NSB Pick Em 2022 MASTERTHREAD

[Tatabanya]

Next weekend I'd discard Ortiz vs McKinson in favor of Conlan vs Marriaga, which might turn out to be a much more balanced fight.

[Citizen Koba]

PICK EM CREW : SteveM picked Garcia DEC wide, he should get 30 points to stand at 1660.

Just up at my mums at the minute putting some insulation round UNAs engine compartment before we take her out next week but I'll get on it when I get in. Thanks for the heads up Tat.

[PICK EM CREW]

Just up at my mums at the minute putting some insulation round UNAs engine compartment before we take her out next week but I'll get on it when I get in. Thanks for the heads up Tat.

Now how the **** did I miss that? Steve was like the 3rd pick clear as day.

Anyways, up to date now. Cheers Tat and apologies Steve

[SteveM]

Now how the **** did I miss that? Steve was like the 3rd pick clear as day.

Anyways, up to date now. Cheers Tat and apologies Steve

Thanks Koba and Tata. I'm away for a long weekend in North Wales so got my pick in uncharacteristically early.

Thought I had it with a wide decision but we who chose that were screwed by the corrupt judge who scored a draw. I swear, part of this comp. is looking out for rogue judges and referees. Like landing on go to jail.

[Citizen Koba]

Ok... so I've a bit busier than I thought this weekend but I wanted to get on a bit and chat a little about some ideas for next year, thinking about possible incremental shifts to reduce the impacts of the multipliers on the game or even possibly removing optional multipliers altogether... and that - kinda requires a little bit of thought about why they were there in the first place, whether they add to the game and how they interact with other parts of the game.

What our goal is of course, is to keep everyone playing, to keep the game fun and accessible, not overly complicated and to but to still reward skill and judgement over random luck... we want to encourage the hardcore players (like most of those taking the time to read this post probably) but at the same time still keep it interesting for the less engaged players, those further down the rankings or new players looking to sign up. We're looking in short for the right balance between pure judgement and skill and gamesmanship which keeps the most players possible involved and enjoying the game

OK so first off the multipliers were kinda inherited from Bob's initial iteration back in '17 and I believe he more or less simply purloined the idea from another site (not sure but it mighta been the Boxrec forum one) so a part of the reason we have em is simple inertia, when the initial CREW decided to resurrect the game we more or less just continued directly with what was already there, but that ain't of itself a good enough reason to keep em in.



So what benefits and drawbacks do they bring?

I'd say on the plus side they add a slightly random but exciting level of risk and gamemanship and also (and this is like a metagame consideration) encourage players who may not be doing so well to continue playing because it still gives them a chance - or at least the perception of one. Player attrition - especially in the second hjalf of the year - is a perrenial problem, and whilst we often start with 40 odd players by the end of the year we're usually closer to 20... it's not the greatest solution but the elemnt of offering even a slim chance at a hail Mary for players further down the rankings is oner way to keep the interest up. Also when combined with relatively even fights I think the use of multipliers is every bit a matter of skill and judgement... the problem comes - as noted by SteveM above - with the combination of having too many deeply uneven fights where palyers can just store up their multipliers for those fights where they can be virtually certain of a good return on em. But then we run into the fight selction problem once more... too many fight in the sport are uneven, especially when you're looking at the very top level guys.

So what to do then. The main options as I see em are pretty much either alone or in combo:

1) reduce the number of multipliers (we increased em almost year on year to keep pace with the increasing number of fights we were including
2) tighten up the scheduling to reduce the number of fights to include only those fights with odds within a prescribed range (say +/-300 or 400)
3) scrap the optional multiplier system altogether
4) Make all optional multipliers only playable on the bookies underdog (like the x5 is now)
5) Change the multiplier system entirely - such as using the continental odds multiplier system or similar that was used in the sweepstakes Pick Em last May - Sept

Idunno, I'm sure there's more to add but that's enough to go on with for now.

OK so 1 is probably the simplest and most strightforward, and especially if used in combination with 2 could substantially reduce the unbalancing problem, it involves no fundamental changes and just means a few tweaks, but at the same time if probably won't stop everyone saving up their multipliers for the most unbalanced fights and it might mean we run into problems with getting some of the biggest fights on the pick em... sadly it's very often the case that elite level fighters are always going to be prohibitively hot favourites and I think missing out on the biggest fights would also impact on how many people we get playing... it's not unusual to see new players' first connection with the game on a big fight week. Be a shame to miss out on that, plus big fight buzz is part of the driver for many players - we always get more picks on the bigger fights than the smaller ones.

3 seems abit radical - for the reasons I've stated above - as mentioned by Steve feels a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Even if we were eventually to go that route I'm gonna suggest we start by trying to just rein em in and reducing their impact onthe scoring a little before we go all the way with it. My gut feeling is that they add to the fun of the game and if managed right can be just as much a reflection of skill and judgement as your picks themselves..

4) I like this one... suggested it once or twice before around the time we came up with the x5 'Hail Mary' idea (which I agree has probably bloated beyond it's initial concept). Neatly deals with the problem of players saving up their multipliers for the biggest misnmatches and requires genuine judgement to figure which underdogs are likely to have the best shots of winning. Also because underdogs with a high perceived chance are relatively rare saving em up might become alosing strategy cos you never know when or if there's gonna be another good one or how many you'll get in the year.

5) The most radical of the proposals. Either in conjuction with a very limited number of optional multipliers possibly in conjuction with (4), replace the underdog and optional multiplier system wholesale with a multiplier based directly on the continental style odds for the fight (for those who don't know continental / Canadian style odds are expressed as a number which represents your return as amultiple of your stake that includes stake (ie the lowest possible odds are basically 1.01). Makes for potentially some very high scores on underdogs so probably needs to go hand in hand with fairly tight fight selection but equally rewards insighful picking of upsets commensurately.... could be argued it pins too much on the vagueries of the bookmakes though.


Anyways this is getting too long and I don't want to overcomplicate things, just scattering some thought food.

However before I'm done I just want to thank MikeyG and Tatabanya once more... when I first embarked on this thing (with the assistance of the now departed JohnL and siablo14 ) my whole concept was that we could have a robust community driven game where everyone wjho could pitched in a little to make it better and that could survive the loss of the odd player or team member here or there cos - well - life happens, and also evolve with the changing preferences of the player base over time. Really nice to see part of that vision coming to fruition anyways. Thanks gents.

Further to that I also like the idea of setting up some kinda more permanent proactive scheduling group... I know I kinda tasked Mammoth with it sorta but there's no fault - folk got other things to do with their lives and I ain't pushing anything on anyone - point is to get people involved who actively want to be doing it so I'm kinda asking for volunteers I gues (although I gotta admit I'm kinda hoping SteveM puts up his hand, maybe SUBZER0ED too if you got the time, man though of course absolutely any player is invited at all times to give their input)

Umm... there was something else as well wasn't there?

Oh yeah... had a suggestion from ShoulderRoll at the end of last year that has also come up in previous years and I think is worth considering. Talking maybe about adjusting the points system so it emphasises and rewards the accuracy factors more rather that weighing it more heavily towards simply picking the correct winner. Possiblly involving changing the points rewards from 20/10/10 for winner/method/detail to 10/10/10 or even more extreme like 10/10/20 or 10/15/20... worth a thought anyway, although some might count thcorruption and slightly random judging and refs decisons endemic to the sport as an argument against going too far in that direction.

And finally maybe have a thought for next year about possibly revisiting the scoring for draws as potentially unbalncing factor - or particularly whether they should be able to be used with multiplier. Experience would suggest that spamming draws ain't a particularly successful strategy but I don't want to wait until some player halfway down the rankings swoops in with a Draw x3 on the DEC 31st Japan card one year and kicks over the apple cart before addressing it.


Anyways, if you made it through all that, kudos for your perseverence, many thanks for your attention and hope it gave you some ideas to think about if nothing else

Kind regards - and please forgive the numerous typos

Theo

[Tatabanya]

I'm away for a long weekend in North Wales so got my pick in uncharacteristically early.

Are you in Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysilio gogogoch?

[Tatabanya]

Anyways, if you made it through all that, kudos for your perseverence, many thanks for your attention and hope it gave you some ideas to think about if nothing else

Look, I'm fine with whatever reduces the impact of multipliers on the game.

I'm actually convinced that multipliers act as a discouraging element for some players. Seeing someone take an early lead because they have used lots of multipliers can induce a sense of semi-resignation in those who start the season with the wrong foot ("oh, I'll never manage to catch them", and so forth).

Ultimately, I don't like seeing people quitting the game after a while. True, they may have serious reasons to leave, but at the end of the day I would prefer seeing 20 deeply involved players fighting for the win in a balanced game without excessive help from multiplying variables than a mess of crazy picks thrown there by a larger amount of not-so-committed players.

And also, you surely understood from my posts that I'm favourable to include MORE fights, not less. Without too many multipliers to rely upon, the skill of an expert is also measured in getting the right nuances of apparently lesser fights.

[Citizen Koba]

Look, I'm fine with whatever reduces the impact of multipliers on the game.

I'm actually convinced that multipliers act as a discouraging element for some players. Seeing someone take an early lead because they have used lots of multipliers can induce a sense of semi-resignation in those who start the season with the wrong foot ("oh, I'll never manage to catch them", and so forth).

Ultimately, I don't like seeing people quitting the game after a while. True, they may have serious reasons to leave, but at the end of the day I would prefer seeing 20 deeply involved players fighting for the win in a balanced game without excessive help from multiplying variables than a mess of crazy picks thrown there by a larger amount of not-so-committed players.

And also, you surely understood from my posts that I'm favourable to include MORE fights, not less. Without too many multipliers to rely upon, the skill of an expert is also measured in getting the right nuances of apparently lesser fights.

I think we're getting a broad consensus that the impact of multipliers should be lessened, now it's just about deciding the best way of achieving that and how to go about it. In terms of fight selection the tricky bit is how to get more relatively even fights in without sacrificing the bigger fights that more people get excired about about and are invested in - and that's part of the fun of the game too.

In terms of the level of player involvment I can see the value - and the convenience - in catering mainly to a commited hardcore but at the same time I personally (and this shouldn't sway those whose sole interest is the game itself) tried to use this game along with the banter and discussion involved with it as a kinda antidote to the tiresome trolling bullchit that's too prevalent on the rest of the forum... I deliberately went out of my way to make it both inviting and accessible and I would prefer not to find a situation where we're excluding top fights or making it so more causal players are feeling they ain't really got any reason to play or when they never heard of half the guys involved much less root for em. I dunno, maybe I'm not expressing myself very well... but I don't want the game to become too - IDK... exclusive? elitist? Always wanted it to be for everyone, casual and hardcore alike.

EDIT: And yeah that's a good point about the early use of multipliers discouraging people - hadn't really thought of that but I can see how it could make sense. More fights is cool but it also probably means more fights further down the rankings who people won't necessarily know much about whilst simultaneously giving them less time to research... might be cool for those of with more time but it's likely to discourage those who players who might have other commitments. Not ruling anything out it's just that - as with everything - there's balances to be struck.

[MikeyG]

I will probably repeat a lot what Koba said.

I think the game may suffer if we don't have multipliers.
They add drama, they add chance for people that maybe picked number of fights wrong at the start of the game. Because how many of them will stay in the game even though they don't have a chance? (of course the motivation here can be different for everyone)

I am curious what changes will be done because there are many directions we can go. Should Pickem focus more on luring and adding more and more players or should it focus more on the current ones. Because I am totally not against gamification of Pickem and removing multipliers will be step backwards, imo. I think the game should be fun first and foremost.

My thought was why not reward the most accurate picker as an extra (based on total win percentage, number of perfect picks). So he/ she will have a bragging rights and place among the top three. That way the "hardcores" should be satisfied and more "casual" players will have their multipliers.

[Tatabanya]

In terms of the level of player involvment I can see the value - and the convenience - in catering mainly to a commited hardcore but at the same time I personally (and this shouldn't sway those whose sole interest is the game itself) tried to use this game along with the banter and discussion involved with it as a kinda antidote to the tiresome trolling bullchit that's too prevalent on the rest of the forum... I deliberately went out of my way to make it both inviting and accessible and I would prefer not to find a situation where we're excluding top fights or making it so more causal players are feeling they ain't really got any reason to play or when they never heard of half the guys involved much less root for em. I dunno, maybe I'm not expressing myself very well... but I don't want the game to become too - IDK... exclusive? elitist? Always wanted it to be for everyone, casual and hardcore alike.

Far be it from me to imply elitism.... I was more thinking of the difficulty (especially yours!) of having to keep up with excessive arithmetic and participatory fragmentation. Of course, I am also happier if we can get more people seriously involved. Ultimately, only the strong survives...