Not sure this discussion belongs in this thread but seeing as beenjammin brought it over here...

Ash - that is how it should happen at the moment, but only as long as the Bonus Points are in and they are enough to outweigh any huge hammerings of lesser clans. Hence one of the reasons for change previously.



Of course, over a longer game a better player is more likely to win. No one is arguing that. However all games are already a set length and you are not campaigning for longer games so it is irrelevant.

What is relevant, is that all games should be of equal 'value'. That does not mean the 'value' is simply in the 15 frames taken individually, it is in the overall value to both the match and the competition.

For example, you are playing Seb and the standard is absolutely phenomenal. There is not one missed shot in 15 racks and the score ends up 7-8. At the same time you are playing, there is another game going on where the standard is poor, loads of missed pots and fouls, and the score ends up 12-3 (or alternatively you play someone else another time - play rubbish - but win 12-3). In your system you have given a greater overall value to the winner of the 'poor' game compared to both players in the 'exceptional' game. Similarly you would also be valuing a 15-0 default win as more than your played game. Players play to beat their direct opponent. It is irrelevant how they achieve that. The same goes for a team against their direct opponents. What should happen is that the value of both (or in other words all) games should be equal. That is the key point and why the 'points per frame' type scoring doesn't occur anywhere else.

Now, of course, you can have a League with a 'points per frame' scoring system if you want. Particularly if you think it enhances the overall experience for the majority of players. By that, I mean if players really feel hard done by if every frame they won in an overall loss does not count. But if you do that, then you accept that it is not the fairest or most accurate way of deciding the competition and that you also accept the arguments and bad feeling from others when they realise they have not achieved what they would have done under a fair and accurate scoring system.

Edited at 15:36 Sun 02/02/14 (GMT)

But noone goes unbeaten in actual games (frames) played, only in team matches, which there are a lot less of. If you count them, instead of games played, it's not as accurate, accuracy in numbers. Which goes back to my example:
When a top player plays an average player in a race to 2, the average player has a chance, in a race to 20 he doesn't= accuracy in numbers.

Chris,
First of all, I didn't bring it here, keith brought it up.
About being irrelevant, I think it is relevant. Read the above, it points out (for the second time) why it's relevant.
About games being of equal value, I agree that games (frames) should be. Individual matches, or team matches should not. Here's why:
I'll use individual matches, like your example, so its easier to compare.
When the outcome is 7-8, they were almost evenly matched, the winner barely won more games than the loser did, a slight victory.
When the outcome is 3-12, they were not evenly matched, its a huge victory.
By the way, whether someone was playing "rubbish" or not, IS irrelevant to this discussion.
Back to subject, these outcomes are not equal. To dumb down the numbers from 30 to 2, and just recognize the winners of the individual matches, takes 2 things that are actually unequal and makes them equal:
0-1 instead of 7-8
0-1 instead of 3-12
It doesn't recognize the differences anymore, and that is inaccurate.

Edited at 17:04 Sun 02/02/14 (GMT)

It renders some games unequal to others, leaves them uncounted.
The same goes for counting team matches instead of games played.

Edited at 16:50 Sun 02/02/14 (GMT)

That accuracy in numbers applies to probability (and to include it without a significance value means you can take a quite misleading assumption from it). That would only apply if all the frames came from the same match not a selection of matches against different opponents in different game types.

A clan is a group of players who play and contribute to one single entity.

To determine the best clan, is to determine who is the best on the whole and not simply the best individuals. These individuals win together, draw together or lose together. If seven of these players lost and one won, to say that clan is the better clan would be false as the one individual who won is an outlier of the overall spread of the match and disrupted the result. The current proposed system addresses this by valuing each win equally. So in each match the overall winner would be the clan who played better and not the individuals who played better.

This can be applied over the course of a season, those clans who perform better overall (and consistently winning matches) and not just at one point in time (who beat one particular opponent by a lot) who be crowned champions. This should be true for any league competition (and even in cups to an extent).

Not sure I understand what you're trying to say in that first part, but in the example above, I am talking about in the same team match.

The clan with the best individuals is the best on a whole. Whichever system you use, they still win, lose, and draw together. I don't think one system focuses more on individuals than the next does, they all have to be played by individuals, and they all tally points as a team.

7 outcomes of 7-8, are barely losses at all, almost a tie (49-56 as a team, to call it 7-0 is a joke). If one 12-3 (a real victory) can bring it back for the team, then rightfully so. They have performed better overall, by consistently winning games. The team that scored 3 in one indiv match had a weak link in their whole.
If you value each indiv match equally, you leave games uncounted. If you fail to count every game, you lose accuracy. I pointed out why above.

The clan that wins the most games as a whole (not individual matches, not team matches) have shown themselves to be the best clan.

Edited at 18:16 Sun 02/02/14 (GMT)

Well that is just completely wrong - compare the league winners with the best individuals of that league.

Super League winners - Snooker Squad
Top 10 SL players - 5 Uprising, 3 Pros, 1 Eagle, 1 SS (no. 1)

FBL Winners - Professionals
Top 5 Golden Cue - 3 Uprising (inc. no.1), 2 Pros, 1 SS. *

FCL Winners - Professionals
Top 5 Golden Cue - 2 Uprising, 1 pro (no.1), 1 SS, 1 Unbeatable


* two players were joint 5th


Considering Uprising won nothing, but had the top individuals I would say there is something not quite right with your statement.


Luck can affect the score and in most games alters the scoreline at the end (even if by only one or 1 frames), however it is a lot less likely to affect the outcome and will only occur in very few games. A switch of scoring reduces the level of chance and therefore provides a more accurate reflection.

Edited at 17:54 Sun 02/02/14 (GMT)

The clan with the best "average of skill" among their individuals (their skill as a whole) is the best clan.....
is what I meant, I think most would've realized that.
The best player on the site could be in the worst team, but their average skill would still be low.

As for that last part, you apparently failed to read, or understand my examples above.
To consider 7-8 as 0-1 drastically increases the level of chance, deciding an indiv match with one frame. No more accurate than a race to 1.
When you count every game played, you minimize the luck factor.

Edited at 18:12 Sun 02/02/14 (GMT)

Keith's comment was three months ago - but nevermind that!!

Clan competition is exactly that. It is a competition between clans. Therefore when there is talk about going unbeaten then that clearly relates to clans not individuals.

Again you have only selected certain points to cover.

Why is a 8-7 win over a great player worth less than a 15-0 win over a poor player?

Why is a 15-0 default win worth more than a 8-7 played win?

Why do we want a competition format which encourages every clan to only play their best 8 players in every single fixture?

Leading on from that, clans do not play their best 8 players in every single fixture anyway so therefore they are already disregarding the 'points per frame' aspect. How does that therefore produce a fair and accurate outcome?.

Why do we want a competition where the award of a default score against a team can decide a whole season and is something totally outside of the control of their nearest challengers?

Why does a player who takes Tiger Woods to the 18th hole in the Ryder Cup before losing not score more than a team mate who loses 10 & 8 to Bubba Watson?

Because, as zante keeps alluding to as well, this is clan (team) competition - not individuals.

I have already said you can have your points per frame scoring system in the same way you could have any other scoring system. You could have the team that gets the most games played with least defaults be Champions if you want. What you can't do is claim that it is the only fair and accurate one because it is neither.

It is completely different though, If I flip a coin 15 times and 8 times heads appears then the chance of a head appearing in those flips was greater than for tails (which is based on all factors and not just pure chance). That would be giving an absolute figure, heads is more likely than tails. Not somewhat more likely, it simply is.

That just isn't right at all, as I said above - luck has a bigger influence when frames come into it. If luck equates to 3 frames going the wrong way that would mean a difference of potentially 216 frames decided by luck in a season (3 frames per match decided by luck, x 8 matches per fixture, x 9 fixtures per season). Whereas for luck affecting the outcome of a match, the high variability of the GC data (bigger wins and losses) would lead to a lower chance that luck would affect the outcome of the games as much - and so not as much as the overall fixture wins and therefore it leaves luck with a lower impact on the final outcome of the league.

"Why is a 8-7 win over a great player worth less than a 15-0 win over a poor player?"
Explained that already above. 8-7 is almost a tie, not really a victory. 15-0, and someone was clearly better at the game.

"Why is a 15-0 default win worth more than a 8-7 played win? "
I never said it should be, and you're getting offsubject. Defaults are a problem in any scoring system.

"Why do we want a competition format which encourages every clan to only play their best 8 players in every single fixture? "
I think a clan would rather do that in any scoring system, but they need a full roster, for when someone's away, and subs are needed. So they need give players enough games to keep them happy.

"Leading on from that, clans do not play their best 8 players in every single fixture anyway so therefore they are already disregarding the 'points per frame' aspect. How does that therefore produce a fair and accurate outcome?. "
Goes back to average skill across the whole team. Like above, they have to keep everyone happy, give them games.
But the team with the highest skill average, included the players not in their top 8, should still win.

I never said any of them were unfair, they're all fair no matter how flukey they are. A system is set forth, and we all play in it equally.
I do claim that counting every game (frame) is the most accurate way. If you'll read my examples with an open mind, you might realize I've proven it.

Maybe in your mind but not anyone elses

Clans are a team event thus why the best team should deservedly win the league.

FBL is a prime example of where the best team did not win the league for the last 2 seasons.

Pros had better individuals who could beat the smaller clans by big numbers, but when it got to the big games against there strongest challengers (SS and uprising) they choked on both occasions.

Yet with the poor league rules and set up we have a team who could not beat the teams of equal standard to them and were only capable of beating the smaller teams winning the league by default.

Exactly the reason why there has been 20 points bonus for almost 20 seasons in the FCL so hopefully it never happens in it. It is not the correct method by a long shot but an attempt to adopt to prevent such a scenario.

That is simply your opinion, at no point have you proven it you've just given examples demonstrating it (to your own beliefs). Therefore it is subjective, not objective. Open mind and proving something is a slight conflict of words. With an open mind (and scientifically as well as statistically speaking), you can't prove something, you can only disprove it. If you read the other examples with an open mind you'll see your ideology has been disproved as the best.

Realistically, there is no best option - there are simply different options with different strengths and weaknesses. Instead of running the same option that has been done before with some discontentment a variety of options are being used which is actually the most accurate. Look at the different options together to determine who is the best.

At last I feel like we are making progress!!

Defaults are highly relevant. If you want to come up with a format that is the fairest and most accurate possible then you have to have a format which considers everything. That includes defaults.

"8-7 is almost not a victory" compared to a 15-0. OK well I will pass on that one!! An 8-7 victory for someone over you is every bit as valuable as say a 15-0 win by the same person over someone like me. In many ways it is worth a lot more, but in no ways at all is it less valuable.

"I think a clan would rather do that in any scoring system". Actually I think you will find that is misguided. Most clans would prefer to use all of their available players in a format where that is not punished in any way. For example by picking teams from their players that are good enough to beat certain opponents without necessarily worrying by how many. And as someone with an interest in clans and in this website, I for one think that is great and exactly how it should be.

"Goes back to average skill across the whole team. Like above, they have to keep everyone happy, give them games.
But the team with the highest skill average, included the players not in their top 8, should still win."
OK so now your preference is for the team to get the highest skill average to win overall rather than accumulating the most possible points. And there is a difference there. Again an example of having a format in place which teams are not playing to.

I have read you arguments since day 1 with an open mind (even if you don't believe that) however you have proved nothing. I am pretty sure I and others have 'proved nothing' either but I do believe we have presented a stronger overall argument why (with all things considered) a simple points per frame only format does not produce a fairer and more accurate outcome and in addition is not beneficial to the wider clan world in general. That last point is actually one of the most important points here.

Edited at 20:24 Sun 02/02/14 (GMT)

You 3 can ignore the proof I've laid out, and keep repeating yourselves all you want. It doesn't mean you're right. I give up trying to make you understand though, it's not possible if you're unwilling.

We are willing, but you don't seem to be offering the same attitude you want us to about our side.

That isn't proof, it's opinion.

You have not provided proof that your method is right. You have merely stated an opinion like everyone else has.

The main fact when it comes down to a team event in a league format in nearly every sport (football, rugby, snooker, pool leagues etc). You may all well play individually but you collectively win or lose as a team. Example for football a 1-0 or a 10-0 win only gets you 3 points, the victory margin only helps for goal difference if you are tied on points. In normal snooker or pool leagues, players would play individually or in doubles etc but each individual game is worth exactly the same usually a point, so if one team wins 5 games and the other team wins 3 games, match score is 5-3 and again the winning team gets 2 or 3 points for the win and again the game difference only comes in when two team are tied on the same number of points.

In reality the above scenario is exactly how the FCL should be it means there is no need for bonus points and the team with the best record in all the matches they compete in would always win the league. Frames won / lost would only be used as a separator if 2 teams were tied on the same points.

The formula above is the correct way for any team event like the clan league where it is a league format should be run, but for some reason so many cannot see it.

But you are ignoring what I started with, frames are not points, they are the actual games that have been played.
Matches are not games, they are a group of games. You have to twist your view of what you're looking at, and see a match as one game to hold that view.

Yes you can count the matches, and score it that way; but as I already proved above, in doing so you've dumbed down the numbers, and left some of the real, actual games (frames) uncounted. It's a less accurate representation of what actually happened.
We agree that the best team should win, I just the think the team that wins the most games (after playing every other team) is the best, this is not necessarily the team that wins the most matches.

A football match is two 45 minute stints played back-to-back with a 15 break separating them. They aren't considered independent from each other, they come together to form a match. You don't have to twist your view to know that but you still hold it as one construct.

I provided proof that counting every game is more accurate, I have'nt seen any supporting any different.

you're talking about halves of one game correct?
This isn't football, a frame is a game, a team match isn't, it's a bunch of games, you 3 keep ignoring that.
That's why you can't see the proof, every fact I point out that you don't like, you choose to ignore.

Edited at 21:45 Sun 02/02/14 (GMT)