Oh, don't worry I understand it. Having an analyses of the system with the basic premise that all teams are equal is a fallacy. It builds a facile model for your reasoning that doesn't work, do you really think that Wakefield and Wigan are of equal capability come playoff time?

...it would be nice if they were!

Ha! It would make the playoffs more entertaining at least.

Assuming all are equally capable then any club earning a week off has a considerably higher probability of winning the GF than any club playing in every round.
Make of that what you will.

At least one of the top 2 should be guaranteed a GF spot, the top 8 system doesn't allow that (see 2011). The old 1st v 2nd GF qualifiers in week 2 of the playoffs produced some memorable matches, as intense as the final itself. And the week off before the final was a good reward for the winners.

I think if that reward was reinstated, it would focus teams efforts on finishing in the top 2. For me it has to be 14 teams & top 6 or 12 teams & top 5.

No, you don't understand it at all. Even if you take this into account "the basic premise that all teams are equal is a fallacy" by weighting the calculations in some way to further reduce the probability of teams who finish lower in the league winning it, it will not alter the fact there will still be a difference in between the various play off systems in terms of the probability of success based on where you finish. A top five system will always be more likely to deliver success for the team that finished 1st than 5th than a top 8 system. If you can't see that you are a bit thick!

The whole idea behind playoff systems compared to basic knock out competitions is they increase the probability of winning more-so the higher up you finish. That is what they are designed to do, they would be totally pointless if they didn't and the different systems make it more or less likely that will happen depending on which one you choose. The top 8 makes the competition far more even than a top 5.

Not as I understand it. If we had a top three system as I mentioned before the top team would have a 50% chance of winning the whole thing as they play one game and you have a 50/50 chance of winning it (if both teams are equal).

If you wanted to weight that in some way due to the week off you would add some sort of constant to the equation to try and reflect that. You could add another to cater for the teams not being equal as well if you liked. I doubt any reasonable attempt at coming up with such a formula would give you a result that showed the club with a week off was at a [iconsiderable[/i advantage. Even if it did though did though all that would dhow shows is by how much more that club was rewarded for finishing top and so getting the week off as opposed to the basic 50% chance they get due to only playing one game.

This is a point that most on here don't get, or at least gloss over if they do.

Other things being equal it is MORE likely, that the teams that finish higher in the table will progress to the GF.

Generally this holds true.

However, under the current system of the top 8 is is LESS likely that the above holds true.

It's true that GENERALLY teams that finish in 1st and 2nd will go on and do at least "ok" in the playoffs, but the advantages that a top 2 finish conveys do not outweigh the advantages of reaching the playoffs with form, a healthy squad and experience.

It does but that likelihood varies between different play off systems.



It is still more probable but a lot less probable than under say a top 5 system.



That means you are increasing the probability of a particular teams chances of winning a game i.e. all things are not equal. So the question is, does that outweigh the inherent advantage of finishing higher in the league? That will also depend on the playoff system involved. If the playoff system doesn't statistically reward the top team much then there is higher chance of what you say being true.

You can see the effect of "form" top 5 system. 5th has to win four in a row so, all things equal, the probability of that is a mere 6.25%. 1st has a 37.5% chance of winnings its games (2 out of 3 worst case). If you decided the 5th placed team was on form, etc and so that meant it was 70% likely to win each game (as opposed to 50%) its chances of winning the whole thing by winning four in a row would go up to 24%.

You seem to be going off topic, this isn't a comparison of the various playoff systems it's about the Warrington game being "meaningless" in the light of the current system. Clearly you are the one that's "a bit thick" and lacking in reading ability?

I agree with what you are saying here about the various systems, but you have jumped into a different topic.

Which doesn't make the game on friday meaningless, the point of this topic.

You were the the one to say thisI agree with what you are saying here about the various systems, but you have jumped into a different topic.'"

Given there are 10 games to be lost to get you from 1st down to 6th I think that casts doubt on how meaningful the league is. There is a difference between 6th being a good position and what you have to do to get it as to how meaningful the league games therefore are.



Different playoff systems like the top 5 have been used for years in other competitions such as in RL in Australia. The only one with little data is our top 8 system as it is unique. So what you say above does not follow.



Based on 2012 it's 1/32 of what we need to get 6th not 10%. We'd only need another 9 points to qualify in 6th if what you said were true!

Given we could afford to lose it and nine other games then yes it could be classed as meaningless. In fact you could argue we could lose all the games to our main rivals (Wire, Leeds, Saints and Les Cats based on 2012) and still get a top 6 finish. The fact teams don't play the percentages is something to be thankful for as a paying fan but that game just wasn't statistically important in terms of increasing our chances of winning the GF. We didn't need to win it to get the required position on the ladder. There is plenty of leeway in the system we have where you can still qualify in a good spot for the finals.

Its meaningless though as if warrington get to the cup final again. They will more than likley throw the game the week before like they have previously done.
Not saying i blame them, but it begs the question of the importance of one game over the bigger picture does it not?

What is even more frustrating is that we now have enough good teams 5 to do away completly with the playoffs amd go back to anfirst past the post system.

The ultimate irony is that the playoffs where to stop a one team domination. Its hard to argue thqt it has done this.

And dont come with the level playing field crap. It was a level playing field and always has been. Just some teams decided they couldnt be bothered to play at that level.