Considering Scoring Changes for Rugby on Superbru
Here at Superbru HQ we are always striving to make our games on Superbru as enjoyable as possible, for as many people as possible. Over 300,000 players took part in our Rugby World Cup games, which is an extraordinary number of people and represents a huge diversity of interests, opinions and reasons for playing Superbru.
A key aspect of our games is obviously the scoring system, and we have made improvements across various sports in recent years, notably in Football and Cricket around the recent World Cups.
As we look ahead to the next 4-year cycle in Rugby, now is a good time to consider any improvements to our Rugby scoring model. We are always cautious doing this, because Rugby is our most popular sport on Superbru, and any changes we make need to be wary of the fact that thousands of people like it the way it is.
Two proposed changes have been discussed most and we felt that it was right to address them here, ahead of the season, so that those who have kindly provided us with some ideas know where we stand.
As you know, if your pick is within 5 points of the actual margin, you will win 0.5 points on Superbru, reflecting your accuracy in predicting how close a game would be between the two sides.
The argument for this is that the margin pick should be considered in isolation from picking the winning team. Step 1, predict the winner. Step 2, predict how close the game will be. And then you win points for accuracy in each of those predictions.
The counter argument that some people make is that if you pick the wrong team to win, your prediction was incorrect and you should receive no points at all.
I can see both sides, I don’t feel too strongly either way, and we were all set to run a referendum, asking the Superbru community whether or not we should award MPs even if you pick the losing team.
However, one thing that is difficult to model is how it might change future picking behaviour, and a longtime Superbru player raised the issue that it could deter people from picking any margins under 6 so that you get the full benefit of the 5-point MP range.
If you pick the Blues to win by 1, you wouldn’t win the MP if the Reds win by 1, and so there are only 5 possible results that will yield the coveted 0.5 points. If you pick the Blues to win by 6, however, you’ll score the MP if they win by 1, or if they win by 11, and so there are 10 possible results in MP range.
This potential concentration of picks is a concern - if everyone had the same prediction, the game would be no fun at all, and there would be no movement on the leaderboards.
So whilst the change would not make a massive difference to leaderboards over the course of a season on current picking behaviour, it would alter things with the new picking behaviour it would encourage.
With this in mind, we are not running a referendum on this, because we would be uncomfortable implementing the result if people vote to remove it.
This is a valid statement, and of course we try to ensure our scoring systems are all fair and reward accurate predictions sufficiently.
Some people have proposed a tiered Margin Point system whereby an exact pick scores more points than a pick that is out by 5, or where you could even extend the range to reward picks within 10 of the result.
The argument for a tiered system is better-rewarding accuracy. However, adjusting the value of the MP might distort the importance of that particular point, and therefore cluster picks around more conservative margins, creating a negative behavioural changes. For example, extending a small MP to 10 points out (e.g. 0.25 pts for being within 5 - 10 of the actual margin) would have seen MP being awarded to 62% of winning picks in Super Rugby 2019 (up from 41% in our current system). With a majority of players earning MP, not earning MP in any given game would feel like a negative outcome, and this would skew and cluster picks around more conservative outcomes.
Also, the MP would become harder to explain and risk failing the explainability test. Currently, everyone knows if you’re within 5 points of the result, you’ll get a Margin Point. Our MP system is easy to understand, you don’t have to check Superbru to see how many points you have won, and it’s easy to explain to a friend that is thinking of joining your pool.
Other suggestions have come our way over the last few years, and all are considered carefully and often discussed at length in the office. Please feel free to share any feedback, and we are always listening.
Good luck for the season ahead!
A key aspect of our games is obviously the scoring system, and we have made improvements across various sports in recent years, notably in Football and Cricket around the recent World Cups.
As we look ahead to the next 4-year cycle in Rugby, now is a good time to consider any improvements to our Rugby scoring model. We are always cautious doing this, because Rugby is our most popular sport on Superbru, and any changes we make need to be wary of the fact that thousands of people like it the way it is.
Recent changes
We have made some alterations in the past few seasons, including capping the Bonus Point so that you have to be within 15 points to qualify - and then making it configurable by pool captains because some people didn’t like the change. We also gave pool captains the ability to disable the feature which splits the Bonus Point amongst qualifiers; and to disable default picks in their pools.Framework
The framework we use to design and change our scoring systems rests on three critical factors:- Scoring: how will it impact leaderboards over the course of a season?
- Behaviour: how will it change picking behaviour, and will those changes make the game better or worse?
- Explainability: will it pass the test of being able to explain it easily to a mate at a BBQ / braai?
This season: no changes
Looking ahead to this season, there are no changes planned to the rugby scoring system for 2020. We have received plenty of very valuable feedback over the past couple of seasons which has been discussed at length but currently don’t feel any proposed changes have satisfied the tests of our framework enough to implement.Two proposed changes have been discussed most and we felt that it was right to address them here, ahead of the season, so that those who have kindly provided us with some ideas know where we stand.
Margin Points awarded even if you pick the losing team
“Why do you get any points when you get the pick wrong?”As you know, if your pick is within 5 points of the actual margin, you will win 0.5 points on Superbru, reflecting your accuracy in predicting how close a game would be between the two sides.
The argument for this is that the margin pick should be considered in isolation from picking the winning team. Step 1, predict the winner. Step 2, predict how close the game will be. And then you win points for accuracy in each of those predictions.
The counter argument that some people make is that if you pick the wrong team to win, your prediction was incorrect and you should receive no points at all.
I can see both sides, I don’t feel too strongly either way, and we were all set to run a referendum, asking the Superbru community whether or not we should award MPs even if you pick the losing team.
However, one thing that is difficult to model is how it might change future picking behaviour, and a longtime Superbru player raised the issue that it could deter people from picking any margins under 6 so that you get the full benefit of the 5-point MP range.
If you pick the Blues to win by 1, you wouldn’t win the MP if the Reds win by 1, and so there are only 5 possible results that will yield the coveted 0.5 points. If you pick the Blues to win by 6, however, you’ll score the MP if they win by 1, or if they win by 11, and so there are 10 possible results in MP range.
This potential concentration of picks is a concern - if everyone had the same prediction, the game would be no fun at all, and there would be no movement on the leaderboards.
So whilst the change would not make a massive difference to leaderboards over the course of a season on current picking behaviour, it would alter things with the new picking behaviour it would encourage.
With this in mind, we are not running a referendum on this, because we would be uncomfortable implementing the result if people vote to remove it.
Tiered Margin Points
“The more accurate you are, the more points you should get”This is a valid statement, and of course we try to ensure our scoring systems are all fair and reward accurate predictions sufficiently.
Some people have proposed a tiered Margin Point system whereby an exact pick scores more points than a pick that is out by 5, or where you could even extend the range to reward picks within 10 of the result.
The argument for a tiered system is better-rewarding accuracy. However, adjusting the value of the MP might distort the importance of that particular point, and therefore cluster picks around more conservative margins, creating a negative behavioural changes. For example, extending a small MP to 10 points out (e.g. 0.25 pts for being within 5 - 10 of the actual margin) would have seen MP being awarded to 62% of winning picks in Super Rugby 2019 (up from 41% in our current system). With a majority of players earning MP, not earning MP in any given game would feel like a negative outcome, and this would skew and cluster picks around more conservative outcomes.
Also, the MP would become harder to explain and risk failing the explainability test. Currently, everyone knows if you’re within 5 points of the result, you’ll get a Margin Point. Our MP system is easy to understand, you don’t have to check Superbru to see how many points you have won, and it’s easy to explain to a friend that is thinking of joining your pool.
Other suggestions have come our way over the last few years, and all are considered carefully and often discussed at length in the office. Please feel free to share any feedback, and we are always listening.
| Contact us |
Good luck for the season ahead!
Superbru on X
Awesome setup at the moment and the pools are growing so it must be working. 23 Jan 08:54
That said; under the current system my approach is:
- Decide on a winner
- Pick a Margin of 6 or more
If I can't separate the teams, and believe they might draw, pick a Margin of between 1 and 5. Can't predict a tie, as they are so rare, but at least I'll get the MP if they do draw.
In my opinion, it only actually changes pick behaviour when it comes down to the last game of a tournament and there are places up for grabs.
For example, I am at the top of a table, but a person in 2nd place is 3 points behind. There are 3 points up for grabs (let's say, i.e. win point, margin point and bonus point), and the person on top could potentially lose his place on top (via a draw and it comes down to points difference or whatever).
I have 2 choices:
1. Try pick the same team as the other player (impossible to predict, because that person is playing mind games too)
2.) Back the favourites to win by one point.
If you go with option 2, and the favourites win - you are smiling no one can catch you. If by so
In Football, where there are 3 outcomes, you often have 3 or 4 out of 10 matches with heavy favorites, these are usually Top 6 teams. So does a 5/10 deserve 1 Slam point? I'd inflate their value by making them harder to earn. Say 1 for 6 correct out of 10, 2 for 7, 3 for 8, 4 for 9 & 5 (or maybe 10!) for a True Grand Slam of 10/10.
This would see a consistent Correct Outcome Picker trump a 'Lucky' Exact 3 points getter who only gets 5/10 right. It shouldn't be too hard to implement and is easy to explain. 1 point extra for every correct outcome better than 5 or 50% in a round.
We lost the ability to tailor picks in different sized pools after many scoring changes came in. You can imagine the extra calculations required for the T20 when you could pick exact Runs instead of a quite large range. I'm sure SB HQ wish they could wave a magic wand and do loads of fancy changes but I'm guessing the hardware can't cope with the increasing traffic.
I'll just go along with whatever they decide & adapt accordingly. But there are so many more Newbies in the Global Top 10s now compared to 2 years ago 23 Jan 03:27
KISS is a great rock band
And KISS applies here: keep it simple stupid
Thanks guys for not overcomplicating things.
Now the cricket t20 scoring system is another story...
Also I captain a head to head pool which is enjoyable for small number of players (we have 8) However the UI for this has a few wrinkles that should be ironed out. The gameplay for head to head could be improved by having a playoff option to match the playoffs rather than continuing the round robin through the playoffs
I must, however, mention my pet peeve - "neutral like Switzerland". It is my belief that if you are invested enough to play and compete you must support someone, something, anything...
• Group stages = 1 pts
• Quarter Finals (and qualifiers) = 1.5 pts
• Semi Finals (and third place playoff) = 2 pts
• Finals = 3 pts
The biggest problem for me in the current scoring system was the sharing/splitting of bonus points, eg. a Spot on pick or closest by 3 players within 5 point margin and everyone gets only 0.33 points. Next game someone gets closest pick to score (out by 20 points) but scores 1 full BP… Who is being rewarded here? Combined the current margin and bonus point scoring into one margin score system where different margins are rewarded differently.
MP (correct team wins) Same margins for every player (no splitting)
• Spot on and 1 point diff = 3
• 2 point diff to 3 point diff = 2
• 4 point diff to 5 point diff = 1
• 6 and more point diff = 0
MP (incorrect team picked) Same margins for every player (no splitting)
• 1 point diff to 3 point
MP (incorrect team picked) Same margins for every player (no splitting)
• 1 point diff to 3 point diff = 2
• 4 point diff to 5 point diff = 1
• 6 and more point diff = 0
In the suggested scoring system one would reward only the player(s) closest to the actual score constantly.
GSP to remain as is! My 2 cents.... 23 Jan 12:51
But I can understand your annoyance as on the face of it it seems wrong but it relates to the MARGIN and nothing else. 23 Jan 21:59
Also a bonus point for picking an upset would be nice. If you go against 85% of the community and it comes off, you should get rewarded for that.
I have a huge issue with net games and net sets too but that is for another discussion.
I am for scrapping the margin point when you have predicted the wrong outcome. Superbru predictions need to made with the head and not the heart. I support my teams through thick and thin but when I think they are not going to pull it through I predict the opposing team for a win. I understand some bru's will never do that so predict a 1 point margin for their own team which is cool but if you get it wrong however and the other team wins a close one you should NOT get that margin point.
Thank you to everyone involved for making Superbru so awesome and the topic of many a conversation.