Yeah, I saw the format and there was even a 2 min video by matchroom explaining it and I was still left scratching my head. I’m not smart enough to understand it
It is a strange format that greatly favors the players who start in the first group of seven.
Lolz aside, potential earnings are not earnings.Play better lol
I can't remember where I read it, I think it was a book by Taleb, where a group of men draw straws over who should pay for dinner. After the loser pays, the others thank him, apart from one. When asked why, he said it was because he himself paid for the dinner "probabilistically".Lolz aside, potential earnings are not earnings.
It isn't tax code where things like 'discounts not taken' has a credit/debit entry.
Good thing he was there.I can't remember where I read it, I think it was a book by Taleb, where a group of men draw straws over who should pay for dinner. After the loser pays, the others thank him, apart from one. When asked why, he said it was because he himself paid for the dinner "probabilistically".
It is a strange format that greatly favors the players who start in the first group of seven.
Just seems like there could be easier, fairer ways of doing this, but I’m sure Matchroom must have their reasons why they set it up this way.If you're a new player in Group 7, you know that six of the best players have already won their groups and are in the Winners Group. Your odds of winning in Group 7 are better because of it.
If you start out in Group 1, you seem to have a better chance, although the new players joining in each group could be a new threat.
So it's tough to call who this format favors. That will be something interesting to watch this time.
With races to five, who knows?
It does seem really odd, but generally when things like this seem odd 99/100 its something to do with expected tv ratings/scheduling or both!Just seems like there could be easier, fairer ways of doing this, but I’m sure Matchroom must have their reasons why they set it up this way.
Just seems like there could be easier, fairer ways of doing this, but I’m sure Matchroom must have their reasons why they set it up this way.
Play betterI see that as less tangible than walking into the bank with a bunch of trophies.
It is unrealized income for the loser. By definition...not earned.
Why should Predator care about "growing the sport"? They are a company and care about growing THEMSELVES not everybody else.Predator was not consistent in this matter. They changed their "patch" policy when faced with opposition from certain players. Either way, it was a bad look for them. I stand by the statements I made in post #185. To restrict or diminish their competitors who also sponsor players, with an unfair patch policy is not in the best interest of our sport.
Anytime you have positive EV you have gained regardless of the outcome.Lolz aside, potential earnings are not earnings.
It isn't tax code where things like 'discounts not taken' has a credit/debit entry.
Because, by growing the sport, they (Predator) has a better chance of growing themselves.Why should Predator care about "growing the sport"? They are a company and care about growing THEMSELVES not everybody else.
Yep. When dominating market share the goal is to grow the market size.Because, by growing the sport, they (Predator) has a better chance of growing themselves.
Let Cuetec and Meucci grow the sport.Because, by growing the sport, they (Predator) has a better chance of growing themselves.
We are on the same page then: the initial assertion by maha clearly results in the flipper who lost 10 earning 5 in justnum bucks.Anytime you have positive EV you have gained regardless of the outcome.
Will the cuetec tour retaliate?