NEW SCORING SYSTEM! No Hot Bouts + LESS points for picking faves + MORE points for picking underdogs

MMAPlayground.com » Community » MMA Playground Game Talk » NEW SCORING SYSTEM! No Hot Bouts + LESS points for picking faves + MORE points for picking underdogs
Next Page »
POLL: Should we get more points for getting hard picks right?
Yes - But i dunno about the details 21% (13)
No - I like it the way it is 59% (36)
Yes - your ideas in particular are great 10% (6)
Yes - but slightly different than you said 10% (6)
CornishMMA
2/20/08 7:42:56AM
*EDIT UPDATE* HERE IS THE SYSTEM I THINK WILL WORK BETTER

Posted by CornishMMA

So those Heavy favourites and obvious picks (like Lytle over Bradley[93%] - maybe 81-100%) would be worth 3 points (2 less than currently)

Strong favourites (like Gurgel over Halverson[67%] - maybe 61-80%) would be worth 4 points (1 less tan currently)

Even fights (like Silva Hendo, maybe 41-60%?) would be worth 5 points (current, but 1 would be hot bout worth 10!!!)

Strong underdogs (like Luigo over Cummo[30%] - maybe 21-40%) would be worth 7 points (current is just 5 for getting a hard pick right!)

Heavy underdogs (like Rivera over Grove[14%] - 1-20% would be worth 10 points (what is currently given for getting a 50/50 correct, this IMO should be given to someone who picks a very tough pick like this!)

Any thoughts on this people?


ORIGINAL 1st POST -
Am i the only one thats thinks we should have a better scoring system on here?

Why should you get the same amount of points for picking Lytle over Bradley than you do for Boetsch over Heath?

The extra 2 points for an "underdog" (who has less than 20% of people on here picking them) is too small imho, should be at least 5 points if not 10

An upshot of that would be more people picking those kind of guys so there arent massive favourites/underdogs, and that would impact the wager odds making them a bit more realistic and fair

Then theres the 50/50 fights like Mir/Lesnar or Cote/McFedries - you should get more points for getting them right than you do for getting a Lytle or Almeida type pick right

As well as increasing points for the <20% underdogs, i would bring back the Season 1 style "Heavy" and "Strong" underdogs, maybe 10 extra points for a <15% HEAVY UNDERDOG and then 5 extra points for a <25% STRONG UNDERDOG

What do you guys think?
wolfman
2/20/08 1:30:10PM
I agree that there needs to be a change made concerning the underdog(s). I like the idea of an additional five points for a STRONG Underdog, as you put it. Yet, for a HEAVY Underdog, which is less than 15%, 10 additional pts. seems a little excessive. However, if less than 15% are picking that fighter than I guess it really isn't that excessive. So, if a fighter does pick a heavy underdog on the button, what would his total be for that one fight? I don't feel like doing the math right now.

In addition, for the hot bouts you are stating that you want even more points added for picking them right? If so, I think the current hot bout situation is fine. Sometimes, I even think that the current hot bout points are a little excessive. We all like to hit the hot bout right, yet 22 pts. for ONE fight is a little crazy imo. For instance, I picked the Diaz/Manny bout right on the button. Yet, I felt a little cheap getting those 22 pts. because it was an injury that caused Manny to tapout. Manny was winning that fight and could have very well gone on to win that fight by decision. Yes, I know Nate could have tapped him out later on. However, you can't deny that Manny won the first rd. and was looking to keep the momentum in his favor going into the 2nd and 3rd rounds. I know, injuries happen and that is all a part of the game. It is not their fault they won a fight by injury, it just is disappointing to see a fighter lose due to an injury.

Anyhow, I like the way you are thinking and agree with your underdog suggestion. For the hot bout, I think anymore points added would be too much.
DustinT
2/20/08 1:31:17PM
i wasnt here for season one...i didnt know there was different point systems.
i'd have to agree as well. +2 isnt much for a risky bet.
tepid55
2/20/08 2:53:02PM
Strong and Heavy underdogs won't work because it was designed for the player-to-player wagering system in season 1.
seanfu
2/20/08 3:32:20PM
It could be 2 poinsts for underdog, 3 points for major, underdog, and 4 points for serra vs gsp1 level underdog. I don't see the system really needing that much of a changup. Underdog picks should get you more bonus money though, like 50 or 100 bucks.
iwannabesedated
2/20/08 9:01:20PM
I like it the way it is....If its not broke why try to fix it.

Giving more points for picking an underdog isn't going to influence my pick and make me say hmm..well if i pick Serra to beat GSP and i win ill get an extra 5pts now instead of 2..But some people may want those points and and take a shot and more people may start picking the underdogs and therefore there may not be underdogs.Im going to make my pick based on who i think is going to win not for how many points i could get from picking an underdog and feeling like a badass cause i picked the underdog and got a shitload of points.




Svartorm
2/21/08 12:04:04AM
The thing with the underdog is thats 7-13 points that you're getting, that over 80% of the other players didn't get. Thats a pretty huge sum if you did ok on the other fights.
CornishMMA
2/21/08 12:06:10PM

Posted by tepid55

Strong and Heavy underdogs won't work because it was designed for the player-to-player wagering system in season 1.


Im sorry where is the logic there???
I know thats how it was used back then, but im saying you take the stats and apply it to points for them in this case of picks

Posted by 40ouncetofreedom

Giving more points for picking an underdog isn't going to influence my pick and make me say hmm..well if i pick Serra to beat GSP and i win ill get an extra 5pts now instead of 2..But some people may want those points and and take a shot and more people may start picking the underdogs and therefore there may not be underdogs.


Thats what im saying though, that would be a BENEFIT, cos as it is there are huge favourites instead of strong favourites etc, the wager odds are based on the picks so the more even they are the better

In a fight where you like an underdog but its too risky to pick them for very little reward (2 points) then having the reward of 5 point etc may make it so that you pick them, i do pick on who i think will win but sometimes theres an underdog who you want to pick but end up not risking cos the 2 point difference isnt enough

Posted by Svartorm

The thing with the underdog is thats 7-13 points that you're getting, that over 80% of the other players didn't get. Thats a pretty huge sum if you did ok on the other fights.


But if you didnt do well on the other fights and picked a few other underdogs that didnt win then you get very little reward for getting a difficult pick right

You get more money for getting hard wagers right so why not with picks as well? THATS the main point im raising, you shouldnt get 5 points for Lytle and 5 points for Boetsch, they arent even picks!
CornishMMA
2/21/08 12:24:01PM
Oh and wolfman - no i didnt really bring the hot bout problem into this but thats a good point, comparing the double points for a hot bout with no extra points for Boetsch is just wrong

Quite often there are 3 or 4 close fights with even picks, but most stay the same (for points you get) and its just the closest one thats gets double points - shouldnt be that way at all imo!

Here are some examples to illistrate the problem - i know someone said if it aint broke dont fix it but honestly it is broke! Just look at this for proof -

Perfect pick for hot bout (Mir 49% Lesnar 51%) - 22 points

Perfect pick for close bout (Eastman 41% Martin 59%) - 11 points

Perfect pick for biggest underdog (Heath 79% Boetsch 21%) - 11 points

Perfect pick for biggest fave (Lytle 93% Bradley 7%) - 11 points


Is that balanced scoring? not imo!
npayant
2/21/08 11:29:24PM

Posted by CornishMMA

Oh and wolfman - no i didnt really bring the hot bout problem into this but thats a good point, comparing the double points for a hot bout with no extra points for Boetsch is just wrong

Quite often there are 3 or 4 close fights with even picks, but most stay the same (for points you get) and its just the closest one thats gets double points - shouldnt be that way at all imo!

Here are some examples to illistrate the problem - i know someone said if it aint broke dont fix it but honestly it is broke! Just look at this for proof -

Perfect pick for hot bout (Mir 49% Lesnar 51%) - 22 points

Perfect pick for close bout (Eastman 41% Martin 59%) - 11 points

Perfect pick for biggest underdog (Heath 79% Boetsch 21%) - 11 points

Perfect pick for biggest fave (Lytle 93% Bradley 7%) - 11 points

Is that balanced scoring? not imo!



I am right there with ya. I've been bringing up issues with the points system for months now on numerous posts...

I just hate for people to get the wrong idea though... I love this site/game...I'm really only trying to think of ways to improve it...but I'm content if it stays the same too. It seems like every time someone suggests something that could possibly improve the site they get heavily put down...
CornishMMA
2/22/08 5:07:50AM

Posted by npayant

I am right there with ya. I've been bringing up issues with the points system for months now on numerous posts...

I just hate for people to get the wrong idea though... I love this site/game...I'm really only trying to think of ways to improve it...but I'm content if it stays the same too. It seems like every time someone suggests something that could possibly improve the site they get heavily put down...


Yeah dude me too, totally, i just think there can always be improvements made to most things and we should never be afraid to evolve, id just like it to be as perfect as it can be so that the best people at picking fights actually win, id say at the mo that doesnt neccesarily happen what with a hot bout win vs a harder pick win
zephead
2/22/08 3:03:10PM
Do the Spidey Dance (Post on You Tube) and you just might get what you want
gsquat
2/22/08 4:28:00PM
Yes on both Underdog and 50/50 fights, but especially for the latter. As your risk of being wrong goes up so should your reward... which really applies to both I guess, but you get my point.
wolfman
2/22/08 4:45:23PM

Posted by CornishMMA

Oh and wolfman - no i didnt really bring the hot bout problem into this but thats a good point, comparing the double points for a hot bout with no extra points for Boetsch is just wrong

Quite often there are 3 or 4 close fights with even picks, but most stay the same (for points you get) and its just the closest one thats gets double points - shouldnt be that way at all imo!

Here are some examples to illistrate the problem - i know someone said if it aint broke dont fix it but honestly it is broke! Just look at this for proof -

Perfect pick for hot bout (Mir 49% Lesnar 51%) - 22 points

Perfect pick for close bout (Eastman 41% Martin 59%) - 11 points

Perfect pick for biggest underdog (Heath 79% Boetsch 21%) - 11 points

Perfect pick for biggest fave (Lytle 93% Bradley 7%) - 11 points


Is that balanced scoring? not imo!



Good example to show the risk involved. I also reread your first post, and did notice that you did not mention making the hot bouts worth more points. I just misinterpreted what you said, because you mentioned Lesnar/Mir and that was the hot bout for that event. You then went on and mentioned the Cote/Drew fight as well. So, you were specifically talking about "close" bouts, fights that could go either way.

Also, it seems like most on here want to see a change. I will also reiterate what has been said, this place features and excellent mma fantasy game and is the best one out there. Yet, I think for next season a new point system needs to be incorporated. Again, as mentioned before, if the change does not come I will also be fine with it. I just can't help but notice the flaws that CornishMMA and others have pointed out.
wolfman
2/22/08 4:47:26PM

Posted by zephead

Do the Spidey Dance (Post on You Tube) and you just might get what you want



CornishMMA
2/23/08 11:06:18AM

Posted by wolfman


Posted by CornishMMA

Oh and wolfman - no i didnt really bring the hot bout problem into this but thats a good point, comparing the double points for a hot bout with no extra points for Boetsch is just wrong

Quite often there are 3 or 4 close fights with even picks, but most stay the same (for points you get) and its just the closest one thats gets double points - shouldnt be that way at all imo!

Here are some examples to illistrate the problem - i know someone said if it aint broke dont fix it but honestly it is broke! Just look at this for proof -

Perfect pick for hot bout (Mir 49% Lesnar 51%) - 22 points

Perfect pick for close bout (Eastman 41% Martin 59%) - 11 points

Perfect pick for biggest underdog (Heath 79% Boetsch 21%) - 11 points

Perfect pick for biggest fave (Lytle 93% Bradley 7%) - 11 points


Is that balanced scoring? not imo!



Good example to show the risk involved. I also reread your first post, and did notice that you did not mention making the hot bouts worth more points. I just misinterpreted what you said, because you mentioned Lesnar/Mir and that was the hot bout for that event. You then went on and mentioned the Cote/Drew fight as well. So, you were specifically talking about "close" bouts, fights that could go either way.

Also, it seems like most on here want to see a change. I will also reiterate what has been said, this place features and excellent mma fantasy game and is the best one out there. Yet, I think for next season a new point system needs to be incorporated. Again, as mentioned before, if the change does not come I will also be fine with it. I just can't help but notice the flaws that CornishMMA and others have pointed out.


Yeah dude i mean its just a bit unbalanced as it is, you get the rewards for wagers but not picks and thats the crux of the issue for me
CornishMMA
2/25/08 10:25:13AM
And its only MMA PLAYGROUND VERSION 2.0 there is still plenty to get even better at and i dont think the admin should be scared to change things, it works now, but it would work better with that system
CornishMMA
3/13/08 11:38:43AM
Im sure it would be really difficult to get the site to work right to do it this way and i know nothing about website programming etc, and the main problem with this that the points awarded would change as people changed their picks (but this is how the wagers work as well), but what i really think would be perfect (after much thought about it) would be to get rid of 1 hot bout and replace with a fairer system

The reward points you get for picks to be the same as what you get for wagers (to a degree), you get better or worse odds for the same things that you should get more or less points

So those Heavy favourites and obvious picks (like Lytle over Bradley[93%] - maybe 81-100%) would be worth 3 points (2 less than currently)

Strong favourites (like Gurgel over Halverson[67%] - maybe 61-80%) would be worth 4 points (1 less tan currently)

Even fights (like Silva Hendo, maybe 41-60%?) would be worth 5 points (current, but 1 would be hot bout worth 10!!!)

Strong underdogs (like Luigo over Cummo[30%] - maybe 21-40%) would be worth 7 points (current is just 5 for getting a hard pick right!)

Heavy underdogs (like Rivera over Grove[14%] - 1-20% would be worth 10 points (what is currently given for getting a 50/50 correct, this IMO should be given to someone who picks a very tough pick like this!)

Any thoughts on this people?
CornishMMA
3/18/08 12:06:22PM


do people not understand it or something?

Ok heres a new example to help people see what the problem is

UFC 83 picks -

Morris 42%
Valasquez 58%

Clementi 47%
Stout 53%

Now then .............. the way it is now only the closest fight will be the hot bout and worth double points

1 member could get [Clementi 1 sub] perfect and get 22 points for that but pick Morris and he lose

Equally

1 member could pick Clementi and lose but gets [Morris 1 KO] perfect but he only gets 11 points

That is such a vast swing but what is the same kind of pick and result

If you used my system they would have equal points!
wolfman
3/18/08 12:57:05PM
I think the new system you mentioned is a good idea. I like your ideas, for both the underdog picks and close bouts. It is a big risk to take when picking an underdog, especially when the fighter is a huge underdog.
CornishMMA
3/18/08 3:34:59PM

Posted by wolfman

I think the new system you mentioned is a good idea. I like your ideas, for both the underdog picks and close bouts. It is a big risk to take when picking an underdog, especially when the fighter is a huge underdog.


But the favourites picks have to factor as well, it needs to be a sliding scale if you see what i mean, you can still give the same amount of points for the round and the method but that little tweak would just make it all alot better

Only people who always win hot bouts want to keep them, ive seen a lot of people not happy with it before and the more i think about it and compare it with my system the more im sure having 1 fight worth double is wrong and only 2 extra points for a <20% underdog is wrong

And that risk you mention isnt credited in points MOST of the time, great example was Boetsch over Heath, instead i got the same points for that as i did for Lytle over Bradley, the rewards should no way be the same for those picks , FACT ffs
CornishMMA
3/18/08 3:38:14PM

Posted by CornishMMA

So those Heavy favourites and obvious picks (like Lytle over Bradley[93%] - maybe 81-100%) would be worth 3 points (2 less than currently)

Strong favourites (like Gurgel over Halverson[67%] - maybe 61-80%) would be worth 4 points (1 less tan currently)

Even fights (like Silva Hendo, maybe 41-60%?) would be worth 5 points (current, but 1 would be hot bout worth 10!!!)

Strong underdogs (like Luigo over Cummo[30%] - maybe 21-40%) would be worth 7 points (current is just 5 for getting a hard pick right!)

Heavy underdogs (like Rivera over Grove[14%] - 1-20% would be worth 10 points (what is currently given for getting a 50/50 correct, this IMO should be given to someone who picks a very tough pick like this!)

Any thoughts on this people?


See thats the deal maker in bold. As it is you would get 7 points for that HARDEST kind of pick BUT you would get 10 points for an EASIER pick (hot bout)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
wolfman
3/18/08 3:48:14PM
I'm confused, I was agreeing with you Cornish. I was just reitertating that picking a huge underdog is a huge risk to take. Ultimately, meaning I think we need a change in the point system as well. I also agree with your view on the hot bout, it is obviously nice to get 22 points off a close fight. However, it is a little drastic. It has been mentioned that the hot bout is used to break ties, as there is a good chance for a lot of similar scores. Yet, I think your new system could work just as well as the current system, if not even better at breaking possible ties.

Hot bouts can have a huge impact. I nailed 6 of the 8 fights of the DREAM event, but missed the crucial hot bout. 70% of the site had Alvarez to win, yet it was the hot bout. I know, the hot bout is the closest fight on the card, yet I think there should not be a hot bout if that is the case. It is crazy how much of an impact the hot bout can have. If I picked the hot bout right I would still have the same feelings towards it. So, don't try and say I am mad because I didn't get the fight right. I just feel that something needs to be changed regarding the hot bouts and underdogs as well.
CornishMMA
3/19/08 8:13:40AM
ive got a few perfect hots before and thats the times ive done best on events but i still think its wrong

Oh and i wasnt arguing with you its just you only mentioned 2/3 of the different picks and was just making clearer that it needs to be a sliding scale, yes you need more points for underdog points but in the same way you need less points for clear fave picks

I might make up a detailed example re-scoring an event with the current system and my new system
wolfman
3/19/08 8:17:26AM

Posted by CornishMMA

ive got a few perfect hots before and thats the times ive done best on events but i still think its wrong

Oh and i wasnt arguing with you its just you only mentioned 2/3 of the different picks and was just making clearer that it needs to be a sliding scale, yes you need more points for underdog points but in the same way you need less points for clear fave picks

I might make up a detailed example re-scoring an event with the current system and my new system



Oh, I see now. Yeah, that would be a good idea to add an example.
CornishMMA
3/19/08 3:43:34PM
Might do that tomorrow then

Tho i wish there were some more people reading this
People prolly dont realise it could be made better, it was said before but should be reiterated, THIS SITE IS GREAT and the game is really good, everything evolves and improves and id like to see the scoring system do the same
Jipper
3/20/08 10:59:49AM
The playground has the best scoring system I've seen out of many fantasy sites. I hate to say mess with a good thing but there's always room for improvement.
CornishMMA
3/20/08 11:50:00AM

Posted by Jipper

The playground has the best scoring system I've seen out of many fantasy sites. I hate to say mess with a good thing but there's always room for improvement.


Exactly bud and they have been doing that with the recent introduction of +2 points for strong underdogs, and my system is along those lines, its just better and more detailed as i dont think 2 points is enough of a reward, think it was hippysmacker who made the point that they would get it when most didnt but thats missing the point cos you may not do so well with the other fights
npayant
3/21/08 1:07:53PM
I REALLY like your ideas! Especially about making the 1 close fight (hot bout) worth 10 points...

My gripe about the current hot bout is that the possibility of getting 22 points or 0 on the other hand, is just too big a swing. It can take you out of contention with one wrong pick. You basically have to nail EVERY hot bout if you even are thinking (or dreaming!) about a top place at the end of the season!

IMO, the hot bout is already the most contested bout... if you win and get 10 points, that's a bigger advantage than it may seem. For example, say the bout was 51% to 49% --- If you picked it right and you were in the 49% category, then over half of the people on this site didn't get those 10 points... that's already huge right there... But on the other hand, if you by chance get it wrong (which is very easy to do on some of those hot bouts), you won't necessarily be totally out of it for the rest of the season...

Just my two cents...I'm sure I'll add more later...

CornishMMA
3/23/08 8:45:42AM

Posted by npayant

I REALLY like your ideas! Especially about making the 1 close fight (hot bout) worth 10 points...

My gripe about the current hot bout is that the possibility of getting 22 points or 0 on the other hand, is just too big a swing. It can take you out of contention with one wrong pick. You basically have to nail EVERY hot bout if you even are thinking (or dreaming!) about a top place at the end of the season!

IMO, the hot bout is already the most contested bout... if you win and get 10 points, that's a bigger advantage than it may seem. For example, say the bout was 51% to 49% --- If you picked it right and you were in the 49% category, then over half of the people on this site didn't get those 10 points... that's already huge right there... But on the other hand, if you by chance get it wrong (which is very easy to do on some of those hot bouts), you won't necessarily be totally out of it for the rest of the season...

Just my two cents...I'm sure I'll add more later...



Ahh but actually dude i dont think any 1 close fight should be worth more points than any other close fight, thats what the new system shows, cos you could have a 51-49 hot bout and then a 53-47 close fight worth normal points, they are no different and should be scored the same, THATS whats wrong with having 1 fight as the hot bout

In my system those fights would be worth more points (5 for winner) than getting an easier pick right but still LESS than getting an even harder pick right (picking an underdog)
Pages: [1] 2
Related Topics