Pick Em 2023 - PRE SEASON DISCUSSION THREAD

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

Yeah that's my thinking.... reward it moderately. The 20 points seems like a reasonable amount and it's possible to kinda rationalise it under the existing system, after all it is a DECISION result and it is CLOSE. It's just always seemed to me that draws are usually so random and arbitrary in boxing anyway that it made sense to reward people somewhat for identifying that the fight would likely be very tight. My thinking anyway.

Of course we'd still retain the DRAW pick which would net 150 but you get no credit if you picked a DRAW and got it wrong.

Would you consider rewarding the Draw pick for a SD/MD or fights that are a round away from being scored a draw? Say the cards were 115-113, 115-113, 113-115 for example.

[Citizen Koba]

Would you consider rewarding the Draw pick for a SD/MD or fights that are a round away from being scored a draw? Say the cards were 115-113, 115-113, 113-115 for example.

Hmmm. In principle a reasonable idea but a bit of a pain in the ass logistically since effectively it'd be creating an extra category which we ain't already got (effectively a 'super close' DEC) just for this rather unusual circumstance. Plus I think part of the thing with a draw is that it's inherently a high risk high reward pick - if we were to go that route it'd feel like a DRAW would suddenly become everyone's go to pick whenever things seemed relatively evenly matched since you'd effectively have a 12 point spread (+6 to -6) to hit which is not only wider than the CLOSE or CLEAR categories (9 points each) but would also offer you the possibility of lucking out on an actual draw for 150 points. Just seems a little unbalancing.

That said this discussion does inspire another thought that could work... how about if you ain't sure of the winner but wanted to hedge and still have the chance to pick up a few points you could simply make a METHOD and DETAiL pick without naming the winner? It's just a thought but I can see the sense in it. Wouldn't net you many points - only either 10 or 20 - but also could be better than risking zero. I'm thinking of maybe fights where you got either two boxers with low KO ratios or two Big Punchers and you're maybe thinking a UD or a KO is all but guaranteed but can't decide who's likely to get there first.

Anyway just a thought. It doesn't actually deviate meaningfully from the game mechanics we already use or really require any additional work or book keeping and could add an extra tactical wrinkle to game play. I think it'd work best with the current balance of 20/10/10 though. If we started rewarding method and detail more highly (or the winner with fewer points like say 10/10/10) we might find that it became a winning strategy to simply stop picking the winner on fights with very evenly matched boxers.

[Tatabanya]

You better hurry up that decision - Tatabanya likes to use all his X5s in the first 2 weeks :-)

...and one of them against Chocolatito, of all people

[Citizen Koba]

Just to distil the rather rambling post above:

The proposal would be that it would now be legitimate to pick METHOD or METHOD, DETAIL without picking WINNER for either 10 or 20 points respectively on a correct prediction.

In effect be a bit like betting on the under or on going the distance rather than betting on the winner. The rewards may be lower but you may see the value in increasing your probability of at least getting some points.

You'd make a pick something like BETERBIEV, YARDE KO MID

And if the fight ends in a KO by either fighter you'd get 10 points if it ended in a MID rounds KO by either fighter you'd get 20. However if it went to the cards somehow you'd get zero.

What you all think?

[Tatabanya]

Just to distil the rather rambling post above:

The proposal would be that it would now be legitimate to pick METHOD or METHOD, DETAIL without picking WINNER for either 10 or 20 points respectively on a correct prediction.

In effect be a bit like betting on the under or on going the distance rather than betting on the winner. The rewards may be lower but you may see the value in increasing your probability of at least getting some points.

You'd make a pick something like BETERBIEV, YARDE KO MID

And if the fight ends in a KO by either fighter you'd get 10 points if it ended in a MID rounds KO by either fighter you'd get 20. However if it went to the cards somehow you'd get zero.

What you all think?

To be honest I would stick with picking winners in this case.

See, I can understand the issue of those who drop out of the game after finding themselves distant from the top. However, I will always prefer a 20-player tournament with few and clearly defined rules to a 40-player mess where expertise begins to matter less in order to keep more customers loyal.

[Citizen Koba]

To be honest I would stick with picking winners in this case.

See, I can understand the issue of those who drop out of the game after finding themselves distant from the top. However, I will always prefer a 20-player tournament with few and clearly defined rules to a 40-player mess where expertise begins to matter less in order to keep more customers loyal.

This wasn't really about reducing player attrition - it was just a random thought that occured as I was mulling over a couple of previous posts. Can't really see how it'd help reduce player drop-out anyway.

Just got to thinking it might add an interesting extra tactical option - much the same way that you can bet on a KO or it going distance at the bookies rather than picking the winner - and that's not without the need for some judgement and discernment itself - but I do take your point.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

Just to distil the rather rambling post above:

The proposal would be that it would now be legitimate to pick METHOD or METHOD, DETAIL without picking WINNER for either 10 or 20 points respectively on a correct prediction.

In effect be a bit like betting on the under or on going the distance rather than betting on the winner. The rewards may be lower but you may see the value in increasing your probability of at least getting some points.

You'd make a pick something like BETERBIEV, YARDE KO MID

And if the fight ends in a KO by either fighter you'd get 10 points if it ended in a MID rounds KO by either fighter you'd get 20. However if it went to the cards somehow you'd get zero.

What you all think?

So would be a situation were you choose to pick a winner or not? Or would we not pick winners at all?

[Citizen Koba]

So would be a situation were you choose to pick a winner or not? Or would we not pick winners at all?

Yeah, the first.

For the vast majority of fights fights you'd be wanting to pick a winner because you get more points that way, but it would add the option - if you wanted - of picking only the method (KO or DEC) by which the fight ended and DETAiL without picking the winner. Much the same way as you could go to the bookies and place a bet on whether a fight will go the distance or on the under / over without specifying the winner.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

Yeah, the first.

In general you'd be wanting to pick a winner because you get more points that way, but it would add the option - if you wanted - of picking only the method (KO or DEC) by which the fight ended and DETAiL without picking the winner. Much the same way as you could go to the bookies and place a bet on whether a fight will go the distance or on the under / over without specifying the winner.

I think that’s an interesting addition, there were definitely a few fights last season were I probably would have utilised that option.

[Tatabanya]

Much the same way as you could go to the bookies and place a bet on whether a fight will go the distance or on the under / over without specifying the winner.

Well, let's use the over/under then