Warrior General Games

Originally posted by IggyWH
You might win flex, but none of us will see you as the winner. Lame, arbitrary tiebreakers...

don't worry....I could care less what people on GLB think of me....

considering someone complained about my player avatars....pretty much everyone can go fuck themselves....IMO

Originally posted by IggyWH
Originally posted by cowtesticles2001

lets all lose this week....

You might win flex, but none of us will see you as the winner. Lame, arbitrary tiebreakers...

butt hurt imo

Originally posted by blln4lyf
Originally posted by IggyWH

Originally posted by cowtesticles2001


lets all lose this week....

You might win flex, but none of us will see you as the winner. Lame, arbitrary tiebreakers...

butt hurt imo

before the fact at that

Originally posted by fool
I will see him as the winner. We knew the rules coming in..

I'm sure CT will deny it, but not a single person gave a single shit about picking teams as both winners and losers to boost their tiebreaker. That's why I think it's arbitrary and lame.

Since it's about picking games, I think a tiebreaker should have been AA picking like 6 games the next week and then all the people in the tiebreaker pick winners. Private picks and close game picks should leave only 1 man standing... and he's left standing picking winners.

actually I started out the season on a mission to have the most tiebreakers....

if I wanted to win this shit I would have....but I fucked up....s

iggy must really be hurting for that 5K flex....

Originally posted by IggyWH
You might win flex, but none of us will see you as the winner. Lame, arbitrary tiebreakers...

I was going to ask what you thought was a better alternative, but I see you gave one.

Last year, if everyone lost in the same week, then I allowed them all back in the contest (though this never happened). Since that kind of goes against the "survivor" aspect of it, I decided on the tiebreaker instead. Obviously there is no ideal tiebreaker, you want someone to win a survivor contest outright. But you can't guarantee that and I think this is a pretty damn good tiebreaker. I would be surprised if no one is considering it while making picks. I know people did last season.

I think the tiebreaker is a good one because it gives people incentive to make more risky picks. So you have to decide if you want to make more risky picks at the risk of having a weaker tiebreaker.

In all honesty I think it is a good tiebreaker even if it wasn't announced. Say two people both get to the same point (and then lose). The person who would win my tiebreaker did it in a more difficult way. They win.

Interesting idea.. might be something to try in future competitions.

For me, I certainly gave thought to the rule this season when picking games. My problem is that I misread the rule. So I thought that the more different teams on each of my win & lose columns, the better. That was clearly my mistake though, and if I had read better my picks would have been shaped with the tiebreaker in mind. So I really have no problem with CT or anyone else winning this on tiebreakers - as the information was right there for everybody right from the start.

That being said.. I think everyone hates ties, and my hope is that we have a clear cut winner one way or the other..

Let me be clear that I'm not trying to get the tiebreaker changed, I just think it's lame that's all.

If I really cared that much about the tiebreaker, I could have gained +3 from last week and this week's pick. Since I could care less about the tiebreaker and want to win this picking games, I've ignored them.

AA for the record I think the tiebreaker is a good one and yes it does force some risky picks sometimes...that's what makes it good.

HHW should throw their game....

Originally posted by Abstract Actuary
I was going to ask what you thought was a better alternative, but I see you gave one.

Last year, if everyone lost in the same week, then I allowed them all back in the contest (though this never happened). Since that kind of goes against the "survivor" aspect of it, I decided on the tiebreaker instead. Obviously there is no ideal tiebreaker, you want someone to win a survivor contest outright. But you can't guarantee that and I think this is a pretty damn good tiebreaker. I would be surprised if no one is considering it while making picks. I know people did last season.

I think the tiebreaker is a good one because it gives people incentive to make more risky picks. So you have to decide if you want to make more risky picks at the risk of having a weaker tiebreaker.

In all honesty I think it is a good tiebreaker even if it wasn't announced. Say two people both get to the same point (and then lose). The person who would win my tiebreaker did it in a more difficult way. They win.

There really is no good way of doing it, but I do understand why you picked the way that you did. I just rather see it won in the end by someone picking games, and not just who the best loser is.

Originally posted by IggyWH
There really is no good way of doing it, but I do understand why you picked the way that you did. I just rather see it won in the end by someone picking games, and not just who the best loser is.

I think we all feel that way.

I actually picked the game I did this week because of the 2 tiebreaker points in the end. Figured it could spring me to a easy 5k flex if I win.

how about everyone posts their games for next week now....

Originally posted by blln4lyf
I actually picked the game I did this week because of the 2 tiebreaker points in the end. Figured it could spring me to a easy 5k flex if I win.

which is the smart thing to do....