All right, I've looked at the feedback you all gave. This will also serve as a memo to my future self. Hey doc, have you finally found yourself a nice girl to maybe settle down with, or are you still single, you pathetic loser?
First of all, as promised, three people who responded will get to participate for free in the next pool. They are:
Brett,
TvK and
theyounggun! Congratulations, you will be exempt from paying an entry fee, should I decide to introduce one! (But I can't promise that.)
Quote:2. What do you think of the site I put the results on?
a) What site?
b) It's redundant, the posts are sufficient
c) It's a nice addition
d) It could be improved, by ...
It seems the answers are divided between b and c. I'll see if I can think of a way to make it more useful, otherwise I'll save myself the trouble of having to upload stuff every day.
Quote:3. With the way this pool works, you have to send in predictions multiple times. Alternatively, you'd be betting on matches for which you don't know which teams are involved. What is your opinion on this?
a) I like the current system, so having to submit multiple times is a necessary evil.
b) Just abolish the knockout stage, stop after the group matches.
c) I'd prefer a system where you make predictions for the entire knockout stage in one go.
d) I'd prefer a system where you make predictions for the entire tournament, right at the start.
e) I'd prefer a system where you'd get points for predicting the teams, rather than (just) the results.
f) I'd prefer something else, namely ...
With one exception, everyone went for a, so that's the way it's going to be.
Quote:4. What do you think of the ratio 5/2 for correctly predicting the score/winner?
a) Nice
b) A correct score should get more points (relatively), e.g. 3/1, 10/3, ...
c) A correct score should get fewer points (relatively), e.g. 2/1, 5/3, ...
This one's very interesting, with more than one advocate for each answer. There was also the suggestion to go for 5/3/2 (3 points for correct goal difference) which got support and 3/2/1 as well.
Considering the roughly even divide between b and c I'm tempted to go down the middle and stick with what we have.
The 5/3/2 system is interesting; at the bottom I've put down what the final standings would have been with this system. Personally, I'm concerned though that this might incite people to predict more conservatively; a one-goal difference seems more likely to me than anything else. RvZ for instance, who mostly predicted quite conservatively, suddenly gets 10 points more than Tyler. I for one would like to see more variation in predictions.
This could use some more discussion! Quote:5. What do you think of the point system with regard to penalties?
a) I still don't get how it works
b) It's too complicated; keep it simple stupid
c) It's not fair
d) It's good
Unanimously d was selected, but two people suggested to exclude extra time. The extra point could then go to people who correctly predict the winner, as robman60 put forward. I find this an interesting suggestion.
Again,
this could use more input! Quote:6. What would you say about giving more points for matches toward the end of the tournament, to keep things exciting?
a) No!
b) Something like double points for the final
c) Something like double points for the entire knockout stage
d) Something like an increasing multiplier (not necessarily starting with 1): group stage -> round of 16 -> quarterfinals -> semifinals -> final(s)
e) Other, namely ...
Various answers here. Option d got some support, but the problem I see with it is that it could make things complicated, especially if you wouldn't go for the most basic 1->2->3->4->5, which I would say would lead more to chaos than a healthy dose of excitement. I put option d in to see if it might get massive support, but it didn't in my opinion.
There were a couple of votes for b though, so I think I will give that one a go.
Quote:7. How do you like the random pool?
a) I'd like the ability to make some adjustments to a certain limit, so that it's not a complete lottery.
b) No adjustments!
No contest; random will be random!
Quote:8. What do you think of the number of goals that the RNG gave? (The set average was 1.2 per team)
a) Nice
b) Too many
c) Too few
d) I'd prefer another RNG, namely...
Answer a hands down.
Quote:9. How do you like the range of numbers (100-999) you can choose from?
a) It's fine
b) I'd prefer 10-99 (so there's a bigger chance of getting the absolute best, for instance)
c) I want to take 159945
d) No limits! [Actually, I would still limit it to positive integers of at most 9 digits]
Conflicting answers here, with two people going for b and two for c (which would imply d, I'd say). Considering the ongoing interest there has been during the pool for what the best number was, I'm very much inclined to go with b.
Final standings if the 5/3/2 system had been used (actual standings on the left for comparison)
Main pool 5/2 system 5/3/2 system
1. Patrick Hewson 122 1. Patrick Hewson 134
2. Robert van Zanten 114 2. Robert van Zanten 130
Tyler Worley 114 3. Tyler Worley 120
4. Jake Walter 106 4. Alex Penev 115
5. Paul Tanney 103 5. Jake Walter 112
6. Alex Penev 101 6. Paul Tanney 109
7. Trystan Pugh 94 7. Dan Hoernemann 106
Dan Hoernemann 94 8. Brett Edwards 103
Brett Edwards 94 9. Trystan Pugh 102
10. Kevin McAteer 93 Kevin McAteer 102
David Moll 93 11. David Moll 100
12. Tom van Kessel 92 12. Stefan Glosby 97
13. Stefan Glosby 91 Zoran Tintor 97
14. Zoran Tintor 89 14. Manuel Babjar 94
15. Manuel Babjar 84 15. Robert Lee 93
16. Robert Lee 83 Tom van Kessel 93
17. Chris Clark 82 17. Chris Clark 92
Karel van Duijvenboden 82 Karel van Duijvenboden 92
19. Steve Meakings 78 19. Guillaume Leviach 85
20. Djibril Aatif 76 20. Djibril Aatif 84
21. David Roldan 75 Florian Chollet 84
22. Guillaume Leviach 74 22. Steve Meakings 83
23. Timur Ahmad 73 23. David Roldan 82
Vincent Tolhuis 73 24. Vincent Tolhuis 81
25. Florian Chollet 72 25. Timur Ahmad 77
26. Lewis Richards 66 26. Lewis Richards 70
27. Robert Szabo 63 27. Robert Szabo 69
28. Scott Abbey 46 28. Scott Abbey 50Random pool 5/2 system 5/3/2 system
1. Trystan Pugh 94 1. Trystan Pugh 105
2. Manuel Babjar 92 2. Manuel Babjar 98
3. Jake Walter 73 3. Jake Walter 84
Robert Lee 73 Robert Lee 84
5. Steve Meakings 69 5. Steve Meakings 80
6. Robert Szabo 67 6. Florian Chollet 75
7. David Moll 66 7. Guillaume Leviach 74
8. Frederick Hutchington 65 Jonathan Toole-Charignon 74
9. Jonathan Toole-Charignon 64 Robert Szabo 74
10. Florian Chollet 63 10. Frederick Hutchington 72
11. Chris Clark 62 11. David Moll 71
12. Guillaume Leviach 60 Chris Clark 71
Dan Hoernemann 60 13. Kevin McAteer 68
Patrick Hewson 60 14. Dan Hoernemann 66
15. Kevin McAteer 59 15. Patrick Hewson 65
16. Tyler Worley 58 16. Callum Douglas 63
17. Sam Fairless 57 Tyler Worley 63
18. Lewis Richards 56 Sam Fairless 63
19. Callum Douglas 54 19. Aron Langerak 61
Stefan Glosby 54 Tom van Kessel 61
21. Tom van Kessel 53 Stefan Glosby 61
Timur Ahmad 53 22. Brett Edwards 60
23. Aron Langerak 52 23. Lewis Richards 59
Djibril Aatif 52 Djibril Aatif 59
Robert van Zanten 52 25. Timur Ahmad 57
26. Andy Lundeen 51 David Roldan 57
27. Ben Allen 50 27. Andy Lundeen 56
Brett Edwards 50 28. Ben Allen 55
29. David Roldan 49 Zoran Tintor 55
30. Joe Bernier 48 Robert van Zanten 55
31. Zoran Tintor 46 31. Joe Bernier 53
32. Karel van Duijvenboden 39 32. Karel van Duijvenboden 44
Dave Tandy 39 33. Jon Coppernoll 41
34. Jon Coppernoll 38 Dave Tandy 41
Pages: 
