Auto-translated
The bias towards predicting the outcome is quite fair. Imagine this: your neighbor Vasya correctly predicted 3 outcomes, while your neighbor Petya correctly predicted 1 score and made 2 incorrect outcome predictions. Who would you consider to be more knowledgeable about football?
If Vasya correctly predicts the outcome with a coefficient of 1.3 in 3 out of 5 games, then in a real betting shop, he will be at a loss. And professional players affectionately call such "football experts" (who bet on favorites and gradually lose money) "suckers." And that's logical – guessing what is already obvious to everyone is not a great achievement.
But if Petya correctly predicts the score of an outcome with a coefficient greater than 5 in 1 out of 5 games (and the coefficient for the exact score would be around 20-30, or even 100), then in a real betting scenario, he will be in a very large profit.
Therefore, the point system in this competition is very far from a "competition mode," and it's too late to look for "correctness" here.
It's a kind of compromise, more or less reasonable, and what you propose – a "fair" bias towards predicting the outcome – is also an illusion, perhaps even further from a "competition mode."
