AE NEXT DUEL No Shows to be counted?

[Exe Gesis]

Why does it have to be an 'average' score?

Just give them one less than the lowest score. They haven't picked anything, they deserve the ND loss, and there shouldn't be even the slightest risk that they could beat someone (probably GG.exe ) who's put a full week's tips in.

'Oh, I forgot' isn't an excuse, when we sign up, we know we're in for 17 weeks, no if buts or maybes. Hell, Woodson's phone is a ho, I'm sure everyone has his number, sms him at 2:58am each week if need be...

Lowest score minus 1, deal with it, they're lucky to get that.

Yeah but then people get an advantage of they're in a division with a number of on going no shows. That's also a problem. People luck of the draw get into playoffs at the expense of someone else who had to play all live games. Why nulliing no show games makes sense.

But as we saw there's a problem nulling in the scenario where someone gets a HRS score but got nulled when they would've beaten everyone.

Perhaps I have a solution tho In the case of a no show, your score gets applied an "all play" number and from that derive a w or l result.

I'll explain later...

 

[iluvparis]

Yeah but then people get an advantage of they're in a division with a number of on going no shows. That's also a problem. People luck of the draw get into playoffs at the expense of someone else who had to play all live games. Why nulliing no show games makes sense.

But as we saw there's a problem nulling in the scenario where someone gets a HRS score but got nulled when they would've beaten everyone.

Perhaps I have a solution tho In the case of a no show, your score gets applied an "all play" number and from that derive a w or l result.

I'll explain later...

You realise you are just advocating that to get the ND win you just have to beat the median rather than the average

 

[Exe Gesis]

You realise you are just advocating that to get the ND win you just have to beat the median rather than the average

I'm saying when a no show happens, an "all play" application/formula be used to determine if the person indeed earns a win or not. His score is used, rather than using the no shows derived score.

Also disagree with giving no shows a lowest score minus 1 etc type thing which can make them become MORE truant when they fall behind the CR ladder.

Give no shows a median score just for their CR ladder. But use the live person's score in an all play manner to judge if he wins or not.

Eg, 80 people, only 70 are still active, person's score means he would've beaten only 30 of 69 other people, so a loss is given.

There are some pitfalls to that too.

Another idea is making ND an AFL like ladder, with a top 8 or 36 or whatever, and ALL results determined by all-play.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Let me re-state that last idea....

Say 72 people in AE.

Split the ND comp into say four divisions of 18 people each. Every week you ONLY vie "all play" against your division opponents. End of the regular season the top placed teams and wild cards advance to the playoffs and THEN you can have h2h playoff games.

 

[statsman74]

Working through that a little more in a hypothetical;

Weeks 1-12 - 4 divisions of 18, in an "all play" against your division - each week if you get the highest score of the 18 and you get 17 points, get the second highest you get 16...down to the lowest of the 18 who gets zero points for the week. At the end of week 12 all 18 teams in each of the 4 divisions will have a total score and can be ranked that way

Week 13 - top 2 in each division (8 teams) get a bye and advance to week 14. teams placed 3rd through 6th in each division (16 teams) play in 8 head to head matches, with the 8 winners advancing to week 14

Week 14 - final 16 in 8 head to head matches
Week 15 - final 8 in quarter finals
Week 16 - final 4 in semi finals
Week 17 - final 2 head to head

You could change it so that Week 12 has the top 4 in each division having a bye (16 teams), then the next 8 in each division (32 teams) play head to head with 16 advancing, with week 13 then being 32 teams left, and weeks 14-17 are the same as above.

BUT

...the downside of this method is that it gets away from the Next Dual nature - for those first 12 weeks you dont have that head to head matchup each week. in the end it becomes almost another CR comp, at least for the first 12 weeks.

 

[Exe Gesis]

I'll keep thinking of ideas ....

 

[Exe Gesis]

I've got it!!!!!

Will post soon

 

[Exe Gesis]

For the purpose of ND only, a bot named "House" exists. Every week it auto picks the Vegas favorites. Or some other formula, like the AE.consensus selections. Or some well-known NFL analysts weekly picks.

Whenever there's a no show, the live person's score is then pitted against "the House" for that week. Same if there are multiple no shows. All against "the House".

In this way, the not opponent is kinda like playing a human in that there won't be anamolies like all defaulted away teams etc. The House will probably be picking similar teams to what AE'ers do week to week.

People could complain that the House is generally scoring high and so it's tough to beat it, but cmon you're not going to find a perfect solution. Purely for the scenario of how to deal with a no show in ND all these kinds of ideas are valid -- the House, the no show given a median score, etc. Just pick one of those and make it a firm rule before the start of the season.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Thinking about it a little more....

The house idea isn't the best. Can cause the same outlier as all away teams, where it ends up a too high scoring week.

Also whatever idea is used, got to not add burden on JeffDunne.

The median idea is probably best/simplest. And surely no one complains if they can't beat a median mark for a ND result.

Sometimes having a "luck of the draw" element in a comp is needed for talking points and interest.

 

[BeinPurplenGreen]

As long as the House doesn't reside on the cul de sac GG.exe Street...

 

[JeffDunne]

The problem seems to me to be one of CR rather than the picks themselves.

So maybe the solution is to order default away picks based on results rather than the order of the games.

Therefore if you get 6 default away wins, they are ordered 1,2,3,4,5,6 CR and the losses take up the rest of the CR positions.

 

[Exe Gesis]

The problem seems to me to be one of CR rather than the picks themselves.

So maybe the solution is to order default away picks based on results rather than the order of the games.

Therefore if you get 6 default away wins, they are ordered 1,2,3,4,5,6 CR and the losses take up the rest of the CR positions.

That's pretty ingenious

 

[JeffDunne]

That's pretty ingenious

I like simplicity.

 

[Exe Gesis]

I like simplicity.

The only "problem" is that no-shows are then always going to get beaten, and someone who no-shows once early or twice in a month, and gets a really low score with that system, then they fall behind on the CR ladder and become more of a no-show as they fall behind the CR ladder.

 

[JeffDunne]

The only "problem" is that no-shows are then always going to get beaten, and someone who no-shows once early or twice in a month, and gets a really low score with that system, then they fall behind on the CR ladder and become more of a no-show as they fall behind the CR ladder.

Have you seen some of the scores this year when people do tip?

 

[Exe Gesis]

Have you seen some of the scores this year when people do tip?

I can't help but see when I scroll down, down, down, to see my own score and realize I'm not alone

Still, I think a balance is still needed with no-shows.

1. A no-show getting a defaulted median score purely for their CR ladder -- to keep them in the comp and prevent becoming more of a no-show.
2. A no-show is not an automatic loss in ND for the no-shower, they can still win, tho it'd be less frequent -- so some method of giving a no-show a score separate from their defaulted median CR score.
3. A system that is easy to code in the site so that when a no-show happens there's no need for getting anyone to manually adjust a score, the site can do it straight away.

Hence, the dilemma in coming up with a method for 2) where it is balanced, they can still win a ND h2h game, but not frequently.

And the trick in that is using some method where the outlier isn't too high scoring -- outliers like default away teams, etc.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Again, to emphasize.... a person or two in a division who is a regular no-shower creates an unfair advantage to the other people in that division if the no-show is almost always going to lose their game. But people will be upset if the no-show in a division, even if it happens only once or twice, gets a monster score and beats someone who themselves scored in the top third that week.

It's like you cannot win....people want no-shows to lose because it's unfair on the people who put the effort in to put their picks in. But they don't want no-shows to lose because people in a division get an unfair advantage in the playoff race. BUT, if a no-show happens to win due to an outlier that gives a good score, then the person who lost against them will complain.

Vicious circle. No one happy.

Still requires thinking...

 

[Papa Juggs]

The rule has always been you can win ND games by autopicks.

This has never been a problem before.

Suddenly the apocalypse and the forum is in meltdown.

It will be one of those things we need a 75% majority of 50+ votes during the middle of the off season to change

 

[fuey]

Need to stop worrying about people 'losing interest', there's still two comps that everyone is a part of all season long. If that's not enough, * 'em.