from one of your most enthusiastic supporters, and one who avoids controversial subjects, here is an exception:
not to take anything away from the final results, winner and runner-ups, the way the acesgold contest was run just plain "sucked".
as a mature person, and not one to upset the contest itself, i made a silent complaint from week 1; was told (by jack) that there was nothing that could be done about it; kept quiet all this time, and now that it is over, i feel i must blast the way that contest was run.
the fact that running the contest in itself is quite a task, as i myself have done on 3 ocassions, does not mean that it has to run "my capricious way". maybe the guys involved are the nicest guys in the world, but this was plain WRONG, and for no good reason:
1. all solid lines were added a + 1/2 point hook just because someone felt that they did not want to see any ties.
2. pre-sunday games were not offered because it is too much trouble to visually check the time sequence of postings, or, if computer time/date "cheating" was possible, it meant that one of many of mj's staff had to manually "lock" the thread just before a thursday or sat. game, and finally,
3. despite my public plea (once) to have the standings in order of standings, they were left in alphabetical order, yet they were done so for the leaders, meaning that is was actually an extra step to "isolate" the leaders standings, as opposed to showing them all. this presentation is essential to make us see where we are in relation to others and try to improve our standing, sort of our challenge, whether we are in the middle or trying to avoid the bottom.
it took an outsider's extra effort to make his own database and present us with the standings in that order (goofy). thank you, goofy.
none of the things mentioned here take much effort. the biggest effort in running the contests are setting them up and then keeping up with the dropouts. ties make absolutely no difference in the amount of work involved, and the visual check for late postings takes not more than 5 minutes. even when we oversee something, there are always a couple of contestants that will bring it up to our attention, publicly or privately.
fellows: the distortion created by the 1/2 point hook is app. -110 +100, or a 210 difference between those on one side or the other of that tie, then multiply that by all the people who chose sides in those games and you have a sizable difference at the end of the season. some contestants got "creamed", while others benefitted to the hilt, while others fell on both sides fairly even.
how many times did it happen this year? i have no idea, nor care to dig into it. suffice it so say that it happened many times. it happened enough times to distort my final standing by a few hundred (short), as well as a few others, just like a few others had a few hundred "added". i am sure i am not the only one fell on either side of this category.
sure, we all know that over the long run, like 5-10 years, it will all equal out, but not in one season.
i for one, not every week, but some weeks, break my a... handicapping, only to find that at the time of posting, the 3 became a 3.5, etc. i just have to go with my original picks, and opposed to starting over to see if the 1/2 point should warrant skipping it, and then, loooking for another pick at the last minute.
so in essence, if i did not gamble, i would just handicap the contest with its own lines and days and games and all is dandy, but since i do, i would be forced to do a "second" handicap or revision, and add or eliminate games that seem too critical to get an additional hook, especially those falling on 3.5, 4.5, 7.5 when giving them. also, from my original picks, i would have to drop any games that are played on thur, sat, etc.
see what i am getting at? isn't the purpose of the contest to emulate the real gambling world?
anyone wants to post their opinion, fine, but i'm outta of this thread. i just had to let it out. capicce?
pep
not to take anything away from the final results, winner and runner-ups, the way the acesgold contest was run just plain "sucked".
as a mature person, and not one to upset the contest itself, i made a silent complaint from week 1; was told (by jack) that there was nothing that could be done about it; kept quiet all this time, and now that it is over, i feel i must blast the way that contest was run.
the fact that running the contest in itself is quite a task, as i myself have done on 3 ocassions, does not mean that it has to run "my capricious way". maybe the guys involved are the nicest guys in the world, but this was plain WRONG, and for no good reason:
1. all solid lines were added a + 1/2 point hook just because someone felt that they did not want to see any ties.
2. pre-sunday games were not offered because it is too much trouble to visually check the time sequence of postings, or, if computer time/date "cheating" was possible, it meant that one of many of mj's staff had to manually "lock" the thread just before a thursday or sat. game, and finally,
3. despite my public plea (once) to have the standings in order of standings, they were left in alphabetical order, yet they were done so for the leaders, meaning that is was actually an extra step to "isolate" the leaders standings, as opposed to showing them all. this presentation is essential to make us see where we are in relation to others and try to improve our standing, sort of our challenge, whether we are in the middle or trying to avoid the bottom.
it took an outsider's extra effort to make his own database and present us with the standings in that order (goofy). thank you, goofy.
none of the things mentioned here take much effort. the biggest effort in running the contests are setting them up and then keeping up with the dropouts. ties make absolutely no difference in the amount of work involved, and the visual check for late postings takes not more than 5 minutes. even when we oversee something, there are always a couple of contestants that will bring it up to our attention, publicly or privately.
fellows: the distortion created by the 1/2 point hook is app. -110 +100, or a 210 difference between those on one side or the other of that tie, then multiply that by all the people who chose sides in those games and you have a sizable difference at the end of the season. some contestants got "creamed", while others benefitted to the hilt, while others fell on both sides fairly even.
how many times did it happen this year? i have no idea, nor care to dig into it. suffice it so say that it happened many times. it happened enough times to distort my final standing by a few hundred (short), as well as a few others, just like a few others had a few hundred "added". i am sure i am not the only one fell on either side of this category.
sure, we all know that over the long run, like 5-10 years, it will all equal out, but not in one season.
i for one, not every week, but some weeks, break my a... handicapping, only to find that at the time of posting, the 3 became a 3.5, etc. i just have to go with my original picks, and opposed to starting over to see if the 1/2 point should warrant skipping it, and then, loooking for another pick at the last minute.
so in essence, if i did not gamble, i would just handicap the contest with its own lines and days and games and all is dandy, but since i do, i would be forced to do a "second" handicap or revision, and add or eliminate games that seem too critical to get an additional hook, especially those falling on 3.5, 4.5, 7.5 when giving them. also, from my original picks, i would have to drop any games that are played on thur, sat, etc.
see what i am getting at? isn't the purpose of the contest to emulate the real gambling world?
anyone wants to post their opinion, fine, but i'm outta of this thread. i just had to let it out. capicce?
pep
