RolStoppable said:
You can even predict the same margin as long as that won't result in a tie with someone else. An exception can be made when the player in question isn't in the run for a top 5 position, because a potential tie won't change anything in the weekly results. In practice, yesterday Kenology submitted a NO by 7 prediction after the late bunch of Sunday games had ended. That's the point where the no-ties-allowed rule triggers, because any earlier would make it a nightmare for everyone involved (way too many scenarios for how a week could play out to account for, on top of several not submitting their picks until a few hours before the deadline of the early Sunday games). The other two people who had NO by 7 were myself (but I was one game ahead already) and ljigga (was tied with Kenology up to that point, but had a different SNF pick, so a tie was ultimately not possible either). The existence of this rule is due to it being a preemptive strike against superchunk who would check the spreadsheet religiously. Suppose a scenario where two players are in the run for first place in the weekly results, one could easily choose to go for a tie to get a guaranteed 6 PP instead of either 7 or 5. It would also be recorded as a first place in the standings, and the amount of those is the first tie-breaker step when two players have the same record and the same amount of PP. Such a scenario (or similar) makes settling for a tie an appealing proposal, but I am not allowing such a cheap strategy. While the vast majority of players never even considers to play the system, I still had to be prepared for the potential that a few would try to do it. |
Thanks for clearing it up rol