pokerchamp stanley cup odds SNES A

[pokrchamp]

While I'm a pretty decent handicapper, and a winning sports better!!! ya!! So here we go

Quebec --- 5 to 1

Pittsburgh -- 5 to 1

I put these guys first cause there in the easy conference. I think Deer's played the

best hockey this season, but I still put Pitts at 5 - 1 also. I know Quebec has pretty weak

D & in a long series... assuming they both meet its gonna be tough for Deer to stop Mario

& the pens.

Jota C -- 6 to 1 Returning champ has been playin possum. Hard to put him as fav, but

despite crappy record he's gonna be tough. Can't ignore last season

Detroit --- 7 to 1 Detroit will be tough... Rudy can score in bunches

Chicago -- 8 to 1 I expect to play Mike in the 2nd round... will be a war for sure!

Winnipeg -- 8 to 1 Tough to handicap yourself!

LA -- 10 to 1 The best goaltending I've seen is from Fenty. He may be able to pull off some upsets with

a hot goalie. He also plays great hard hitting defense with Blake & McSorley ( I think)

Hartord -- 10 to 1 I noticed Hartford playin some great players really tough. Although Hartford is probably

not as bad as everyone thinks, they are still on the lower end. But he could cause problems

I don't know if shakazuzu will even show up for playoffs, or he could do some damage.

Props to BSDeamon & the Boston coach for comin in & playin a bunch of games.

I'll leave the predictions for someone else

Best of luck all!!

[The Deer]

Good post, good to see the SNES playoff discussion started already.

The only person for whom the conference isn't easy is for the guy who worked hard all season to finish in first place. My reward looks like it's getting shakazuzu in the first round, if he's still playing. If that's the way it's gotta be, it's the way it's gotta be, I know the whole "games not getting played" situation fucked with the standings royally and the the guys who worked out the DNPs and forfeits did their best. I also know that by and large teh league is just for fun. If there's absolutely no better solution that would be fair to everyone, I'll play him, but I do ask that the powers that be at least look into a possibly fairer situation........... the guy who played as many of his games as he could and won all but six of them, working very hard to finish first and try to ensure himself the best playoff odds, should not have to face another one of the top three or so talents in this league in the first round.

I'll understand if there's absolutely no other way that wouldn't screw someone else over, but I'd really appreciate it if this was looked into as much as possible. Not saying I'm scared to face shaka, I did it last year, and I expected to do so at some point in these playoffs, but in round one as my reward for having the best regular season performance in the league, while guys who finished behind me get (no offence) MUCH MUCH easier opponents? Hoping it at least gets looked into anyway.

Edit: Made this post before seeing the post made by geushneidt in that other thread started by ThePimpImp. I'm now under the understanding that the final standings won't necessarily reflect the way the playoff brackets will turn out, and I'll wait to see what the playoff brackets yield. My mistake for not reading that other thread first I guess.

[addisonbr]

I am very optimistic that these concerns will be addressed next season, because few here disagree with you. It's in everyone's best interests for the league to make as much sense as possible.

[pokrchamp]

ya that sucks Deer.

Although you may get a win by forfeit as Shak is no where to be seen.

There was almost reason to lose a few on purpose!

But I think next season the league will be 10 times better, I think

collectivly the commited players like yourself need to make some

changes in what you think will be best for the league.

If it were me I'd want that matchup.

Quebec vs Montreal... doesn't get better than that.

[Guest BSDaemon]

Good post, good to see the SNES playoff discussion started already.

The only person for whom the conference isn't easy is for the guy who worked hard all season to finish in first place. My reward looks like it's getting shakazuzu in the first round, if he's still playing. If that's the way it's gotta be, it's the way it's gotta be, I know the whole "games not getting played" situation fucked with the standings royally and the the guys who worked out the DNPs and forfeits did their best. I also know that by and large teh league is just for fun. If there's absolutely no better solution that would be fair to everyone, I'll play him, but I do ask that the powers that be at least look into a possibly fairer situation........... the guy who played as many of his games as he could and won all but six of them, working very hard to finish first and try to ensure himself the best playoff odds, should not have to face another one of the top three or so talents in this league in the first round.

I'll understand if there's absolutely no other way that wouldn't screw someone else over, but I'd really appreciate it if this was looked into as much as possible. Not saying I'm scared to face shaka, I did it last year, and I expected to do so at some point in these playoffs, but in round one as my reward for having the best regular season performance in the league, while guys who finished behind me get (no offence) MUCH MUCH easier opponents? Hoping it at least gets looked into anyway.

Well, the solution I came up with is as fair as it gets, but the admins don't want to implement anything like that until next year, even though I can't imagine anyone would complain about their records being adjusted to be more accurate, instead of handing out points to people who didnt (and likely wouldnt) earn them. *shrug* Next year....

[addisonbr]

Well, the solution I came up with is as fair as it gets, but the admins don't want to implement anything like that until next year, even though I can't imagine anyone would complain about their records being adjusted to be more accurate, instead of handing out points to people who didnt (and likely wouldnt) earn them. *shrug* Next year....

I had a bad record with Edmonton this year; it would have been a bummer to take mostly losses for games unplayed even though I was trying about as hard as anyone on this board to get them played.

[Guest BSDaemon]

I had a bad record with Edmonton this year; it would have been a bummer to take mostly losses for games unplayed even though I was trying about as hard as anyone on this board to get them played.

Yeah, I agree, that would suck for sure. Luckily my solution wouldn't let that happen.

[addisonbr]

Yeah, I agree, that would suck for sure. Luckily my solution wouldn't let that happen.

I thought your solution would turn my DNPs into the same winning percentage as my actual games played? Which for me, sadly and embarrassingly, would be mostly losses.

[Guest BSDaemon]

I thought your solution would turn my DNPs into the same winning percentage as my actual games played? Which for me, sadly and embarrassingly, would be mostly losses.

Nope. DNPs are still handed out (but written as DNPs like last year, and not 0-0 ties, which is total bullshit). But forefit wins are limited by your win % since there is no other way to calculate it. Assuming the person will win all of those games is obviously stupid, and assuming they will lose all those games is equally stupid. There has to be a middle ground, so rather then the admins pulling a number out of their ass, they need to base it on SOMETHING... and theres nothing more logical or fair then win %. It's not a PERFECT solution, but unless somebody can come up with something better..... it's as good as it gets.

[addisonbr]

Nope. DNPs are still handed out (but written as DNPs like last year, and not 0-0 ties, which is total bullshit). But forefit wins are limited by your win % since there is no other way to calculate it. Assuming the person will win all of those games is obviously stupid, and assuming they will lose all those games is equally stupid. There has to be a middle ground, so rather then the admins pulling a number out of their ass, they need to base it on SOMETHING... and theres nothing more logical or fair then win %.

Right, that's exactly what I meant. I had a bad record with EDM but worked my butt off to get games played. If I don't get credit for FF wins against people who refuse to show up and play me, but instead have to take those games as mostly losses, that would have really blown.

[Guest BSDaemon]

Right, that's exactly what I meant. I had a bad record with EDM but worked my butt off to get games played. If I don't get credit for FF wins against people who refuse to show up and play me, but instead have to take those games as mostly losses, that would have really blown.

Credit, yes. But 2 points for agame you didn't even play - the same amount as somebody who had to work to win games.... that's just silly!

Okay, so you don't like the middle ground idea, and the all wins and all losses ideas are even worse. So whats left? S crystal ball? Come up with a better way, and I'm all for it.

If they did soemthing stupid like give people full points for games not played, i should have stopped playing ages ago, since people who dont play cant get losses, only wins!.... instead i did whats right and finished all my games.

[addisonbr]

Credit, yes. But 2 points for agame you didn't even play - the same amount as somebody who had to work to win games.... that's just silly!

It's not ideal, but that's how forfeits work in the real world. If you work really hard to get the game played, it's not a gross miscarriage of justice IMHO.

Okay, so you don't like the middle ground idea, and the all wins and all losses ideas are even worse. So whats left? Come up with a better way, and I'm all for it.

I think the best idea is to really lean on owners to get their games played, and replace them more quickly if people can't fulfil their commitments. I think that would hopefully make the issue of what to do when someone hasn't played 1/2 of his games, totally moot.

For the small handful of unplayed games that still result, I think we should have a stronger burden on each owner to establish he's making a good faith effort to get the game played. Beyond that, 0-0 ties and FF wins over people who refuse to respond are okay with me.

[Guest BSDaemon]

It's not ideal, but that's how forfeits work in the real world. If you work really hard to get the game played, it's not a gross miscarriage of justice IMHO.

I think the best idea is to really lean on owners to get their games played, and replace them more quickly if people can't fulfil their commitments. I think that would hopefully make the issue of what to do when someone hasn't played 1/2 of his games, totally moot.

For the small handful of unplayed games that still result, I think we should have a stronger burden on each owner to establish he's making a good faith effort to get the game played. Beyond that, 0-0 ties and FF wins over people who refuse to respond are okay with me.

Yes, that is the best idea, but that isnt what happened. So again, unless you have a better idea...

[addisonbr]

Yes, that is the best idea, but that isnt what happened. So again, unless you have a better idea...

Oh, I didn't realize you meant your ideas were for retroactive changes for this past season. I was talking about seasons in the future.

[Guest BSDaemon]

Oh, I didn't realize you meant your ideas were for retroactive changes for this past season. I was talking about seasons in the future.

oh no no.... this was meant as a band-aid for this clusterfuck of a season. next season i would hope coaches are replaced LONG before they miss enough time to screw s**t up like this season. Like... no game logged in a week = bye bye. I had to wait for a month to take over a team that hadnt played a single game (if i remember correctly).

Well... the rule would apply next year too, but the idea would that it wouldn't get so bad that it would need to be enforced. Better to have a rule in place and never need it, I say.

[Setar]

I'll put up my predictions for round one here. Note that for the records I omitted Ties and DNPs if they had 0 in both, and just DNPs if they had no DNPs.

My record so far: 4-0

Gens A - Wales

(1) Washington (28-10-2) vs. (8) Pittsburgh (15-25) - Pittsburgh in 6 (Pittsburgh wins series 4-0)

(2) Hartford (27-6-0-7) vs. (7) Florida (17-20-3) - Hartford in 4

(3) Philadelphia (24-16) vs. (6) Quebec (19-20-1) - Philadelphia in 6

(4) Montreal (20-17-3) vs. (5) Boston (19-18-3) - Boston in 7

Gens A - Campbell

(1) Chicago (32-8) vs. (8) Dallas (12-25-0-3) - Chicago in 4

(2) Winnipeg (30-9-0-1) vs. (7) Calgary (15-25) - Winnipeg in 4 (Winnipeg wins series 4-0)

(3) Detroit (28-12) vs. (6) Los Angeles (16-24) - Detroit in 6 (Detroit wins series 4-1)

(4) Vancouver (20-20) vs. (5) Toronto (20-20) - Vancouver in 7 (Vancouver wins series 4-3)

Gens B - Wales

(1) N.Y. Rangers (23-16-1) vs. (8) Montreal (15-18-1) - Rangers in 5

(2) Buffalo (17-20-3) vs. (7) N.Y. Islanders (14-23-3) - Buffalo in 6

(3) Pittsburgh (23-13-0-4) vs. (6) Boston (20-16-4) - Pittsburgh in 6 (Series tied 1-1)

(4) Quebec (15-23-2) vs. (5) Washington (15-15-2-8) - Quebec in 5

Gens B - Campbell

(1) Chicago (37-3) vs. (8) Los Angeles (12-26-2) - Chicago in 4

(2) Vancouver (30-10) vs. (7) Detroit (15-24-1) - Vancouver in 4

(3) St. Louis (32-8) vs. (6) Edmonton (19-21) - St. Louis in 5 (St. Louis leads series 2-1)

(4) Toronto (27-13) vs. (5) Winnipeg (24-16) - Toronto in 7

SNES A - Wales

(1) Quebec (32-6-2) vs. (8) Montreal (3-25-0-12) - Quebec in 5

(2) Pittsburgh (29-8-3) vs. (7) Buffalo (4-22-0-14) - Pittsburgh in 4

(3) Hartford (24-10-6) vs. (6) N.Y. Rangers (16-11-4-9) - Hartford in 5

(4) Philadelphia (15-13-9-3) vs. (5) Boston (18-16-6) - Boston in 6

SNES A - Campbell

(1) Detroit (31-8-1) vs. (8) Calgary (4-20-0-16) - Detroit in 5

(2) Los Angeles (15-15-0-10) vs. (7) Edmonton (6-14-0-20) - Los Angeles in 4

(3) Winnipeg (26-14) vs. (6) Vancouver (8-15-0-17) - Winnipeg in 4

(4) Chicago (22-11-1-6) vs. (5) St. Louis (11-15-0-14) - Chicago in 6

SNES B - Wales

(1) Boston (25-15) vs. (8) Philadelphia (5-29-0-6) - Boston in 5

(2) Buffalo (23-12-5) vs. (7) Toronto (17-23) - Buffalo in 6 (Buffalo leads series 3-1)

(3) Montreal (28-10-2) vs. (6) N.Y. Rangers (22-6-12) - Montreal in 4

(4) Quebec (17-22-0-1) vs. (5) Pittsburgh (21-13-6) - Quebec in 6

SNES B - Campbell

(1) Los Angeles (30-7-1-2) vs. (8) San Jose (8-27-5) - Los Angeles in 4

(2) Chicago (24-16) vs. (7) Vancouver (11-24-0-5) - Chicago in 4

(3) Calgary (27-12-1) vs. (6) Edmonton (13-16-7-4) - Calgary in 4

(4) St. Louis (24-10-6) vs. (5) Dallas (18-16-6) - St. Louis in 6