Setting the rules for the Reddit F1 championship 2013

William Bennett53 said:Alright, let’s try running the numbers for the Spanish Grand Prix using all three methods just to see what actually happens... fine, great, at least we'll have some semblance of uncertainty before that absolute disaster of a race begins. 😁

Whatever you say🙏

stormybadger8 said:Just give us a casual breakdown and feel free to copy the scoring rules if you think they need to be the same.

And if you don't mind, run the numbers for that Barcelona race so we can see how it all looks in practice.🙂
They might seem similar at first glance, but just because they look alike doesn't mean one is better than the other. Honestly, they might not even be as close as they seem.

They are similar. However, I believe my proposal is superior because it captures forecasts with much greater precision.
His suggestion relies on certain rounding methods that simply aren't necessary.

The only adjustment I would consider in my model is perhaps capping the points awarded for misses at 5, 6, or 7. Why? Because if you pick a driver who crashes out in the very first lap to win, you lose 24 points instantly. You're left with zero chance of recovery, regardless of how accurate your overall forecast was. Or what happens if a driver fails to even start? Or some other outlier scenario...

In the current calculation, almost everyone would end up with 15 to 20 points for picking Jenson Button, making them look worse than someone who had a much weaker forecast but correctly predicted a DNF for him.

EDIT:
It’s essentially the same principle as statistics: you have to filter out the extreme outliers.

Look, just settle on something🙂 as far as I'm concerned. Modify those two and just make them the best they can be.😁
To be totally honest, I haven't given any of these suggestions much thought until I actually see them in action.

But yeah, the current setup is already pretty "complicated" and outdated. Maybe it really is time we shake things up and improve it.👍

Now is the perfect time. Every single year, we start these discussions way too late after the season ends, and we always end up failing to agree on anything in time—plus half the people aren't even around to weigh in.
Then, at the start of every season, we waste time picking moderators and barely touch the rules.
Later on, we’re just patching holes, which is exactly why our system ended up being such a mess.

That’s why I think we should have the 2013 rules locked in before the 2012 season even wraps up.😳
There’s plenty of time, and everyone is actually here right now.🙂
And honestly, Barcelona doesn't matter. We can experiment and figure out what works best first; once everything is defined, then we can move to the poll and voting.😉

Matthew Young35 said:They are similar. However, I believe my proposal is superior because it captures forecasts with much greater precision.
His suggestion relies on certain rounding methods that simply aren't necessary.

The only adjustment I would consider in my model is perhaps capping the points awarded for misses at 5, 6, or 7. Why? Because if you pick a driver who crashes out in the very first lap to win, you lose 24 points instantly. You're left with zero chance of recovery, regardless of how accurate your overall forecast was. Or what happens if a driver fails to even start? Or some other outlier scenario...

In the current calculation, almost everyone would end up with 15 to 20 points for picking Jenson Button, making them look worse than someone who had a much weaker forecast but correctly predicted a DNF for him.

EDIT:
It’s essentially the same principle as statistics: you have to filter out the extreme outliers.

I can't get behind that suggestion. If a top-tier driver drops out or finishes dead last, it makes sense that those who predicted a DNF should earn fewer points than those who expected a win. Otherwise, you end up in a situation where everyone who picked that driver for a high finish gets the exact same amount of points whether they guessed 1st or 10th. To me, that feels inherently unfair!
😁

Matthew Young35 said:Alright, here is a preliminary draft of the proposed rules.

1. To be considered valid, a prediction cannot list the same driver in multiple positions. Additionally, your entry must include exactly the number of drivers specified by the FIA as participating in the race.
2. In terms of ranking, players with fewer total points will be placed higher than those with more points.
3. Scoring is calculated based on the absolute difference between a driver's predicted position and their actual finishing position. This applies to all selected drivers.
4. If a driver you predicted fails to make the grid entirely, you will be awarded 24 points (representing the maximum possible number of participants).
5. The final standings from 1st to 24th will be determined by the official FIA results, which include DNFs, DNQs, and any other technical disqualifications.
6. PLEASE NOTE: These figures—whether we are looking at 22, 24, or 26 drivers—are subject to change depending on how the FIA settles the regulations regarding the total number of cars on the grid.
7. In the event of a tie in total points, we will break it by looking at the accuracy of the top 15 predicted positions, then the top 10, and finally the top five. If we are still stuck in a deadlock after that? Well, then all bets are off.

I think this is totally fine.👍
I'm actually digging this whole 15, 10, 5 position thing. 🙂
Simple and effective. No need for all the extra fluff.
Just one more thing: if they’re tied on those first five criteria, we look at who sent their prediction in first. Simple as that.

I'm not a fan of this whole system where you only get 5, 6, or 7 points for missing the mark either. It's just not working for me.😳
That's exactly what's hardest to nail down. It should definitely be treated as an edge, not a drawback.
So basically, they’d be punishing the exact players who actually nailed those wild results, while handing out rewards to the ones who missed them entirely. Makes perfect sense, right?

Let's say this whole crazy race ends exactly like that proposal above:
Sebastian Vettel at 21.
Lewis Hamilton, number 22.
Jenson Button
Kimi, man.

They always nail the prediction, but then they can't even manage a simple entry. They either forget to list Sergio Pérez entirely or type his name twice and leave someone else out. Typical.
Even if someone pulled off some miracle hit, it wouldn’t mean a thing. It would be totally wiped out by everyone else who missed that entire order by like 80 spots and only walked away with maybe 20, 24, or 28 points.
Imagine if this guy with his "perfect" predictions actually lost 24 points on Sergio Pérez—or even 48 if he gets it wrong twice.😳

If two players end up tied, the tiebreaker goes to whoever had the lower maximum point score in their predictions..

Basically, if my highest prediction for any single driver hits 15 points, but stormybadger8 only went up to 12, then his picks are actually better than mine. It means his predictions were more consistent and closer to the actual results.

Jason James said:If two players end up tied, the tiebreaker goes to whoever had the lower maximum point score in their predictions..

Basically, if my highest prediction for any single driver hits 15 points, but stormybadger8 only went up to 12, then his picks are actually better than mine. It means his predictions were more consistent and closer to the actual results.

There’s a certain logic to it.

Jason James said:If two players end up tied, the tiebreaker goes to whoever had the lower maximum point score in their predictions..

Basically, if my highest prediction for any single driver hits 15 points, but stormybadger8 only went up to 12, then his picks are actually better than mine. It means his predictions were more consistent and closer to the actual results.

👍
Even simpler—that should just be the primary tiebreaker under Matthew Young35's criteria.🙂
Here’s what I think is the cleanest, most straightforward way to settle ties for the race rankings:

5. Race ranking tiebreakers are as follows:
a) The player with fewer secondary points takes it.
b) If there's still a tie after a), the player with fewer secondary points from their worst predicted driver wins.
c) If there's still a tie after b), the player with fewer secondary points for the top 15 predicted drivers wins.
d) If there's still a tie after c), the player with fewer secondary points for the top 10 predicted drivers wins.
e) If there's still a tie after d), the player with fewer secondary points for the top 5 predicted drivers wins.
f) If there's still a tie after e), whoever submitted their updated prediction first wins. If nobody updated, it goes to whoever submitted the original prediction first. If one person fails to submit an update, their opponent wins by default.

Seriously, who was the genius behind the idea that you get extra points just for hitting specific positions?!

It’s basically double taxation...
First, someone uses those bonus points to catch up to another driver, only for the standard finishing positions to give them the edge all over again in the head-to-head tiebreaker..

Jason James said:Seriously, who was the genius behind the idea that you get extra points just for hitting specific positions?!

It’s basically double taxation...
First, someone uses those bonus points to catch up to another driver, only for the standard finishing positions to give them the edge all over again in the head-to-head tiebreaker..

go talk to MAXIM... 😬

..I guess the logic is that predicting the back of the pack is harder than the front, which makes sense I suppose...

...but honestly, it feels more like pure luck than skill if you're trying to guess that Nico Hulkenberg is gonna finish, say, in 14th place 🤣 🤣

ruggedfox28 said:go talk to MAXIM... 😬

..I guess the logic is that predicting the back of the pack is harder than the front, which makes sense I suppose...

...but honestly, it feels more like pure luck than skill if you're trying to guess that Nico Hulkenberg is gonna finish, say, in 14th place 🤣 🤣

Look, I get the reasoning, but I’m really not sure it actually works in practice..
That kind of logic should be used for calculating exact positions if we ever actually needed to go down that rabbit hole..

Take this specific round, for example:
- one player pulls in 32 points for a perfect race
- another player gets 29 points
which leaves a noticeable 3-point gap

- the guy with 32 gets a bonus point for hitting one position, bringing him to 33 total points
- the other guy gets 4 points for hitting two positions, also landing him at 33

And then, at the very end
- the second guy wins because he had more correct positions (2 vs 1), which basically means his correct picks were effectively doubled in value..

It feels a little hypocritical since I'm the first player in this scenario, but let's be real—none of us bother scrutinizing the rulebook until a situation like this hits us personally and affects our own score..

Bottom line, I don't want anyone thinking there's any bad blood being thrown around here..
Major props to Karl, though, for pulling off a win with a lineup of only 22 drivers.. 🙂

Now, things would actually get ugly if I started demanding negative penalty points for the missing drivers right now 😉 🤣

Look, it’s obvious. This season has been a total mess.
That’s why I started that thread about rethinking the points system and maybe switching to Matthew Young35's method next year.😉

So, what’s actually the issue?
When Max was drafting those rules, hitting the 11th through 16th place bracket was legitimately a nightmare.
I think that’s what he was aiming for.

Because you basically had predictable patterns:
4 cars from two teams in 1st-3rd
4 cars from two teams in 4th-10th
6 cars from three teams in 17th-24th

Everything else was a toss-up, but those specific groups were practically constants for years.
Predicting positions 11-16 was way harder than guessing the top spots.

But this season? There aren't really any constants left—aside from the usual bottom six drivers from three teams—so the old logic doesn't even apply anymore.
But hey, it is what it is.🤷
Changing the scoring system mid-season makes zero sense unless we come up with something better that everyone can actually get behind.

In the meantime, I'm just waiting to see the results based on the systems proposed by Matthew Young35 and Dorian.
Mainly so I can figure out where the discrepancies are and why.

To be perfectly honest, I simply don't have the inclination to sit here and crunch all these numbers right now. It leaves me with no other choice but to offer my tacit support for Matthew Young35's suggestion. 🙏 🙏

Karlospeedi:

1-Vettel 5
2-Hamilton 6
3-Alonso 1
4-Button 5
5-Webber 6
6-Rosberg 1
7-Raikkonen 4
8-Grosjean 4
9-Kobayashi 4
10-Schumacher 14
11-Perez 9
12-Massa 3
13-Senna 10
14-Vergne 2
15-Ricciardo 2
16-Maldonado 15
17-Petrov 0
18-Glock 0
19-Kovalainen 3
20-Pic 1
21-de la Rosa 2
22-Karthikeyan 0
000 26
000 26

TOTAL : 149 *

* Note: more details coming later.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////

Matthew Young35:

1-Raikkonen 2
2-Hamilton 6
3-Vettel 3
4-Button 5
5-Webber 6
6-Alonso 4
7-Grosjean 3
8-Schumacher 16
9-Rosberg 2
10-Massa 5
11-Perez 9
12-Senna 11
13-di Resta 1
14-Kobayashi 9
15-Maldonado 14
16-Hulkenberg 6
17-Ricciardo 4
18-Vergne 6
19-Kovalainen 3
20-Petrov 3
21-Glock 3
22-Pic 1
23-de la Rosa 4
24-Karthikeyan 2

TOTAL : 128

////////////////////////////////////////////

Matthew Young35:

1-Hamilton 7
2-Button 7
3-Rosberg 4
4-Raikkonen 1
5-Schumacher 19
6-Vettel 0
7-Webber 4
8-Alonso 6
9-Maldonado 8
10-Perez 10
11-Grosjean 7
12-Kobayashi 7
13-Massa 2
14-Senna 9
15-di Resta 1
16-Hulkenberg 6
17-Ricciardo 4
18-Vergne 6
19-Kovalainen 3
20-Petrov 3
21-de la Rosa 2
22-Pic 1
23-Karthikeyan 1
24-Glock 6

TOTAL : 124

//////////////////////////////////////

Pilatus:

1-Hamilton 7
2-Vettel 4
3-Webber 8
4-Button 5
5-Alonso 3
6-Raikkonen 3
7-Grosjean 3
8-Schumacher 16
9-Rosberg 2
10-Massa 5
11-Perez 9
12-Kobayashi 7
13-Maldonado 12
14-Hulkenberg 4
15-di Resta 1
16-Ricciardo 3
17-Petrov 0
18-Kovalainen 2
19-Vergne 7
20-Glock 2
21-de la Rosa 2
22-Pic 1
23-Karthikeyan 1
24-Senna 1

TOTAL : 108

////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Manhattan Gray

1-Hamilton 7
2-Webber 9
3-Button 6
4-Vettel 2
5-Raikkonen 2
6-Rosberg 1
7-Grosjean 3
8-Alonso 6
9-Schumacher 15
10-Perez 10
11-Kobayashi 6
12-Massa 3
13-di Resta 1
14-Hulkenberg 4
15-Maldonado 14
16-Senna 7
17-Ricciardo 4
18-Vergne 6
19-Kovalainen 3
20-Petrov 3
21-Glock 3
22-Pic 1
23-de la Rosa 4
24-Karthikeyan 2

TOTAL : 122

////////////////////////////////////////////

Dinaminjo:

1-Vettel 5
2-Button 7
3-Raikkonen 0
4-Hamilton 4
5-Grosjean 1
6-Schumacher 18
7-Webber 4
8-Rosberg 1
9-Perez 11
10-Kobayashi 5
11-Hulkenberg 1
12-Alonso 10
13-Massa 2
14-Maldonado 13
15-di Resta 1
16-Vergne 4
17-Ricciardo 4
18-Kovalainen 2
19-Petrov 2
20-Glock 2
21-Pic 0
22-de la Rosa 3
23-Karthikeyan 1
24-Senna 1

TOTAL : 102

1 Dinaminjo 102
2 Pilatus 108
3 ruggedfox28 112
4 Beverly Hills 114
5 TBF1 116
6 Manhattan 118
7 Rose 120
8 Dorian.Gray 122
9 _express 124
10 Sepa 126
Mobberzg 126
South America 126
Maxym 126
Kimi#1 126
15 Maminho 128
16 Pr0Pusina 130
17 Pangloss 132
18 Matthew Young35 134
19 Wayout 136
20 Rain 148
21 Karlospeedi 149 *

* competitor Karlospeedi was awarded two sets of 26 points because he's currently missing two drivers from his roster.

Damn, I’m actually killing it according to this system 😲

ruggedfox28 said:Damn, I’m actually killing it according to this system 😲

To be fair, Karlospeedi actually has a terrifyingly accurate forecast, but he’s missing two drivers.
This is exactly why I suggested we implement a rule where you can lose up to 5 or 10 negative points. You could have the best forecast of anyone else, but if you're missing those two drivers, you end up dead last in the rankings. Doesn't that seem a bit unfair?

Matthew Young35 said:To be fair, Karlospeedi actually has a terrifyingly accurate forecast, but he’s missing two drivers.
This is exactly why I suggested we implement a rule where you can lose up to 5 or 10 negative points. You could have the best forecast of anyone else, but if you're missing those two drivers, you end up dead last in the rankings. Doesn't that seem a bit unfair?

Thank God we don't need a PhD just to plug all the drivers into the forecast...😉

It shouldn't be rocket science for anyone, unless someone messes up a simple copy-paste job..

ruggedfox28 said:Thank God we don't need a PhD just to plug all the drivers into the forecast...😉

It shouldn't be rocket science for anyone, unless someone messes up a simple copy-paste job..

Fair enough, but if someone puts down a brilliant prediction and then two drivers pull out, the result is effectively the same. Regardless, I think it makes sense to set some kind of limit on how many negative points one can actually accrue.
But let's be real—this is all purely hypothetical. We're talking about potential rule changes for future scoring systems, not anything happening in the current season.

William Bennett53 said:To be perfectly honest, I simply don't have the inclination to sit here and crunch all these numbers right now. It leaves me with no other choice but to offer my tacit support for Matthew Young35's suggestion. 🙏 🙏

Who says you have to rush? You can always get it done properly in two, three, five, or even ten days. 😉
It doesn't matter at all. What matters is actually making it if we want to have a debate about it.

That's exactly why using those different calculation methods makes it obvious right away which way the wind is blowing—you can tell immediately if something’s working or if it’s a total disaster.🙂