Current PB system



  • Hi all, have seen and been involved in a few PB conversations on here this morning/last night mostly sparked by Joao Felix and the fact that he didn't win anything after scoring a hatrick and getting an assist.

    Just wanted to gauge the wider opinion of people on the Index really, what does everyone think about PB how it is currently? Personally I think there is room for improvement and as it stands luck has far too much impact on it for my liking but interested to get other peoples thoughts and find out If people would be open to a change or would it put you off the platform?



  • He won 4p per share for IPDs so didn't win anything is not strictly true.



  • @TraderJ I've invested 40k based on the current rules and regulations, I'd be a little pissed if it all changed now. The Felix one is strange, I sold my remaining shares in him at a healthy profit overnight and reinvested elsewhere, he clearly isn't cut out for the scoring matrix yet. Perhaps people find it more exciting to invest in a Felix instead of a Parejo, but that doesn't mean that the Pb system should change.



  • @Zidave depends when you bought him. If you bought him over 30 days ago then he didn't win anything. Perhaps I should have said didn't win any PB dividends to be 100% accurate but regardless that wasn't the point of the post and I'm sure people understood what I was saying



  • We all bought players ("placed our bets") on the basis of the current scoring system.

    It's been well established that active senior No10s making lots of passes and being involved in the game are better at racking up PB points than youngsters and No9s who score but not much else.

    So personally, I'd say if Felix cannot win PB after scoring a hattrick, on a day with only four games, maybe that indicates he's not a great PB hold at this point in his career. The problem is with his lack of overall involvement in the match rather than the scoring matrix.



  • @Jimbob understandably so, I don't think a complete overhaul would ever happen but would you be opposed to some minor tweaks though? Perhaps getting rid of GWG and adding some MOTM bonuses or bonuses for scoring 2, 3, 4 goals etc? The base scoring system would remain the same, which for the most part I think is quite fair but it would just reward things in the game that are hard to do like scoring multiple goals or winning MOTM rather than rewarding luck as I feel it does now with GWG



  • @playingcards1 ignoring felix for a moment as he seems to polarise opinions on here 😂 do you not think there could be some slight improvements to be made without changing the core of PB. Or are you are completely happy with it at the moment? I know we all knew the rules when we signed up but I don't think that means there isn't room for improvement



  • @Jimbob agree with this totally, yes you could argue it is flawed a bit but Felix had well over 200 PB score at one stage and then was sloppy with the ball a few times losing points and dropping under 200. Seen so much moaning by holders of him on here and Twitter, that's the game get over it. Yes it's not perfect but it works, and 9 times out of 10 the winner is usually justified. And as Jimbob said ppl have invested a lot of money in on the basis, change that now and it will only erode confidence in the product. Certain players aren't built for FI, I held Mpabbe for months knowing he is a great player but not involved enough for FI to win PB, so sold up. Felix is up 60p in caps, what do ppl want?



  • @TraderJ Not a bad idea in theory, but if you offer a bonus for a brace/hat trick, then Vardy or Muriel or whoever shoots up in value. Where does that money come from? New investment? Perhaps, but more likely mass sales of PB or mb winners. Gwg, yeah that's a lot of points. Dunno how changing it would go down though.
    I wasn't around when the ipds were introduced, but it sounds like it was a messy business at the time.



  • @TraderJ

    I would be very careful about changing anything right now as there will be unintended consequences for traders who bought in good faith and on the basis of the existing rules.

    For example, a bonus for scoring 2/3/4 goals would mean strikers are more likely to rack up bigger PB scores, making them more likely to win star player dividends, and therefore increasing their relative value over defenders of midfielders. Removing GWG would have the opposite effect.

    I'm actually pretty happy with it; the matrix generally reflects a big performance very well. Players scoring hattricks will often post a 250+ PB and win the divs, but the system is still sophisticated enough to reward overall contribution other than just finishing.



  • I'm happy enough with the PB system (although I would love tiered payouts on a match day).

    The only thing I really take issue with is the game winning goal. All the actions in the PB matrix reward good things (i.e. accurate pass) and punish bad things (i.e. giveaway pass) - this makes total sense. Game winning goal is worth a whopping 40 points (joint highest thing in the scoring system) and is a load of rubbish as it implies it's twice as good as an ordinary goal, but if a team have won 6-0 then it's not exactly vital. It devalues PB because you can easily work out which players fit the scoring system well and then just have to hope your guy scores the goal that makes it 2-1, rather than the one that made it 1-1.



  • You obviously have to be careful and I’d doubt there will ever be a PB scoring change. It’d be a big risk for FI.
    One thing I will say is the GWG could go. Completely random, don’t like it personally.



  • Seems like the general consensus is that GWG is a bit of a joke and nobody really likes it. I don't think it will happen but it would be nice if they swapped that for MOTM or something like that. GWG as it stands is just silly, as it just takes into account the order of the goals scored. If you take Felix for example as he seems to be the man of the moment, fair enough he didn't score the 3rd goal in a match they won 4-2 but if you take his goals out then they lose the match so in my opinion calling Dias' goal the GWG is a bit silly but that's just my opinion



  • @TraderJ Yea there is an issue about ordering and gwg.

    A solution would be to make the points for each goal scored be dependent on how far ahead the scorers are.

    So if Psg(neymar) score the first goal to go one nil up then neymar gets 40 points.
    If Neymar scores again (2-0) then he gets 35 points.
    If neymar scores again (3-0) he gets 30 points.

    If some montpellier bloke scores (3-1) he gets 40*
    If some montpellier bloke scores again (3-2) he gets 40*

    If neymar scores he gets (4-2) he gets 35. Because the lead of one goal takes off 5pb points of importance.

    Cracking game this^

    That would be my suggestion.

    You could also make how far behind you are decrease the pb points in correlation with decrease in lead. So it'd be 30 then 35*.

    (The figures iv'e used are not necessarily the ones im suggesting just think the system potentially works better this way and isn't too complicated for newbies)



  • @LuaLua yeah I think this is something that could definitely work. I just think that the current GWG system is pretty poor and there is plenty of room to improve it and put something more sophisticated in place that actually brings value to the PB score, I don't think anyone would oppose that



  • As someone correctly points out in another thread, the game winning goal likely exists to give FI an advantage. Everyone will rightly invest in the players who pass a lot in possession orientated teams as they will have high base scores, but these £2 guys can lose out to the less talented 25p player who plays in a worse team, just because they've scored the winning goal off their arse from 1 yard out.

    Which means FI pay out far less as hardly anyone holds the 25p player compared to the £2 player.

    Game winning goal is a blight on the PB scoring matrix.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Football Index Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.