NSB Pick Em 2022 MASTERTHREAD

[NC Uppercut]

I don't think there's any immediate plans to scrap em man, least not unless there's a torrent of support for the idea, and even if we were eventually to go that way it'd be incrementally rather than all at once I think... but really that's not what I'm personally thinking about, more looking at ways in which they can be tweaked to make them more of a complement to skillful and informed picking than as an alternative to it... ie getting away from the obvious tactical use of them in waiting for extreme favourites, which may earn points but tells us little about the skill or knowledge of the player.

My favourite option is possibly both reducing the overall number of multipliers somewhat and making it so that all multipliers (and not just x5s) can only be used on Underdogs... that should make folk think a lot harder about when and how they're used and make em more meaningful. It;s all up for discussion though... it's more like I wanted to get the ball rolling now cos too often I don't start thinking about potential changes until late on in the year, usually December when everyone's distracted anyway and we don't really get time for everyone to have proper input.

K, I would agree on only being able to use them on dogs, and on even fights. Nice thoughts!

[NC Uppercut]

You're talking to Tatabanya, my brother... and I ain't leaving home

Was replying to Koba....Oops. Maybe you were on my mind! Not like that though!!! lmao

[Tatabanya]

My favourite option is possibly both reducing the overall number of multipliers somewhat and making it so that all multipliers (and not just x5s) can only be used on Underdogs... that should make folk think a lot harder about when and how they're used and make em more meaningful.

This looks like THE solution, as of now. Which, of course, would need particular attention in the case of "underdog multipliers" already in place (or... are we going to erase the latter from the equation, if we're gonna use our "regular" multipliers on the underdog???)

[Citizen Koba]

This looks like THE solution, as of now. Which, of course, would need particular attention in the case of "underdog multipliers" already in place (or... are we going to erase the latter from the equation, if we're gonna use our "regular" multipliers on the underdog???)

Yeah, that's certainly worthy of a bit of thought. My gut says folk should be rewarded anyway based on the underdog picks, I'm thinking perhaps reducing the number of multipliers a bit, maybe ditching the x5 altogether as too unbalancing but otherwise treating em as we currently do. TBH it'd be a pretty brave soul who was willing to risk a scarce x2 or x3 on an underdog who was greater than +300 anyways... it has happened before now (Gabe vs Bektemir is the first that springs to mind) but it's vanishingly rare so I can't imagine it'll have too great an impact. Guess there's always the outside chance of someone who's otherwise out of the running lucking out once but hard to imagine that being enough to overcome a season's worth of poor picks.

EDIT: ha ha - forgot about Bivol vs Canelo as well, but still, it's rare. Forgot how ****** the bookies were on that one.

[NC Uppercut]

Alrighty Ladies and Gentleman, this weekend I would like to add Conlan vs Marriaga, and am also debating Vergil Ortiz vs Michael McKinson. Despite Ortiz being in the hospital recently, he has switched trainers as well, I know the books have him a -750, but he is fighting a high output and unorthodox fighter in McKinson. I know Conlan lost as of late, and Miguel is a battle tested bet that has been in with the best there is at the weight. No telling what could happen in either fight.
What are you guys’ thoughts and opinions? Both bouts are due to take place August 6th. Let me know what you all think… I believe the Conlan fight is a go for the most part, really wanting feedback on the Ortiz fight.?
Comments and Opinions are appreciated. I want to have the thread up no later than Wednesday
Thank you all!

[Tatabanya]

Alrighty Ladies and Gentleman, this weekend I would like to add Conlan vs Marriaga, and am also debating Vergil Ortiz vs Michael McKinson. Despite Ortiz being in the hospital recently, he has switched trainers as well, I know the books have him a -750, but he is fighting a high output and unorthodox fighter in McKinson. I know Conlan lost as of late, and Miguel is a battle tested bet that has been in with the best there is at the weight. No telling what could happen in either fight.
What are you guys’ thoughts and opinions? Both bouts are due to take place August 6th. Let me know what you all think… I believe the Conlan fight is a go for the most part, really wanting feedback on the Ortiz fight.?
Comments and Opinions are appreciated. I want to have the thread up no later than Wednesday
Thank you all!

OK for both on my behalf, even if I'm putting money on Ortiz within three if the odds are tempting

[SteveM]

Are you in Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysilio gogogoch?

No. ****or

[SteveM]

Ok... so I've a bit busier than I thought this weekend but I wanted to get on a bit and chat a little about some ideas for next year, thinking about possible incremental shifts to reduce the impacts of the multipliers on the game or even possibly removing optional multipliers altogether... and that - kinda requires a little bit of thought about why they were there in the first place, whether they add to the game and how they interact with other parts of the game.

What our goal is of course, is to keep everyone playing, to keep the game fun and accessible, not overly complicated and to but to still reward skill and judgement over random luck... we want to encourage the hardcore players (like most of those taking the time to read this post probably) but at the same time still keep it interesting for the less engaged players, those further down the rankings or new players looking to sign up. We're looking in short for the right balance between pure judgement and skill and gamesmanship which keeps the most players possible involved and enjoying the game

OK so first off the multipliers were kinda inherited from Bob's initial iteration back in '17 and I believe he more or less simply purloined the idea from another site (not sure but it mighta been the Boxrec forum one) so a part of the reason we have em is simple inertia, when the initial CREW decided to resurrect the game we more or less just continued directly with what was already there, but that ain't of itself a good enough reason to keep em in.



So what benefits and drawbacks do they bring?

I'd say on the plus side they add a slightly random but exciting level of risk and gamemanship and also (and this is like a metagame consideration) encourage players who may not be doing so well to continue playing because it still gives them a chance - or at least the perception of one. Player attrition - especially in the second hjalf of the year - is a perrenial problem, and whilst we often start with 40 odd players by the end of the year we're usually closer to 20... it's not the greatest solution but the elemnt of offering even a slim chance at a hail Mary for players further down the rankings is oner way to keep the interest up. Also when combined with relatively even fights I think the use of multipliers is every bit a matter of skill and judgement... the problem comes - as noted by SteveM above - with the combination of having too many deeply uneven fights where palyers can just store up their multipliers for those fights where they can be virtually certain of a good return on em. But then we run into the fight selction problem once more... too many fight in the sport are uneven, especially when you're looking at the very top level guys.

So what to do then. The main options as I see em are pretty much either alone or in combo:

1) reduce the number of multipliers (we increased em almost year on year to keep pace with the increasing number of fights we were including
2) tighten up the scheduling to reduce the number of fights to include only those fights with odds within a prescribed range (say +/-300 or 400)
3) scrap the optional multiplier system altogether
4) Make all optional multipliers only playable on the bookies underdog (like the x5 is now)
5) Change the multiplier system entirely - such as using the continental odds multiplier system or similar that was used in the sweepstakes Pick Em last May - Sept

Idunno, I'm sure there's more to add but that's enough to go on with for now.

OK so 1 is probably the simplest and most strightforward, and especially if used in combination with 2 could substantially reduce the unbalancing problem, it involves no fundamental changes and just means a few tweaks, but at the same time if probably won't stop everyone saving up their multipliers for the most unbalanced fights and it might mean we run into problems with getting some of the biggest fights on the pick em... sadly it's very often the case that elite level fighters are always going to be prohibitively hot favourites and I think missing out on the biggest fights would also impact on how many people we get playing... it's not unusual to see new players' first connection with the game on a big fight week. Be a shame to miss out on that, plus big fight buzz is part of the driver for many players - we always get more picks on the bigger fights than the smaller ones.

3 seems abit radical - for the reasons I've stated above - as mentioned by Steve feels a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Even if we were eventually to go that route I'm gonna suggest we start by trying to just rein em in and reducing their impact onthe scoring a little before we go all the way with it. My gut feeling is that they add to the fun of the game and if managed right can be just as much a reflection of skill and judgement as your picks themselves..

4) I like this one... suggested it once or twice before around the time we came up with the x5 'Hail Mary' idea (which I agree has probably bloated beyond it's initial concept). Neatly deals with the problem of players saving up their multipliers for the biggest misnmatches and requires genuine judgement to figure which underdogs are likely to have the best shots of winning. Also because underdogs with a high perceived chance are relatively rare saving em up might become alosing strategy cos you never know when or if there's gonna be another good one or how many you'll get in the year.

5) The most radical of the proposals. Either in conjuction with a very limited number of optional multipliers possibly in conjuction with (4), replace the underdog and optional multiplier system wholesale with a multiplier based directly on the continental style odds for the fight (for those who don't know continental / Canadian style odds are expressed as a number which represents your return as amultiple of your stake that includes stake (ie the lowest possible odds are basically 1.01). Makes for potentially some very high scores on underdogs so probably needs to go hand in hand with fairly tight fight selection but equally rewards insighful picking of upsets commensurately.... could be argued it pins too much on the vagueries of the bookmakes though.


Anyways this is getting too long and I don't want to overcomplicate things, just scattering some thought food.

However before I'm done I just want to thank MikeyG and Tatabanya once more... when I first embarked on this thing (with the assistance of the now departed JohnL and siablo14 ) my whole concept was that we could have a robust community driven game where everyone wjho could pitched in a little to make it better and that could survive the loss of the odd player or team member here or there cos - well - life happens, and also evolve with the changing preferences of the player base over time. Really nice to see part of that vision coming to fruition anyways. Thanks gents.

Further to that I also like the idea of setting up some kinda more permanent proactive scheduling group... I know I kinda tasked Mammoth with it sorta but there's no fault - folk got other things to do with their lives and I ain't pushing anything on anyone - point is to get people involved who actively want to be doing it so I'm kinda asking for volunteers I gues (although I gotta admit I'm kinda hoping SteveM puts up his hand, maybe SUBZER0ED too if you got the time, man though of course absolutely any player is invited at all times to give their input)

Umm... there was something else as well wasn't there?

Oh yeah... had a suggestion from ShoulderRoll at the end of last year that has also come up in previous years and I think is worth considering. Talking maybe about adjusting the points system so it emphasises and rewards the accuracy factors more rather that weighing it more heavily towards simply picking the correct winner. Possiblly involving changing the points rewards from 20/10/10 for winner/method/detail to 10/10/10 or even more extreme like 10/10/20 or 10/15/20... worth a thought anyway, although some might count thcorruption and slightly random judging and refs decisons endemic to the sport as an argument against going too far in that direction.

And finally maybe have a thought for next year about possibly revisiting the scoring for draws as potentially unbalncing factor - or particularly whether they should be able to be used with multiplier. Experience would suggest that spamming draws ain't a particularly successful strategy but I don't want to wait until some player halfway down the rankings swoops in with a Draw x3 on the DEC 31st Japan card one year and kicks over the apple cart before addressing it.


Anyways, if you made it through all that, kudos for your perseverence, many thanks for your attention and hope it gave you some ideas to think about if nothing else

Kind regards - and please forgive the numerous typos

Theo

My ideas.

1/ Keep multipliers for all the reasons expounded. Keeps interest in the game, attracts casuals, keeps gaming interest. But..... only on underdogs. Can still be x2, x3 and x5. I think the numbers are right for 80/100 fights. If only on underdogs then x3 and x5 on bigger dogs and x2 on closer dogs.

2/ the 20/10/10 is weighted wrong. East to pick Garcia this past weekend (although some didn't) but not so easy to pick the method and even less easy to pick the time (ko) / ease (decision). I'd like to see perfect picks rewarded more (that's to my detriment).The fact that judges and referees can screw up picks is just part of the territory and also the interest truth be told. I think maybe even additional points for correct on UD, SD and MD?

3/ There's been discussion about attracting casuals and retaining casual interest. Causes or drop out cited as being Blaster-like fast starts discouraging laggards (where is their resilience?) and late starters feeling they are too far behind. I would propose shorter competition. July and August are mostly dead months. Why not 2 competitions - January to June and Sept-December or August -December? This would mean those who want to start in April only need wait until August. Those who are far behind don't have to wait 6/7 months and potentially never come back. Thoughts? This also allows the pickem crew a midsummer break as well.

4/ When we have very high favourites another option is to just change the points system a little. For example above -300 favorite no points for a winner. Only points awarded , say 10 points for method, and 20 for perfect pick

5/ would love to see bonus points for winning pick streaks - that encourages the more casual players to keep participating every week. Can also be a small amount of ponts just for picking every week - but both of these create a lot of extra work for the pickem crew.

6/ Theo - would that I could help a bit more but right now i'm kind of working 2 jobs plus single dad duties so my time is taken up quite a bit - mostly NSB is a way for me to unwind and follow boxing a bit more than just at a casual level. I'll never be a hardcore fan - I'm an in-betweener. But i'll support where possible.

[SteveM]

Alrighty Ladies and Gentleman, this weekend I would like to add Conlan vs Marriaga, and am also debating Vergil Ortiz vs Michael McKinson. Despite Ortiz being in the hospital recently, he has switched trainers as well, I know the books have him a -750, but he is fighting a high output and unorthodox fighter in McKinson. I know Conlan lost as of late, and Miguel is a battle tested bet that has been in with the best there is at the weight. No telling what could happen in either fight.
What are you guys’ thoughts and opinions? Both bouts are due to take place August 6th. Let me know what you all think… I believe the Conlan fight is a go for the most part, really wanting feedback on the Ortiz fight.?
Comments and Opinions are appreciated. I want to have the thread up no later than Wednesday
Thank you all!

N.C - conlan - marriaga is an ok fight but Ortiz is blue chip contender and GBP aint in the business of putting him in with a risk that will upset the gravy train - he's going to be matchmaker'd to titles at 147 and 154 and finally matched tough with Bud/Charlo/Ennis - it'll be a fun ride for the most part but this fight is -700 for a reason.

But again, Koba has a point, this is the kinda fight that will attract new participants into the game too. If this fight goes in then it encourages a x3 on Ortiz - I'm a all out of x3s, guess others will aprovechar. It is what it is. I think now we are in August probably we keep the structural integrity of THIS competition in place by NOT having this fight this week - BUT, next year such a fight could be included but without any multipliers possible [perfect example]

[NC Uppercut]

OK for both on my behalf, even if I'm putting money on Ortiz within three if the odds are tempting

Appreciate the input brother