing would leave you with 6 players after round 1. Unless you planned on doing byes for the top 4?

    #214 3 years ago
    Quoted from WaddleJrJr:

    Bringing back an old post with this, but a friend asked me about WPPR 5.2, so I linked him to this thread for more information, and while skimming through I noticed this.
    What about a possible change where full-participation is taken into account, however a player still can be listed in the event results without having "fully participated", but will not contribute to the event value if they haven't? It would help control exploits found in events like Superleague where people are being put in the results without knowing, or are being put into the results after only playing just a few games.
    To some degree the change with unrated players will fix this, however also having the full participation would provide better accuracy (because right now a high ranked player could only play 20% of the games, but still boost the value), while still getting new players ranked in the results.
    It may prove to be unnecessary, but it's something I think could be worth consideration.

    "Fully participated" is a completely new variable that we would have to shove into our formulas as well as results submission module for organizers, then test that with some data to make sure it's doing what we want...and do all of that in 2 weeks with the holidays approaching and SCS/IFPA registration opening up.

    We just don't work that fast implementing changes as we try to analyze what those changes actually do before we lock it in. I honestly spend more time checking out our v5.2 test site instead of the real IFPA site, and I personally feel really good about how much the Ratings adjustments changes things for the better.

    IMO there's a strong correlation between people that aren't fully participating being not Rated. THe fringe case of a top 20 player not fully participating in a tournament they show up to doesn't happen often.

    #222 3 years ago
    Quoted from GravitaR:

    If you are using score keeping/tourney software of any kind, 100% participation can be checked fast. Bring up each game, scroll to bottom to determine how many recorded a score for it, lowest number is your 100% participation, Easy.

    That's not necessarily true.

    You, Me and Hilton walk into a bar . . .

    3 game tournament. I play Game of Thrones but not the other two, you play Wizard of Oz but not the other two, Hilton plays Full Throttle but not the other two.

    Your method would show 1 player "fully participating" but in reality none of us did

    #225 3 years ago
    Quoted from WaddleJrJr:

    Any chance of having seperate reporting requirements for leagues versus tournament? Or would that be too problematic?

    What's the difference between a "league" and a "tournament"?

    Currently we classify everything as "competitive events" and the league/tournament distinction is undefined. This is to prevent the naming of a competitive event having any advantages/benefits when named a "tournament" versus being named a "league".

    #229 3 years ago
    Quoted from sleethering:

    Question about when a player becomes "rated" and contributes to base value...

    Player X has 4 events on his resume.
    He plays his 5th event on Thursday.
    He plays his 6th event on Sunday.

    Results for Sunday go in first, becoming Player X's 5th event listed on his resume.

    When results for Thursday go in, does that player contribute to the base value for Thursday even though it was his 5th event?
    Or does the system correctly account for the chronology in which the events occurred and add him to Sunday's base value?

    Whenever we run a rebuild it starts from the beginning. As it moves forward chronologically it does a check for each player of every tournament and flags them as "Rated" starting at the earliest point in time possible.

    For me personally, my 5th event in the system was our Chicagoland Pinball League's 2001 season. If I was able to dig up all of my college league results from 1998 through 2001 and submitted those, I would become a "Rated" player at an earlier point in time, and would be contributing to the base value in those tournaments where previously I wasn't.

    #230 3 years ago
    Quoted from Baiter:

    Is this new for 2016? It doesn't appear to be that way in the past when looking over my scores.

    This is not new . . . we've had organizers calling things "leagues" when I wouldn't agree that they are leagues, and calling things "tournaments" when I would fall more on calling those gatherings a league.

    We've never given any benefit to one distinction over another.

    #234 3 years ago
    Quoted from Flamethrower:

    Wait, so for a player to be rated it's not five active tournaments? It's just five total tournaments from anytime and then once they meet that threshold they stay rated forever?

    Yep. Once you check that box it won't ever be unchecked ... Even if you're Neil Shatz and you come back in 2023. He'll be "Rated"

    #238 3 years ago
    Quoted from WaddleJrJr:

    Personally I feel like the 5.2 changes wouldn't be the best fix in the long run (assuming Superleague would add direct play by tacking on a quick finals), however I'm not the one looking at the test data

    At some point even the participation check wouldn't stop the super league train. They may not have 400 rated/fully participating players a month, but they do have 50-60, and that's still killer month after month.

    The other v5.2 change that will help is the change to the Ratings formula that we are putting in. The Super League guys are getting credit for tons of wins (~200-400 per month). This is now limited to the 32 players closest to you in the standings in either direction.

    For example a player finishing 33rd in the standings this year in a pool of 500 players had a record of 467-32, and their ratings sky rocketed from that net record.

    Next year (and 2015 being recalculated) will look at 33rd place as a record of 32-32, with wins against the players that finished in 33rd through 65th place, and losses against players that finished 1st through 32nd.

    Remember that putting in the participation rule won't actually do anything. That chess move will only make those guys back load the number of games played in the finals portion of the tournament. For example instead of having 25 games of qualifying with 13 needing to be played to "count" as participating, they will simply make qualifying on 4 or 6 games to make sure they capture all the casual people playing 2 or 3 games. They can then run their finals to grade out to 100% TGP because they only need their finalists to accomplish that

    #242 3 years ago
    Quoted from EricR:

    While I very much like the limitation of the total number of wins and losses being counted I think this approach has one flaw. In a large tournament the vast majority of players would end up with 32-32 records even though some played far better than others. Take this year's Pinburgh for example, one person I know finished 74th and another finished 493rd. Both of those players having a 32-32 outcome used to update their ratings doesn't seem equitable to me (even considering the difference in strength of the nearby players).
    Why not stick with the limit of 64 total wins/losses but use the player's percentile in the tournament results to determine the split how many of the 64 were taken as wins and losses?
    So the player that finished first could get credit for 64 wins, and the person that finished last would get credit for 64 losses, and everyone else would have some ratio in between based on where they finished still totaling 64. For example the player that finished in the 75th percentile (let's say 153rd place at this year's Pinburgh) would get credited with a record of 48W-16L while the player that finished in the 25th percentile would get a record of 16W-48L. That seems like it would do a better job of making the ratings reflect the players' strength of play to me.
    What do you think?

    I'll have to look at our test site to analyze some random Pinburgh players and see what that net difference in rating shift is between models.

    The biggest factor in our decision was ease of implementation. Being able to update our script to only compare those players +32 to -32 from your finishing position was easy enough to put in, run our simulations, and see quality results from that analysis. After the v5.0 overhaul from last year, we're in extreme K.I.S.S. mode for any 2016 changes (with respect to the amount of work needed to install the change).

    #243 3 years ago

    Also someone who understands Glicko better than I do can answer this ...

    If you're a 1700 rated player and you finish 70th at Pinburgh, and assuming all opponents around you are all rated 1900. If you go 32-32 against all 1900 rated players as someone rated 1700, you should see a bump in your rating? (You win more ratings points against 1900 players compared to the points you lose against 1900 players).

    I'm hoping good performances will still net out positively even within those 32-32 records, and bad performances for players with 32-32 records will decrease their rating in the same manner.

    #246 3 years ago
    Quoted from Baiter:

    Exactly....If IFPAA doesn't want to fully value leagues, yet it's this easy to work-around the 25 meaningful game limit, the end result is inconsistency in points given out which affects world rankings.

    To "fully value leagues" all a league has to do is meet those capped metrics (64 rated players in the league and 100% TGP). There's no way we can make exceptions or somehow value "leagues" more than any other event because THAT would be inconsistent with how the system works. Every competitive event is treated in the exact same manner.

    Working around 'maxing out' seasons still requires multiple entries into a players top 20 resume, so I'm not personally concerned with the value comparison to PAPA.

    If you look out in Seattle they have a weekly event that averages 30 points to the winner every week. That's over 1500 WPPR points given out at just that local event.

    League/tournament organizers are welcome to run as many events as they would like, anytime, anywhere. That's one of the perks with our v5.0 shift. Take advantage of those rules as much as you want, but the idea of arbitrarily making "leagues" worth more isn't on the to-do list for us.

    #248 3 years ago
    Quoted from Russell:

    So, will anything change with the format of Pin-Masters? Will the point value fall precipitously? Also, has anyone heard about how this will affect Dory Hill. What adjustments might be made?

    Yes, Pin-Masters will change slightly.

    The final round will now be played in 4-player groups "PAPA style" but with the same golf scoring being used instead of the 4-2-1-0 scoring system.

    18 games of qualifying, plus 9 games of finals valued at 2X = 36 meaningful games played, so we will still grade out to 100% TGP.

    Point value should be the same as last year (assuming a similar field of players to last year).

    #251 3 years ago
    Quoted from pinballcorpse:

    Broadly speaking and trying to stay away from the math for simplicity, if two players are equally rated, the points for a win/loss should balance. (What one loses, the other gains)

    When there is a rating difference, the higher rated player is "expected" to win and gains points inversely proportional to how much higher he is rated, and in a similar fashion, the lower player loses points. In other words, for the winner, the greater the difference, the lower the gain when the win is as expected. Conversely, when a much lower player upsets the much higher rated player, both players see dramatic swings in their ratings because it is unexpected.

    But the Glicko system does not account for luck or other variables that can alter the playing field.

    When luck is a factor, the higher rated players are always at a disadvantage in the Glicko system. In chess for example, a game known to be pure skill, luck (or more player error) is introduced by decreasing the time allowed for moves. For pinball players the analogy might be say playing a 2" flipper game with gobble holes.

    When GMs play rated bullet games such as 1 minute total per side, one loss to a player rated 400 points lower than them (which would be an expert or lower) results in a significant drop, usually 32 rating points, with a win worth at most 1 point. The lower rated player is only losing 1 point each time, but can gain 32 points in one win so he has basically nothing to lose, so to speak by playing the GM whereas the GM is at risk each time. This means the GM could win 32 times in a row against any variety of -400 lower rated players, lose the next game and have made no progress in his rating. That's a record of 32-1 for no rating change.

    Now applying this concept back to pinball, if someone like Keith or Zach who are rated above 2100, play in a tourney with players in the 1600s, (which is a good pinball player), by Glicko their 400+ point rating differential says Keith or Zach should win 99% of the time.

    Suppose the tourney is strictly 2" flipper EM games. A 99% win percentage is highly unlikely in that game era. Even if the 2100 player won about 75% of the time, which is much more reasonable, their ratings would drop due to the number of losses to much lower rated players and not be a true reflection of their strength. Similarly the ratings of the lower players who won in those 25% of games would jump artificially upward appearing much stronger than they actually are.

    Not saying I have an alternative, but the above is one of the drawbacks of Glicko in a non-purely skill based game system.

    Thanks for the thoughts Jeff. I think we're able to combat the drawbacks of straight Glicko a couple of different ways.

    First, is that we're not actually judging an actual head-to-head game between two players, so that percentage we're evaluating is actually "Who is more likely to finish ahead of the other player in the tournament". I think that leads to some of the 'luck' situations that happen in any particular game of pinball to even out across the course of a tournament that has many meaningful games played during it.

    For example, I look at Zach vs. you, and with Zach being 6-1 he's at an 86% win rate. If you guys actually played a best of 10 match, I'd be hard pressed not to bet on you if Vegas had you at +8.5 wins for the match.

    The second thing that we're able to do is with the simulation of matches, you never have to worry about the actual Glicko impact of 1 particular match up, because you get to net that out against all the other matches played in the same tournament result.

    So looking at FPF, one could analyze how good/poor Glicko is at seeing that Zach "defeated" you in the result, but really Zach's resume of wins at the tournament is what gets looked out (He "lost" to a player Rated 1974 and 1796, but then "defeated" 1-2000 rated player, 4-1900 rated players, 7-1800 rated players, 8-1700 rated players, etc). In total Zach's rating went up 8 points from FPF. Now this does account for Zach getting credit for 70 wins, where as starting next year he'll only get credit for 32 wins. It'll be interesting to see what that net impact ends up being, and if his rating actually goes slightly down from his FPF performance versus going up 8 points.

    #253 3 years ago
    Quoted from pinballcorpse:

    However, for a player to move up 400 rating points from 1800 (A level in chess) to expert (chess again) in 2 years is incredible. Steven is clearly a great player, so he was either severely underrated 2 years ago, or the rating formula somehow is accelerating him up the rating scale. I wonder if he feels that he is the strongest rated player in the world, or if it is just the numbers. I don't know him, or I would ask.

    I'll take Super League for $200 Alex?

    Steve's record in just the Super League results for 2015 is 2932-14, a 99.5% winning percentage. I'd say that's a TON of matches that impact his rating, but even that is an understatement.

    Under the v5.2 system we'll be 'stripping' 88% of those victories by only taking 32 wins per result, so it'll be interesting to see what that does to his Rating (and then the impact all of those ratings decreases has on the value of the tournaments, etc).

    #254 3 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    Under the v5.2 system we'll be 'stripping' 88% of those victories by only taking 32 wins per result, so it'll be interesting to see what that does to his Rating (and then the impact all of those ratings decreases has on the value of the tournaments, etc).

    We (and by we I mean Shepherd) just got the test site back up.

    Here's what I'm seeing between that SPF from 2013 and today:

    WPPR v5.1
    You had a Rating of 1751 then, 1738 now (-13 in those 2 years)
    Zach had a Rating of 1984 then, 2178 now (+194)
    Bowden had a Rating of 1817 then, 2262 now (+445)
    Bowen had a Rating of 1583 then, 1853 now (+270)

    WPPR v5.2
    You had a Rating of 1700 then, 1644 now (-56)
    Zach had a Rating of 1806 then, 1885 now (+79)
    Bowden had a Rating of 1681 then, 1834 now (+153)
    Bowen had a Rating of 1692 then, 1699 now (+7)

    (It's worth mentioning that under v5.2 NOBODY has a 2000 rating - Elwin has the highest at 1984. Where as under v5.1 there are 21 players with +2000 ratings)

    While I'm playing around on the test site, I looked up Adam Kiesler who finished 45th at Pinburgh. Under today's rules his Ratings get impacted by a 567-44 record, v5.2 he'll have a 32-32 record.

    WPPR v5.1 --> Adam's rating from Pinburgh goes from 1661 to 1882, an increase of 212 points
    WPPR v5.2 --> Adam's rating from Pinburgh goes from 1592 to 1605, and increase of 13 points

    Fascinating stuff for sure

    #256 3 years ago
    Quoted from desertT1:

    How many invitations are encouraged to be sent out per state?

    I typically send out the top 50 email addresses to each IFPA State Rep, and then more as needed if they need to go further down the list.

    Quoted from desertT1:

    How are no-shows who has said they would be there handled? If there are players on site to accept the spot, does the whole bracket shift up? If nobody is there, does the bracket still shift up, or does the opponent of the no-show get a bye? If the bracket shifts up and #16 is empty, that gives #1 a bye.

    Assuming the tournaments starts at 9am, players have until 9:15am until they are DQ'd. At that point in time anyone that is on site that is somewhere in those state standings are eligible to compete. The preference will go to whoever had the highest state ranking as to who gets that spot. Everyone will shift up a spot to make room for Alternate #1 as the new #16 seed.

    If you get a no-show and there are no alternates available, you will still shift everyone up (so the #1 seed will get the bye).

    Once the tournament is actually off and running, that's the cutoff for any alternates to be able to included in the field.

    #258 3 years ago
    Quoted from desertT1:

    Ok, thanks. I know Mark runs events pretty well and that is how things played out. I wasn't there, but people were asking me how those situations get handled and I had no idea.
    I'm already scouting my competition for round 1, so hopefully nothing shifts. I've beaten everyone in the top 16 head to head, except Will, but I certainly have my druthers as to who I want in round 1.

    Will cost me my PAPA 4 Juniors World Championship title, so I'm all for taking him out . . . the sooner, the better

    #261 3 years ago
    Quoted from Snailman:

    And what is the new WPPR value for a super league winner with the updated rating #'s?

    Here's a quick breakdown of the 9/30/15 results:

    WPPR v5.1:
    1st place = 65.07
    10th place = 30.66
    25th place = 13.08
    50th place = 5.56

    WPPR v5.2:
    1st place = 46.16
    10th place = 14.58
    25th place = 4.87
    50th place = 3.74

    #263 3 years ago
    Quoted from AaronJames:

    So I personally have 1914.64 ranking.
    What does this do for me?
    Is this good? Are there ranking ranges where people like me know if they are on track?
    (1800-1900, 1700-1800, etc)
    Thanks in advance,

    We don't have the ranges classified as anything, so no "Grand Master" or "B Class" or whatever.

    What I can tell you is that a 1914.64 IFPA Rating means that you personally add .69 WPPR points to any event you play in.

    Is it good? You're the 45th highest Rated player in the world at the moment out of over 38,000 players in the system. That and $.25 will get you a game on any EM at the PHOF

    #265 3 years ago
    Quoted from pinballcorpse:

    Yes, I also find it fascinating as I enjoy analyzing numbers and data.
    Under v5.2, you are stating a rating of 1984 for Keith represents the top player, a super Grandmaster sticking with the chess parallels. That at least gives the population analyzing their ratings a number to work with.
    In chess, classes are usually separated by rating intervals of 200 points, with the highest tier considered 2600 and higher (world champion contenders). Once players reach 2600 they are considered the best of the best of the best (sir).
    Since Keith at 1984 rating points under v5.2 represents the highest level, then 200 points is probably too large a range to separate classes in pinball for those of us thinking in chess analogies. 1500 is an average C class player which is 1100 points away from 2600. It does not seem to follow that about 800 rating points is an average rated tourney pinball player.
    I know IFPA are not using classes, but this discussion is more for people curious as to what their rating might mean relative to the best players in the world since Glicko is frequently used in chess rating analysis.
    Thanks for furthering the discussion.

    Here's a quick breakdown:

    - There's only 17 players rated 1800 or better
    - 56 players are rated 1700 or better
    - 185 players are rated 1600 or better
    - 621 players are rated 1500 or better
    - 1785 players are rated 1400 or better
    - 4076 players are rated 1300 or better
    - 8152 players are rated 1200 or better
    - 14,116 players are rated 1100 or better

    #270 3 years ago
    Quoted from EricR:

    Just out of curiosity, do you have an estimate of what his ratings impact would be under the method I proposed earlier based on finishing percentile within the tournament? I think that finish would equate to a record of 59-5 since he beat just under 93% of the people that played.

    I don't. That would involve installing this method in our rebuild script (wayyyy too much work that I can't actually do on my own).

    #271 3 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    speaking fun with stats and numbers...
    Is there and easy way to pull # of events run in each state from the past 5 years?
    I would love to see the graph of the trajectories/trends of all 50 states. Whom is growing in # of events or # of points available in each state and how quickly are they growing.
    How many new players in each state per year for the past 5 years.
    Lots of cool stuff it would be neat to look at.

    Unfortunately there's no easy way besides me manually pulling out a bunch of stats (which I have no time to do now with SCS launch day looming).

    I wonder if this is something anyone with an API key can do? (I don't actually know what that means but it seems to be a way for people to access our IFPA data and do cool things with it)

    #275 3 years ago
    Quoted from LOTR_breath:

    Hey, I like this ratings stuff! When I sort the players by ratings I'm one place ahead of Replogle and only two places behind Bowen!

    Enjoy it while you can

    WPPR v5.2
    Kerins - 1699.49 (57th)
    Replogle - 1625.71 (141st)
    You - 1597.66 (196th)

    #278 3 years ago
    Quoted from sk8ball:

    What are the top 10 then and now? How much does it shuffle?

    IFPA Rating under v5.1:
    1  Steven Bowden  2261.88
    2  Sean Grant  2227.77
    3  Keith Elwin  2203.95
    4  Zach Sharpe  2178.15
    5  Jorian Engelbrektsson  2176.13
    6  Joshua Henderson  2151.02
    7  Andy Rosa  2131.53
    8  Steve Zahler  2122.21
    9  Lee Hendelman 2118.6
    10  Josh Sharpe  2099.23

    IFPA Rating under v5.2:
    1  Keith Elwin  1983.81
    2  Peter Watt 1967.13
    3  Jorian Engelbrektsson  1954.73
    4  Zach Sharpe  1885.02
    5  Andy Rosa  1877.77
    6  Paul Jones AUS 1849.93
    7  Kyoichi Miyaura 1848.86
    8  Josh Sharpe  1844.64
    9  Aaron Grabowski  1844.46
    10  John Delzoppo  1834.96

    WPPR Ranking under v5.1:
    1  Jorian Engelbrektsson  1,154.31
    2  Keith Elwin  973.13
    3  Daniele Celestino Acciari  957.46
    4  Steven Bowden  953.86
    5  Zach Sharpe  899.19
    6  Robert Gagno  838.72
    7  Jörgen Holm  817.41
    8  Raymond Davidson  789.45
    9  Mats Runsten  772.27
    10  Trent Augenstein  735.95

    WPPR Ranking under v5.2:
    1  Jorian Engelbrektsson  1,028.44
    2  Keith Elwin  880.04
    3  Daniele Celestino Acciari  835.89
    4  Zach Sharpe  787.65
    5  Jörgen Holm  740.34
    6  Mats Runsten  709.78
    7  Robert Gagno  702.55
    8  Raymond Davidson  697.12
    9  Steven Bowden  638.56
    10  Cayle George  623.46

    #284 3 years ago
    Quoted from Russell:

    So, you think that the total amount of points given out is not expected to change?
    Based upon my reading of the rules, the total amount of points given out will fall sharply, but I'm not sure.
    If my suspicion is correct, that strongly favors players with points already amassed before these changes were made. In other words, past performance is more valuable than future performance. At least, that will be true for the next 3 years, until the only remaining counted events are those counted under the new rules.
    For example, I just played in the Ultimate Pinball Carnage in Denver. I took second, and got 11.42 points. Last year, second place was worth 19.67 points.
    Unless I'm missing it, I don't see any tournaments where the points actually went up...
    If my observation is correct, it Just became harder for hacks like me to make progress up the ranks.

    The biggest cause of the value drop between v5.2 and v5.1 is the Ratings change. Pretty much everyone has a lower rating and rating is one of the attributes that adds value to the tournament.

    Reality is that this Ratings change will be for 'all of time' (retroactive) so even the 2015 tournament values will be worth less once we switch over. So the year over year comparison won't be a big change like you are worried about.

    The upside for v5.2 is that any tournament with group play will be worth more than last year.

    1 week later
    #287 3 years ago

    It's now the 'default'


    2015 rules have been moved to "tgpguide2015"

    #293 3 years ago

    That's correct Tom. For elimination purposes we go by "being able to win the tournament" so if you aren't in the top division we consider that "eliminating a player".

    #295 3 years ago
    Quoted from desertT1:

    Can we get a definition of private? If I host an event at my house, that is not a public location, but I am not excluding anyone who asks. Is that private? If I click the box to keep my address hidden on the site and force people to email me (to go hand in hand with registration totals), is that private?

    If the tournament address is not posted publicly on our calendar ... It's "private".

    2 weeks later
    #302 3 years ago
    Quoted from chuckwurt:

    Forgot about the new rules and I have a question on how many meaningful games my tournament had last night
    11 people split up into 2 4s and a 3, and played one game on 4 pinball machines
    For finals, the top 5 after qualifying made it. Top qualifier got a bye. The next four played the same four pinball machine again doing 4,2,1,0 scoring.
    Top three advanced. Then the final four play all four games again and used the same scoring as previous round. Winner crowned.

    Ok here we go . . .

    Qualifying --> High score on 4 different games (+4 TGP)

    Finals --> Out of the 4 finalists, there's a 25% chance that the winner would have played 1 round, and a 75% chance that the winner played 2 games. So EV would be (1*.25) + (2*.75) = 1.75 rounds. Each round is 4 games, and valued at 2X with the 4-player matches, so you would take 1.75 * 8 = (+14 TGP)

    Total would be 72% TGP for the 18 meaningful games played.

    #303 3 years ago
    Quoted from Xerico:

    I'll take a stab at this one.
    chuckwurt said:
    Forgot about the new rules and I have a question on how many meaningful games my tournament had last night
    11 people split up into 2 4s and a 3, and played one game on 4 pinball machines
    11 players (assuming all have at least 5 IFPA events under their belt) = 5.5 points
    Despite the player groups, it appears that the top 5 scores advance to the next round.
    So there is no bonus for the 4 player and 3 player games.
    First round = 1 significant game

    You're correct that there's no bonus for the 3/4 player games, so you're mostly right here except I read it as them actually playing 4 games total for the qualifying round, not just 1.

    Your finals analysis is still looking at the 'longest path'. Remember that it's 'expected value path' now under WPPR v5.2, which is how the bye ends up changing things slightly (1.75 EV rounds, versus the longest path of 2 rounds).

    #304 3 years ago
    Quoted from LOTR_breath:

    I'm no expert, but I count 24 significant games so 96% TGP?
    1st round, 4 games x2
    2nd round 4 games x2
    3rd round 4 games x2

    LOL I'm not even touching this Chris.

    You can make this Alabama WPPR version 9.7 or something

    2 weeks later
    #311 3 years ago

    WPPR v5.2 is live for anyone interested ...

    #313 3 years ago
    Quoted from desertT1:

    Announce that here now that your bandwidth has caught up a little?

    LOL something like that

    (I totally just jinxed things and the site is probably now down again)

    #322 3 years ago
    Quoted from tmontana:

    Sorry if this has already been asked and answered but I was wondering. If a player competes in a tournament but has less than the required number of tournaments to count towards the "strength calculation" but then they end up competing in more does the tournament they competed in that they didn't "count" in get retroactively changed to now "count" them?

    A player only counts once they become "rated" and then they count going forward indefinitely.

    We don't go back to those initial 5 events and retroactively count them because they were "not rated" at the time they participated in the event.

    #324 3 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    Is this based on chronological order of event or date of result submission?


    Every time we rebuild the database it starts from the beginning of time, which is why we always have a butterfly effect when a tournament in the past gets updated (typically this happens when a player realizes they accidentally have two profiles).

    #342 3 years ago

    We require the player to be in the picture with their score. We also have a log of all the scores ever submitted, so if we see the same score entered twice on the same machine, I certainly plan on making a joke or two about the coincidence (we have a Facebook group with a TON of dialogue and commentary that goes on throughout the month from the participants).

    It is exactly a standard Herb pump-n-dump the whole month, with no additional cost to the game being played besides the cost of the game. So if you're out to play some pinball 'for fun', it just makes every game you play meaningful for the tournament.

    So far the players seem to enjoy the playing at their leisure part, as this isn't insanely competitive like a weekend Herb with $10K on the line in cash and prizes. If my dad slips into E division and he feels like making the 8 minute drive back to the location to play a couple of games one night, then that's great. It's not 3 games for $10 or anything ridiculous like that.

    We're fortunate that the location is really buying into the concept. They've upgraded their tech support, installed a huge monitor that links to Karl's standings page that is up above the games 24/7 (as I update standings in real time from home/work). Earnings were up more than DOUBLE for January over the past 5 months (109%).

    We'll see how things go for month #2 . . .

    Standings are available here for us:



    #346 3 years ago
    Quoted from TheLaw:

    So this goes on for a month let's say and then people get seeded and do a standard bracket type deal together?
    If so, I can see the appeal of it. I can also see it's def easy to cheat and have some wacky things happen.

    Yep. Every 4 spots is the 'next division'. So I think my mom ended up playing in the "G" Division finals for January. Winner of each division got double their entry fee money back. I believe the winner of the A division (Keith Johnson) took home $54 for January.

    Cheating can absolutely happen via various methods, but cheating can and has happened at other events (I've had to deal with a very high level tournament where an organizer went in and changed the qualifying score on a machine for one of the participants who he was friends with - and ended up admitting that they did in fact edit the score later on in the tournament).

    #347 3 years ago
    Quoted from TheLaw:

    Roger Sharpe doesn't appear to be in his pics....although I assume people were there together

    He was by himself, but doesn't have a smart phone to be able to take a selfie.

    He's been grandfathered in based on you know . . . him saving pinball and everything . . . to be able to use a magazine cover with his picture on it as his "face"

    #351 3 years ago
    Quoted from sleethering:

    But really, the good side of this is that it's a a pretty casual approach to competition for new players and casuals who don't go to tournaments. I'm sure it will bring some new people into the fold once they feel some glory of a divisional win or getting the top score on a game. It may not be the best test of skill or a perfect competitive system, but it still has some benefits.

    The fact that I've gotten a phone call from my mom saying she has the urge to head back to the location to put up a better score on a game because she thinks she can "do better" is all I need. At some point my mom just ends up competing against her own past scores to see if she's improving her skills. For me it's about getting to battle Lyman/Keith/Zach all month long one-upping eachother with our bomb droppings, and that's been entertaining for me on a casual competitive level.

    #352 3 years ago
    Quoted from TheLaw:

    How does this factor in with a normal league? What I'm wondering is this. Shouldn't every location have 2 leagues going on, a normal and this kind? This would allow people to play in both "leagues" at the same time basically (if they wanted to), and then be getting double (well additional) points for one location.

    The scores from normal league play couldn't also be counted for this. There's no double dipping of a game-played to count for multiple IFPA endorsed events.

    There are some hurdles to running this kind of open-tournament format, and that is the importance of keeping the games maintained. There is a huge buy-in needed by the location to attend to any issues as quickly as possible. Having a game down for a week or two, or allowing problems to linger simply isn't acceptable with players traveling to the location qualify any given day at any given time.

    For us we're lucky that our location has bought-in on the concept big time. Upgrading their tech staff to full time, the lead tech is actually on our Facebook group interacting with the players. We can alert him to the problems we're seeing, and he can send out a message to our entire group that the proper repairs have been done.

    #353 3 years ago
    Quoted from TomGWI:

    With the super selfie leagues, does time/duration of the event add to the value of the tournament?

    If there's unlimited qualifying opportunities, TGP is increased by 1% per hour of open qualifying up to a maximum of 20%.

    #360 3 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    email sent!

    That's exactly it . . . contact Karl, he'll hook you up. I know this has been a popular request as of late for him.

    #361 3 years ago
    Quoted from TheLaw:

    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.

    Definitely! For 'good' locations that put in the effort to maintain their games around the clock, this kind of format is a non-brainer.

    I literally contemplate stopping off to play a game or two EVERY NIGHT on my drive home from work depending on timing, because it is on my way home. With where our location is out in the burbs, I'll see people submitting 'lunch break' scores, and then the night time crowd like myself that may swing by on the way home from the office.

    3 weeks later
    #363 3 years ago
    Quoted from jlm33:

    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?

    To be endorsed a minimum of 10% of the participants would have to Arnav e to the direct-play finals portion. Assuming you meet that this format is fine.

    TGP would be +1 game for qualifying (+4%) plus 6 hours of unlimited qualifying (+6%).

    Finals would be based on how many players advanced to finals and the bye structure that ends up happening.

    Assuming 8 players with no byes it would be 8 games played for a best of 3 single elim final (+32%).

    So max total TGP would 42%, and depending on the bye situation would go down from there.

    #378 3 years ago
    Quoted from pinballcorpse:

    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

    They'll be filming the ESPN 30 for 30 story on this shortly

    1 month later
    #398 3 years ago

    The WPPR system is a positive only system.

    The IFPA ratings system follows the Glicko model similar to chess. Both players wager ratings points and the winner collects them, loser loses them. We simulate these head to head matches based on the results of the tournament.

    #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

    #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.

    #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

    #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


    #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.

    #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?

    #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

    #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.

    #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

    #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.

    #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.

    #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
    #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.

    Promoted items from the Pinside Marketplace
    $ 35.00
    Cabinet - Decals
    Pinball Pimp
    From: $ 175.00
    Gameroom - Decorations
    Pinball Photos
    $ 25.00
    Apparel - Women
    The Flipper Room
    $ 29.50
    Playfield - Plastics
    Pinball Haus
    $ 90.00
    Lighting - Under Cabinet
    Rock Custom Pinball
    $ 48.00
    Cabinet - Other
    ModFather Pinball Mods
    $ 40.00
    Cabinet - Toppers
    Rock Custom Pinball
    $ 29.99
    Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
    Full Tilt Pinball LEDs
    $ 24.99
    Lighting - Led
    Lee's Parts
    $ 229.99
    Lighting - Other
    Lighted Pinball Mods
    $ 50.00
    Gameroom - Decorations
    The Pinball Vault
    $ 249.99
    Cabinet - Armor And Blades
    Id Rather Play Pinball
    $ 7.65
    Cabinet Parts
    Third Coast Pinball
    From: $ 38.00
    Playfield - Other
    Pin Monk
    $ 125.00
    Lighting - Backbox
    Great American Pinball
    $ 25.00
    Playfield - Decals
    $ 175.00
    Lighting - Interactive
    Professor Pinball
    $ 75.00
    From: $ 175.00
    Gameroom - Decorations
    Pinball Photos
    $ 1,099.00
    Flipper Parts
    $ 24.99
    Lighting - Interactive
    Lee's Parts
    $ 7,399.00
    Pinball Machine
    Pinball Pro
    $ 7,599.00
    Pinball Machine
    Batman '66 Premium NIB Out of stock
    Little Shop Of Games

    You're currently viewing posts by Pinsider ifpapinball.
    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