PAW Players: The Points Situation [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

PAW Players: The Points Situation

Frooty_Bazooty
06-18-2004, 10:39 PM
Hey guys :wavey:

Basically the situation is this: sometimes too many points are given out for single matches and sometimes it can ruin an event. For example, look at last weeks Queens final leader board -

1.NALDO................... .16 .10 ..6 .311
2.PLANETWORLD............. .16 ..6 .10 .261
3.YANOO................... .16 .11 ..5 .235
4.Spikey_Todd_Reid#1fan... .16 .10 ..6 .222
5.PinkFeatherBoa.......... .16 ..9 ..7 .218
6.silverwhite............. .16 .10 ..6 .207
7.lieve................... .16 ..5 .11 .173
8.mardyfishfan............ .15 ..7 ..8 .158
9.Bilbo................... .14 ..6 ..8 .153
10.ignaciogeniz........... .11 ..3 ..8 .117
11.Frooty_Bazooty......... .15 ..9 ..6 .109
12.marcobarella2.......... .16 ..8 ..8 .103
13.anantak2k.............. .15 ..7 ..8 ..84
14.Izhaol................. .11 ..7 ..4 ..68
15.acetennis.............. .16 ..5 .11 ..52
16.William Hunt........... ..9 ..5 ..4 ..40
17.esh.................... ..8 ..4 ..4 ..27
18.Hantuchov.............. ..7 ..2 ..5 ..22
19.azza................... ..5 ..1 ..4 ..13

this event was almost solely decided on who chose Flanagan vs Philippoussis [100-1] and Flanagan vs Hanescu [100-1]. Fair enough if the way you like to play PAW is by going for the big picks. but personally i prefer to play the tight picks, for example [10-10]. Eventually what i think will eventually happen and what it seems is happening already is that tournament there are the 4 or 5 compulsory picks that you have to pick because if you dont you have automatically lost. so instead of having 13 picks we only have 8.

Also, if for some reason you cant come on because you're busy or you're saving the world or something then you may miss one of these PAWs and again the game can be automatically over for you.

Another scenario thats dubious is the one with players who have been injured. Take Boutter this week in Wimbledon against Ferrero (112-1). He's been injured and has only played 4 matches this season but he's not that bad. He's won a title and should maybe be ranked around 80th in the world. If he was a baby with only one arm who had never played tennis before, then 112 would be ok points.

I know im being a real wanker here and moaning loads, but im just trying to make the game better. And im not taking a pop at any of the organisers, cos they do an awesome job. Its the original system thats wrong

Tom

jrm
06-18-2004, 11:12 PM
Not really fair if you get 100 points for one pick ... i remember the times when there were 200 points up for a win in WTA ... in IW Kleybanova def. Kostanic and everyone got 200 points! In the end i made 13 correct pick and i was NOT EVEN NEAR to 150 points let alone 200!!!

I would say maximum 50 points

Havok
06-18-2004, 11:28 PM
I dunno, I'm indifferent. If there's a 200 pt payoff and you're too stupid not to pick it, then tough bananas. Yes it's pretty much impossible to catch up with those players who got that big reward, but don't just give up since you can't win the title :rolleyes: you do know that the higher you finish, the more points you receive:p

Spikey_Todd Reid_#1Fan
06-19-2004, 01:34 AM
Just my 2 cents...

You should be fortunate that the scoring pts this week aren't just "MADE UP," they are based from the formula on WTAWorld.

A new rule was installed earlier this year after several complaints of the "200 pters," this catered for players who didn't have a single ranking pt, and they were given a few with this new rule.

Since then we have had plenty of 30-60 pters and the occasional 90+ pters (Henin vs Testud) and oviously in ATP this week with Boutter-Ferrero.

The thing is it is only a rare circumstance that that happens, and it could be much worse if you think about it.

Personally, PAW was created with a certain list of rules, we have already changed them a bit, but maybe the big pters are just part of another dimension of the game, either pick them or not, and even if you miss it and lose interest, well that is just part of the game.

Spikey_Todd Reid_#1Fan
06-19-2004, 01:50 AM
this event was almost solely decided on who chose Flanagan vs Philippoussis [100-1] and Flanagan vs Hanescu [100-1].

U wont get these pts, with the "proper" scoring pts formula.

Spikey_Todd Reid_#1Fan
06-19-2004, 01:56 AM
And another thing, the above league table where I finished 4th, I didn't even pick the "Flanagan over Philippoussis" pick (worth 100) and still finsihed 4th, so it's not like you are totally out of it, at all.

Frooty_Bazooty
06-19-2004, 09:18 AM
I dunno, I'm indifferent. If there's a 200 pt payoff and you're too stupid not to pick it, then tough bananas. Yes it's pretty much impossible to catch up with those players who got that big reward, but don't just give up since you can't win the title you do know that the higher you finish, the more points you receive

what if my house is on fire and i cant come online that day, then i miss out on the 200 points and im pretty much out of the top 20 permanently. as for your giving up point, with me missing the flanagan picks in queens, i automatically went 200 points behind you. thats 20 picks!!!! so the only way i could make that up is by getting 20 close picks correct!!!! which isnt even possible cos you only have 16 picks there and also it would rely on you getting EVERY single other PAW you made wrong. It makes no sense at all.

You should be fortunate that the scoring pts this week aren't just "MADE UP," they are based from the formula on WTAWorld

Im not saying 'change the formula', im just saying lets put a points cap on it at 40 for example so that tornaments arent dominated by having to come online every single day and pick the 'danger picks'. thats not fun, its like a chore.

And another thing, the above league table where I finished 4th, I didn't even pick the "Flanagan over Philippoussis" pick (worth 100) and still finsihed 4th, so it's not like you are totally out of it, at all.

Well i had one of my best ever tournaments. normally a 9-6 record like that would get me into the top 4, but i came 11th! and i was 202 points behind the leader. im sorry i really find it hard to see where you're coming from... :shrug:

Tom :angel:

nitsansh
06-19-2004, 11:55 AM
Tom

Some players like to pick underdogs and take the risk of losing for the chance of big gain... I rarely pick winners for 10 pts, let alone less... my lowest 1st round pick for Wimbledon is 16 pts!
But I don't select automatically the biggest picks unless I think I have a reasonable chance of winning!

Frooty_Bazooty
06-19-2004, 12:09 PM
i understand that nitsansh and what im saying is that if you are that sort of player, then the big points arent a problem for you at all because you love picking those kind of matches.

but there are a lot of players who dont like playing that way, who prefer trying to guess correctly the tight matches and for them the big points make the way they want to play impossible.

a points cap would mean that both types of players could have a fair chance at winning

nitsansh
06-19-2004, 01:35 PM
There is no way to know if players picking patterns are result of their "character" or the points system...

Spikey_Todd Reid_#1Fan
06-19-2004, 02:32 PM
Tom quotes "but there are a lot of players who dont like playing that way, who prefer trying to guess correctly the tight matches and for them the big points make the way they want to play impossible."

How do you know this, just because a few ppl have spoken us doesn't mean they represent "a lot."

If you are going to change the rules, I suggest you change the game name from PAW to something else because it won't be PAW as far as I am concerned.

Frooty_Bazooty
06-19-2004, 09:40 PM
lets say for example the only change was a points cap of 50 points. The players who pick big points will still go for them anyway cos they are a lot of points, but the consequences for the people who dont pick them (i know its not a lot, but 5 of the 8 people who have voted in this thread voted for a points cap) wont be as severe.

Of course i dont want to change the name of PAW, im just suggesting a way i think might make it better. Its completely meant as construtive criticism, thats all.

Tom

SaFed2005
06-20-2004, 04:07 PM
I agree that some of the points are waaaay too high... Maye around 75 at most should be descent???

Neely
06-20-2004, 09:54 PM
I also think it's a real joke that one pick can easily decide the whole week but it's not good enough to say "let's set a point limit at 50 points" because if a player ranked #800 in world defeats Federer is less an "upset" than if the world #1300 defeats Federer.

So, if I get this right, with a point limit of, let's say 50, there would be no difference in points between the #800 and the #1300?

Yoav
06-20-2004, 10:11 PM
I also think it's a real joke that one pick can easily decide the whole week but it's not good enough to say "let's set a point limit at 50 points" because if a player ranked #800 in world defeats Federer is less an "upset" than if the world #1300 defeats Federer.

So, if I get this right, with a point limit of, let's say 50, there would be no difference in points between the #800 and the #1300?
honestly, at those kind of rankings and levels, i don't think that there is much different, maybe 1 point for each 100 places below #500.

nitsansh
06-20-2004, 10:39 PM
I also think it's a real joke that one pick can easily decide the whole week but it's not good enough to say "let's set a point limit at 50 points" because if a player ranked #800 in world defeats Federer is less an "upset" than if the world #1300 defeats Federer.

So, if I get this right, with a point limit of, let's say 50, there would be no difference in points between the #800 and the #1300?

The scoring points is calculated by both players ranking points.
Bogdanovic on 107 pts against Federer on 5610 pts gets the same pts as Boutter on 46 pts against Ferrero on 2510 pts. The ratio of both players make the difference.
If you cap the score at 40 for example, win for Boutter over #50 Malisse will be the same as win over #1 Federer.
Is that right???

Neely
06-20-2004, 10:44 PM
If you cap the score at 40 for example, win for Boutter over #50 Malisse will be the same as win over #1 Federer.
Is that right???
no, it's not right... maybe I couldn't express it clearly enough, but that was what I tried to say.

Capping the points to some limit would be okay, but the problem above mentioned is still here and that would be one weakness of a point limit.