Interesting idea for another prediction style game..

jrod

Hall of Fame
I like the concept...I need to see a scoring system. I can think of a variation on this where you predict which round the top N seeds lose in and points are assigned based on your prediction error. The winner is the one with the least cumulative points?
 

egn

Hall of Fame
I like the concept...I need to see a scoring system. I can think of a variation on this where you predict which round the top N seeds lose in and points are assigned based on your prediction error. The winner is the one with the least cumulative points?
See what I'm thinking is more of an over under or on par type of thing. However if you were to say over or under you would also have to guess the round. For example say a person would be like

1. Roger Federer - Under - QF

If they were spot on they would get 5 points. However if they were right about him going under but wrong about the round they get 2 points. If you say on par as in for example a 20 seed getting knocked out in round 3 you would get 5 points because that would mean you guessed the round correctly and the way they would perform. So winner would still have most points. However I'm open to the floor the thing is I feel like say saying a 20 seed over and making the W should be worth more points then calling a 2 seed to go Under and make the SF. So there needs to be some type of bigger reward for calling someone to be a winner if they are the 20 seed. I'm attempting to figure out a fair system as we speak..I'll have a better set of rules later tonight or early tomorrow morning.

What I'm thinking is for each round they are under or over a player gets a point or something like that. So say picking the 32 to win and him actually winning gets you 8 points as 3 for guessing over plus 5 for winning 5 for matches than predicted.

I guess this is similar to your system.
 
Last edited:

dcdoorknob

Hall of Fame
man 3 different games is about my limit, and I like all 3 that are going now (counting prediction league+doubs as 1 game) not sure I'm up/open for more honestly.
 

jrod

Hall of Fame
See what I'm thinking is more of an over under or on par type of thing. However if you were to say over or under you would also have to guess the round. For example say a person would be like

1. Roger Federer - Under - QF

If they were spot on they would get 5 points. However if they were right about him going under but wrong about the round they get 2 points. If you say on par as in for example a 20 seed getting knocked out in round 3 you would get 5 points because that would mean you guessed the round correctly and the way they would perform. So winner would still have most points. However I'm open to the floor the thing is I feel like say saying a 20 seed over and making the W should be worth more points then calling a 2 seed to go Under and make the SF. So there needs to be some type of bigger reward for calling someone to be a winner if they are the 20 seed. I'm attempting to figure out a fair system as we speak..I'll have a better set of rules later tonight or early tomorrow morning.

What I'm thinking is for each round they are under or over a player gets a point or something like that. So say picking the 32 to win and him actually winning gets you 8 points as 3 for guessing over plus 5 for winning 5 for matches than predicted.

I guess this is similar to your system.

I can kinda see what you are are suggesting but it needs better definition though. My scheme was completely unweighted and based on minimizing cumulative error points irrespective of the seed. Simpler, but maybe not quite as compelling.
 

egn

Hall of Fame
I can kinda see what you are are suggesting but it needs better definition though. My scheme was completely unweighted and based on minimizing cumulative error points irrespective of the seed. Simpler, but maybe not quite as compelling.
I see what you're saying but it would be a bit crazy I feel and in the end wouldn't it necessarily be the same..just in a different terms of scoring. I'm not saying weight the system, I don't know I posted what I kind of was thinking in the top thread. I guess the only weighting you get is on par..which is where I can see a system like yours working better..As judging how many points a player should get if on par could be difficult while if you simply pick the round that the player goes and then if they go to that round they get 0 points and 1 for each off. However I was kind of hoping to focus more on if they would live up to their seed and not so much guessing how well and individual player would do. If that makes sense. Its not so much can this player make it to the 4th Round but can a player seeded 14 meet his seed. Which is where the whole over and under thing came in.
 

seffina

G.O.A.T.
man 3 different games is about my limit, and I like all 3 that are going now (counting prediction league+doubs as 1 game) not sure I'm up/open for more honestly.
I hear you, but to me this game would require you to do all of your work before any of the matches start, so it's different in that aspect. Kind of like fill out the draw games, but with different objectives. That is if I'm understanding it correctly.

egn, to me this is similar to games played during the NFL draft. Where you try and predict the position a team will draft and in what round. So if I say the Dolphins will go with a particular WR in the 1st round, I get the most points for nailing it all, fewer if they do draft a WR in the 1st round, but not the player I picked and then some if they draft the particular player in another round. http://www.stampedeblue.com/2010/4/13/1418109/stampede-blue-2010-draft (Example of what I'm talking about.)



And I do hope some of you come back to The Prediction League or try the Power Play League. I would love a strong games community here at TT and a forum like dg2010 said.
 

egn

Hall of Fame
egn, to me this is similar to games played during the NFL draft. Where you try and predict the position a team will draft and in what round. So if I say the Dolphins will go with a particular WR in the 1st round, I get the most points for nailing it all, fewer if they do draft a WR in the 1st round, but not the player I picked and then some if they draft the particular player in another round. http://www.stampedeblue.com/2010/4/13/1418109/stampede-blue-2010-draft (Example of what I'm talking about.)
Oh yes and you have to do it before the matches start is correct. It's kind of solely intuition and since it is seeds it might be a bit easier cause it is more or less all players most are familiar with and won't create the awkward situations that come sometimes in prediction league or say the ATP bracket challenge when you have a match amongst two basically unknown qualifiers in the rank 200s that a handful of people haven't heard of or haven't heard of in a while to know the form the player is in other than what is listed in their activity on atpworld.

Yes thats very similar. Just I'm having issues finding a way to score it. Since its not so much about predicting how the seed does but more about if does better or worse then his seed suggests. It's just scoring seems a bit awkward as I want to for example give more of a reward for say the situation someone calls Federer going out in round 1 then say calling Nadal to make it to the semis in stead of the finals..as you can see I attempted to do that in the scoring systems. But yea its similar to that...I think the major issue I'm having with is the players on par and finding how much to make them worth..since i don't want them to be too much but at the same time I don't want them to be too little.

Agreed as multiple games would be nice as not all appeal to everyone and for example what I like about say sudden death league and hopefully this one is they are relatively less time consuming than say prediction league or power play league which require a good amount of thought and commitment throughout the whole tournament. It's just nice to have a multitude of games to choose from.
 
Last edited:

jrod

Hall of Fame
I see what you're saying but it would be a bit crazy I feel and in the end wouldn't it necessarily be the same..just in a different terms of scoring. I'm not saying weight the system, I don't know I posted what I kind of was thinking in the top thread. I guess the only weighting you get is on par..which is where I can see a system like yours working better..As judging how many points a player should get if on par could be difficult while if you simply pick the round that the player goes and then if they go to that round they get 0 points and 1 for each off. However I was kind of hoping to focus more on if they would live up to their seed and not so much guessing how well and individual player would do. If that makes sense. Its not so much can this player make it to the 4th Round but can a player seeded 14 meet his seed. Which is where the whole over and under thing came in.

egn - I like where you are going with this. Think about it some and see if you can come up with a point system. I can see the value of rewarding more points to those who take bigger risks and guess correctly. Conversely, one should balance this with penalizing those who take risks and fail. It has to be balanced in this regard in order to maintain legitimate appeal from a game theoretic perspective.
 

seffina

G.O.A.T.
Yes thats very similar. Just I'm having issues finding a way to score it. Since its not so much about predicting how the seed does but more about if does better or worse then his seed suggests. It's just scoring seems a bit awkward as I want to for example give more of a reward for say the situation someone calls Federer going out in round 1 then say calling Nadal to make it to the semis in stead of the finals..as you can see I attempted to do that in the scoring systems. But yea its similar to that...I think the major issue I'm having with is the players on par and finding how much to make them worth..since i don't want them to be too much but at the same time I don't want them to be too little.
So what you would want is a formula of sort that would take your seed and the round you go out in consideration. On top of that, also consider how far off you are as well. Hmm..

Simply awarding points based on round predictions wouldn't be difficult. Anything like this scale would work.

1st or 2nd seed would be one level and they're supposed to get to the final, so if you predict that and they get there, you get 5 points
go out in the semis, 10 points
go out in the quarters, 20 points
go out in the 4th, 40
3rd - 80
2nd - 160
1st - 320

3rd and 4th -

make it to the final 10 points
Go out in the semis - 5 points
go out in the quarters -10 points
go out in the 4th- 20 points
3rd - 40
2nd - 80
1st - 160

A qualifier -
go out in the first - 5
go out in the second - 10
3rd - 20
4th - 40
QF - 80
SF - 160
F- 320

And so on.

But this doesn't consider the over/under in that if I say a quali goes out in the 1st and you say he goes out in the 4th and he happens to go out in the 3rd, then you should get more points than me even if we were both wrong.

There's definitely a formula that can take all three things (seed, predicted round, and over/under) into consideration. Anyway, I'm happy with whatever you come up and with and will give it a try!
 
Last edited:

egn

Hall of Fame
So what you would want is a formula of sort that would take your seed and the round you go out in consideration. On top of that, also consider how far off you are as well. Hmm..

Simply awarding points based on round predictions wouldn't be difficult. Anything like this scale would work.

1st or 2nd seed would be one level and they're supposed to get to the final, so if you predict that and they get there, you get 5 points
go out in the semis, 10 points
go out in the quarters, 20 points
go out in the 4th, 40
3rd - 80
2nd - 160
1st - 320

3rd and 4th -

make it to the final 10 points
Go out in the semis - 5 points
go out in the quarters -10 points
go out in the 4th- 20 points
3rd - 40
2nd - 160
1st - 320

A qualifier -
go out in the first - 5
go out in the second - 10
3rd - 20
4th - 40
QF - 80
SF - 160
F- 320

And so on.

But this doesn't consider the over/under in that if I say a quali goes out in the 1st and you say he goes out in the 4th and he happens to go out in the 3rd, then you should get more points than me even if we were both wrong.
Yea but then worrying about qualifiers is not going to really matter as in we are going to not be picking them. However I like your system..just I guess I don't want to make it completely unappealing to pick someone to perform up to their seed.

jrod said:
egn - I like where you are going with this. Think about it some and see if you can come up with a point system. I can see the value of rewarding more points to those who take bigger risks and guess correctly. Conversely, one should balance this with penalizing those who take risks and fail. It has to be balanced in this regard in order to maintain legitimate appeal from a game theoretic perspective.
I see what you are saying there as in for example a player who guesses say the 32 seed to go over to win and say he only goes to the round of 16 deserves possibly a bit of a penalty..going to work on figuring out some things.
 

seffina

G.O.A.T.
Yea but then worrying about qualifiers is not going to really matter as in we are going to not be picking them. However I like your system..just I guess I don't want to make it completely unappealing to pick someone to perform up to their seed.
Instead of doubling, it can just be 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35.

There can be a concurrent system for over/under for all picks. 30 for guessing right on, 20 for one round off either way, 10 for two rounds +/-, and 5 for three rounds +/-, 0 points for any worse.

So I predict Andy Murray to be upset in the 3rd round and you pick him to make it to the semis and someone else predicts he makes it to the quarters.

He does go out in the quarters, so I would get 0 points for not guessing the round right, but 10 points for being two rounds off. You would get 20 points for only being a round off, and the person that guessed the round right would get 40 points total (30 for guessing right on and additional 10 points from the weighted scale for the 4th seed.

But I just saw your first post and this wouldn't take into consideration the over/under/par thing. :(

Ah nevermind, I'm tired!
 

egn

Hall of Fame
Instead of doubling, it can just be 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35.

There can be a concurrent system for over/under for all picks. 30 for guessing right on, 20 for one round off either way, 10 for two rounds +/-, and 5 for three rounds +/-, 0 points for any worse.

So I predict Andy Murray to be upset in the 3rd round and you pick him to make it to the semis and someone else predicts he makes it to the quarters.

He does go out in the quarters, so I would get 0 points for not guessing the round right, but 10 points for being two rounds off. You would get 20 points for only being a round off, and the person that guessed the round right would get 40 points total (30 for guessing right on and additional 10 points from the weighted scale for the 4th seed.

But I just saw your first post and this wouldn't take into consideration the over/under/par thing. :(

Ah nevermind, I'm tired!
Hmm maybe the over and under thing should be ditched and on par should be kept..Hmm I don't know I have a lot of thinking to do tomorrow I'll have a much better idea of how to do this by the end of tomorrow it's late right now though I agree. However I think weighting the seeds might be a bit much.
 

Love Game

Talk Tennis Guru
Oh yes and you have to do it before the matches start is correct. It's kind of solely intuition and since it is seeds it might be a bit easier cause it is more or less all players most are familiar with and won't create the awkward situations that come sometimes in prediction league or say the ATP bracket challenge when you have a match amongst two basically unknown qualifiers in the rank 200s that a handful of people haven't heard of or haven't heard of in a while to know the form the player is in other than what is listed in their activity on atpworld. ...
I kinda like the idea of having something to do during a lull. Like now we're in a bit of a holding pattern, waiting for Wimbledon to start.

Ive never participated in one of those ATP bracket challenges, because looking at those draws has been daunting the couple times I have considered it. Because how do you actually go about it?

Unlike Europeans and Canadians, etc., we Americans don't have access to the types of tennis betting aids and tools provided by sports gambling websites, because we are prevented by law from having accounts on those websites, and thus we don't have access to the vast statistical libraries available on those sites.

So it seems that we Americans are at a disadvantage vis-a-vis Europeans, etc., from the get-go. Our only source of statistical information about players is the ATP website, which has no comparison charts, no algorithmic projections, etc. All the info (except the H2H which shows only whether two players have met in the past) on that website relates to the individual players, provides no ability to compare one to the other statistically.

That's been my experience. Maybe I just don't know about sites we Americans can use to compile the pertinent comparative statistics, one player to another. If there are any, we Americans would like to hear about them.
 
Last edited:
Well....

Few basic questions?

1.Before or after the draw is made public?
2. Preferably a ranking system, or is the first one like a trial?

----

As for the scoring...

Listen to this: we take the odds of a major betting website( a popular one that won't come up with ******** odds for some matches, or no odds at all, although all seeds should have them, especially in grand slams.)

And we apply a formula like: 5 points X odds for every match that the seed plays in the tournament....of course, if the player that you go with makes a lot of upsets, you have yourself a lot of points.

However, this should be inferior to the IMPORTANT pick, that is guessing the round of the torunament in which the player will exit.

So we have that, and ON TOP of that side-scoring, we could have something like:

Correct quarter-final pick (on par): 100 points
Correct semi-final pick(on par): 150 points
Correct final pick(on par): 200 points.

Then another one for under:

One round below quarters: 40 points
One round below semies: 50 points
....etc...etc...

You get the idea, we have predetermined scores for all scenarios, and on TOP of that we have that little side scoring I mentioned earlier, with the betting odds.

The final points will be the sum of the two.


This could be fun. I hope the OP has time to think about the logistics and how to operate this.

Good luck!

And I am in of course.
 
Last edited:

kraggy

Banned
I had created a similar sort of game for the AO but didn't really follow through. I think the point scoring logic was somewhat sound though and could be reused.

This was the game :

1. Pick a team of 4 players from the top 64 before the start of the Slam (no more than 2 players from the top 4)
2. Points are awarded based on ATP points earned at the Slam and a multiplying factor based on the player's existing ranking. The logic here is that the multiplier takes into account what expected performance is ( for e.g. a top 8 player should reach the quarterfinals) and credits over-performing - For e.g Jeremy Chardy reaching the quarters (unexpected result) should get more points than Djokovic reaching the semis (expected) .

3. Person with most points for their team at the end of the Slam (the sum of points for the 4 players) wins.

This is the points distribution for slams taken from the ATP site.

Win... Final... Semi ...QF... R16... R32... R64... R128
2000... 1200... 720... 360... 180... 90... 45... 10

Multiplier factor based on player's current ATP ranking:

Rank.... Multiplier
1-2 ......... 1x
3-4 ......... 2x
5-8 ........ 4x
9-16 ........ 8x
17- 32 ....... 16x
33-128 ....... 32x

Once the slam is done, everybody should post their scores (showing the math to ensure no mistakes/cheating!) and we can declare the winner.
 
Last edited:
I had created a similar sort of game for the AO but didn't really follow through. I think the point scoring logic was somewhat sound though and could be reused.

This was the game :

1. Pick a team of 4 players from the top 64 before the start of the Slam (no more than 2 players from the top 4)
2. Points are awarded based on ATP points earned at the Slam and a multiplying factor based on the player's existing ranking. The logic here is that the multiplier takes into account what expected performance is ( for e.g. a top 8 player should reach the quarterfinals) and credits over-performing - For e.g Jeremy Chardy reaching the quarters (unexpected result) should get more points than Djokovic reaching the semis (expected) .

3. Person with most points for their team at the end of the Slam (the sum of points for the 4 players) wins.

This is the points distribution for slams taken from the ATP site.

Win... Final... Semi ...QF... R16... R32... R64... R128
2000... 1200... 720... 360... 180... 90... 45... 10

Multiplier factor based on player's current ATP ranking:

Rank.... Multiplier
1-2 ......... 1x
3-4 ......... 2x
5-8 ........ 4x
9-16 ........ 8x
17- 32 ....... 16x
33-128 ....... 32x

Once the slam is done, everybody should post their scores (showing the math to ensure no mistakes/cheating!) and we can declare the winner.
It's a good idea for a game, I think you should go for it, for Wimbledon.
 

seffina

G.O.A.T.
It's a good idea for a game, I think you should go for it, for Wimbledon.
In my opinion, kraggy's game is significantly different than egn's game. But I welcome both as they would both be before the matches start type of games while TPL, SDL, and PPL are after the matches start games.
 

egn

Hall of Fame
I had created a similar sort of game for the AO but didn't really follow through. I think the point scoring logic was somewhat sound though and could be reused.

This was the game :

1. Pick a team of 4 players from the top 64 before the start of the Slam (no more than 2 players from the top 4)
2. Points are awarded based on ATP points earned at the Slam and a multiplying factor based on the player's existing ranking. The logic here is that the multiplier takes into account what expected performance is ( for e.g. a top 8 player should reach the quarterfinals) and credits over-performing - For e.g Jeremy Chardy reaching the quarters (unexpected result) should get more points than Djokovic reaching the semis (expected) .

3. Person with most points for their team at the end of the Slam (the sum of points for the 4 players) wins.

This is the points distribution for slams taken from the ATP site.

Win... Final... Semi ...QF... R16... R32... R64... R128
2000... 1200... 720... 360... 180... 90... 45... 10

Multiplier factor based on player's current ATP ranking:

Rank.... Multiplier
1-2 ......... 1x
3-4 ......... 2x
5-8 ........ 4x
9-16 ........ 8x
17- 32 ....... 16x
33-128 ....... 32x

Once the slam is done, everybody should post their scores (showing the math to ensure no mistakes/cheating!) and we can declare the winner.
I remember your game I liked it a lot and then it disappeared :( I am definitely in.
 

egn

Hall of Fame
Okay so the first post has been updated with what I feel is the best method to score at the moment, thanks to Seffina and jrod for your great suggestions and for having ideas that were very similar to the idea I was going for. Also thanks to everyone else for your suggestions as well. So I guess re-read the rules on the first page and if you are still in for it either say you are still in or just the day the draw is released post your picks.
 

Augustus

Hall of Fame
Nice idea, but don't we have enough games already? I don't want to criticize anything, but I'm afraid people will lose interest when they've to keep up with too many games. The TPL and SDL are already losing participants...
 

egn

Hall of Fame
Nice idea, but don't we have enough games already? I don't want to criticize anything, but I'm afraid people will lose interest when they've to keep up with too many games. The TPL and SDL are already losing participants...
Not forcing anyone to participate, just giving another option for people and was wondering how it would do. Its kind of a pitch to just see how it does, if people like it or not. Its a different type of game and considering it is only really a factor prior to the start of the tournament and then the rest is just waiting time until the end. I don't have any intention on stealing away from other games or overwhelm people, which is why it is optional.
 

NYKings

Legend
Not forcing anyone to participate, just giving another option for people and was wondering how it would do. Its kind of a pitch to just see how it does, if people like it or not. Its a different type of game and considering it is only really a factor prior to the start of the tournament and then the rest is just waiting time until the end. I don't have any intention on stealing away from other games or overwhelm people, which is why it is optional.
All the games are optional and they all provide a different type of strategy. I personally like all the games and will continue to play PPL, TPL, SDL, and this if it becomes a constant.

Good job on putting together a scoring format egn, looking forward to playing your game at Wimbledon!
 

seffina

G.O.A.T.
Nice idea, but don't we have enough games already? I don't want to criticize anything, but I'm afraid people will lose interest when they've to keep up with too many games. The TPL and SDL are already losing participants...
All of the games being played or proposed are very different and some suit others while some don't. This game and the one kraggy suggested are to be played before any matches start. All of your time commitment will be over before SDL/PPL/TPL start.

I gave up on the SDL, for example, as it doesn't suit my tastes. Nothing wrong with that. Lots of people can't keep up with the time commitment of TPL. Also fine. You gave up on PPL probably b/c it doesn't suit you somehow. There are other forums with far more games than TT and they've kept them going on for years. Participation will peak and lull. TPL had a lull for Queens/Halle last year as well and peaked during the USO. Just depends. I would wager the Word Cup has a lot to do with the slight decrease in participation.

I still am in favor of a games sub forum. I think it'll only help to have variety and a designated sub-forum.
----

egn, I like it, but I do think people will go a round higher than where a player should go out and guess under more often than not.
 

egn

Hall of Fame
egn, I like it, but I do think people will go a round higher than where a player should go out and guess under more often than not.
I agree..we will see though. I figure test this out see if it needs some fine tuning then I have tons of time to really fix things up. See common errors and see if people find some holes in the system. All in all it is either going to be extremely high scoring or very low scoring..I'm just hoping its consistent.
 

Augustus

Hall of Fame
All of the games being played or proposed are very different and some suit others while some don't. This game and the one kraggy suggested are to be played before any matches start. All of your time commitment will be over before SDL/PPL/TPL start.

I gave up on the SDL, for example, as it doesn't suit my tastes. Nothing wrong with that. Lots of people can't keep up with the time commitment of TPL. Also fine. You gave up on PPL probably b/c it doesn't suit you somehow. There are other forums with far more games than TT and they've kept them going on for years. Participation will peak and lull. TPL had a lull for Queens/Halle last year as well and peaked during the USO. Just depends. I would wager the Word Cup has a lot to do with the slight decrease in participation.

I still am in favor of a games sub forum. I think it'll only help to have variety and a designated sub-forum.
----

egn, I like it, but I do think people will go a round higher than where a player should go out and guess under more often than not.
What's wrong with the SDL? :confused:
 

seffina

G.O.A.T.
What's wrong with the SDL? :confused:
Absolutely nothing, just not my cup of tea. I am not very good at it, first. Which doesn't deter me really, but I'm not very fond of knockout style games. Just a personal preference. I disliked that the Halle/Queens H2H was a knockout tourny, for example. I did try SDL for three tournys to see how it was. I like games in general, but don't want one decision here or there to determine my placement. It's the reason TPL is my favorite and I put in a lot of time and effort into it.

But SDL is an excellent game and has a very important role as it's quite different from the other games and would suit those that want minimum commitment and enjoy the thrill of a knockout style game.

I just think it is silly to discourage games because you're afraid there will be decreased participation in other games. Or that some games are more important just because they came first. I was quite upset with the disparaging remarks made by some about PPL when it started up (and without ever trying and determining if it was something they enjoyed). We should all work together, not against each other.

My policy is to try every game out for a few times before deciding if it is my thing or not. And I want all games to succeed on TT.

Anyway, I don't want to go off topic in egn's thread discussing these matters. I apologize, egn.
 

Augustus

Hall of Fame
Absolutely nothing, just not my cup of tea. I am not very good at it, first. Which doesn't deter me really, but I'm not very fond of knockout style games. Just a personal preference. I disliked that the Halle/Queens H2H was a knockout tourny, for example. I did try SDL for three tournys to see how it was. I like games in general, but don't want one decision here or there to determine my placement. It's the reason TPL is my favorite and I put in a lot of time and effort into it.

But SDL is an excellent game and has a very important role as it's quite different from the other games and would suit those that want minimum commitment and enjoy the thrill of a knockout style game.

I just think it is silly to discourage games because you're afraid there will be decreased participation in other games. Or that some games are more important just because they came first. I was quite upset with the disparaging remarks made by some about PPL when it started up (and without ever trying and determining if it was something they enjoyed). We should all work together, not against each other.

My policy is to try every game out for a few times before deciding if it is my thing or not. And I want all games to succeed on TT.

Anyway, I don't want to go off topic in egn's thread discussing these matters. I apologize, egn.
I disagree, it's not silly to speak my opinion. Also I don't remember anyone make 'disparaging' remarks about the PPL, but I do think too many games aren't a good thing. I'm willing to shut the SDL down if necessary, since it was the second game. As many people as possible in one great game is far more fun than creating ten different games in my opinion.

Oh man, I'm in a very bad mood today.
 

seffina

G.O.A.T.
I disagree, it's not silly to speak my opinion. Also I don't remember anyone make 'disparaging' remarks about the PPL, but I do think too many games aren't a good thing. I'm willing to shut the SDL down if necessary, since it was the second game. As many people as possible in one great game is far more fun than creating ten different games in my opinion.

Oh man, I'm in a very bad mood today.
I never said it was silly to express your opinion. I said I didn't agree with it, that's all. If you don't think the more the merrier, that's fine. I'm really sorry if I've upset you. :(

I like and want SDL to succeed. It's a great idea and a great game and a lot of people love it.
 

Augustus

Hall of Fame
I never said it was silly to express your opinion. I said I didn't agree with it, that's all. If you don't think the more the merrier, that's fine. I'm really sorry if I've upset you. :(

I like and want SDL to succeed. It's a great idea and a great game and a lot of people love it.
It's not your fault. I'm just very tired and in a bad mood after the news of the incurable illness of a very dear friend. I overreacted, sorry.

I should go to bed now before I get myself banned.
 
The SDL is great. Keep it up or else I'll kick your arse.

Although, my recommendation would be to keep it up as simple as possible, the doubles thingy really didn't work.

As for the games in general I think the TPL is the less fun of them all, but it's definitely my favorite by far, plus, Sefster does a great job at running it. :D
 

egn

Hall of Fame
:( I'm sorry for causing such a controversy, I agree though the games should work together and it would be great if there was a games subforum. It seems that here on talk tennis however the adding of a new subforum happens almost never..
 

jrod

Hall of Fame
Wow....I can't believe how quickly this thread devolved. I came back to check in hoping to see a scoring system proposal from egn and we end up here?

I thought egn had a good idea. There were several other suggestions and ideas contributed as well. The thread was pregnant with promise. And now it's been aborted?

Come on folks. Lets let egn define the rules for his game. The suggestions and variations on his theme he can decide to incorporate or not. What falls off the cutting board is seed for the next game post. This is one of the more thoughtful and creative threads I've seen in a while. and it would be a shame to see it go to waste.

What say you egn? How about some rules?
 

robin7

Hall of Fame
Making You Predicitions:
1. Each player will post a list of the seeds with a prediction of how the seed will fare.

How It Is Scored:
1. 30 Points will be given for a perfect guess, whether it be an on par guess, and over or under guess.

2. If you guess a player to be over and the player does in fact go over but you do not guess the correct round the score will be as follows. For being one round off it will be 20 points, two rounds off 10 points and anything else 5 points. (Same applies for under.)

3. If you guess a player to be under but the player is actually on par or over you will receive no points. (The same is true for the other two cases.)

4. Players who correctly predict the winner will receive an additional 25 bonus points.

5. Player with the most points wins.

6. In case of ties the player with most perfect guesses wins.
Some questions here need your clarification and confirmation:

1. I presume each participant needs to predict 32 seeds as listed.

2. Assuming Murray lost in SF, what is the difference in terms of points scored if I pick
Murray - over - QF
and
Murray - on par - SF?​

3. For tiebreakers, what if two or more participants have the same scores and the number of perfect guesses? I guess the number of one-round off guessed will be used next? If this is tied again, two-round off guesses will be applied and so on? For unnecessary disputes, rules have to be highlighted before hand.

Thanks.
 

seffina

G.O.A.T.
egn, feel free to ignore this, but I thought I would link it just b/c I had worked on it last night.

http://i45.tinypic.com/15qrzaw.jpg

This was my attempt at taking into consideration seeds as well as the over and under. So predicting a seed to play up to their seed gives you the fewest points (but still a good deal) while predicting them to do better or worse gives you incrementally more points. Going under, par, or over also has benefits and drawbacks.

(I put 33-65 just to show the full scale, I know we're only predicting for the top 32.) I also weighed causing upsets higher than getting upset. Had some reasoning for it last night involving how it's harder to beat a player above you or something, but I'm tired from rehearsal tonight and can't quite recall. I had also started out w/ more points (10 instead of 1), but since I changed it to a multiplier, the numbers would get too big.

The Robin Soderling thing is an example using various situations and results.

As I said, feel free to ignore, but no harm in posting my thoughts. I'm looking forward to playing the game as proposed.
 

egn

Hall of Fame
Some questions here need your clarification and confirmation:

1. I presume each participant needs to predict 32 seeds as listed.
Yes this is correct.

2. Assuming Murray lost in SF, what is the difference in terms of points scored if I pick
Murray - over - QF
and
Murray - on par - SF?​
Well the way I have it set up right now is if you pick a player to do under or over and they actually perform on par if you are off by 1 round you will receive 15 points however in any other way you would recieve no points as if they performed on par and you were off by two rounds.

3. For tiebreakers, what if two or more participants have the same scores and the number of perfect guesses? I guess the number of one-round off guessed will be used next? If this is tied again, two-round off guesses will be applied and so on? For unnecessary disputes, rules have to be highlighted before hand.

Thanks.
Yes I will make note of that to avoid confusion.
 
Last edited:
Top