Posts by stormybadger8

Michael Lee4 said:I think I saw something about it on some private torrent sites, but I haven't actually sat down to watch...

As for gaming, I’m grinding GT Racing online with the crew until sunrise every single weekend—all assists off, crappy tires, just pure driving.

You mean the Michelin Pilot Sport😬

Everything except IndyCar is being merged into one big thread.
And please, let's stop making separate threads for every single series. It's overkill.

I'm keeping IndyCar on its own for now since it's basically the main feeder for Formula 1 right now, but if this thread doesn't start showing some life soon, I'll be merging this one too.

Check out this interesting comparison of how those numbers stack up😳

Terry Carter2 said:Pilatus (117)
1. Lewis Hamilton 7
2. Jenson Button 16
3. Michael Schumacher 8
4. Nico Rosberg 1
5. Mark Webber 1
6. Sebastian Vettel 5
7. Kimi Räikkönen 5
8. Kamui Kobayashi 5
9. Romain Grosjean 6
10. Fernando Alonso 3
11. Sergio Perez 0
12. Paul di Resta 5
13. Bruno Senna 9
14. Nico Hulkenberg 2
15. Jean-Eric Vergne 1
16. Daniel Ricciardo 1
17. Heikki Kovalainen 0
18. Vitaly Petrov 2
19. Timo Glock 0
20. Pedro de la Rosa 0
21. Narain Karthikeyan 0
DNF Pastor Maldonado 1
DNF Felipe Massa 14
DNF Charles PIC 0
Pole Michael Schumacher 17
FL Jenson Button 8

Dorian (98)
1. Lewis Hamilton 7
2. Mark Webber 2
3. Jenson Button 15

4. Sebastian Vettel 3
5. Kimi Räikkönen 3
6. Nico Rosberg 1
7. Romain Grosjean 4
8. Fernando Alonso 1
9. Michael Schumacher 1
10. Sergio Perez 1

11. Kamui Kobayashi 2
12. Felipe Massa 3
13. Paul di Resta 7
14. Nico Hulkenberg 2
15. Pastor Maldonado 8
16. Bruno Senna 6

17. Daniel Ricciardo 2
18. Jean-Eric Vergne 4
19. Heikki Kovalainen 2
20. Vitaly Petrov 4
21. Timo Glock 2
22. Charles Pic 2
23. Pedro de la Rosa 3
24. Narain Karthikeyan 3
Pole Nico Rosberg 4
FL Lewis Hamilton 6

Dorian actually has a better prediction—like, seriously better—than his teammate based on Matthew Young35's criteria. But using our "standard" method, Pilatus takes it, while Dorian barely scrapes into the top tier.

Basically, if we used Matthew Young35's logic, the race results would look totally different.😳
It actually surprised me how solid Dorian's prediction was when I ran the math (because if I remember correctly, anything using Matthew Young35's system always ended up over 100 points; I don't recall seeing one under a hundred)😳,
but then I remembered Pilatus's Pole and FL, which would basically tank his score in this specific matchup.
Even without those, Dorian would still be ahead, though only slightly: 88 vs 92.😳

What's the point🤷?
If we're actually going to bother counting FL and PP
, then both those stats are right there in the books:

Pole Position , Fastest Lap

It’s pretty simple math—like calculating how much you missed out on Rosberg by compared to the Pole or the fastest lap, assuming you know their qualifying rank and their best lap time.😳
I don't see why people are overcomplicating this.🤷

Basically, the only group you can't calculate using this logic is DNQ. You can't really value or quantify them at all, but everything else is fair game.

Terry Carter2 said:So, it hasn't really been refined enough to serve as the primary scoring metric for the types of predictions we’re currently making!
😁

Nah, that just wouldn't work.

Terry Carter2 said:You can run the numbers, sure, but I honestly feel like the rulebook hasn't been fully ironed out yet! I’m talking about the hierarchy—how we rank DNFs versus DNQs, and where things like Pole Positions or Fastest Laps actually fit into the equation. Which group takes precedence, and what's the logic behind how it all...
😁

We actually debated this before and decided that DNFs, DNQs, pole positions, and fastest laps aren't part of Matthew Young35's criteria.
Basically, you just count them as they are. If 22 drivers finish, the second DNF is effectively 23rd, and the first DNF is 24th.
Theoretically, you could include pole positions and fastest laps without worrying, even if it makes zero sense.

But seriously, don't stress about this for every single prediction, for crying out loud.🤣
It would be an insane amount of work to calculate, half the players wouldn't even understand why someone scored higher or lower, and checking all those predictions would be a total nightmare.😬
That specific criterion is just there to break ties when everyone else fails.😳

Even Matthew Young35's criterion failed us once.
Believe it or not, we had two predictions that were identical by every single metric, including his. That’s why we had to bring in that final tiebreaker based on who submitted their entry first.
So yeah, even Matthew Young35's system isn't perfect or foolproof.😬

Regarding Matthew Young35's criteria, I actually think we should stick with it.😉
If you end up with more predictions, just drop them in this thread and I'll run the numbers for you—it’s really not as big of a headache as you might think.😉
Besides, I don't see that happening enough during the season to make it a huge issue.

Even if you look at the actual math behind that criterion (ignoring how much of a pain it is to calculate🙂), it’s honestly the fairest way to do it.😳
Basically, if it were fast and easy, every single prediction would be measured against it, because it truly shows how far off you actually are from the real standings.
It’s just that doing it manually would be a total nightmare and take days.🤣

If someone actually coded this into a program, it would be the perfect way to decide who has the best predictions.

ruggedfox28 said:..I mean, what kind of rule is it where we only apply it to a specific chunk of the standings? To me, that just sounds wrong... how we'd say it down here in California..

And another thing... regardless of which part of the rankings we decide to use for this rule, I personally have zero intention of wasting 30-45 minutes just to move up 1 to 10 spots..

What kind of rule even targets just a segment of the field? If I don't count everyone, there’s always going to be some smart-aleck looking for an excuse to claim we aren't following the book, just so they can demand their own special exceptions.. That’s how you end up creating a mess of precedents and people hunting for loopholes..

I've already blown two whole free afternoons just tweaking things and building spreadsheets so I'd waste less time on the data entry side, and the more I talk about it, the more worked up I get about scrapping this rule entirely!

I don't even know what to tell you, but I really don't like the idea of changing anything regarding the points system or how they're calculated.

That’s something we’ve never messed with lightly.
Besides, that group points thing needs to be sorted before we even look at that criterion.🤔
I haven't checked what the current predictions are, but it's weird as hell that they're all identical across every single criterion, and I can't believe Matthew Young35 actually made the cut.😳

Man, last year I'm pretty sure this only happened once during the entire season.😕

EDIT:

stormybadger8 said:5. The criteria for determining race standings are as follows:
a) the player with more secondary points wins.
b) in the event of a tie after a), the player with more exact position hits wins
c) in the event of a tie after b), the player who earned more bonus points wins
d) in the event of a tie after c), the player with the higher sum of points from all hit exact positions within their groups wins
e) in the event of a tie after d), the player with more hits in high-value point groups wins
f) in the event of a tie after e), the player with the smaller sum of differences between actual and predicted positions in the overall standings wins. In this case, all drivers are counted according to the order listed by FiAe and the competitors
g) in the event of a tie after f), the player who submitted their updated prediction earlier wins—or the one who sent the old prediction first if no one sent a new one. If one player fails to send a new prediction, their opponent wins.

Every single time, it ended up being different based on criterion "e," and we never even reached criterion "f."🤷
Look, just because no forecast gets the exact order right doesn't mean we should immediately jump to Matthew Young35's criteria or his "point f" logic.😳

And honestly, why is everyone making such a big deal out of someone landing in 17th or 18th?
It’s pretty easy to state that if those positions don't award major points, the rank should just be split.

So you just write it like this:
16. Player A
17. Player B
17. Player C
19. Player D

What’s the actual issue here? Being 17th or 18th doesn't decide anything. It carries zero points and has absolutely no impact on the outcome.
It's literally as pointless as the colors in a spreadsheet or the driver numbers.
There is zero reason to complain about it.

In the past, people would have lost their minds over losing a win just because their prediction was technically better but submitted 20 seconds too late.

Look, darkmarlin16 is actually making a solid point in the final standings here.🤷
Matthew Young35's criteria is fine by me; I think we should stick with it.

But honestly, there’s zero reason to care about anything else unless we’re talking about those top 10 predictions that actually carry the heavy points.
Who really cares if someone finished 11th or 24th? It doesn't matter.

That 17th place spot? It means absolutely nothing. It carries zero weight.
A consolation point is just a consolation point. Sure, you add it to the total, and yeah, that matters for the overall score.
But which specific position you grabbed during the race is literally irrelevant if it isn't in that top 10 bracket with the main points.🤷

darkmarlin16 said:☕

Honestly, I’m pretty stoked for this showdown against Patic 😍, though let’s be real, this is probably gonna be the toughest test yet ☕

Yeah, truth be told, you beating me worries me way more than if I were trailing by 7 or 8 points. 😳

But we’ve still got duels ahead of us. 😁
And honestly, you barely edged me out, so expect me to crush you in the next one. ☕

Since Matthew Young35 actually dropped a suggestion, why don't we bother discussing it?🤷
Every single year, we mess this up during the "dead season," fail to agree on anything, and then deal with the fallout later.😢

Honestly, it would be perfect if we had every single rule for next season locked in before the final race of this one.
But hey, we're all actually present right now, so this feels like the best time to do it.🙂

Are all this year's rookies just pretenders?😍

Especially in a round where the reigning champ just pulled off his biggest win ever.😁
Not entirely sure, but I think this is the first 15-0 blowout we've seen in the ESPN F1 Super League since they started playing.

William Bennett53 said:You can't just go changing the rules right in the middle of the competition; we aren't the FIA... if an issue crops up that isn't explicitly covered by the rulebook, there really isn't much choice but to deal with it as it stands. All those kinds of adjustments should be handled once the season is officially over.

We aren't even changing them.🤣🤣🤣

We're talking about the rules for next season.😳

Whatever you say.
Honestly, I don't really care, but I think using the first prediction as the entry along with your team name is actually a solid idea.🙂
It seems pretty fine to me, just to keep track of who signed up for which team.

As for the joker thing—I don't care if it's an old or new prediction since I end up writing at least two for every single race anyway.😬🤣

Christian Williams61 said:I'm "terrible" yet you're still sitting right behind me in the rankings ☕ "😉"

Don't sweat it—once I finally beat you in our little duel, I'll officially be a bit better than you 😉"

You gotta catch Rosia first before you even think about me.😁

The devil knows why darkmarlin16 would just bail on me.🙂
And the worst part? I have to go up against WayOut in round 7.🙂

It’s gonna be tough to win with these ridiculous offers and replies flying around.😬
But hey, that just makes the victory sweeter.😁

Of course not, but you’re pretty useless without it😉
I’ve already caught up to you in the secondary points, and honestly, I’ve got you in the main ones too, regardless of that massive lead you think you have😉

To become a champion, you actually have to beat the guy holding the trophy first.☕
Winning a couple of easy fights without breaking a sweat isn't enough.

ruggedfox28 said:So how is that actually better than a joker pick? You know, using the most recent prediction—which is definitely going to be way more accurate to the actual grid than some guess made at the start of the season?

Well, nobody ever said it was "better."🤷
It’s just easier for the host, and it basically forces you to keep submitting new predictions.

If you aren't the type to send in fresh picks constantly, it isn't "better" for you. It's better for the people running the show and for the players who actually bother to update their guesses regularly.

Man, you really didn't get what I was suggesting, did you?😁

That forecast would only count if you actually have a joker card left.😬
So, it's not an endless thing—it’s just a joker forecast that lasts as long as you've got jokers to burn.😉

As for the numbers and colors, personally, I think they're totally useless in the tables.

ESPN F1 Fantasy 2012: Pangloss vs Christian Williams61: 6-9
Lewis Hamilton - Jenson Button 3-0
Romain Grosjean - Kamui Kobayashi 3-0
Daniel Ricciardo - Jean-Éric Vergne0-3
Vettel - Mark Webber 0-3
Kamui Kobayashi - Kimi Raikkonen 0-3
Pangloss vs Christian Williams61: 0-3

darkmarlin16 - MAXYM 15-0
No response to my offer. Typical.
darkmarlin16 - MAXYM 2-0

Patagonia vs Paskaneman 2-12
Jenson Button - Lewis Hamilton 0-3
Michael Schumacher - Nico Rosberg 0-3
Esteban Gutiérrez - Kimi Raikkonen0-3
Maldonado - Daniel Ricciardo 2-0
Sergio Perez - Kamui Kobayashi 0-3
Patagonia vs Paskaneman 0-3

Jessica Ramos12 - stormybadger8 0-15
Sergio Perez - Kamui Kobayashi 0-3
Nico Rosberg - Michael Schumacher 0-3
Daniel Ricciardo - Jean-Éric Vergne 0-3
Fernando Alonso - Kimi Raikkonen 0-3
Lewis Hamilton - Jenson Button 0-3
Jessica Ramos12 - stormybadger8 0-3