|
|
This thread also displays on the following board(s):
Calgary
&
Edmonton
&
Saskatoon
|
|
That means I'm still a beginner right?
that's cool, thanks Simon!
|
|
|
how did i get 5 points ???
i lost every match
|
|
|
Those are spirit points Daniel!
|
|
|
The beauty of the points system, or downfall of it, which ever you prefer is this.
Phil Peros finished 13th in Open Singles and 9th in Open doubles.
Lol....and get this lol... He went from 1500-1556.
A head scratcher.
|
|
|
Lmao this is even sweeter. Warren V. Finished 3rd in Open doubles, and get this lost 124 points ahahah. I heard he went out of pro singles and pro dubs early cause he was focusing on Open. But wow, 3rd in Open Doubles and lose 124 points!! I know guys that would retire happy if they finished 3rd in Open at the hof or worlds.
|
|
|
I think both Darrel Popwich & Matt Botros did some serious Sandbagging: They both got 9th in Open Doubles and 3rd in Pro Doubles (Matt even got 7th in Expert Doubles which isn't bad); and they only got an increase of 113 & 103, respectively. Which is really funny considering that Matt got less points and he's the lower rated player (an Expert compared to a Pro).
Sorry Dave, but I think all Singles proves is that someone can control garbage better than someone else (which is only one aspect of real Fooz). Therefore, I don't think singles should even be used to rate a player (with it's limited Shot reading and Defenses): crap, if you're going to include Singles why not use Goalie Wars & Forward shoot out to rate player then too.... lol
|
|
|
I find it funny that, after all the years of "instructional opportunities" offered by USTSA, ITSF, and Mary Moore's organisation, that foosers still naively expect a point system that works logically.
|
|
|
Funny you say that Tim (you'll like this);
There's a thread going on right now on the Texas big board that noticed the inconsistency of who got how many points. Case & Point an Expert increased 400 points for winning Expert Singles and Expert Mixed and not doing too well anywhere else then compare that to others like Matt, Darrel & myself that increased a cumulative 272 points....hummmm...lol
Since it's a new system headed up by an abnormally intelligent Fooser (he's new to Fooseball so he might not be stuck in the system); I gave him the benefit of the doubt and gave a detailed post on "How to prevent Sandbagging". Hell, if they come up with a Good system I'm all for it: but if they have a Joke for a point system I'll continue to pay a Fraction of what I should pay, play in lower events which will all make it easier to break-even on tour. So with that said, at the end of my monster post I closed with the following paragraph.
"Anyway, These are the issues that need to be discussed by the Committee and adjustments should be made based on discussing individual players, how they did and what needs to be done for them to advance or regress. I'm just trying to point out things that need to be done to prevent players from Sandbagging. However, if nothing is done I can continue to mock the system by manipulating my points, travel to Free Tour stop after Free Tour stop and take my immaterial point increases like I've been doing for the past several years (because at my 56 point increase it looks like I can do this for the rest of my Fooz playing days)"
|
|
|
"How to Prevent Sandbagging" by Sluggo. If he doesn't listen to an expert like you, he can't be that smart. 
|
|
|
I've got to admit that this isn't how I thought this point system would work out. In all the test runs etc things made sense, but now I don't get it really. Some people gained a lot of points when they shouldn't have, and other people dropped points when they should have gained lots.
Botros gaining less points than Christian? I mean don't get me wrong, Christian had a pretty strong tournament, with a few great results, but other results that he wouldn't be proud of. Matt had 9th in OD and 3rd in PD, but only gained 103 points.
Both guys deserve to move up in points, but Matt should be well on his way to pro I think. ELO is better, it rewards players for beating masters and top pro's. If you can win in those ranks it doesn't matter if you suck in expert division.
|
|
|
"Warren V. Finished 3rd in Open doubles, and get this lost 124 points ahahah. I heard he went out of pro singles and pro dubs early cause he was focusing on Open." 
Warren posted on Foosballboard: "My goal and whats most important to me at every tournament this year and especially Vegas is to win Pro Doubles and Pro Singles"
|
|
|
Sluggo.. implying that they sandbagged is retarded. just because you do well in a tournament doesn't make you a sandbagger.. the boys didn't make the points system up.... complain to Ahmad and Mary.
And your singles statement makes zero sense at all.
Will.. it's not a good comparison. Christian went down as an Amateur. Matt was an Expert. And neither of you have given the system time to work.. One tournament isn't exactly enough data and since they're really not using the USTSA database it'll take awhile anyway.
|
|
|
Actually I'm pretty sure Christian went down as an expert this time around too.
|
|
|
Tony - I was one of 4 people that designed the system. I saw it implemented in every form based on last years results and projected tournament results from this year. I think they have screwed up something in the formula or the application of it now.
Christian and Matt were both the same rank, and only 100 points difference between them - both had good tournaments but I feel that Matt should have gained a lot more points in the Pro and Open events than Christian should have for Expert.
Simon went down as an amatuer and you can see why he gained that many points, that looks like a good example of the system. Either way I think ELO is a better system that would take less time to accurately rank players.
|
|
|
From my experience it doesn't pay to make comments about points 
|
|
|
That was your problem Sed Wards, you were looking to get paid for adding your comments!
|
|
|
I have to cover my poker loses from Eric and Christian
|
|
|
Tony, About the Sandbagging comment, you need to go to Wall-mart and buy a sense of humor: How could anyone predict that Higher level's only effect one's points a fraction of their own rating under the new system? It definitely gives me something to consider if they don't make some needed adjustments.
About my Singles comment; I finished 13th in Open Singles where everyone of my matches was against higher rated players which by itself Proves my statement (if you've ever seen me play Singles). No matter how controlled or out of control someone plays singles it always seems to come down to the Rags that crapped in the Goal.
Will, I saw what Warren posted and I believe that "Going into Vegas" he cared more about Pro. However,as I pointed out on the other board, considering that he was sitting out at 3rd or better before the Pro events really started rolling and he was already Guaranteed more than if he swept the Pro events (plus he had a shot to Double this) where do you think his focus went (hummm.. up coming match against Tony & Robbie OR 2nd round match against some skippy from BFE)? Additionally, after looking at his Open events and prior events do you think Warren could have (or should have) done better than he did in Pro events? If you don't call that loosing focus what do you call it (besides choking)?
I think Ahmad's system can do far better than ELO in a shorter period of time, all they need to do is some adjustments to wight higher rated events where the committee feels they should be (for lower players in those events). Since you said you're on the point committee, did you see what I added on that thread about bonuses, I believe I came up with 4 areas that should be looked at?
|
|
|
Bump this for me in a week or so, I'm too tied up with the WEM event to comment too much on points or read the big board right now. I see a lot of value in what you post though Sluggo - maybe you should consider asking Ahmed if you can join the points committee?
|
|
|
Phil,
With ANY new system there needs to be a learning curve and adjustment period. In almost ANY sport. What I don't understand is how you think that excludes the new foosball point system. Patience is prudent.
I've seen your singles game. 13th in OS is great, and I'd be REALLY impressed (sense of humour included) if you could duplicate that again at the same scale of tourney.
I have seen the top 3 singles players on Tornado ( imho , irregardless of the current points book )Tony / Rico / Billy DESTROY other PM's in singles matches on any given day. And i can tell you that almost none of it was attributed to slop... and i'm not exactly an embracer of the slop personally...
It's like saying you believe in luck in singles more than skill. That's like the GUTshot in Texas Hold Em. More sample data please...
|
|
|
I have been bumped to 1900 points 
|
|
|
"I have been bumped to 1900 points"
And the end of the world commences ...
|
|
|
1000 point jump, that's pretty sweet man congrats!
|
|
|
This is such BS. I know Simon Edwards has been playing a long time and has won both Am doubles and Am Singles in Vegas as well as Am singles at the WSO and various other top 2 finishes not only in Am events but open as well but this is no reason to move someone as unproven as Simon all the way up to an Expert ranking. Everyone knows you should have to at least double in a ranking higher than yours in consecutive majors to even be eligible for a moveup such as this. I will be writing a letter on Simon's behalf to IFP regarding this egregious and obviously biased approach to re-ranking a player into a division in which he doesn't belong and has realistically no shot of competing within.
|
|
|
$5 says Christian had to spell check at least two words there.
|
|
|
moveup isn't a word so he didn't use spell check. YOU PAY NOW!!! 
|
|
|
The last time I played in vegas I finished with 916 points I now have 1500 and I havnt even played...
|
This thread does not accept replies because:
The last post to this thread is more than 30 days old.
|
Posted: Apr 6 2011 1:39PM