|
Turdsdown Tom posted:I have said this for at least three years of SAS Eliminator and every time, people come up with bullshit justifications for it. If you miss a pick, then you didn't pick a team to win, and if you didn't pick a team to win and one of them wins? Your pick was wrong and you get an L. Suck it up and remember to click all the boxes. It... already works this way? Rankings are by number of wins, so if you don't pick, it's not a win, and you will be ranked lower than someone who made a correct pick. I could just remove the L number from the leaders chart. Qwijib0 fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Dec 5, 2017 |
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:16 |
|
|
King Hong Kong posted:It's not an advantage to not make a pick because the ranking is by number of correct picks rather than win percentage and you inherently disadvantage yourself by not making picks. The rankings would be unchanged even if you counted non-picks as incorrect picks. yeah, I keep meaning to bring this back-- all the data is there to do it, I just need to math a score based on spread pick 'em.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Wait, nevermind, this is eliminator. We're talking about Pick Em, here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Wait, nevermind, this is eliminator. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
But they should matter, that's the whole loving point. Those people with 60 losses should be ranked lower, and non-picks should count as losses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Yeah it's idiotic. You're ranking people who shrugged over people who took the time to bother to play the game. In pick-em, a non-pick should be a loss.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Qwijib0 posted:It... already works this way? Rankings are by number of wins, so if you don't pick, it's not a win, and you will be ranked lower than someone who made a correct pick. this whole "losses don't count" is exactly the problem, you might as well just get rid of the leaderboard for pick'em then how can you even argue that losses don't matter in pick'em? it's literally the point of the loving game. people with more wrong picks should be ranked lower, and you should get losses for not picking games. end of story imho. barnold fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Dec 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
It's baffling that you don't understand this. Let's look at an example: I'm currently ranked 34th overall in a tie with a dozen other people. Everyone tied at 34th overall has 124 wins but a varying number of losses. I was unable to make two picks so I happen to be the first person shown at 34th overall but if I had made those picks and been wrong or if they had been counted as incorrect automatically, I would still be 34th overall.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
King Hong Kong posted:Everyone tied at 34th overall has 124 wins but a varying number of losses. This is the problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
It literally doesn't matter though. They would all still be ranked 34th overall if you implemented what you want.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
imo if there is ever a first place tie at the end of a season, manually go in and edit any first place people who didn't pick all the games to say "loving dumb loser actually." problem solved without changing the whole system in order to be able to create a fix based on adding losses since that currently would do nothing
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Ban TNF so I stop forgetting to put my bets in. Also I'm somehow 3rd in spread pick'em, and mwahaha, I forgot to bet on all the Thanksgiving games, I got one over on you 4th place person zhel. Can't believe I'm third though, I was below .500 when November started.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
I make sure to do my spread pick'em as a reminder to myself how much money I would lose if I put in actual bets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Yeah it's idiotic. You're ranking people who shrugged over people who took the time to bother to play the game. Good news! a no-pick is a loss. The rank number next to each name is the same. Everyone with 132 wins is 6th. Turdsdown Tom posted:this whole "losses don't count" is exactly the problem, you might as well just get rid of the leaderboard for pick'em then Wins matter. The person who picks the most winners wins. Pick the winners. Two people who have picked the same number of winners are ranked the same. Because of the number of winners they picked. Qwijib0 fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Dec 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Yeah it's idiotic. You're ranking people who shrugged over people who took the time to bother to play the game. In a hypothetical given week: player 1 makes all the picks and goes 12-4. player 2 forgets the thursday game and goes 12-3. Players 1 and 2 would be ranked the same. 12-4 = 12-3 for purposes of ranking, so a no pick _is_ effectively a loss.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Athanatos posted:I make sure to do my spread pick'em as a reminder to myself how much money I would lose if I put in actual bets. Yeah, same. All time I'm 646-592-30 in Spread, good for correct 51% of the time and all my big football brain knowledge is worth 1% over a coinflip.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
This is bananas. Look everyone, it's all ranked by wins, end of story. Qwijib0 is putting in a yeoman's work trying to justify it to you, but I'm not seeing that it's helping. Instead of more of that, I'll offer this unambiguous statement on behalf of the entire Eliminator team: we will never change this scoring system on these games. Not ever. There are only so many ways to say no, the answer continues to be no. You folks that don't like this have a fundamentally different philosophy on scoring these games that we do not agree with. While I can't make you agree with us, we're running this particular software so this is how it will continue to be scored. Live with it and keep playing, be so angry you have to quit, do whatever you think will help you live your best life, but no amount of arguing on the forums will ever change this scoring system while we're running the software. We have heard you, we do not agree with you. You think we're wrong, we don't care that you think that. This is the game. If you, personally, want to obsess about win percentages or some other thing you've decided makes you superior even though you're losing or tied, that's your prerogative, but we do not care about it. We on the team all agree that the current scoring system is the right one. For anyone about to swing in here because you think you have the hot take that's gonna turn this around: spoiler alert, you don't. Nothing about this is changing. Abandon all hope, ye who enter this discussion. Next season, when we start a fresh thread, and you think "maybe this year I'll convince them with my impeccable arguments", you won't. We like it this way. You can continue to cast yourself upon this hill to die, we will continue to drink scotch and not care, in that order.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
i'm starting my own eliminator, with blackjack, and hookers if you want to get in you have to hand write your picks on machine paper and mail them to P.O. Box 844, Boston, MA. and so help me god if those bubbles aren't filled in 100% dark i am voiding your rear end barnold fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Dec 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
Man, I really touched a nerve by mentioning counting non-picks as a loss. The admins can run their game however they like, in the end it's fun and that's all that matters, but it does seem a bit silly that we can't find a compromise on non-picks. I think it's fine that rankings are based upon wins and nothing else, but to rule out losses as unimportant seems awfully simplistic. I mean, in the end this is all just for fun so who really cares, but for season ending tie-breakers a win percentage would seem to make sense. But if you're going to do that then there needs to be a way to account for missed picks. That being said, I imagine that most of the people doing the site have day jobs, so adding new features may simply not fit into their schedule. To throw the team a bone, I think it's great that they maintain all of the historic data. That's far more useful than the whole issue with non-picks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 07:33
|
|
|
The counterpoint is that if the other person got as many wins picked as you and forgot literally every TNF game, maybe they deserve to be listed beside you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 13:13
|
|
|
Missed picks are already accounted for by not being wins.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
I hope someone manages to win next year by making ~175 correct picks while forgetting to make ~81 picks so that the accomplishment is immortalized by people who incomprehensibly believe that this person would have lost if only they had made those 81 picks.
King Hong Kong fucked around with this message at 07:47 on Dec 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
Guys we gotta let it go, they'll quit on us if we piss them off, they are doing god's work as it is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 07:24
|
|
|
If you could somehow order the list so the people with less losses (but still tied) are at the bottom of it when displayed (again, even though they're still tied) I suspect it would appease these weird people. e: Or do nothing of course, it's all fine as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 07:40
|
|
|
SpitztheGreat posted:I don't know how you guys do it in Eliminator, how there are still multiple undefeateds confounds me. It's luck as much as anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 10:08
|
|
|
Lorini posted:Guys we gotta let it go, they'll quit on us if we piss them off, they are doing god's work as it is. Like all true goons, we're powered by a mixture of your ire and respect catalyzed with our own self-importance into a grim melange of resolve and stubbornness. Eliminator will never die as these fuel sources are infinite. It may never be exactly the way you want, but it will always be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Grittybeard posted:If you could somehow order the list so the people with less losses (but still tied) are at the bottom of it when displayed (again, even though they're still tied) I suspect it would appease these weird people. yeah this is the actual thing I'm caring about, although I also don't think they should be ranked the same either, but whatever. It just shows up like the guy on top of the list is better when he's not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:It's luck as much as anything. Yeah, I mean you can usually find a game with like a 75% chance of being right on in any given week (good team at home not on short rest vs bad team), but still, eventually you're destined to lose. I'm 12-1 right now, and that loss is due to not realizing Mariota was injured when the Titans hosted the Dolphins (whoops). Of course, now my best home team option is uh... Bengals hosting the Bears, or I can take the Pats Cowboys or Jets on the road... choices choices.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
Kalli posted:Ban TNF so I stop forgetting to put my bets in. I can't believe I'm 4th! Thanks for letting me know. I've only been tracking the reverse eliminator once since I'm up there for some inexplicable reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
I've got my dad playing Eliminator and he keeps rubbing it in that he's undefeated so far.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
on the bored wop posted:I've got my dad playing Eliminator and he keeps rubbing it in that he's undefeated so far. Tell him real men pick the dolphins over the patriots, (real dumb men like me)
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
Eh, looks like he's going with Cowboys this week.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
Goddamn I knew I shouldn't have picked the Bengals this week.  I sensed a trap game but I went ahead anyway. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Dec 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Pretty brutal week for most of us. I went big this week to try and close some ground and got burned. Jets absolutely making GBS threads the bed doesn't surprise me as a Jets fan, but I really thought that Denver was even worse. I also really thought that the Giants would rally and trap the Cowboys...boy was I wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 06:28
|
|
|
Huh, I didn't do *great* this week (9-6 so far, since my thursday night no-pick is essentially a loss) but I've pulled away by 3 games somehow. Someone remind me again exactly why I picked the Texans to win in San Francisco? Also what the gently caress, Vikings? You shithoused the Rams and then go and lose to Carolina. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
drat Steelers, I'm so done with them!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
Fenrir posted:Huh, I didn't do *great* this week (9-6 so far, since my thursday night no-pick is essentially a loss) but I've pulled away by 3 games somehow. Despite it being a close game the Vikes pretty much handed it to Carolina, lots of penalties, tons of drops and uncharacteristic chunk plays on defense. And Houston was the home team!
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Just a couple more weeks and I can live through eliminator
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 07:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:16 |
|
|
loving Tennessee. loving worthless. I really needed them to make up a critical game and they totally forgot how to play 1:00 defense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 01:33
|
|