
Sharky wrote:Who won last night?![]()
![]()
We all pay to play and have fun. Let's respect that.
Turbo wrote:After considerable thought, the best way appears to be to use an approach similar to what we did to implement the "no two '5's" criterion last week: with the dice. All "1"s will be placed in a separate bag, similar to the way we handle the "5"s. After the "5"s are placed using the dice, a "1" will be placed with each "5" in the order chosen, by drawing them from the bag; i.e., the 1st "1" out of the bag goes with the 1st "5;" the 2nd "1" out of the bag goes with the 2nd "5;" etc. ...
The process described above will not be popular with "5"s, and it could dissuade current or potential "5"s from having that rating. However, teams with a "5" and a "1" still can get a "4," "3" or "2." The benefit to the "1"s is obvious: they'll be playing with (and learning from) the best players. I understand that it also could encourage more "bagger" "1"s to stay that way. This will require some policing by other players to overcome. Finally, placing a "1" with a "5" serves as a de facto handicap for the "5," which is not terribly unreasonable.![]()
I plan to try this approach this week. If it's a bust, we'll adjust.
The system broke down when we had just two "1"s and two "5"s. Placing the "1"s with the "5"s meant no other teams had "1"s - just the "5"s, which turned out to be too discriminatory. Consequently, we'll adjust next week. We will not automatically place a "1" with each "5".
stay late to test your afterburners.
(A decision is pending regarding retroactive ticket sales.)




Turbo wrote:Red Jeep Eric

Turbo wrote:There was some confusion during the payout because Bruce had gone back out on the course . . . Yours truly made up the $24 to Bruce, and Jesse owes me $24.![]()
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest