Tennisfrontier Monte Carlo challenge

[Fiero425]

Semis: Nadal, Djokovic, Federer, Wawrinka
Finalists: Djokovic, Nadal
Winner: Djokovic (although Nadal probs has better odds)
Wc: Dimitrov
Dh: The fog

:dodgy: :cover :speechless: :wow: lease: :spacecadet:

Instead of laughing and pointing, why don't you submit your picks, and we'll see how you do?

Way to go out on a limb people! I guess imagination is slowly dying away with ESPN MB! :nono

 

[tented]

Semis: Nadal, Djokovic, Federer, Wawrinka
Finalists: Djokovic, Nadal
Winner: Djokovic (although Nadal probs has better odds)
Wc: Dimitrov
Dh: The fog

:dodgy: :cover :speechless: :wow: lease: :spacecadet:

Instead of laughing and pointing, why don't you submit your picks, and we'll see how you do?

Way to go out on a limb people! I guess imagination is slowly dying away with ESPN MB! :nono

Still waiting for your picks ... or is laughing and pointing the extent of your contribution?

Not to mention the whole point of the challenge is to make accurate, intelligent picks so that you win. "Going out on a limb" not only isn't relevant, it's downright stupid.

 

[tented]

Suggestion for a new rule:

You can't criticize or analyze other peoples' picks, unless you've made picks yourself.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

I wasn't going to play this time as I didn't want to jinx my player
Oh well here goes,

Winner Rafa
Runner up Novak
Semis Federer,Wawrinka
WC Berdych
DH The Dog.

 

[Riotbeard]

Suggestion for a new rule:

You can't criticize or analyze other peoples' picks, unless you've made picks yourself.

:nono

 

[the AntiPusher]

I am late but just like Sgt. Merwin Toomey in the movie Biloxi Blues," I want my turn to play the game "

Winner Rafa
Runner up Novak
Semis Federer,Wawrinka
WC Berdych
DH Dolgo

 

[Moxie]

I still think we have to change my rules because people don't get how many picks they can make to gain points:

1.) Semi-finalists: Pick 4 (5 points each correct answer)
2.) Finalists: Pick 2 (10 points each correct answer)
3.) Winner: Pick 1 (20 points)

4.) Wild card: Pick a WC to make the QFs or higher. (10 points each round the pass from QFs on)
5.) Dark Horse: Pick the unlikely winner. (50 points)

___________________________________

My picks:

W: Rafa
Finalists: Djokovic, Federer
SFs: Federer, Djokovic, Wawrinka, Fognini
Dark Horse: Fognini
Wild Card: Dolgopolov

___________

I think it's clear that even I don't understand the rules. :nono

 

[Riotbeard]

Winner: Novak, Duh!
Runner Up: Rafa
Semi's: Fed, Stan
WC: Dimitrov
DH: Gulbis

Winner: Novak, Duh!
Runner Up: Rafa, Stan
Semi's: Fed, Stan, Rafa, Ferrer
WC: Dimitrov
DH: Gulbis

 

[Kieran]

Winner: Rafa
Runner-up: Federer, Djoker
Semis: Ralph, Wodger, Djoker, Waw

Dark Horse: Seppi
Wild Card: Dimitrov


Changed to reflect Moxie's clarification above...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Winner: Rafa
Runner-up: Federer, Djoker
Semis: Ralph, Wodger, Djoker, Waw

Dark Horse: Seppi
Wild Card: Dimitrov


Changed to reflect Moxie's clarification above...

cheater, how come you have two runner-up guys.

 

[Kieran]

Winner: Rafa
Runner-up: Federer, Djoker
Semis: Ralph, Wodger, Djoker, Waw

Dark Horse: Seppi
Wild Card: Dimitrov


Changed to reflect Moxie's clarification above...

cheater, how come you have two runner-up guys.

Because Rafa would beat both of them at once, thus supplementing his H2H record.

Plus, it's in da roolz...

 

[Moxie]

^ It is in the rules, GSM…the weird ones I made up last time. You still have time to add…end of the second round is end of play tomorrow, which is the cut-off to play/make changes. I'll change them before Madrid…or perhaps we can do as we did last time: winner of this challenge gets to set up the next challenge, and therefore, make the rules? All in favor, post "aye," or "like" this post.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

^ It is in the rules, GSM…the weird ones I made up last time. You still have time to add…end of the second round is end of play tomorrow, which is the cut-off to play/make changes. I'll change them before Madrid…or perhaps we can do as we did last time: winner of this challenge gets to set up the next challenge, and therefore, make the rules? All in favor, post "aye," or "like" this post.

:nono I think the rules should be uniform across all Masters. Continuously changing rules
will only create more confustion.

If you want lot of people to participate, the rules should be simple and basic.
I don't like the idea someone picking two finalists and then picking a winner who
is not one of their own picks for finalists. That is not how you fill in a bracket in
any sensible bracket filling contest. Also, perhaps we should ask people to
pick quarterfinalists too.

Since there is no real money or prize involved, it is ok to have crazy rules.
But, keeping it simple and basic would make it more appealing to folks, IMO.

 

[Moxie]

^ It is in the rules, GSM…the weird ones I made up last time. You still have time to add…end of the second round is end of play tomorrow, which is the cut-off to play/make changes. I'll change them before Madrid…or perhaps we can do as we did last time: winner of this challenge gets to set up the next challenge, and therefore, make the rules? All in favor, post "aye," or "like" this post.

:nono I think the rules should be uniform across all Masters. Continuously changing rules
will only create more confustion.

If you want lot of people to participate, the rules should be simple and basic.
I don't like the idea someone picking two finalists and then picking a winner who
is not one of their own picks for finalists. That is not how you fill in a bracket in
any sensible bracket filling contest. Also, perhaps we should ask people to
pick quarterfinalists too.

Since there is no real money or prize involved, it is ok to have crazy rules.
But, keeping it simple and basic would make it more appealing to folks, IMO.

It IS simple and basic: Since it's too complicated to do a complete draw, I designed it so you can essentially pick QF-ists. Hence, 4 picks for SFs, and 2 for Finalist, + 1 winner. I realize that a lot of people pick as if they're going through only one draw, but I have tried to re-emphasize each time that people have more opportunities than that to add names. In theory, each of your picks could be different, offering more options to gain points.

Look, when we discovered that the ATP wasn't going to do their bracket anymore, I made one up on the fly, based on Denisovich's suggestions, which I think were clever. It can be a work in progress, and we're open to suggestions here. It's only a game, and it's designed to give us all an internal laugh, and a way to have fun with the draw. However, like any game, it has its own rules, and you have to learn to strategize based on this particular game. I've even re-posted the rules. Read the rules again, and revise your picks, if you like.

In future, I think we can revise the rules to make them more to everyone's liking, as long as we keep the point structure the same. We can make it so that you pick as if you've got a draw in mind:

1 winner, 1 finalist, 2 SF-ists, 2 additional QF-ists, plus WC and DH…all within a consistent imaginary draw in the poster's imagination. Would that make people happier?

 

[Denis]

Im really okay with whatever rules you guys decide on. I just enjoy making picks and reading picks of others. The competition element is a nice bonus.

 

[tented]

^ It is in the rules, GSM…the weird ones I made up last time. You still have time to add…end of the second round is end of play tomorrow, which is the cut-off to play/make changes. I'll change them before Madrid…or perhaps we can do as we did last time: winner of this challenge gets to set up the next challenge, and therefore, make the rules? All in favor, post "aye," or "like" this post.

:nono I think the rules should be uniform across all Masters. Continuously changing rules
will only create more confustion.

If you want lot of people to participate, the rules should be simple and basic.
I don't like the idea someone picking two finalists and then picking a winner who
is not one of their own picks for finalists. That is not how you fill in a bracket in
any sensible bracket filling contest. Also, perhaps we should ask people to
pick quarterfinalists too.

Since there is no real money or prize involved, it is ok to have crazy rules.
But, keeping it simple and basic would make it more appealing to folks, IMO.

It IS simple and basic: Since it's too complicated to do a complete draw, I designed it so you can essentially pick QF-ists. Hence, 4 picks for SFs, and 2 for Finalist, + 1 winner. I realize that a lot of people pick as if they're going through only one draw, but I have tried to re-emphasize each time that people have more opportunities than that to add names. In theory, each of your picks could be different, offering more options to gain points.

Look, when we discovered that the ATP wasn't going to do their bracket anymore, I made one up on the fly, based on Denisovich's suggestions, which I think were clever. It can be a work in progress, and we're open to suggestions here. It's only a game, and it's designed to give us all an internal laugh, and a way to have fun with the draw. However, like any game, it has its own rules, and you have to learn to strategize based on this particular game. I've even re-posted the rules. Read the rules again, and revise your picks, if you like.

In future, I think we can revise the rules to make them more to everyone's liking, as long as we keep the point structure the same. We can make it so that you pick as if you've got a draw in mind:

1 winner, 1 finalist, 2 SF-ists, 2 additional QF-ists, plus WC and DH…all within a consistent imaginary draw in the poster's imagination. Would that make people happier?

I'm with GSM on this: let's keep it consistent, and do the standard format which you outlined in your final paragraph.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The last line should be 4 additional QFists (and not just 2 additional QFists).
The picks should be consistent as mentioned.

 

[tented]

The last line should be 4 additional QFists (and not just 2 additional QFists).
The picks should be consistent as mentioned.

OK, so people will pick:

8 quarterfinalists
4 semifinalists
Finalist
Winner

Now, what about picking a wild card and a dark horse? Should we just ignore them, and stick with picking the quarterfinalists, semifinalists, finalist, and winner?

 

[Moxie]

The last line should be 4 additional QFists (and not just 2 additional QFists).
The picks should be consistent as mentioned.

OK, so people will pick:

8 quarterfinalists
4 semifinalists
Finalist
Winner

Now, what about picking a wild card and a dark horse? Should we just ignore them, and stick with picking the quarterfinalists, semifinalists, finalist, and winner?

But, the above is a change in format, and I thought you and GSM wanted to keep it the same. :huh:

And I'm unclear we are going with picking according to a consistent draw of the poster's choosing, which is what I thought GSM was campaigning for.

In any case, I think we should keep the DH and WC, because that's where the fun comes in.

 

[tented]

... the above is a change in format, and I thought you and GSM wanted to keep it the same. :huh:

But I want to keep it the same, while changing everything. :laydownlaughing

In other words, it's time for me to step back, and let everyone else decide.