2012 champion

Agreed. Looking at it now, I'd guestimate it'll take at least 360 to make it in

Agreed. Looking at it now, I'd guestimate it'll take at least 360 to make it in

STEVE F, I did a little modelling with some estimated playoff points, based on current league standings and some very, very rough point addition estimates. I did this just to get a sense of what the estimated point cut-off might be for the 36th playoff spot.

Based on this VERY ROUGH methodology, I'm estimating that the final playoff spot might require 353 points or so, in relation to the prelimary standings just published by me. The increase is related to my estimate of the additional playoff bonus points that might be earned in events, 3, 4 and 5.

Just to be clear, I have not added any of the 5 point bonuses for entering all 5 events. However, since almost all of the point leaders HAVE entered all 5 events, this is not likely to make a difference - except that the final playoff spot cut-off might be around 358 once the 5 point bonus is added for entering all 5 events.

I strongly encourage every player to keep working at it. My estimate is that about 6 of the current playoff spots (i.e. maybe about 6 of the top 36 spots in my standings totals) might change as a result of playoff races in events 3, 4 and 5! But many of the Event 4 and 5 leagues are barely underway, and so the standings could change radically as leagues are completed and playoff bonus points are awarded.

The link to the thread for my published standings as of October 6 is here:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=633682

How are the point totals being calculated on the 2013 PC site? I ask because I see that I have 314 points but 316 wins.

How are the point totals being calculated on the 2013 PC site? I ask because I see that I have 314 points but 316 wins.

Yikes. Great question. Let me check with strat on that and get back to you. Not sure.

Just checked, my points are also added incorrectly on the homepage...the total is off by 4 points.

Checked several more totals on the homepage, all were incorrect, some off by 30-40 points. Looks like Event 5 scores are not being added to the totals yet, probably waiting to drop low scores. But that still does not explain all the errors in the totals, including mine and Jake's.

I've emailed strat. Hope to hear from them on Friday.

Just fyi, for the preliminary standings that I've posted myself, I think that they ARE correct, since I didn't use the totals from the main web page. Instead, I picked up the points from each event for each player. Please look at the thread that I created for my own preliminary standings.

It looks like to me-----possibly it is programmed that the lowest win total of the five events are thrown out ------ so If you have an earlier team that has say a 70-92 record, the 70 points won't be thrown out till your 5th league teams passes 70 wins even if it is 60-40 at the moment.

Also people that have filler teams are getting those points added in for some reason, so some are getting 5 teams adding to their totals if one of the teams is a filler in events 1 to 4----so the above post is correct in that the 5th league is not added in yet.

It looks like to me-----possibly it is programmed that the lowest win total of the five events are thrown out ------ so If you have an earlier team that has say a 70-92 record, the 70 points won't be thrown out till your 5th league teams passes 70 wins even if it is 60-40 at the moment.

Also people that have filler teams are getting those points added in for some reason, so some are getting 5 teams adding to their totals if one of the teams is a filler in events 1 to 4----so the above post is correct in that the 5th league is not added in yet.

You're right.

And, there was also a temporary glitch where the results weren't updated properly one night this week, which is what Jake Squid had noticed.

Re the filler teams, I had already contacted strat to ask them to remove them, and that's been done now, as of today.

The (inherent) problem with the leaderboard on the main web page is that some players (like Jake Squid) have lots of "games in hand" - games yet to play. My own published leaderboard equalizes this factor by assigning a half-win for each game yet to play, like the Games Behind Leader system in MLB standings. Also, as miller.randall noted, the main web page is just dropping the lowest raw score (pure "wins" from each event). This simple methodology doesn't recognize a great start in event 5, in terms of games above .500, when the actual win total is low, with few games played. The methodology that I'm using recognizes that good event 5 score (with games in hand adjusted for), and drops a losing record (albeit with more total wins) from one of the earlier events. These differences are about timing. At the end, the main page standings will be the same as the ones that I'm publishing. I'm just causing the results to be comparable to each other -"apples and apples" - in the mean time, with the adjustments that I make.

I will be publishing another updated standings page on the weekend, based on games played through last night (Thursday October 10).