PTBF 2016 - RULES & STANDINGS THREAD

[JCS]

So only myself and armageto are 12-year veterans....

Interesting... we've seen so many just vanish from the board w/ nothing to say.

[HyacinthusTurnipseed]

Some idle suggestions:

> If you pick SMITH, KO, 5 over Jones, you get a bonus point (before multipliers) if Smith knocks Jones down but not out in that round.
> ... And also a bonus point if Jones quits on his stool at the end of round 4 (and you picked KO, 5).
> Maybe a point or two less reward for perfectly picking SMITH, DECISION, WIDE compared to CLOSE or DOMINANT. You take a bigger risk going for one of the extremes and perhaps you should be rewarded less for playing it safe?
> Or change it to CLOSE, WIDE, VERY WIDE and DOMINANT?

I'm just spitballing again though. TBH I don't think the game really needs changing at all. I even like the DFtP bit as is.

[JCS]

Some idle suggestions:

> If you pick SMITH, KO, 5 over Jones, you get a bonus point (before multipliers) if Smith knocks Jones down but not out in that round.
> ... And also a bonus point if Jones quits on his stool at the end of round 4 (and you picked KO, 5).
> Maybe a point or two less reward for perfectly picking SMITH, DECISION, WIDE compared to CLOSE or DOMINANT. You take a bigger risk going for one of the extremes and perhaps you should be rewarded less for playing it safe?
> Or change it to CLOSE, WIDE, VERY WIDE and DOMINANT?

I'm just spitballing again though. TBH I don't think the game really needs changing at all. I even like the DFtP bit as is.

Don't wanna play the game where I have to think too hard about what happened... end of round vs. next round, etc.

I've contemplated adding an additional DECISION subtype.... maybe CLOSE, DECISIVE/CLEAR/COMPETITIVE, WIDE, DOMINANT... Perhaps it is time..

[claudevsq]

ANOTHER decision type? Well, in that case, you indeed shouldn't give more points for an exact round KO as is, because a correct decision will then be even more difficult to pick. Plus, as you already wrote yourself, an exact round KO, especially between rounds 5 and 9, as I pointed out, is more of luck than knowledge...

[Tanzio]

Don't really want to weight the KO more than the DECISION straight up... I think it's pretty fair as it is now..

Guessing an exact KO round is pretty much luck and I don't want to over-award something that's largely chance.

Fair enough. Your game. Thanks

[JCS]

ANOTHER decision type? Well, in that case, you indeed shouldn't give more points for an exact round KO as is, because a correct decision will then be even more difficult to pick. Plus, as you already wrote yourself, an exact round KO, especially between rounds 5 and 9, as I pointed out, is more of luck than knowledge...

Maybe, maybe not.. Something I've thought about.

Don't want the game to get stale.

[claudevsq]

And what about a 4th decision type, like PERSONAL? It could be about the total margin of points, like 117-111, 116-112 and 113-115, SD win for X. In that case, a correct pick would be X,DECISION, PERSONAL,8. Could be worth up to 40 points, if you elevate the points for a correct round KO by 5 to 10 points...

Oh, and maybe more props? Or novelty fights? What about female top fights? Like, in January, Amanda Serrano fighting Yazmin Rivas for WBO and WBC Diamond 122 lbs. titles...

[JCS]

And what about a 4th decision type, like PERSONAL? It could be about the total margin of points, like 117-111, 116-112 and 113-115, SD win for X. In that case, a correct pick would be X,DECISION, PERSONAL,8. Could be worth up to 40 points, if you elevate the points for a correct round KO by 5 to 10 points...

Too involved. I'm not changing the KO scoring.

Oh, and maybe more props? Or novelty fights? What about female top fights? Like, in January, Amanda Serrano fighting Yazmin Rivas for WBO and WBC Diamond 122 lbs. titles...

Props always seem repetitive when I create them.. I guess I'm not creative enough. People often cry about the female/novelty fights.

[claudevsq]

Well then, be creative, and put some female fights in as novelty fights in 2017. I'm gonna help you with schedule as I have got the time. As big fights in January, good ones are:

Jan-14: James DeGale - Badou Jack (WBC, IBF and RING titles) 1.25x?
Jan-14: Amanda Serrano - Yazmín Rivas (WBO and WBC Diamond)
Jan-28: Dejan Zlaticanin - Mikey García (WBC)
Jan-28: Francisco Vargas - Miguel Berchelt (WBC) (great fight) 1.25x?
Jan-28: Carl Frampton - Leo Santa Cruz II (Super WBA and WBC Diamond) 1.5x?
Jan-28: Takashi Miura - Miguel Román (WBC final eliminator for mandatory position)

[olij999]

Big thanks to JCS for once again taking the time to run this competition. Only my second year, but have thoroughly enjoyed it. Have a great 2017, everyone!

[claudevsq]

Big thanks to JCS for once again taking the time to run this competition. Only my second year, but have thoroughly enjoyed it. Have a great 2017, everyone!

'xactly, thanks and 'gratz to JCS and a happy new year to everyone! Let the games begin... in 13 days!

[thomasjkelley]

Some idle suggestions:

> If you pick SMITH, KO, 5 over Jones, you get a bonus point (before multipliers) if Smith knocks Jones down but not out in that round.
> ... And also a bonus point if Jones quits on his stool at the end of round 4 (and you picked KO, 5).
> Maybe a point or two less reward for perfectly picking SMITH, DECISION, WIDE compared to CLOSE or DOMINANT. You take a bigger risk going for one of the extremes and perhaps you should be rewarded less for playing it safe?
> Or change it to CLOSE, WIDE, VERY WIDE and DOMINANT?

I'm just spitballing again though. TBH I don't think the game really needs changing at all. I even like the DFtP bit as is.

Don't wanna play the game where I have to think too hard about what happened... end of round vs. next round, etc.

I've contemplated adding an additional DECISION subtype.... maybe CLOSE, DECISIVE/CLEAR/COMPETITIVE, WIDE, DOMINANT... Perhaps it is time..

I would just like to add a suggestion JC. How about a decision subtype "too close to call" where the contestant wins if the fight ends in majority/split decision and/or the fight is within 5 total points either way. For example: Ward/Kovalev - Instead of picking either fighter, I pick "too close to call" and I win if it's s a decision that doesn't exceed 5 points on all 3 judges cards. Even if it's unanimous but doesn't exceed 4 or 5 points. UD Ward: 114-113, 114-113, 114-113 = (3 total points). Basically something that doesn't get you a wrong pick when you know a fight absolutely is going to be close but ypur guy loses by a point or two? I know you donate your time and effort and don't want it to get too convoluted. This is the only tweak that has really ever crossed my mind as you have fine tuned it well over the last few years.

[JCS]

Some idle suggestions:

> If you pick SMITH, KO, 5 over Jones, you get a bonus point (before multipliers) if Smith knocks Jones down but not out in that round.
> ... And also a bonus point if Jones quits on his stool at the end of round 4 (and you picked KO, 5).
> Maybe a point or two less reward for perfectly picking SMITH, DECISION, WIDE compared to CLOSE or DOMINANT. You take a bigger risk going for one of the extremes and perhaps you should be rewarded less for playing it safe?
> Or change it to CLOSE, WIDE, VERY WIDE and DOMINANT?

I'm just spitballing again though. TBH I don't think the game really needs changing at all. I even like the DFtP bit as is.

Don't wanna play the game where I have to think too hard about what happened... end of round vs. next round, etc.

I've contemplated adding an additional DECISION subtype.... maybe CLOSE, DECISIVE/CLEAR/COMPETITIVE, WIDE, DOMINANT... Perhaps it is time..

I would just like to add a suggestion JC. How about a decision subtype "too close to call" where the contestant wins if the fight ends in majority/split decision and/or the fight is within 5 total points either way. For example: Ward/Kovalev - Instead of picking either fighter, I pick "too close to call" and I win if it's s a decision that doesn't exceed 5 points on all 3 judges cards. Even if it's unanimous but doesn't exceed 4 or 5 points. UD Ward: 114-113, 114-113, 114-113 = (3 total points). Basically something that doesn't get you a wrong pick when you know a fight absolutely is going to be close but ypur guy loses by a point or two? I know you donate your time and effort and don't want it to get too convoluted. This is the only tweak that has really ever crossed my mind as you have fine tuned it well over the last few years.

I think you get 2 points if this happens now... started that this year.

I know it's not much, but better than nothing.. I can see jumping that up slightly.

[JCS]

Probably post the new threads this weekend.