Pick-A-Winner (PAW) #30 – POLISH INTERNATIONAL CHALLENGE - 2008

One more proposal:

1) For each PAW competition the team ranking is based on the sum of points of top 3 players. In some sense it may be more fairly. I mean, if we count the players' positions, the teams results are dependent not only on the results of the players involved in team competition, but on the other players as well. For example, if there will be 11 more "other" players having more than 178 points (Loh) and less than 194 (George), the team results would be different: all of WW players would have +11 in their positions, while for CWC players only two of them, so the CWC team would stay higher than WW team. So, if we want the result to depend only on the players who are involved in teams, counting the sum of points looks better than counting of positions.

For this Polish Open we would have the same standing:
1. Dream Team - 630 (236+211+183)
2. Mad Hatter - 628 (232+216+180)
3. Wonderful World - 520 (178+174+168)
4. Chong Wei Club - 497 (194+154+149)

I think, these calculations are not too complicated.


2) For the cumulative team competition, counting the team positions looks better. Just to avoid remembering and summarizing these big numbers of points from all the tournaments.

What do you think?

 

Just now I've realized, there is a much simpler example: if there were only two "other" players having more than 211 and less than 216 points, the first two teams would swap their positions, so my "Dream Team" would be only 2nd. I am sure it wouldn't be fair, so let's count the sum of points, OK? And teams positions for the cumulative team competition: fair and easy...

 

i thought our team name was pretty rudy??

 

your team name had been changed to Dream Team becoz of some surgery operation

 

Please ask your leader pretty Rudy why he went for an operation!
Don't know which part of his body has been operated on though?

And why he decided to honour you with the name "Dream Team"

 

maybe he's shy!

 

Hi Dmitry

Thanks for your thoughts on the matter and your input.

Having reviewed your suggestion, I am of the opinion that we should stick to the principle of "short, sweet and simple" without having to include any more numbers, especially bigger ones exceeding 100 and without the need for conversion to another points system to make the scores more precise.

I still think that the scoring system for the individual teams and their cumulative scores that I have put forward is more practical for our case and if need be, we can compile ourselves through our volunteers, so as not to further burden Sandy with the administrative work.

For the following reasons:

1. From Sandy's periodical score results report, players know at once the positions of individual PAWers, many of whom may also be members of the various teams. So there is no dispute as players can counter-check for themselves.

2. Because the number of individual positions is directly related to the number of PAWers, which has so far not exceeded 100, not even 70, as far as I know, the numbers are easily manageable and can be mentally calculated.

3. To calculate the combined positions of each team's three best players will also be fairly simple, since the total should not exceed 300 for the foreseeable future. Any points conversion table will inflat the numbers and make them less desirable for mental calculation especially.

4. For the same reason, the cumulative scores will also be more manageable by just adding up the eligible total team scores for the various PAW events.

So, we can keep to the tested principle of "short, sweet and simple". No big numbers are involved, PAW players are used to and can relate to, Sandy's report on the individual positions and how they are calculated and scores can be retrieved easily and counter-checked if need be.

 

Hi Loh,

Yes, maybe you are right. As for me, I do not see a big difference between summarizing three numbers "less than 70" and three numbers "less than 300". Both operations are equally simple for me, but people are different...