Underdog Bonus (your input/opinion is needed!)
MMAPlayground.com »
Community »
MMA Playground Game Talk »
Underdog Bonus (your input/opinion is needed!)
POLL: Underdog Bonus - worth the risk for just 2 points?
| Yes |    |
29% | (8) |
| No |    |
18% | (5) |
| If it were (x2) instead of (+2), then "yes". |    |
54% | (15) |
emfleek
6/26/08 11:42:33AM
Is the (+2) for an Underdog Bonus really worth it? Most times, the underdog is an underdog for a reason...he's expected to lose. So to go out on a limb, and more than likely get the pick wrong, for 2 extra points just doesn't seem worth it to me. I honestly don't think (and I could be wrong...maybe during one of my first couple of times picking fights here) I've ever picked the underdog.
2 points just doesn't seem worth it to me. Now, if it were 5 points (or even x2 like the Hot Bout) I would possibly consider it.
What do you think?
Personally, I think it should be switched around. Since the Hot Bouts are basically a toss-up, they should be issued the (+2) bonus and since you're going out on a limb when you pick an Underdog, I think you should get the (x2) bonus for that.
My apologies if this has been asked before. I searched and didn't find anything...but, of course, I didn't spend an hour looking, either.
2 points just doesn't seem worth it to me. Now, if it were 5 points (or even x2 like the Hot Bout) I would possibly consider it.
What do you think?
Personally, I think it should be switched around. Since the Hot Bouts are basically a toss-up, they should be issued the (+2) bonus and since you're going out on a limb when you pick an Underdog, I think you should get the (x2) bonus for that.
My apologies if this has been asked before. I searched and didn't find anything...but, of course, I didn't spend an hour looking, either.
CornishMMA
6/26/08 11:56:44AM
LOL bud you completly spaced on my thread on this whole thing that was around for a while, i will bump it for to read. It goes a bit more detailed and makes the case that not even the same points for a 25% and 95% pick isnt really fair and there should be some kind of sliding scale
But you make a good point here that it is really the wrong way around, id never really thought of that, it should be +2 for the closest fight and x2 for any serious underdog picks
But you make a good point here that it is really the wrong way around, id never really thought of that, it should be +2 for the closest fight and x2 for any serious underdog picks
emfleek
6/26/08 12:21:25PM
I remember your thread. I just prefer the way the picks/scoring is now, with the exception of the hot bout and underdog scoring. I like to follow along with my picks knowing exactly how many points I'm getting. I don't think your proposed system would really allow for that, would it?
I just don't think the scoring system needs to be all that complicated, that's all.
I just don't think the scoring system needs to be all that complicated, that's all.
Omega
6/26/08 12:37:59PM
Worth it? Not really but some people put great faith in certain underdogs. Look at the past year and how many underdogs actually won over favorites. It can determine on who gets top score and who doesn't.
grappler0000
6/26/08 12:48:21PM
The problem I see is that if there is too large of an incentive to pick an underdog, then more people would change their pick...and then it would no longer be an underdog.
CornishMMA
6/26/08 12:55:14PM
Posted by emfleek
I remember your thread. I just prefer the way the picks/scoring is now, with the exception of the hot bout and underdog scoring. I like to follow along with my picks knowing exactly how many points I'm getting. I don't think your proposed system would really allow for that, would it?
I just don't think the scoring system needs to be all that complicated, that's all.
Yes and i think i can see why actually
i went through your picks to try and find an example of a time when you picked an underdog correctly and thus didnt get more points than you did an easy fave pick on the card, but i couldnt find any so that makes sense cos you have said they arent worth doing etc, but there should still be an instance of a time when you picked a 25% guy correctly but DAMN IT all the classic examples ive used like Maynard or Boetsch you got wrong! But OK lets just say that if you did get more points maybe you would have picked those guys and more 20-40% picked guys?Also anyone not liking the hot bouts double points are also no doubt not winning them often enough for their liking, normally thats me and i dont like them but i just hit 2 perfect in a row so im loving them at the mo
But it wouldnt be as complicated as you seem to think and it wouldnt mean the points you would win would change that much cos i think most ppl (aka the more casual) will just pick who they think will win and not think about points etc, thats where the more dedicated of us take the advantage
CornishMMA
6/26/08 12:57:02PM
Posted by grappler0000
The problem I see is that if there is too large of an incentive to pick an underdog, then more people would change their pick...and then it would no longer be an underdog.
Kind of YES but thats what makes my system more suited cos there wont be this 20% cut off and its a sliding scale of points
But kind of NO like i just said cos most ppl wont change a pick cos of that they will pick who they think will win regardless
emfleek
6/26/08 1:38:00PM
Posted by grappler0000
The problem I see is that if there is too large of an incentive to pick an underdog, then more people would change their pick...and then it would no longer be an underdog.
Good point BUT I don't see that happening very often unless it's a Fitch/GSP-type matchup like we have coming up. And even if it did eliminate some of the underdog picks, so be it. It would make getting one right even more special, in my opinion.
Who's going to pick Wayne Weems in a fight just because there's a chance they might double their points? Mostly no one. But for those that have faith and just "KNOW" that he's going to win...they're rewarded for that pick with more than just 2 points.
Kpro
6/26/08 1:58:51PM
I remember a mod weighing in on this months back (I believe it was Svartorm) and saying something to the effect of, if you picked the underdog, not only are you getting the +2, but you are getting at least 5 points more than at least 80% of the playground for picking the winner, plus a potential extra 2-6 if you can guess round and stoppage.
So you're actually getting 7-13 points more than over 80% of the playground which is key in getting into the Top 10.
Just tossing out a different perspective.
So you're actually getting 7-13 points more than over 80% of the playground which is key in getting into the Top 10.
Just tossing out a different perspective.
emfleek
6/26/08 2:10:42PM
Posted by Kpro
I remember a mod weighing in on this months back (I believe it was Svartorm) and saying something to the effect of, if you picked the underdog, not only are you getting the +2, but you are getting at least 5 points more than at least 80% of the playground for picking the winner, plus a potential extra 2-6 if you can guess round and stoppage.
So you're actually getting 7-13 points more than over 80% of the playground which is key in getting into the Top 10.
Just tossing out a different perspective.
Ahh...another good point.
But why such a high reward for a 50/50 (Hot Bout) pick?
npayant
6/26/08 2:26:17PM
I totally agree and have always thought that it should be the other way around (+2 or 5 for the hot bout and X2 for the heavy underdogs). It just makes sense:
A bout that is close to 50/50 is obviously a very contested bout and a lot of time could literally go either way. If you by chance pick it wrong, it ruins your whole event point-wise for the most part. When it's a 50/50 pick, there isn't as much "skill" in picking the winner because it's a toss up a lot of times.
NOW, if you pick someone who is a heavy underdog because you've done your research and you're positive he can pull off the "upset," you should be rewarded MORE because you were "smarter" than over 80% of the people on here.
I definitely think this is a needed change for down the road! Why not give it a shot in the secondary league first to see how people like it?
Just my opinion...
A bout that is close to 50/50 is obviously a very contested bout and a lot of time could literally go either way. If you by chance pick it wrong, it ruins your whole event point-wise for the most part. When it's a 50/50 pick, there isn't as much "skill" in picking the winner because it's a toss up a lot of times.
NOW, if you pick someone who is a heavy underdog because you've done your research and you're positive he can pull off the "upset," you should be rewarded MORE because you were "smarter" than over 80% of the people on here.
I definitely think this is a needed change for down the road! Why not give it a shot in the secondary league first to see how people like it?
Just my opinion...
emfleek
6/26/08 2:27:31PM
Posted by npayant
I totally agree and have always thought that it should be the other way around (+2 or 5 for the hot bout and X2 for the heavy underdogs). It just makes sense:
A bout that is close to 50/50 is obviously a very contested bout and a lot of time could literally go either way. If you by chance pick it wrong, it ruins your whole event point-wise for the most part. When it's a 50/50 pick, there isn't as much "skill" in picking the winner because it's a toss up a lot of times.
NOW, if you pick someone who is a heavy underdog because you've done your research and you're positive he can pull off the "upset," you should be rewarded MORE because you were "smarter" than over 80% of the people on here.
I definitely think this is a needed change for down the road! Why not give it a shot in the secondary league first to see how people like it?
Just my opinion...
Well said!
tap_or_snap
6/26/08 4:05:36PM
I've suggested the idea that points should be proportional to percentages in the past and then when Cornish brought it up I supported the idea but right now I'm of the mind that the percentages are basically subjective to opinion and often favour the name fighter so basing points off them imo is a bad idea.
Also, like many have said not just in this thread but others in the past that simplicity and being able to score as you watch without the aid of a scientific calculator is part of the charm of the site. God knows most people cant even manage this, just check out some of the play by play threads, people post what points they got then when the results come up they end up with 10-20 points less than what they said they had.
My personal gripe with the scoring system is that I think bonuses for underdogs or double points on hot bouts are unnecessary and truthfully imo ruin the site.
With regards the hot bout I think its a complete joke, the notion is that the hot bout should be the most competitive fight but by virtue of the fact that picks are subjective and often name fighter favoured it often doesn't end up that way, take the last ufc as an example, to the knowledgeable player fisher-Stephens was clearly the toughest fight to pick but by virtue of the stats Stephens got a +2!!??
Then there's the situation when by some small miracle the most competitive fight has ended up the hot bout, then you have a situation were the closest to 50/50 fight on the card offers by far the biggest pay out, totally counter productive to a system that's supposed to favour the best picker.
The mods pedal this ridiculous notion that the double points is there to create some disparity but when you have ten events counting to a season more than enough disparity already exists, yes you may have 17 people tieing for first place on a specific event if the hot bouts were scraped but at the end of the season there would be a clear winner, until we have 2 million people consistently making picks there is no need for a system like this.
With regards the underdog bonuses, as far as I'm concerned standard points for the dog picker is reward enough in itself considering 80%+ got no points from that fight.
Also I totally hate the +2 for everything right, you already get +2 for getting the extra component, over 50% more points for someone who gets the round, method and winner than someone who gets just the method and winner imo is too much (7 vs 11 which makes 3.5=50% for the mathematically illiterate).
Lastly, this may be me being OCD but I don't like the fact that the max points is an odd number, id rather see 6,2,2 or 6,3,1 (winner, method, rnd) for a per fight total of 10 with no bonus for everything right (its only 3 components for gods sake, defo doesn't warrant a bonus, especially as the round is often a luck heavy component).
Oh and one last thing, b4 svartorn comes in and tells me if I don't like the way things are run here I should start my own site, if I had the spare time or disposable cash I totally would but until then, sorry but I'll just have to stick to bitching about the way the playground is run thanks
Also, like many have said not just in this thread but others in the past that simplicity and being able to score as you watch without the aid of a scientific calculator is part of the charm of the site. God knows most people cant even manage this, just check out some of the play by play threads, people post what points they got then when the results come up they end up with 10-20 points less than what they said they had.
My personal gripe with the scoring system is that I think bonuses for underdogs or double points on hot bouts are unnecessary and truthfully imo ruin the site.
With regards the hot bout I think its a complete joke, the notion is that the hot bout should be the most competitive fight but by virtue of the fact that picks are subjective and often name fighter favoured it often doesn't end up that way, take the last ufc as an example, to the knowledgeable player fisher-Stephens was clearly the toughest fight to pick but by virtue of the stats Stephens got a +2!!??
Then there's the situation when by some small miracle the most competitive fight has ended up the hot bout, then you have a situation were the closest to 50/50 fight on the card offers by far the biggest pay out, totally counter productive to a system that's supposed to favour the best picker.
The mods pedal this ridiculous notion that the double points is there to create some disparity but when you have ten events counting to a season more than enough disparity already exists, yes you may have 17 people tieing for first place on a specific event if the hot bouts were scraped but at the end of the season there would be a clear winner, until we have 2 million people consistently making picks there is no need for a system like this.
With regards the underdog bonuses, as far as I'm concerned standard points for the dog picker is reward enough in itself considering 80%+ got no points from that fight.
Also I totally hate the +2 for everything right, you already get +2 for getting the extra component, over 50% more points for someone who gets the round, method and winner than someone who gets just the method and winner imo is too much (7 vs 11 which makes 3.5=50% for the mathematically illiterate).
Lastly, this may be me being OCD but I don't like the fact that the max points is an odd number, id rather see 6,2,2 or 6,3,1 (winner, method, rnd) for a per fight total of 10 with no bonus for everything right (its only 3 components for gods sake, defo doesn't warrant a bonus, especially as the round is often a luck heavy component).
Oh and one last thing, b4 svartorn comes in and tells me if I don't like the way things are run here I should start my own site, if I had the spare time or disposable cash I totally would but until then, sorry but I'll just have to stick to bitching about the way the playground is run thanks
hippysmacker
6/26/08 8:56:11PM
I guess I like it the way it is. I also think thzat poll is skewed as more options like" It sepends on the underdog" r " I like it the way it is on the whole" might have been added. To me the underdog in question is always the key . Even a " if the underdog is a massive underdog( like 80/20) and shold get 3 undedog points is a option. Then you open yourself up to more people who are way behind just being the huge underdog late in the season to sneak out a better perentage/ or win as a possibility. In the end I like it the way it is.
Rush
6/26/08 9:49:47PM
I have no problem. I'll probably never win another event ever regardless of the scoring so....
holt8081
6/27/08 1:07:45AM
maybe +5 points would be good.
CornishMMA
6/27/08 7:53:07AM
My system means that even if ppl do then pick the <20% dog to get more points then he becomes a 20-40% pick which still gives more points than an easier pick. If you have this total cut off point then it will rarely factor in, at least if its a sliding scale score then more picks will be more fair and even
But yes my system also makes the case that the closest fight shouldnt be rewarded the most, so clearly the hot bout shouldnt be worth double points when these huge underdogs are only worth 2!
The % wouldnt change as much as ppl think, you would need to have hundreds of ppl change their pick for the brackets to change, and even when they do the difference is only a few points which most ppl arent bothered about if they think that fighter will win (5 brackets are each 20%)
But yes my system also makes the case that the closest fight shouldnt be rewarded the most, so clearly the hot bout shouldnt be worth double points when these huge underdogs are only worth 2!
The % wouldnt change as much as ppl think, you would need to have hundreds of ppl change their pick for the brackets to change, and even when they do the difference is only a few points which most ppl arent bothered about if they think that fighter will win (5 brackets are each 20%)