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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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 - 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.
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.
Instead of doubling, it can just be 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35.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!
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 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.
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.
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.
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.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, 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.
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.
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.What's wrong with the SDL?
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 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 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.
Some questions here need your clarification and confirmation: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.