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
« Previous 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)
emfleek
3/23/08 10:56:14AM
I say leave it how it is. Like it was stated before...if it's not broken, don't fix it.
CornishMMA
3/24/08 1:58:23PM

Posted by emfleek

I say leave it how it is. Like it was stated before...if it's not broken, don't fix it.


Sigh .............. LOL its like groundhog day!

But dude, it IS broke, as has been explained in response to the 1st person who said that!


Posted by CornishMMA

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!


Getting the same amount of points for Boetsch over Heath that you do for Lytle over Bradley shows that its broke, not badly broke, but its not the best scoring system and could be improved still, like all things

Tell me how the current system is better than the system im proposing and il admit defeat but im positive it is better and would make it so the best "PICKER" wins this game, not just the luckiest with 50/50 fights

Maybe still have a hot bout for the closest fight, but dont have it worth total double, just winner double (so a max of 16 instead of 22)

OK

to try and explain it for people to better understand the problems and issues to be fixed i will use that quoted example

say 1 member got Eastman and Boetsch as perfect picks, they would only get 22 points for 1 tricky pick and 1 very impressive pick that should be rewarded

now

another member got Mir and Lytle perfect, they would get 33 points! thats for 1 tricky pick (yes slightly trickier than the other one but not by much!) and 1 very easy pick

See the problem now?
tap_or_snap
3/26/08 11:47:08PM
I personally would like to see the whole hot bouts and underdog things done away with, just a straight 5 points for a win, 3 for method and 2 for round making ten points total available per fight.
CornishMMA
3/27/08 9:06:38AM

Posted by tap_or_snap

I personally would like to see the whole hot bouts and underdog things done away with, just a straight 5 points for a win, 3 for method and 2 for round making ten points total available per fight.


That would be better than the current system imo but still not quite as good as my system

You would still have 1 guy getting a Lytle over Bradley easy pick right and getting 5 points and 1 guy who picked the very tough pick of Boetsch over Heath only getting 5 points for what is a much harder pick. And there would be more people drawing on points, why would anyone pick an underdog if theres no reward for doing so?

I just dont see how points should be any different to the amount of money you win with wagers, wagering on an underdog pays off but picking him doesnt!??!?

To futher illustrate my point and prove once and for all that my system is lterally better i will score those fights under my system -

CURRENT SYSTEM

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

NEW SYSTEM

Perfect pick for what was hot bout and is now just a close bout (Mir 49% Lesnar 51%) - 11 points

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

Perfect pick for biggest underdog (Heath 79% Boetsch 21%) - 13 points

Perfect pick for biggest fave (Lytle 93% Bradley 7%) - 9 points

so under that lets do the same thing -

say 1 member got Eastman and Boetsch as perfect picks, they would get 24 points for 1 tricky pick and 1 very impressive pick that should be rewarded

now

another member got Mir and Lytle perfect, they would get 20 points! thats for 1 tricky pick (yes slightly trickier than the other one but not by much!) and 1 very easy pick

See how its now the right way around?

emfleek
3/27/08 9:26:50AM
I don't disagree with what you're saying, Cornish. In fact, if the mods were to put it to a vote, I would vote along with you.

However, I'm still fine with the way the game is currently set up.

It's along the same lines of using the DH in baseball. I don't mind the usage of a DH in the AL. BUT...if I had a vote that could possibly change it, I would vote against it because I think the pitcher should get AB's.
CornishMMA
3/27/08 10:16:49AM
I spose im "fine with it" as well really, of course everyone is, but thats not to say improvements cant or shouldnt be made

In fact those examples i used would actually hurt my score i picked Mir perfect so would have 11 less points there, and 2 points more for Boetsch, but for all those people who picked Lesnar yet got Eastman perfect this would be better and overall fairer

Im just looking for the best pickers to win, and when theres such a vast swing in points between fights like that that are both close it just doesnt seem fair

ps - in english so have no idea about your baseball fantasy game, LOL at me totally clueless to all those abbreviations, DH? AL? AB????
emfleek
3/27/08 10:21:32AM

Posted by CornishMMA

I spose im "fine with it" as well really, of course everyone is, but thats not to say improvements cant or shouldnt be made

In fact those examples i used would actually hurt my score i picked Mir perfect so would have 11 less points there, and 2 points more for Boetsch, but for all those people who picked Lesnar yet got Eastman perfect this would be better and overall fairer

Im just looking for the best pickers to win, and when theres such a vast swing in points between fights like that that are both close it just doesnt seem fair

ps - in english so have no idea about your baseball fantasy game, LOL at me totally clueless to all those abbreviations, DH? AL? AB????



Ha...my bad. In American baseball, there are two leagues of teams that make up Major League Baseball.

American League
National League

The champions of each league face off in the World Series.

The major difference between the 2 leagues is that in the American League, pitchers don't bat. There's a "designated hitter" that bats in place of where the pitcher were to bat if they were to be in the National League.

And like stated before...in the National League, the pitcher bats as well as pitches.

I don't know if that helps or if you even care, but that's basically it.
CornishMMA
3/27/08 10:33:42AM
Its just not cricket is it?

I guess you are just an indifferent individual emfleek If you went on a bad run of getting hot bouts wrong but other close fights right then you would want my system in place

Sometimes i want to pick an underdog but dont feel its really worth it not getting anymore points, UFCFN is a great example with Alves and Maynard, they are both around 25% which with the current system would not give you any extra points but with mine would get you 2 extra (tho i fancy making those worth 8 instead of 7)

At the very least PLEASE take out double points for outcomes on hot bouts! 16 points max instead of 22
tap_or_snap
3/27/08 10:38:54AM

Posted by CornishMMA


Posted by tap_or_snap

I personally would like to see the whole hot bouts and underdog things done away with, just a straight 5 points for a win, 3 for method and 2 for round making ten points total available per fight.


That would be better than the current system imo but still not quite as good as my system

You would still have 1 guy getting a Lytle over Bradley easy pick right and getting 5 points and 1 guy who picked the very tough pick of Boetsch over Heath only getting 5 points for what is a much harder pick. And there would be more people drawing on points, why would anyone pick an underdog if theres no reward for doing so?

I just dont see how points should be any different to the amount of money you win with wagers, wagering on an underdog pays off but picking him doesnt!??!?

To futher illustrate my point and prove once and for all that my system is lterally better i will score those fights under my system -

CURRENT SYSTEM

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

NEW SYSTEM

Perfect pick for what was hot bout and is now just a close bout (Mir 49% Lesnar 51%) - 11 points

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

Perfect pick for biggest underdog (Heath 79% Boetsch 21%) - 13 points

Perfect pick for biggest fave (Lytle 93% Bradley 7%) - 9 points

so under that lets do the same thing -

say 1 member got Eastman and Boetsch as perfect picks, they would get 24 points for 1 tricky pick and 1 very impressive pick that should be rewarded

now

another member got Mir and Lytle perfect, they would get 20 points! thats for 1 tricky pick (yes slightly trickier than the other one but not by much!) and 1 very easy pick

See how its now the right way around?




Cornish i suggested points awarded be statistically propotional to the stats page in a thread about a month back and got completely flamed, it seems to me people dont want points in direct statistical proportion to the stats page, someone made a good point about if the points awarded are in proportion to the percentages then its just another form of the wager game but with lower numbers (minus the horrible game ruining parlay function).

I personally really like your system, its like a watered down system of what i was suggesting . i originally suggested that the percentages should be changeded into points but in reverse. I quickly came to the conclusion that if a system like that was implemented then it would break the game and considered piecing somthing together along the lines of where you are currently at but as every other suggestion i made was met with a loud "hands off!! leave the game alone its fine as it is!!" i decided not to bother. That said your system has been met with some approval so you can count me as a supporter.

As for who would pick an underdog when there is no extra points available well the only time i pick an underdog is when i think the general concenssus is wrong and hes going to win, the extra points dont come into it at all so while i like your system im still not sure of whether it beats the one i suggested above, Im not sure as i wasnt in on the thread from the start but it seems you have modified your system as the thread has gone on. maybe you should start a new thread with a vote with a clear statement of your system (just like the post above, as its a lot more convincing than the first post on this thread), i think you might have more success if you did that. You could also add the system i suggested to the vote as well as "keep the game the same"??
tap_or_snap
3/27/08 10:45:44AM
OOOh while we are at it i see your system still includes the +2 for getting everything correct, i really dont like this i just think its to big a gap between getting the winner and method (7) and the winner method and round (11), even worse is a hot bout when that 4 pts is turned into 8.

You will also notice above that i see method as being worth more than round, anyone else agree with that?

CornishMMA
3/27/08 12:08:15PM
Yeah dude i totally agree, 90% of the time we just have to guess the round, sometimes you can see a fighter will finish it in the 1st if they will win cos they start fighting very hard but yeah most of the time its just a toss up and guess.
it would also be a good idea to get rid of the bonus points for perfects but maybe a good compromise would be to halve them?

Posted by tap_or_snap

I personally really like your system, its like a watered down system of what i was suggesting . i originally suggested that the percentages should be changeded into points but in reverse. I quickly came to the conclusion that if a system like that was implemented then it would break the game and considered piecing somthing together along the lines of where you are currently at but as every other suggestion i made was met with a loud "hands off!! leave the game alone its fine as it is!!" i decided not to bother. That said your system has been met with some approval so you can count me as a supporter.

As for who would pick an underdog when there is no extra points available well the only time i pick an underdog is when i think the general concenssus is wrong and hes going to win, the extra points dont come into it at all so while i like your system im still not sure of whether it beats the one i suggested above, Im not sure as i wasnt in on the thread from the start but it seems you have modified your system as the thread has gone on. maybe you should start a new thread with a vote with a clear statement of your system (just like the post above, as its a lot more convincing than the first post on this thread), i think you might have more success if you did that. You could also add the system i suggested to the vote as well as "keep the game the same"??


Must have missed that thread, but yeah alot of the time people are scared of change and cos this site is so kickass as it is most people will just assume theres no need to change anything, i agree as far as it isnt detrimental or anything but all things should evolve and improve imo

Interesting point about it becoming like the wagers system tho, i never thought about it like that, but i dunno, i mean they are similar games as it is

Yeah i didnt mean i would pick dogs if you get more points, its just sometimes you think they have a fair chance to win and know you would leap frog alot of members getting that one right, but 90% of the time you fail in those picks, so the 1 time out of 10 where it does come in you wanna get bonus points for it

Good idea but i was thinking about doing that soon, i wanna wait and refine it a bit more, would also like some admin/mod feedback on it. I think the main problem and issue with it would be that when people change their picks the points you get would change and so then people may want to change their picks again and the reward isnt equal to the risk
CornishMMA
3/27/08 12:32:51PM
Going into more depth with that underdog points thing you said about. Svartorm posted this -

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 what i see is, all the times the underdog pick DOESNT come in then 75% of the site is getting the points and you arent, so with those Alves and Maynard picks its SAFER and makes more sense to go with the faves (unless you are sure they will win) cos at least then you wont lose points where 75% of the site gains them, i just think that sometimes the allure of an extra 3 points for that kind of pick may just make it worth the risk (Karo would win you 4 points and Alves would win you 7 points)

I was going to pick those guys cos i think they will win (but im only like 55/45) but cos of the scoring i dont think it makes sense. Problem with what Svartorm posted is what about if you didnt do well with other fights? You fall behind despite having made a ballsy pick, AND its very rare a <20% underdog wil win, its the 21-40% picked underdogs that im wanting to be scored extra with
wolfman
3/27/08 12:49:04PM
I don't have much to add, but I think your new system is better than the current system in place as it appears to be more fair.
tap_or_snap
3/27/08 2:42:22PM
I think any of the followingor close alternatives world be nice:

#1.

80-100% = 3pts
60-80% = 4pts
40-60% = 5pts
20-40% = 6pts
0-20% = 7pts

+3 for method, +2 for round, no hot bouts

or

#2.

40-100% = 5pts
20-40% = 6pts
0-20% = 7pts

+3 for method, +2 for round, no hot bouts

or

#3.

60-100% = 4pts
40-60% = 5pts
0-40% = 6pts

+3 for method, +2 for round, no hot bouts

or

#4.

5 pts per winner, +3 for method, +2 for round, no hot bouts
CornishMMA
3/28/08 7:20:40AM
Hmmm well i prefer #1 but would like more points with the underdogs, id change this - 20-40% = =7/8pts and 0-20% = 10pts

BUT #1 would be hard with 5 areas changing alot, so maybe having 3 areas would be best so more like #3, but have it like this - 1-30%/31-70%/71-100% - for something like 10/7/4 points?

#4 would prolly be the most popolar as its the closest to what we have now but it still doesnt solve the issue is getting the same amount of points for a really easy pick that you do for a really hard pick

All the times you pick a <20% dog and he doesnt win tho you need to have the +80% guys to get less points, then the rare times it does come in, you leap frog them with 10-15 points, making that kind of pick should be rewarded greatly imo

Obviously the Boetsch example is a good one, alot of people thought they were getting 2 bonus points but then it just tipped to 21% and ruined that, but its still a ballsy pick and going against a vast majority, and i didnt get any reward, then an easier pick (eastman) that i got wrong has alot of people getting the amount of points that i did and equally me, even tho i got a harder pick right

Might leave it for now and start a fresh after UFC FN as there might be some good examples with that, its getting a bit headachey now
Kracker_Jap
3/29/08 8:38:11PM
In a way this new system already is in play via the betteing part of the game

But I do like the Idea.... matbe it should be in the Secondary league first
bobbydoomocculta
6/4/08 9:46:10PM
I don't know... that system might make too many people pick the underdog... making him/her no longer an underdog... You'd have to wait around til just before fight time to make your picks... I don't think it could work...


Unless it was someone fighting a cardboard cut-out and you paid them to take a dive...
CornishMMA
6/5/08 2:26:03PM

Posted by bobbydoomocculta

I don't know... that system might make too many people pick the underdog... making him/her no longer an underdog... You'd have to wait around til just before fight time to make your picks... I don't think it could work...


Unless it was someone fighting a cardboard cut-out and you paid them to take a dive...


Nice one bobby for bumping this thread back up

YES that always was a worry for me but it could easily be worked out, they could take a count 24 hours before lock up and they stay the same as they were then - kind of thing yaknow?

Kind of like a preliminary lock up of picks %

But that general thing would be a good thing cos fights ARE closer than the picks always show on here, the lure of extra points would just make for more realistic % and odds imho
bobbydoomocculta
6/5/08 7:26:44PM

Posted by CornishMMA


Posted by bobbydoomocculta

I don't know... that system might make too many people pick the underdog... making him/her no longer an underdog... You'd have to wait around til just before fight time to make your picks... I don't think it could work...


Unless it was someone fighting a cardboard cut-out and you paid them to take a dive...


Nice one bobby for bumping this thread back up

YES that always was a worry for me but it could easily be worked out, they could take a count 24 hours before lock up and they stay the same as they were then - kind of thing yaknow?

Kind of like a preliminary lock up of picks %

But that general thing would be a good thing cos fights ARE closer than the picks always show on here, the lure of extra points would just make for more realistic % and odds imho



I'm starting to see where ya comin from... I might be swayed yet!
I mean it's not broke, but I guess it COULD be improved... Even though I often choose my picks a week or two in advance... I suppose I could get down with this new system if it was put into effect...
CornishMMA
6/6/08 7:05:45AM
I just think he can be made more detailed and a way in which its more to do with skill in picking than luck

You should get reward for correctly picking a guy who only 21% of the site pick, but as it is you get the same points as when its a CC over Sanchez type fight, just doesnt seem right yaknow

And fights are always more 50/50 than the picks % suggest, just look at the Affliction card!!!!!!!!!!!!
Whispering_Death
6/6/08 8:46:48AM
I would like to see more weight given to picking the correct fighter and less weight given to picking the correct round/method. Round particularly is way more about luck than it is about skill.

However, I'm going to guess this was not done because with 4,000-5,000 players per game it could result in more ties in the scoring.
CornishMMA
6/26/08 12:15:38PM
TTT for emfleek to read ..................... But also ......

I had another thought with the thing about the brackets changing alot as ppl change picks, whilst this is a bit of worry it could be helped with a pre lock like i said, it may mean ppl not able to check on the last day or even final hour may suffer but is that a total bad thing? cos then the more dedicated of us could get the edge in choosing which fighter with how many points you would? if you try harder, constantly checking your picks against its chances and odds/points then you will do better than the guy who just comes on a week before and makes his picks real quick just clicking any box for some of the fights and just happens to get them all right. i dunno just a thought about taking an element of luck out of the game and trying harder being rewarded a bit more?

I dont think many would change their picks based on how many points they would get, they will just pick who they think will win, but I tend to use the wager odds compared with their chance to win and this is the same kind of thing, a <20% underdog is rarely worth picking cos more often than not you lose, but even if you win all you get is a measly 2 points!

For what I think are 50/50 fights and a pure toss up, if the picks are 65/35 then if I know I can get more points for the 35 pick then that makes the more sense to choose, mind you at the mo i will do that anyway in a gamble to go ahead of 65% or behind them.

This whole thing would mean the picks are more EVEN, which is needed i think cos fights are always closer than the picks % suggests - point in case Afflictions Card! every fight bar the hot bout has a <20% dog! now if ppl thought they would get way more points they just might pick Bunetello to KO Alek.E etc
coldchillin
6/26/08 3:21:31PM
a bunch of people would be trying to pick the underdogs just for the extra points. I like the system now where if the guy is a big underdog, you get two extra points for picking him. I love the system how it is now and I think the majority of the people here think the same judging from the poll's numbers.
emfleek
6/26/08 3:23:46PM

Posted by coldchillin

a bunch of people would be trying to pick the underdogs just for the extra points. I like the system now where if the guy is a big underdog, you get two extra points for picking him. I love the system how it is now and I think the majority of the people here think the same judging from the poll's numbers.



If a bunch of people tried picking the underdogs, the underdog would no longer be an underdog. This would make the Underdog Pick a little more scarce, thus making it more of a reward when you actually get it right.

Bottom line...you should be rewarded MORE for an underdog pick than you should for a 50/50 toss-up pick (Hot Bout).
CornishMMA
6/27/08 7:38:49AM

Posted by emfleek


Posted by coldchillin

a bunch of people would be trying to pick the underdogs just for the extra points. I like the system now where if the guy is a big underdog, you get two extra points for picking him. I love the system how it is now and I think the majority of the people here think the same judging from the poll's numbers.



If a bunch of people tried picking the underdogs, the underdog would no longer be an underdog. This would make the Underdog Pick a little more scarce, thus making it more of a reward when you actually get it right.

Bottom line...you should be rewarded MORE for an underdog pick than you should for a 50/50 toss-up pick (Hot Bout).


Firstly the poll numbers are a tad surprising, i just think ppl either fear change or arent that bothered about the game or just dont understand the concept

emfleeks bottom line is EXACTLY correct and is what my system allows for, like i said i dont think many ppl would change picks based on points (say there are about 4000 members pickign each season, 90% are really casual and wont bother changing who they think will win cos they get more points, thats more of a smart thing for ppl who spend alot of time on here to do)

But 1 thing i dont think you are grasping is that EVEN IF alot of ppl did change to the underdog then that is JUST and CORRECT, cos its very rare there ever should be a big underdog like that, it would make the picks more even and fair, you still need to get more points for 25% guy pick than you do for a 95% pick, thats why something along my systems lines would make the game better imo
dsospanky
7/1/08 10:24:23AM
Not trying to be a jerk, but isn't that what the wagering system does?
Pages: 1 [2]
Related Topics