I have done it with the first round and the first and second round weighted by seed. Either way is good. Sure, it screws up the pure "fair" weighted pools, but I think it is well worth it. A #1 has never lost to a #16, so why should that game count as much? Think about the games and which ones you watch and typically where the upsets happen in the seedings. Picking the #12 over the #5 should be rewarded if you know enough to pick it. I would recommend a bigger gap in points distribution from the weighted seeded round(s) to non-weighted seeded rounds to dampen the overall affect of the weighted seeded round(s). For example, if the first two rounds are weighted seeded rounds, they can be worth 1 and 2 points each. and then the third round can be worth 8 points, and the fourth worth 8 points and on up. this way it counter acts teh first two rounds being worthless in teh traditional weighted by round scoring system.
Finally, it is our pool, whatever every the rules are, it is "fair" as long we all agree upon them at the start.
PS I think everything i just wrote might be jibberish, but I am too tired to proofread.
|
03-17-08, 07:56 PM
Threaded Mode