New: Bonus Point range cap in rugby
We're making a small but important change to the scoring system for our rugby union, rugby league, Aussie Rules and American Football tournaments. Active tournaments (Currie Cup, NRL, AFL and Super League) will remain unchanged but all new tournaments will now have a cap on the distance from the actual margin at which a Bonus Point can be earned. You'll first see this in action in the first matches of 2016's Top 14 and Rugby Championship.
If your pick is more than 15 points away from the actual game margin, you won't win a Bonus Point - even if your pick is the closest in the pool.
However, in blowout games, particularly if they are unexpected, the outfringe Bonus Point can feel like an unfair reward, even if your pick is technically the closest in the pool.
Say you've got the highest pick in your pool with Hurricanes by 15 and the game goes on to a total blowout with the Canes winning by 43: nobody gets a Margin Point but you win 1 Win Point + 1 Bonus Point - two times everyone else's score. This doesn't quite feel right. Under the new system, once the Canes got past 30, you would no longer qualify for the Bonus Point.
15 is also a nice round number that makes it easy for those of us who can do mental arithmetic to track whether we're in contention while watching a game.
And lastly, it's near enough the value of two converted tries, which feels intuitively appropriate for rugby!
(in AFL, with its bigger margins, the cap will be set higher from 2017)
We hope you like the change!
If your pick is more than 15 points away from the actual game margin, you won't win a Bonus Point - even if your pick is the closest in the pool.
Why we're making this change
For more than 10 years, we've loved the tactical plays that the Bonus Point has inspired. Picking the highest margin in your pool and then securing what we call an "outfringing" Bonus Point is risky but can be rewarding - and it's deeply satisfying to watch a match that's going big when you know you've got the biggest margin.However, in blowout games, particularly if they are unexpected, the outfringe Bonus Point can feel like an unfair reward, even if your pick is technically the closest in the pool.
Say you've got the highest pick in your pool with Hurricanes by 15 and the game goes on to a total blowout with the Canes winning by 43: nobody gets a Margin Point but you win 1 Win Point + 1 Bonus Point - two times everyone else's score. This doesn't quite feel right. Under the new system, once the Canes got past 30, you would no longer qualify for the Bonus Point.
Why choose 15 as the cap?
Looking at our database of past picks, the majority of picks fall within a range of 0-15 points from the actual margin. This feels like it creates a natural cap: if you're out by more than the average, you shouldn't score BP.15 is also a nice round number that makes it easy for those of us who can do mental arithmetic to track whether we're in contention while watching a game.
And lastly, it's near enough the value of two converted tries, which feels intuitively appropriate for rugby!
(in AFL, with its bigger margins, the cap will be set higher from 2017)
Please spread the word
Not everybody is going to hear about this in time for the start of the Rugby Championship and Top 14, so if you hear a mate crying out in confusion as to why he or she has not earned a Bonus Point, do the right thing and explain - gently, with a sympathetic and reasonable tone, perhaps in private - how things have changed.We hope you like the change!
and also have a build in system in the programming that if two guys are on exactly the same log points and one TDM then the one with the least amount of default will always be above 19 Aug 10:18
25 Aug 00:58
19 Aug 12:00
Great stuff General, I'm convinced the majority of your customers will approve of this change. 17 Aug 09:18
AKA Transvaal
I think the balance is just about right now by splitting the BP 4 ways. It still rewards for getting it spot on but rewards the risk taken by picking the unexpected a little more. 17 Aug 09:54
In that case both picks by 7 and by 9 are a mere 1 point away from the final result so they'd share the BP between them.
However, SA will win the match anyway so neither of those picks would really earn any points. (or so we all wish) 25 Aug 13:51
I was originally in favour of keeping the BP as it is, because I think it adds something to your pick strategy, considering what your rivals will pick and trying to get the highest (or lowest) pick.
However, I don't think this will be lost. You can obviously still go for the highest pick, and then it could add some excitement to those high-margin games if the team you've picked starts racking up too many points, and you have the biggest pick.
In reality, this change is unlikely to make very much difference overall, but it should take away that irritation when someone scores an extra point than you for being 1 point closer to a 60-point margin than you were.
Let's see how it goes.
Hutch 18 Aug 07:55
Since when I started playing it has been the closest gets the BP, no matter the margin, it has never bothered me even though I hardly get those :-D 18 Aug 09:48
the big thing for me is i pick a team by 20, my mate by 21, the team wins with 60, he's pick is highest so he gets double points but he was actually just as far out as i was.
19 Aug 13:55
Yes I agree- it's an unfair reward to have one man being awarded 2 points, and the rest of the pool only 1, particularly when the picks made amongst the group aren't dissimilar.
However you yourself have acknowledged the integral part that strategy plays in our enjoyment of the game.
You have now erased any motivation to push yourself towards the fringe, because if the game does run away, you suddenly see the reward of your risk taken away from you.
My point is there has to be SOME kind of reward for being the one guy in amongst often large competing pools, to go for the outside pick.
Sure 2 to 1 is unfair.
But why not simply reduce it to half a bp- rather than snatching the reward away entirely ?
You should still be rewarded for being "less wrong" than everyone else. ;)
Under the new rule, you have to have picked NZ by between 19 and 49 to have qualified. People who picked in the mid-teens lost out, but many of those who took the chance of a big (19-49) margin were rewarded for their risk. You'll feel pain if you were out by 16, but the same issue exists with the Margin Point if you're 6 out or at university if you score 74% and miss your first: with a cap, there has to be a line somewhere.
We'll keep a close eye on all the upcoming games to see how the change plays out and as I said in the comment above, we may look at making this rule an optional choice within private pools.
26 Aug 02:38
mmmmm - or make it same 1 point for a win / ZERO if you choose wrong team NO MATTER what the margin / INCREASE margin to 7 just like within 7 in actual games / and increase the closest points to 20 for bonus / all games correct 2 points CASE THIS IS SOMETIMES VERY DIFFICULT???????????
Some people feel that if you don't get the winner right, you simply shouldn't be entitled to anything. I disagree. I'll explain why: much of SuperBru is relative, not absolute. Your pick is not just a winner or a margin, it's both. And it's not a prediction in isolation: it's in the context of other picks in your pools.
Your pick of Blues by 1 sits amidst other people's picks: Blues by 10, Reds by 3, Reds by 10, Reds by 17, Reds by 28. If the Reds have won by 2, then in relative terms does it feel fair that a Blues by 1 pick (3 out from the real margin) is worth nothing while Reds by 28 (25 out) is worth 1 Win Point?
I think that Blues by 1 pick deserves something in this relative context." 25 Aug 13:35
We intentionally do not offer any more points than that for a draw, as any larger reward would give false incentive for brus to regularly pick a draw with the hope of scoring big points rather than picking what they think the outcome would be. In the long run that would just create a negative cycle as pick accuracy would be down if you're picking draws often and there aren't draws occurring regularly. 25 Aug 13:46