How SuperBru considers scoring changes
From time to time, users get in touch with us to suggest changes to our scoring systems. It's great that people love SuperBru enough to really get into the nitty gritty of the scoring and look for ways to improve it. SuperBru was born out of these sort of impassioned debates!
When I hear a scoring change suggestion, I break it down into three parts:
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, but I may never be able to convince you of that because you might always think that the absolute value of a pick in isolation is more important. This leaves us shaking hands and agreeing to disagree.
In this case, I understand where you're coming from. It hurts to miss out. But does moving the finishing line really help? Making the margin range 7 just means that the guy who was 8 away is the guy feeling sore. Someone is always going to lose out: that's sport.
In the first round of Super Rugby 2015, a Margin Point range of 7, as opposed to 5, would have seen an extra 39,557 people (22% of players) scoring a Margin Point! Sound like a lot? Well, in Round 2, 102,225 people (57% of the audience) would have scored more MP.
Plot that out over a season and you can see how it would have a very big influence over final outcomes and the whole balance of the game. Picking upsets would become a little less valuable. Getting the GSP would matter less. People with really good Win Point totals could be beaten by others who got the winner right much less but nailed the wider MP repeatedly.
Many scoring suggestions fall into this category: in isolation they seem reasonable, and fair, but once plotted out and mapped against historic data we see that what on appearances seem like small changes can actually be major distortions.
The spirit of the default is to try to guess what you might have picked had you made your pick. When we set SuperBru up, we figured a simple solution was to give you the home team, since home teams are more likely to win. Broadly that worked, but from time to time there were brutal home underdog wins: the Rebels are at home against the Crusaders, everyone picks the Crusaders, and amazingly the Rebels win. The one guy in the pool who defaulted gets the home team default for the Rebels.
That feels wrong and was a core driver for people saying "you must do away with defaults". But we believe in defaults and concluded that it was our mechanism that was flawed rather than the concept as a whole. So we changed it. Now, defaults are based on the community expectation, so in the Rebels v Crusaders example, the guy who defaulted would have been given a Crusaders pick because that's what everyone else was expecting. That feels fairer, and complaints about defaults have dropped since that change.
I could keep giving examples, but I hope you understand the point here: there are no changes in isolation. We have to consider every idea in the context of the entire game, the whole points system, and all the people playing.
Now, having said all this, I'm fully expecting the comments below to be along the lines of "yes, but how about not splitting the Bonus Point?" and "here's my proposal for a tiered Margin Point" - and the passion in these is in advance genuinely appreciated! Please just understand the big picture that we are working amidst.
When I hear a scoring change suggestion, I break it down into three parts:
- What is the driver behind this? Do I agree that there really is an issue here?
- Will the proposed change solve the issue?
- What knock-on effects will there be? (any change has knock-on effects)
Agreeing to disagree: an example
In our rugby prediction games you can earn a Margin Point in a close game even if you've picked the wrong winner: the Reds win by 2 and you've picked the Blues by 1.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, but I may never be able to convince you of that because you might always think that the absolute value of a pick in isolation is more important. This leaves us shaking hands and agreeing to disagree.
Not solving the issue
You've picked the Blues by 11, they win by 5 and you're just 1 point away from the Margin Point. Some other guy has picked Blues by 46 and you've scored the same as him. Your proposal to me: the Margin Point should have a 7 point range, or maybe it should be tiered.In this case, I understand where you're coming from. It hurts to miss out. But does moving the finishing line really help? Making the margin range 7 just means that the guy who was 8 away is the guy feeling sore. Someone is always going to lose out: that's sport.
Knock-on effects
The example above also helps to illustrate knock-on effects. Widening the margin range means giving out more margin points. That means that the relative importance of the Margin Point increases, and the relative importances of the Win Point, Bonus Point and Grand Slam Point all decrease.In the first round of Super Rugby 2015, a Margin Point range of 7, as opposed to 5, would have seen an extra 39,557 people (22% of players) scoring a Margin Point! Sound like a lot? Well, in Round 2, 102,225 people (57% of the audience) would have scored more MP.
Plot that out over a season and you can see how it would have a very big influence over final outcomes and the whole balance of the game. Picking upsets would become a little less valuable. Getting the GSP would matter less. People with really good Win Point totals could be beaten by others who got the winner right much less but nailed the wider MP repeatedly.
Many scoring suggestions fall into this category: in isolation they seem reasonable, and fair, but once plotted out and mapped against historic data we see that what on appearances seem like small changes can actually be major distortions.
Creating confusion
What about changes that seem reasonable but add complexity? We have toyed with adding a balls margin to cricket, because "won by 8 wickets with 2 balls to spare" is a very different outcome to "won by 8 wickets with 46 balls to spare" and right now all we ask you for is a wicket tally. But we recognise that this would add difficulty and confusion, and that it might make the game less accessible to casual cricket fans. We need to make sure changes suit everyone.So do we ever change anything?
We do. Take defaults as an example. We believe in the value of default picks (if you don't, it's an agree to disagree moment!) but we have changed the default mechanism over time.The spirit of the default is to try to guess what you might have picked had you made your pick. When we set SuperBru up, we figured a simple solution was to give you the home team, since home teams are more likely to win. Broadly that worked, but from time to time there were brutal home underdog wins: the Rebels are at home against the Crusaders, everyone picks the Crusaders, and amazingly the Rebels win. The one guy in the pool who defaulted gets the home team default for the Rebels.
That feels wrong and was a core driver for people saying "you must do away with defaults". But we believe in defaults and concluded that it was our mechanism that was flawed rather than the concept as a whole. So we changed it. Now, defaults are based on the community expectation, so in the Rebels v Crusaders example, the guy who defaulted would have been given a Crusaders pick because that's what everyone else was expecting. That feels fairer, and complaints about defaults have dropped since that change.
I could keep giving examples, but I hope you understand the point here: there are no changes in isolation. We have to consider every idea in the context of the entire game, the whole points system, and all the people playing.
Why did you fix what ain't broke?!
This brings me to my final point: SuperBru is popular and well-understood. This means we have to be very, very careful with changes. We have to be absolutely sure that they will make the game better for everyone involved and that they won't catch anyone by surprise.Now, having said all this, I'm fully expecting the comments below to be along the lines of "yes, but how about not splitting the Bonus Point?" and "here's my proposal for a tiered Margin Point" - and the passion in these is in advance genuinely appreciated! Please just understand the big picture that we are working amidst.
Superbru on X
Again I do agree with your comments. The DRAW is the one area that needs a better reward. To have the heart, to keep the conversation clean, to predict a draw in a game of rugby or cricket is like finding the holy grail. BIG HEART. My thoughts would be if a draw takes place and is predicted by someone, there should be no margin points awarded to anyone else and it should be worth 3 win points. If no one predicts the draw then margin kicks in. It really is a gamble to predict a draw and should be rewarded as such.
Otherwise keep it up, lots of office debate and good fun. The golf needs work too but we can discuss this at another time. 16 Feb 09:01
We've discussed implementing a Margin Point cap of sorts, but as with any scoring system change The General's above comments regarding changes come into play. Generally speaking, this kind of scenario only happens in smaller pools where the range of picks in relation to the final result can vary significantly (in larger pools the BP almost always goes to brus within a point or two). Using a margin cap for the allocation of the BP has it's value, but just as with The General's above example of changing the Margin Point range, a Bonus Point cap wouldn't solve the concern in all cases and may also have the potential knock 10 Feb 12:17
There are many facets to take into consideration in this case, and as far as we're concerned we've had a few varying opinions about this exact topic within the team, both for and against implementing a Bonus Point cap. We're certainly not opposed to considering such a scoring system change in future, but we have to be 100% sure that it's the right thing to do before implementing such a drastic change. 10 Feb 12:27
For each ranking you get a number indicating the ranking or icon or something like that next to your name.
Biggest pools run.
Largest number of yellow caps in one season or competition.
Most number of consecutive picks without any default picks.
Most Top 100, Top 10, Top 10%, Global Champion, etc.
We need records to break. 17 Feb 08:53
the only change that i have had in mind for the last couple of seasons would affect scoring for the fantasty/superstar games whereby points would be awarded to players for an assist (i.e. last pass/kick before a try is scored). an assist would be worth 3 points, as opposed to the try scorer's 5 points.
not sure where you get the stats for scoring normally and if they note this so not sure if this would possible to implement?
As for JT's second scoring idea, that sounds pretty cool but a little complex. We usually like to use absolute values which are quick and easy to understand in relation to the results. The community factor has its merits, but isn't necessarily always clear how it is derived. We'll keep it in mind though. 12 Feb 07:37
super Bru is excellent
I particularly like the simple scoring systems you employ for tennis and golf.
I look forward to all your upcomings. ...
Very positive move as the majority of the Brus in my pools were very upset about the ex rule...
Having said that, being open to life changing proposals by the Bru community should be maintained as well.
Generally the scoring system works well.
VIVA BRU!!!
Sounds like the Bonus Point is a particular bone of contention - limiting the allowance of a BP to being within the MP as Doug mentioned above makes a lot of sense to me.
I thoroughly enjoy the global connections being made on SuperBru - thanks guys, it is great. Keep up the good work! Cheers TK
Defaults can indeed be disabled as a value added option in a SuperPool. Check the Pool Upgrades page under the Pools tab in each tournament for more info about that. 12 Feb 07:47
Picking the winner in a play off game should count the same as any other game. With it counting more, people are forced to make "strategic" picks and not what they actually want to?
But say the Bulls win by 12...... then everyone who picked Bulls by 7-17 will get the same amount of points on the global table.... about 1.5 (if WP is 1)
whereas if you allow the bonus point, then all will get 1.5 points (in the 7-17 range) and the guy or guys that get exact will score between 1.75 and 2.5....
just an idea :)
Superbru is a massive part of making sport enjoyable for me so all I can say is keep it up, have fun and bring sport lovers together all over the world!
My suggestion is as follows: Say the opponent pulls out injured with the score at 6-3, 2-3. Then award the victor 6-3 6-3 6-0. If the score was 6-3, 2-6, 6-7, 2-3...Then you give the winner 6-3, 2-6, 6-7, 6-3 6-0.