2008 Rocky Mountain Pinball Showdown ends in 4-way tie

rmps.jpgBetween players needing to make flights and the show needing to close down, Neil Shatz, Josh Sharpe, Keith Elwin and Donavan Stepp decided to call it a draw at this year’s Rocky Mountain Pinball Showdown. Players qualified on both Spider-Man and Wheel of Fortune with the top 16 players advancing to the final round. Neil defeated Josh in the finals of the winner’s bracket, while Keith and Donavan advanced to the semifinals of the loser’s bracket. To determine who took what trophy home, one 4-player game of Wheel of Fortune was played. Neil finished 1st, with Josh 2nd, Keith 3rd and Donavan 4th.

36 responses to “2008 Rocky Mountain Pinball Showdown ends in 4-way tie”

  1. AND says:

    if you all tied for 1st and split $$, shouldnt wppr points be split too (add up wppr points for 1st-4th and divide by 4.? or go by the one game playoff you guys had on wof and disribute points accordingly..

  2. AND says:

    if you all tied for 1st and split $$, shouldnt wppr points be split too (add up wppr points for 1st-4th and divide by 4.? or go by the one game playoff you guys had on wof and disribute points accordingly..

  3. Smith says:

    They did split the points and it’s crap.

    since they played for trophies, and there is a finishing order, shouldn’t the WPPR points be rewarded by the same standard?

    The players involved shouldn’t be allowed to decide to “split points”. While the show was shutting down would require some last-minute tournament changes, the players having to catch their planes should have no decision on the change in tournament.

  4. Smith says:

    They did split the points and it’s crap.

    since they played for trophies, and there is a finishing order, shouldn’t the WPPR points be rewarded by the same standard?

    The players involved shouldn’t be allowed to decide to “split points”. While the show was shutting down would require some last-minute tournament changes, the players having to catch their planes should have no decision on the change in tournament.

  5. AND says:

    SMITH- that makes even more sense. yeah i know, i wish all the tourneys i finsihed 2nd, 3rd or 4th i did the split this way each time, id be over 300 points like that:). yep, this sould be fixed and give out points according to trophy finishing.

  6. AND says:

    SMITH- that makes even more sense. yeah i know, i wish all the tourneys i finsihed 2nd, 3rd or 4th i did the split this way each time, id be over 300 points like that:). yep, this sould be fixed and give out points according to trophy finishing.

  7. Josh says:

    Normally I would agree with you guys, but in this instance the tournament for the players technically came to a stop at the final 4 stage. Using the finishing positions of a game that was played for fun to determine who took home which trophy isn’t the proper solution either.

    The more fair solution would be to calculate the WPPR breakout using the positions the players had when the tournament was in effect called. Neil couldn’t finish any worse than 2nd by coming out of the winner’s bracket. I couldn’t finish any worse than 3rd and Keith or Donavan would have definitely finished 4th. I’ll ask Bowen to run the expected values of each player at those given points in time, and we can adjust the points accordingly that way.

  8. Josh says:

    Normally I would agree with you guys, but in this instance the tournament for the players technically came to a stop at the final 4 stage. Using the finishing positions of a game that was played for fun to determine who took home which trophy isn’t the proper solution either.

    The more fair solution would be to calculate the WPPR breakout using the positions the players had when the tournament was in effect called. Neil couldn’t finish any worse than 2nd by coming out of the winner’s bracket. I couldn’t finish any worse than 3rd and Keith or Donavan would have definitely finished 4th. I’ll ask Bowen to run the expected values of each player at those given points in time, and we can adjust the points accordingly that way.

  9. JDR says:

    I’m sure nobody could have predicted that a tournament would end in basically a tie, so you guys did the best you could. Hopefully this will lead to a good rule to be created for future events, in case it happens again.

    Keep up the good work Josh and Bowen! The rankings are great, even if there are a few hiccups here and there πŸ™‚

  10. JDR says:

    I\’m sure nobody could have predicted that a tournament would end in basically a tie, so you guys did the best you could. Hopefully this will lead to a good rule to be created for future events, in case it happens again.

    Keep up the good work Josh and Bowen! The rankings are great, even if there are a few hiccups here and there πŸ™‚

  11. AND says:

    that sounds proper. it is prosperous to encounter oddities such as this in order to enact on future asimilies in a dubious fashion:)

  12. AND says:

    that sounds proper. it is prosperous to encounter oddities such as this in order to enact on future asimilies in a dubious fashion:)

  13. Smith says:

    AND: Be careful!!!!1 your post might be taken as slightly negative. any posts that are negative or critical to the WPPR or Josh and bowen are edited and/or deleted…. as many of mine have been.

  14. Smith says:

    AND: Be careful!!!!1 your post might be taken as slightly negative. any posts that are negative or critical to the WPPR or Josh and bowen are edited and/or deleted…. as many of mine have been.

  15. Josh says:

    To Smith – feel free to private mail me with any issues you have with our system. I don’t mind posts that are negative, as long as they involve some sort of constructive criticism. To simply rattle of incorrect statements that I make changes to the system with my own benefit in mind, add no value to these comments.

    We are trying to land some serious sponsorship dollars for competitive pinball, and any perceived bias that IFPA officials are making changes for their own benefit hurt the chances of us landing this sponsorship – hence some of the editing/deleting.

    I welcome any suggestions, comments, etc. for improvements if they are genuine suggestions.

  16. Josh says:

    To Smith – feel free to private mail me with any issues you have with our system. I don’t mind posts that are negative, as long as they involve some sort of constructive criticism. To simply rattle of incorrect statements that I make changes to the system with my own benefit in mind, add no value to these comments.

    We are trying to land some serious sponsorship dollars for competitive pinball, and any perceived bias that IFPA officials are making changes for their own benefit hurt the chances of us landing this sponsorship – hence some of the editing/deleting.

    I welcome any suggestions, comments, etc. for improvements if they are genuine suggestions.

  17. AND says:

    i beleive they are doing a fine job and they seem to work with suggestions and such, im sure they will fix the 4 way tie situation. One thing that puzzles me is why is flipout at expo only worth 50 points for 1st and so fourth down, but its considered the “2nd” major in the world to most. This year 30 players were in A, more than previous shows and the format there has changed, yet small points. most names were big players too (the top 10 usa players or so were in there too). papa, ifpa all 100 points for 1st. other shows like texas not far off from 50 for 1st when you add qualify, advance, etc yet only few “A” players (5 maybe) and a shorter list of players overall. what about allentown, maybe 2 A players in that this year and how much were the points? points need be by each positions spot. base tourney points on who played in it and how many people played. if a tourney exists of only 10 players, but each player was in the top 10, those points should be the highest you can achieve. if a tourney exists, and only 1 “A” player was in it, and the rest were low ranked or unranked players ,that tourney should be much less in points than the other mentioned 10 player tourney. i still dont like pinbrawls points at all. points IMO should be only for single play action, not team events. too many variables in pinbrawl making points incorrect.

  18. AND says:

    i beleive they are doing a fine job and they seem to work with suggestions and such, im sure they will fix the 4 way tie situation. One thing that puzzles me is why is flipout at expo only worth 50 points for 1st and so fourth down, but its considered the “2nd” major in the world to most. This year 30 players were in A, more than previous shows and the format there has changed, yet small points. most names were big players too (the top 10 usa players or so were in there too). papa, ifpa all 100 points for 1st. other shows like texas not far off from 50 for 1st when you add qualify, advance, etc yet only few “A” players (5 maybe) and a shorter list of players overall. what about allentown, maybe 2 A players in that this year and how much were the points? points need be by each positions spot. base tourney points on who played in it and how many people played. if a tourney exists of only 10 players, but each player was in the top 10, those points should be the highest you can achieve. if a tourney exists, and only 1 “A” player was in it, and the rest were low ranked or unranked players ,that tourney should be much less in points than the other mentioned 10 player tourney. i still dont like pinbrawls points at all. points IMO should be only for single play action, not team events. too many variables in pinbrawl making points incorrect.

  19. Josh says:

    Andy – 4 way tie situation has been fixed. As for your other comments, flipout at Expo may be considered the 2nd biggest major in the world to you, but I wouldn’t say everyone is in agreement on that (both international and other domestic players).

    TVA from Flipout last year was 22, PAPA last year was 40, and IFPA was 41. So for how big you believe Flipout was, we’re talking almost 50% of the competition compared to PAPA/IFPA. PAPA and IFPA are World Championships, and the importance of those events in our system is definitely head and shoulders above any other event, and will continue to be going forward.

    As far as other shows like Texas, etc, players do NOT get to add in their qualification and round advancement points like they do at Majors, which will always keep Expo in the top 3 of most lucrative tournaments in the US. Add to that the fact that Expo usually has a side tournament associated with it (in the past PinBrawl, and this year PinGolf), and I don’t really see how you can complain about the lack of points available.

    Looking on the other end like Allentown, I believe players in attendance included Bowen, Sean Grant, Trent, Ed Zeltmann, Steve Bowden and Martin Ayub at a minimum. To say this tournament needs to be ranked much less than Texas, I’m not so sure about that. The TVA will sort that out. Remember that our primary goal is to try and keep pushing attendance at these tournaments up (hence the minimum 25 points for winning an annual event). Start backing that down and giving players a reason to not show, and I think our goal of getting players out to more shows is a much tougher task.

    As for PinBrawl, things will be changed going forward on the point scale, but no need to worry since we’re taking a break for 2008.

    Now get over that fear of flying so you can actually attend some of these bigger tournaments! πŸ˜‰

  20. Josh says:

    Andy – 4 way tie situation has been fixed. As for your other comments, flipout at Expo may be considered the 2nd biggest major in the world to you, but I wouldn’t say everyone is in agreement on that (both international and other domestic players).

    TVA from Flipout last year was 22, PAPA last year was 40, and IFPA was 41. So for how big you believe Flipout was, we’re talking almost 50% of the competition compared to PAPA/IFPA. PAPA and IFPA are World Championships, and the importance of those events in our system is definitely head and shoulders above any other event, and will continue to be going forward.

    As far as other shows like Texas, etc, players do NOT get to add in their qualification and round advancement points like they do at Majors, which will always keep Expo in the top 3 of most lucrative tournaments in the US. Add to that the fact that Expo usually has a side tournament associated with it (in the past PinBrawl, and this year PinGolf), and I don’t really see how you can complain about the lack of points available.

    Looking on the other end like Allentown, I believe players in attendance included Bowen, Sean Grant, Trent, Ed Zeltmann, Steve Bowden and Martin Ayub at a minimum. To say this tournament needs to be ranked much less than Texas, I’m not so sure about that. The TVA will sort that out. Remember that our primary goal is to try and keep pushing attendance at these tournaments up (hence the minimum 25 points for winning an annual event). Start backing that down and giving players a reason to not show, and I think our goal of getting players out to more shows is a much tougher task.

    As for PinBrawl, things will be changed going forward on the point scale, but no need to worry since we’re taking a break for 2008.

    Now get over that fear of flying so you can actually attend some of these bigger tournaments! πŸ˜‰

  21. AND says:

    thx for clearing up some things. now that ifpa tournies are in effect that of course would rank higher than expo and i know at papa getting in the top 16 is a feat in itself, im just going by tournies as a whole and what players in general refer to expo tourney in its major positioning (from what i always hear). i understand with the past 2 years in actually having to pick your division it is different, but in the past shows when it was an open and you fell in the top 16 via A or B, lots of players overall took place.
    i beleive ED plays in B at papa and other shows and i think the others do to with the exception of trent, sean and bowen. same with fugate and others, even thow they may rank in the top 25 on the wppr list from getting points from pinbrawl, classic and fully open (no division) tournies that give “A” or WPPR points etc. i find that quite odd, that players who play in B and C still end up in top 50 on your list, which is kinda an “A” list- ironicly. im in orlando now and flew here:( im trying to get over the flying thing:)

  22. AND says:

    thx for clearing up some things. now that ifpa tournies are in effect that of course would rank higher than expo and i know at papa getting in the top 16 is a feat in itself, im just going by tournies as a whole and what players in general refer to expo tourney in its major positioning (from what i always hear). i understand with the past 2 years in actually having to pick your division it is different, but in the past shows when it was an open and you fell in the top 16 via A or B, lots of players overall took place.
    i beleive ED plays in B at papa and other shows and i think the others do to with the exception of trent, sean and bowen. same with fugate and others, even thow they may rank in the top 25 on the wppr list from getting points from pinbrawl, classic and fully open (no division) tournies that give “A” or WPPR points etc. i find that quite odd, that players who play in B and C still end up in top 50 on your list, which is kinda an “A” list- ironicly. im in orlando now and flew here:( im trying to get over the flying thing:)

  23. Josh says:

    I think your memories of Flip-Out may be a little off. Just running through the TVA, here is the Expo breakdown:

    2003 = 21, 2004 = 22, 2005 = 22, 2006 = 21, 2007 = 22

    So it’s consistently been about the same competition going back quite a ways. And that competition has always been about 50% lower compared to PAPA/IFPA.

    You shouldn’t find anything odd about those players getting into the top 50 on the list. If you look at the PAPA A division there is usually around 40-45 players. This means that 5-10 players in the top 50 will definitely be players that choose to play in lower divisions. Players like Ed, Derek and Steve have proven themselves against the best competition and are ranked based on that performance. Because they may choose to play a lower division at certain events doesn’t take away from their achievements in fully open tournaments or classics divisions. They are playing within the divisional rules of those certain tournaments that most likely yield their best chance at having a successful weekend. I played in B divisions as long as I could until I was told otherwise πŸ™‚

  24. Josh says:

    I think your memories of Flip-Out may be a little off. Just running through the TVA, here is the Expo breakdown:

    2003 = 21, 2004 = 22, 2005 = 22, 2006 = 21, 2007 = 22

    So it’s consistently been about the same competition going back quite a ways. And that competition has always been about 50% lower compared to PAPA/IFPA.

    You shouldn’t find anything odd about those players getting into the top 50 on the list. If you look at the PAPA A division there is usually around 40-45 players. This means that 5-10 players in the top 50 will definitely be players that choose to play in lower divisions. Players like Ed, Derek and Steve have proven themselves against the best competition and are ranked based on that performance. Because they may choose to play a lower division at certain events doesn’t take away from their achievements in fully open tournaments or classics divisions. They are playing within the divisional rules of those certain tournaments that most likely yield their best chance at having a successful weekend. I played in B divisions as long as I could until I was told otherwise πŸ™‚

  25. CWC says:

    Props from Josh! I just wanna win PAPA B and be told that I must now forever play against only the best. That’s the goal. However, I’ve had a heck of a time at PAPA proving that I deserve that respect – maybe this year I’ll finally have a Sunday like I know I can…

    And Josh, you KNOW that I’m a fan of the IFPA effort, so you just keep pushing along. My only observation about IFPA 5 was that the tilts were being consistently adjusted on games throughout the event. I chose to take Trent to CC knowing that it had that vicious sneeze tilt and figured that alone might be worth a “free” ball if Trent was unaware. However, it appears that the tilt had been yet again adjusted, away from sneeze territory, and my strategy bore no fruit. No complaints, I was outplayed largely due to Trent’s ability (and my lack there-of) to live catch the jets feed out of the left loop, but I may have chosen a different game if I had known about the tilt adjustment. And Josh, never forget that if a TD is in the event and making those adjustments, then that TD has info that is not common to everyone in the room, thus leaving the TD open to criticism from folks that might not be as supportive of the IFPA effort.

    See ya’ll at PAPA!

  26. CWC says:

    Let me amend that – open to criticism “from anyone” – even those supportive of the IFPA effort!

    Matters not – Until I feel that shenigans are in play – and I’m nowhere near believing that – I solidly support the IFPA.

  27. Josh says:

    Unfortunately, or fortunately, or neither, I was not the one who made that change to CC, or any of the other games where the tilts were adjusted.

    I do know that the tournament directors who were not participating in the tournament tried to continually make games more fair to play if they saw anything that was not balanced properly (tilts, if extras forgot to be turned off, leveling, etc.)

    We should have (and will do) a much better job in future tournaments communicating anything that changed between rounds on any machines that had any sort of adjustment during the tournament.

    Solid strategy trying to take Trent to a game with a tight tilt. I implement the same strategy whenever I play Keith Elwin πŸ™‚

  28. Josh Sharpe Josh Sharpe says:

    Unfortunately, or fortunately, or neither, I was not the one who made that change to CC, or any of the other games where the tilts were adjusted.

    I do know that the tournament directors who were not participating in the tournament tried to continually make games more fair to play if they saw anything that was not balanced properly (tilts, if extras forgot to be turned off, leveling, etc.)

    We should have (and will do) a much better job in future tournaments communicating anything that changed between rounds on any machines that had any sort of adjustment during the tournament.

    Solid strategy trying to take Trent to a game with a tight tilt. I implement the same strategy whenever I play Keith Elwin πŸ™‚

  29. Brian S says:

    CWC, as one of the *volunteers* at IFPA5, Brian W. and myself were tweaking tilts between rounds (and making other changes if needed) to avoid people from taking advantage of them. Some games seemed fine at first then got worse after a while, so it needed to be done. CC had a busted cabinet and it wobbled, which made the tilt very bad sometimes.

    Also, I thought it was mentioned that we’d be doing this, but honestly I cannot remember anymore. πŸ™‚

    — Brian

  30. Brian S says:

    CWC, as one of the *volunteers* at IFPA5, Brian W. and myself were tweaking tilts between rounds (and making other changes if needed) to avoid people from taking advantage of them. Some games seemed fine at first then got worse after a while, so it needed to be done. CC had a busted cabinet and it wobbled, which made the tilt very bad sometimes.

    Also, I thought it was mentioned that we’d be doing this, but honestly I cannot remember anymore. πŸ™‚

    — Brian

  31. AND says:

    JOSH
    what does TVA mean? if it means total number of players, at expo, im sure it was over those numbers. all men played in the same division (except manufacturer and seniors) and some unknown players would just play 1nce. you got thrown into A or B if you qualified top 16. or am i off on the #’s?

  32. AND says:

    JOSH
    what does TVA mean? if it means total number of players, at expo, im sure it was over those numbers. all men played in the same division (except manufacturer and seniors) and some unknown players would just play 1nce. you got thrown into A or B if you qualified top 16. or am i off on the #’s?

  33. Josh says:

    It’s not the total number of players, but rather the number of “quality” players at the event. Here is the language straight from the website:

    The strength of the field at any given event is used to calculate the Tournament Value Adjustment (TVA). The TVA is based on the number of Top 10 and Top 50 players that participate at any particular tournament. The current month’s WPPR standings are used to determine those TVA values for that month (March 1st, 2007 rankings will be used for all March 2007 tournaments). For any player ranked in the Top 10 that participates in a tournament, 2 TVA points will be factored into the calculation. Any player ranked 11th through 50th will add 1 TVA point to the calculation. The TVA will increase these base values for the tournament (up to 160% of the Base Value which is 40 WPPR points for the winner.)

    Hope that helps explain it πŸ™‚

  34. Josh Sharpe Josh Sharpe says:

    It’s not the total number of players, but rather the number of “quality” players at the event. Here is the language straight from the website:

    The strength of the field at any given event is used to calculate the Tournament Value Adjustment (TVA). The TVA is based on the number of Top 10 and Top 50 players that participate at any particular tournament. The current month’s WPPR standings are used to determine those TVA values for that month (March 1st, 2007 rankings will be used for all March 2007 tournaments). For any player ranked in the Top 10 that participates in a tournament, 2 TVA points will be factored into the calculation. Any player ranked 11th through 50th will add 1 TVA point to the calculation. The TVA will increase these base values for the tournament (up to 160% of the Base Value which is 40 WPPR points for the winner.)

    Hope that helps explain it πŸ™‚

  35. AND says:

    ah i see, looks like your already doing what i was speaking of…. good work:)

  36. AND says:

    ah i see, looks like your already doing what i was speaking of…. good work:)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *