Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Playgroup and Tournament Central => Redemption® Official Tournaments => Topic started by: MrMiYoda on June 23, 2012, 05:01:14 PM
-
**** I Need a Consensus Judgement ****
Given (final scores after 5 rounds):
Player A Score=12 LS Diff=8
Player B Score=12 LS Diff=8
Player C Score=12 LS Diff=7
Player D Score=12 LS Diff=5
Player E Score=12 LS Diff=4
Players D and E are the only players who have not lost to someone else in the top 5.
QUESTION: Who is 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
****Quoted from Tournament Guide:***
Determining the Winner: The winner is the player with the highest game score after the last round. If two or more players are tied for 1st place in game score, rank as lower any who lost a head to head match with a player tied for 1st. If the players did not face each other, then the Lost Soul Score is examined. The player with the highest Lost Soul Score is the Winner.
Example: Tim finished with a Game Score of 12 and a Lost Soul Score of 15. Mike finished with a Game Score of 12 and a Lost Soul Score of 16. Yet, Tim defeated Mike in their head to head match. Therefore Tim is the winner. If Tim and Mike had not played each other then Mike would be declared the winner. Otherwise, if the players tied in both game score and Lost Soul Score and did not face each other they are co-champs and split the Ranking Points and prizes for the current and next place finish.
-
I'd say that players A and B should play each other to determine first. Who won to who, exactly?
-
If player A & B played, then the winner of their game would be first. If they didn't play then it would be a tie for first, or if you have time they could play each other. Then I guess it would be in order below that, C then D then E unless C lost to both D & E, then if D & E played it would determine their order.
-
Who lost to who is important here. If there's ties like this, then head-to-heads becomes a fourth determinant in seeing who is the winner. We've dealt with this a couple times in ROOT.
-
I agree with Chris and Chris as far as determining First place goes.
However, if they didn't play, you can't add a round for them to play per the tournament guide.
-
Didn't think you could play an extra round, but this was a mess! :P
-
No extra round was played nor will be played for a tie breaker.
Facts:
1. Player A lost to Player D.
2. Player B lost to Player C.
3. Player C lost to Player A.
Need more inputs and your own 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th placer individual judgments, please.
-
No extra round was played nor will be played for a tie breaker.
Facts:
1. Player A lost to Player D.
2. Player B lost to Player C.
3. Player C lost to Player A.
Need more inputs and your own 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th placer individual judgments, please.
In this case, I would do it like this:
1. Player D
2. Player A
3. Player C
4. Player B
5. Player E
-
Did any of the top 5 lose to E? Why is E 5th? Otherwise I agree with Chris's rankings
-
Did any of the top 5 lose to E? Why is E 5th? Otherwise I agree with Chris's rankings
If none of the top 5 lost to E, then E still ends up with the lowest differential overall, since head-to-head won't matter at all for him.
-
Player E never played A,B, or C, nor D. And to rehash Player D's situation, Player D won against Player A.
-
No extra round was played nor will be played for a tie breaker.
Facts:
1. Player A lost to Player D.
2. Player B lost to Player C.
3. Player C lost to Player A.
Need more inputs and your own 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th placer individual judgments, please.
In this case, I would do it like this:
1. Player D
2. Player A
3. Player C
4. Player B
5. Player E
If all the games between top-5players are listed in the "facts", then I agree with the above.
-
No extra round was played nor will be played for a tie breaker.
Facts:
1. Player A lost to Player D.
2. Player B lost to Player C.
3. Player C lost to Player A.
Need more inputs and your own 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th placer individual judgments, please.
In this case, I would do it like this:
1. Player D
2. Player A
3. Player C
4. Player B
5. Player E
If all the games between top-5players are listed in the "facts", then I agree with the above.
Same here.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
-
I imagine that two hosts and two REPs should be sufficient enough for an official ruling. I'm really looking forward to the stories at NE regionals for how this came about.
-
Can someone explain why they are placing D first?
I thought the tie-breaker rules were...
1) If *all* players tied for a position have played each other, then head-to head is used.
2) If *all* players did not play each other or the head to head were not indisputable than lost soul differential is the sole (ha!) deteminant.
That would mean A & B tie for first and C is third.
The reason I thought those were the rules is because going on partial head-to-heads would up punishing any player who didn't play the others (like E in this case). I am not arguing, I am trying to get someone to explain the rules they are using in this case. For example, if everything else were the same except that E had a +9 LS differential, would all y'all still be saying D is the clear first?
-
EJB, head to head comes second, after regular score and before differential. The reason D places first is because they went undefeated against everyone with a better differential than them, either because they didn't play them, or because they beat someone else. A, B, and C all lost against someone in the top four, whereas D didn't, giving D the win.
Marti, because E never played against any of the top four, they don't have any kind of head-to-head ranking that matters here. They still have a lower differential than everyone else.
-
I saw that detail later and deleted my post. And yes, head to head is right after points. That rule changed last year, I believe.
-
Roy,
Curious to hear if a final ranking was determined for t1-2player, also wondering how teams finished out since I left before the top game was over. It was a pleasure to see all of you again and meet some folks I hadn't had the honor to meet or play before.
-
I agree with Matt. John, isn't that what you explained to me at either WI State or Midwest Regionals last month? If all the players didn't play head-to-head, then you don't look at head-to-head at all because it gets too messy (like this). Therefore, the ranking would be how they were listed in original post, with a tie for 1st. If this is not the case, can you please help me understand what is happening?
Thanks!
-
I also agree with MJB that the technical ruling is that if not ALL of the tied players played each other, then head-to-head is NOT actually looked at and you just go by differential.
However, I also agree with Chris, Bryon, and the "other Prof", that a BETTER ranking (in this particular situation) would be like they listed.
If A lost to D, then D should be 1st.
If C lost to A, then A should be 2nd.
If B lost to C, then C should be 3rd.
If E didn't play any of the other top 5, then they got their points from easier games and deserve to be 5th.
That leaves B in 4th.
In this particular situation, it worked out that there was actually a straight forward way to rank the players, and so it makes sense to make it D, A, C, B, E. However, there are times when A loses to B, who loses to C, who loses to A. There are also times when A beats B, and C beats D, but A and C never played each other. In cases like these, there is no simple solution based on head-to-head. I think that is why the official rule says to ignore head-to-head if ALL the people in a tie situation didn't play each other.
Really rankings like this are more of an art than is possible to truly make a simple rule to cover all the bases. I could see this going either way.
-
I still think it would have been funny to take a picture with the five players fighting over the trophy. I'm thinking it should go by differential too, since all players didn't play each other but I suppose we are still waiting for definitive answer.
-
EJB, head to head comes second, after regular score and before differential.
Having been a host for five years, I understand that part of the deal. My question arises because I do not understand why head to head is being referenced at all in this situation. I have always been told (and judged) that a true head to head situation only occurs when *all* players played tied for a rank played against each other and one was indisputably the winner. My understanding is that the placing should have been as follows...
1) Do we have players tied in score. Yes, so we go to the head-to-head criterion.
2) Did all of the players play each other? No, so we go to the LS differential criteria.
In this case D only played *one* of the four other players tied for first. How can you possible use head-to-head in this case.
I also agree with MJB that the technical ruling is that if not ALL of the tied players played each other, then head-to-head is NOT actually looked at and you just go by differential.
At this point, isn't the technical ruling also the only proper ruling? Seriously, how would you feel if you were player A or B and were told--"According to the rules you won the tournament, but we felt the guy who was technically in fourth place played better so we are giving it to him?"
-
I agree that if there is precedent that head-to-head only matters in the situation described by MJB, then it should be ruled that way for this tournament. However, I'd also argue that a new rule should be put in place for a case-by-case situation, so that better rulings (the way several people, including Elders, agreed it should be) can be made.
-
I'd also argue that a new rule should be put in place for a case-by-case situation, so that better rulings (the way several people, including Elders, agreed it should be) can be made.
The problem here is HOW to make such a rule.
Just to throw out a brainstorm:
"If there is a tie between multiple people who have NOT ALL played each other, then the head-to-head comparison would come from winning percentage against the tied players."
In the case of a 2-way tie, this is easy because the player who won is 100% and the player who lost is 0%.
In the case that is being discussed here we would have the following:
Player A = 50% (beat C, lost to D)
Player B = 0% (lost to C)
Player C = 50% (beat B, lost to A)
Player D = 100% (beat A)
Player E = Null (didn't play anyone)
This would put the rankings the way that people felt like was most fair:
1st = Player D (100%)
2nd = Player A (50%, beat C)
3rd = Player C (50%, lost to A)
But would this system always work? How would it break down?
-
I also agree with MJB that the technical ruling is that if not ALL of the tied players played each other, then head-to-head is NOT actually looked at and you just go by differential.
At this point, isn't the technical ruling also the only proper ruling? Seriously, how would you feel if you were player A or B and were told--"According to the rules you won the tournament, but we felt the guy who was technically in fourth place played better so we are giving it to him?"
Well, speaking as the aforementioned "Player B", it was a strange situation to be sure - there was a lot of confusion and both rulings - the "head-to-head only if all equally scoring players have played head-to-head" ("Everyone Method") and "head-to-head always" ("Always Method") arguments were both made. At first, the top places were announced by pure score/differential (no head-to-heads factored in), but some people present at Nationals 2010 recalled that the Always Method was used then, and a discussion started.
Roy and John, in charge of the tournament, did their best to make sure a fair ruling was reached, consulting the Tournament Guide (whose wording was vague) and you guys. They spent many hours assuring that the right thing was done. While I was disappointed that I went from announced as tied for first to not even getting in the top 3, "Player E" (Sam Nurge) and I definitely aren't upset at anyone. We all had a fantastic time at the tournament, getting to see people I haven't seen in quite some time and having some truly remarkable games in both T1 2-player and Booster Draft - some of the best of my life - and getting prizes and recognition wasn't that important.
What I would like is for there to be a definitive way in the future. I agree with MJB that if something is "technically correct," then that means it's "actually correct" too. This is definitely a good opportunity for us to make sure before the remainder of the season's big tournaments that everyone agrees on tournament tiebreakers.
(In other news, congratulations to John Elia and Clayton and Matt Stupienski for getting in the top 3 of NE Regionals T1 2-player! Wonderful games had by all, with spectacular decks and heavily strategic playing, and most importantly, great players!)
-
The whole ending of the category gave me a major headache.
-
Sorry I didn't post on this again, I was in transit.
Those that are placing D above everyone are incorrect (IMO)
You can only use Head-to-Head rankings if all the points tied players did in fact play each other. Since not all of them did you have to use differential. A and B should have tied for first with player C taking third.
There is no way that player D should place above player B - He didn't beat them head to head, and he didn't beat them on differential. You can't use the transitive method in Redemption.
-
You can only use Head-to-Head rankings if all the points tied players did in fact play each other. Since not all of them did you have to use differential. A and B should have tied for first with player C taking third.
Apparently you and I are both wrong on this, RDT.
At the 2010 Nats in T1-2P there was a four way points tie for second. Let's call the players Gabe, Sam, Nic, and Tyler. I have listed them in the order of LS Differential from highest to lowest. Since the four players did not all play each other--under our understanding--Gabe should have taken second and Sam third. That is not what happened.
Chris Bany's spreadsheet has the following results posted... Nic second, Tyler third, Gabe fourth, and Sam fifth. This is based on the following games played:
- Nic had two wins, beating Tyler and Sam and not playing Gabe.
- Tyler had a win and a loss, losing to Nic, beating Gabe and not playing Sam.
- Gabe had a win and a loss, losing to Tyler, beating Sam, and not playing Nic.
- Lastly, Sam had two losses.
This is apparently the precedent TimMierz mentioned from the 2010 Nats.
I won't share my opinions on this situation, as I would find it very difficult to be constructive in my comments.
-
You can only use Head-to-Head rankings if all the points tied players did in fact play each other. Since not all of them did you have to use differential. A and B should have tied for first with player C taking third.
Apparently you and I are both wrong on this, RDT.
Matt, You and RDT are right. The rules do fairly decide it. There should have been a tie for first. Tough call. The placings and RNS points should be corrected. I have done that after a tournament when we finaly figured out what was right.
-
Chris Bany's spreadsheet has the following results posted... Nic second, Tyler third, Gabe fourth, and Sam fifth. This is based on the following games played:
- Nic had two wins, beating Tyler and Sam and not playing Gabe.
- Tyler had a win and a loss, losing to Nic, beating Gabe and not playing Sam.
- Gabe had a win and a loss, losing to Tyler, beating Sam, and not playing Nic.
- Lastly, Sam had two losses.
This would be another example where my brainstorm would have worked.
2nd = Nic (100%)
3rd = Tyler (50% and beat Gabe)
4th = Gabe (50% and lost to Tyler)
5th = Sam (0%)
Can anyone think of an example where the winning % between the tied players would NOT work?
-
No extra round was played nor will be played for a tie breaker.
Facts:
1. Player A lost to Player D.
2. Player B lost to Player C.
3. Player C lost to Player A.
Need more inputs and your own 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th placer individual judgments, please.
In this case, I would do it like this:
1. Player D
2. Player A
3. Player C
4. Player B
5. Player E
I too agree with the above final rankings. Player D tied the other four in points and defeated player A without losing to the other three players. It's not perfect but, that how I rule it. I am open to rewording the tournament guide if someone has a better form of words. Mark U's idea is interesting but, can we word it such that hosts can follow it. It will almost always be very difficult for every top ranked player to play each other. Consider college football. Moreover, I am not going to ask tournament host to start adding playoff rounds. And I still believe strongly that this system works better than our old elmination system even though issues like this come up.
-
Further to my previous post, when I say Swiss works better than Elimination I mean that it works better toward fun and fellowship because everyone keeps playing. If the goal were purely to find winners and losers, we go with a straight double elimination format and see who is left standing. No thank you.
-
Further to my previous post, when I say Swiss works better than Elimination I mean that it works better toward fun and fellowship because everyone keeps playing. If the goal were purely to find winners and losers, we go with a straight double elimination format and see who is left standing. No thank you.
I support Rob 100% in this assertation. I would rather deal with the unusual circumstances when they occur, and require some patience and flexibilty from the players. I see no problem with changing the outcome after the fact, and frankly neither should the participants.
-
Okay, so from what Tim has said, it sounds like John and Roy decided to use the rankings that I'd suggested and a few others agreed on?
I'm confused about what the precedent is here. It definitely sounds like the tournament guide is saying that it should have ruled with the original listing (A through E in that order), however, it also sounds like the 2010 Nats had a similar scenario for second place, and it was ruled closer to what I suggested, which would imply actual precedent, but it goes against the tournament guide. It sounds like either side has some precedent to go off of, which makes the situation confusing and certainly frustrating, though I'm sure Tim and Sam aren't harboring personal grudges against anyone.
So in the event that this comes up again, I feel we should establish something so this doesn't happen again. At low level tournaments, this doesn't matter as much (in ties, we've often given an opponent all the prize packs in exchange for the other person who tied getting RNRS points, and vice versa), however, at high level tournaments, when people are going for RNRS points, it's certainly frustrating when something like this comes up. The question is how to phrase it, since while it seems there's Elder consensus (minus RDT) on my idea, it's hard to find the right words.
-
I too agree with the above final rankings. Player D tied the other four in points and defeated player A without losing to the other three players. It's not perfect but, that how I rule it. I am open to rewording the tournament guide if someone has a better form of words. Mark U's idea is interesting but, can we word it such that hosts can follow it. It will almost always be very difficult for every top ranked player to play each other. Consider college football. Moreover, I am not going to ask tournament host to start adding playoff rounds. And I still believe strongly that this system works better than our old elmination system even though issues like this come up.
Rob already said a guide edit is an option. Honestly I thought Profs math idea was rather simple. I think it would be a good option to have in case of a tie. I think with an example (even use this one) in the guide it could work.
-
Okay, so from what Tim has said, it sounds like John and Roy decided to use the rankings that I'd suggested and a few others agreed on? [...] It sounds like either side has some precedent to go off of, which makes the situation confusing and certainly frustrating, though I'm sure Tim and Sam aren't harboring personal grudges against anyone.
Just to clarify:Yes, John and Roy used the rankings that most people agreed with at the time: D - A - C - B - E. And yes, Sam and I are certainly not upset with anyone. We were way too busy having great fellowship and fun to worry too much about rankings. We just wish that a clear answer existed, so we weren't spending hours in limbo. :)
-
How I understand the ranking system:
1. Points
2. Head-to-Head unless there is a loop (A beat B, B beat C, C beat A)
3. Differencial
The only time Head-to-head is dismissed is if there is an actual loop. If no loop exists, a clear hierarchy can be followed. Placement of player E in the hierarchy must be based solely on differencial, which places him last.
-
Thanks for the clarification. Now I undersdand how to resolve head -to-head with multiple player who haven't played everybody that was tied with points.
-
How I understand the ranking system:
1. Points
2. Head-to-Head unless there is a loop (A beat B, B beat C, C beat A)
3. Differencial
The only time Head-to-head is dismissed is if there is an actual loop. If no loop exists, a clear hierarchy can be followed. Placement of player E in the hierarchy must be based solely on differencial, which places him last.
What if in this case all of the other facts remained as stated except that Player E had the highest Lost Soul differential? Would Player E have placed first (by reason of Lost Soul Differential) or would he still have placed last (by reason of "didn't play anyone good")?
-
What if in this case all of the other facts remained as stated except that Player E had the highest Lost Soul differential? Would Player E have placed first (by reason of Lost Soul Differential) or would he still have placed last (by reason of "didn't play anyone good")?
Firstly, I can't imagine how player E could even possibly have the highest LS differential and not have been higher enough ranked in any previous round to play any of the other top 5 players.
However, assuming that this is even possible (which I don't think it is), then I would still put Player E in last on the grounds that his "strength of schedule" was significantly easier than all of the other tied players.
-
What if in this case all of the other facts remained as stated except that Player E had the highest Lost Soul differential? Would Player E have placed first (by reason of Lost Soul Differential) or would he still have placed last (by reason of "didn't play anyone good")?
Firstly, I can't imagine how player E could even possibly have the highest LS differential and not have been higher enough ranked in any previous round to play any of the other top 5 players.
It is really not difficult to come up with a scenario where this might occur, if you try to think of one.
However, assuming that this is even possible (which I don't think it is), then I would still put Player E in last on the grounds that his "strength of schedule" was significantly easier than all of the other tied players.
So, your position is that Player E should be penalized because he could only play the games that the host put before him? Apparently Rob's analogy to college football went deeper than I thought. ;)
As this is a very important question (and because Bryon seemed to suggest that LS differential was key) can we ask for the elders to provide a consensus ruling to the community?
-
So, your position is that Player E should be penalized because he could only play the games that the host put before him?
Firstly, I disagree with the way you are presenting this. It's not like the host specifically kept Player E out of games against the top players. The Swiss system is set up so that players have games against people who having a similar amount of success in the tournament. So if a player doesn't play any of the other top 5 people in a tournament, then that player must have done more poorly all tournament long until the last game, and therefore was never close enough to the top to play any of those players. Recognizing that fact is not "penalizing" anyone, it is simply observing that they did NOT play to the level necessary to compete against the top players, and therefore don't deserve to be ranked ahead of those players.
Secondly, since you have thought of a scenario already where this is even possible, please share it.
-
So, your position is that Player E should be penalized because he could only play the games that the host put before him?
Firstly, I disagree with the way you are presenting this. It's not like the host specifically kept Player E out of games against the top players.
I was trying to echo the phrasing that people critical of the BCS use every year, "[Insert team here] can only play the teams on their schedule." The winky was meant to go with both sentences of that comment--not just the second.
So if a player doesn't play any of the other top 5 people in a tournament, then that player must have done more poorly all tournament long until the last game, and therefore was never close enough to the top to play any of those players. Recognizing that fact is not "penalizing" anyone, it is simply observing that they did NOT play to the level necessary to compete against the top players, and therefore don't deserve to be ranked ahead of those players.
Because of the way the Swiss pairings work your "not being close to the top" criteria is equivalent to weighting early round losses more highly than later round losses. This does not strike me, a priori, as a desirable feature in determining tournament places.
On a side note, I once lost a tournament (took second) without losing a single game, solely because I received a first round bye with the resulting LS differential of zero. Would you classify my loss in this tournament as a deficiency in my level of competitive play? I am not trying to trick you, and I will not be offended if you say "yes;" I am wondering if maybe I misinterpreted your claim and am trying to get a better feel for what you mean when you talk about not playing "to the level necessary to compete against the top players."
Secondly, since you have thought of a scenario already where this is even possible, please share it.
OK. Player E loses his first round game by a score of 5-3 (because his SoG was the last card in his deck :( ), wins the next three by scores of 5-4, and the last by 5-0. Players A, B, C, and D each lose a single game by the score of 5-4, and win all of their remaining games by 5-4 margins. Up through the final round, Player E never gets ranked in the top four because he is always down either by game points or ls differential compared to other players. To add some intrigue, Player A who ended up first in head to head (A beat B who beat C who beat D)--actually lost to player F which is the same player that player E beat 5-0 in the final round. At the end the scores are 12 for players A-E. A, B, C, and D have a LS differential of 3, while E has a differential of 6.
You are claiming that SoG being at the bottom of Player E's deck in round one means that Player E "did NOT play to the level necessary to compete against the top players, and therefore don't deserve to be ranked ahead of those players." This may well be true. On the other hand in this scenario Player E not only doubled up the other players LS differential, but he resoundingly beat the only player to defeat Player A--the undisputed champion in your formula.
-
I was trying to echo the phrasing that people critical of the BCS use every year...The winky was meant to go with both sentences of that comment--not just the second.
Gotcha, thanks for explaining. It was just another example of the danger of miscommunication when limited to an internet forum.
On a side note, I once lost a tournament (took second) without losing a single game, solely because I received a first round bye with the resulting LS differential of zero. Would you classify my loss in this tournament as a deficiency in my level of competitive play?
Again, I don't see how this is possible unless you are leaving out the information that you also did NOT win all your games. A first round bye counts as a win for victory points, and if you won all your games, then in the last round you would beat any other player who was also undefeated, placing 1st. And if you didn't win all your games, then I would say that is at least some level of deficiency of earning 1st place. Sounds like you had a good tournament and just came up a bit short. Nothing to be ashamed of, but also nothing to complain about.
OK. Player E loses his first round game by a score of 5-3 (because his SoG was the last card in his deck :( ), wins the next three by scores of 5-4, and the last by 5-0. Players A, B, C, and D each lose a single game by the score of 5-4, and win all of their remaining games by 5-4 margins. Up through the final round, Player E never gets ranked in the top four because he is always down either by game points or ls differential compared to other players. To add some intrigue, Player A who ended up first in head to head (A beat B who beat C who beat D)--actually lost to player F which is the same player that player E beat 5-0 in the final round. At the end the scores are 12 for players A-E. A, B, C, and D have a LS differential of 3, while E has a differential of 6.
Again, I don't see how this happens. According to this after 4 rounds, Player E has a record of 3-1. How can he possibly NOT be playing A, B, C, or D in the final round if they all have only 1 loss as well. In fact, there could only be 2 players with only 1 loss going into the final round assuming minimal number of rounds. And if there are extra rounds, then there will be even more likelihood of E playing someone else in the top 4. I just don't think this could happen.
-
Again, I don't see how this is possible unless you are leaving out the information that you also did NOT win all your games.
He said that he did not lose. I think you are underestimating the number of participants, especially for multiplayer where there are significantly fewer rounds.
-
Again, I don't see how this is possible unless you are leaving out the information that you also did NOT win all your games.
He said that he did not lose.
I read that. However just because he never lost, doesn't mean that he always won. There could have been some timeouts or ties. In fact there would HAVE to be, for it to even be possible for him to lose a tournament without ever losing a game.
I think you are underestimating the number of participants, especially for multiplayer where there are significantly fewer rounds.
You are right that I was assuming a T1-2p event. If this was a multiplayer event, then it also gets more complicated. However if I remember correctly, multiplayer events go straight to LS differential in cases of ties, so that would be irrelevant to this discussion.
-
As a matter of fact there was a timeout tie in this tournament between two upper players but they weren't in these 5.
-
Hey,
After nationals 2009 we decided to change the tie-breaker system to head-to-head before differential. When we made the change we didn't iron out the details of 3+ way ties which lead to a lots of confused hosts and inconsistent resolutions to 3+ way ties. After nationals 2010 we decided to abandon the head-to-head tie-breaker for 3+ way ties.
The 2009 change made it into the tournament guide, the 2010 change didn't.
So according to the tournament guide...
The winner is the player with the highest game score after the last round. If two or more players are tied for 1st place in game score, rank as lower any who lost a head to head match with a player tied for 1st. If the players did not face each other, then the Lost Soul Score is examined. The player with the highest Lost Soul Score is the Winner.
Based on that players D and E would get 1st and 2nd because they didn't lose to any of the players tied for 1st. Player D would get first and Player E would get 2nd because D has the better differential. That would leave a new 3 way tie for 3rd between players A, B, and C. Player A gets third because he's the only one (from A,B,C) that didn't lose to player A,B or C. Alternatively, the "head-to-head" element of the tie breaker was already applied to players A,B, and C so you could determine 3rd place based on differential, which would mean players A and B would tie for 3rd.
So by the tournament guide, D gets first, E gets second, A gets third.
I believe, despite not getting into the tournament guide, that the 2010 change was announced and hosts were adequately informed of it that it should be considered the proper solution.
By the 2010 method, players A and B tie for 1st and player C gets third.
Nationals 2010 was played under the 2009 rules and thus the way it was awarded is correct.
For the elders reading this, the thread regarding the 2010 change can be found here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/reg-discussion/re-evaluation-of-the-tie-breaker-change/).
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Hey,
After nationals 2009 we decided to change the tie-breaker system to head-to-head before differential. When we made the change we didn't iron out the details of 3+ way ties which lead to a lots of confused hosts and inconsistent resolutions to 3+ way ties. After nationals 2010 we decided to abandon the head-to-head tie-breaker for 3+ way ties.
The 2009 change made it into the tournament guide, the 2010 change didn't.
For the elders reading this, the thread regarding the 2010 change can be found here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/reg-discussion/re-evaluation-of-the-tie-breaker-change/).
That discussion fizzled without a final resolution. So, the tournament guide was not changed. However, I think Mark U. may have shown us the solution to 3 way ties above.
-
Just to confirm, multi-player games will never include head-to-head, right?
-
Hey,
Can anyone think of an example where the winning % between the tied players would NOT work?
Six way tie. Player A only played Player E and won. Player B beat players C, D, and E. Player B lost to player F. Player F lost to players C and D. Player C beat player D.
So...
Player A (1-0) 100%
Player B (3-1) 75%
Player C (2-1) 66%
Player D (1-2) 33%
Player E (0-2) 0%
Player F (1-2) 33%
Player A has a higher winning percentage than Player B. So your system would place A ahead of B.
Player A and B both beat player E, so I'd think that removing the player E game from each player should be a wash, but if you remove the games they had with player E, Player B moves ahead of Player A, Player B is now 2-1 (66%) while Player A is 0-0 (Null).
I think Player C would also have a very strong argument that he should be placed ahead of player A. Player C has more wins against the group of players and Player C's wins both came against a player that won a game within the group, while Player A's only win was against a player that didn't win any games against the group.
Functionally your method works in this scenario in that it does determine 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, I don't feel like it determines them well. So I would say it doesn't actually "work" in the scenario.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Since I brought it up already in this thread and am not sure about what should have been done, here is what happened at Midwest Regionals last month for type 1 2-player:
First and Second place were obvious from game points.
For Third place:
- Player A had 12 points, -1 LS differential, and won against Player C
- Player B had 12 points, 0 LS differential, and didn't play Player A or C
- Player C had 12 points, +2 LS differential, and lost against Player A
According to my understanding of the rules at the time that were explained by John (that head-to-head only counted if everyone had played head-to-head), I awarded Third place to Player C, who had the highest LS differential.
Based on the REG quote that has been provided, should I have ranked Player C lower since he lost against one of the tied players, and given Third place to Player B? Or should I have given Third place to Player A for being the only player to have beaten one of the other tied players?
If Player C should not be in Third place under the current system, what should I do to correct this situation?
Thank you for any guidance!
Ken
-
Hey,
The Swiss system is set up so that players have games against people who having a similar amount of success in the tournament. So if a player doesn't play any of the other top 5 people in a tournament, then that player must have done more poorly all tournament long until the last game, and therefore was never close enough to the top to play any of those players.
This isn't quite true. The swiss style pairs you with a player that has had similar success SO FAR in the tournament. It doesn't know how you will do in the rounds that remain, so it can't factor those in. If you happen to play against several players that go on to lose the rest of their games it ends up looking like you didn't play anybody good. Alternatively if you are unlucky enough to get paired against a really good player early who goes on to win most of their games, it makes your competition look really tough. These scenarios aren't about how well you did in the tournament but rather about the random unknowable future results of your opponents games.
T2-2P from Nationals 2002. Bryon Hake went undefeated (5-0) and got 1st. But he didn't play against the 2nd or 3rd place winners, and only played 1 game against players that finished in the top 7.
T1-2P from Nationals 2007. Gabe Isbell lost 2 of his first 3 games then won his last 7 games. Kevin Shride and myself won our first 4 games each and stayed at the top tables the rest of the day. You would expect Gabe's competition to be significantly inferior to Kevin's or mine because he played from behind, but in fact all three of us played exactly 4 games against players that finished in the top 10. That's because Gabe's first and second round pairings happened to be against players that ended up in the top 10.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Since I brought it up already in this thread and am not sure about what should have been done, here is what happened at Midwest Regionals last month for type 1 2-player:
First and Second place were obvious from game points.
For Third place:
- Player A had 12 points, -1 LS differential, and won against Player C
- Player B had 12 points, 0 LS differential, and didn't play Player A or C
- Player C had 12 points, +2 LS differential, and lost against Player A
According to my understanding of the rules at the time that were explained by John (that head-to-head only counted if everyone had played head-to-head), I awarded Third place to Player C, who had the highest LS differential.
Based on the REG quote that has been provided, should I have ranked Player C lower since he lost against one of the tied players, and given Third place to Player B? Or should I have given Third place to Player A for being the only player to have beaten one of the other tied players?
If Player C should not be in Third place under the current system, what should I do to correct this situation?
Thank you for any guidance!
Ken
I'm not positive on this but I think player B should've received third because he had a better differential than A and A had beaten C in head to head so B would come out on top. That's how I understand it.
-
T2-2P from Nationals 2002. Bryon Hake went undefeated (5-0) and got 1st. But he didn't play against the 2nd or 3rd place winners, and only played 1 game against players that finished in the top 7.
Again, how can this possibly happen. In the championship, I can only assume that it was Bryon (4-0 at the time) against another player who was also 4-0 at the time. Even after losing to Bryon, that 4-1 player should have been in the top 7 at least since there CAN'T be more than 7 players with a 4-1 record in a 32 (or less) person tournament. And for that matter the game before that Bryon (3-0 at that time) should have played against another player who was 3-0. That player also would probably finish in the top 10 even if they lost both of their last 2 rounds.
Six way tie. Player A only played Player E and won. Player B beat players C, D, and E. Player B lost to player F. Player F lost to players C and D. Player C beat player D.
Again, I don't see how this scenario can even happen. How can you have 6 players who all do well enough to finish at the top of a tournament, and yet Player A only played 1 game against ANY of the others to get there. I've played in a LOT of tournaments over the years, and I've never seen something like this happen. Can you send me an Excel sheet that shows round by round how you could possibly end up with this situation you are hypothesizing above?
-
Yes, but have you played in 'a LOT' of big tournaments? This is where these things tend to happen - NC Regionals T12P 2008 - 6 way points tie for 3rd. I ended up 7th out of that grouping, despite beating the 2nd place player, because I hadn't played any of the other grouping, and had lost to the first place player.
-
On a side note, I once lost a tournament (took second) without losing a single game, solely because I received a first round bye with the resulting LS differential of zero.
Again, I don't see how this is possible unless you are leaving out the information that you also did NOT win all your games.
We played five rounds. I won the first three games I that I actually played accumulating a LS differential of +11 in the process, and my last game ended in a timeout tie with the person who ended up taking first. Having an additional game to pad his differential, the person who won had +12. The LS differential of 0 in the first round--which was given to me solely because of the luck of the draw--cost me the tournament.
(And no, I am not bitter about this. I remember it precisely because it was a fairly uncommon circumstance.)
My concern is that your proposed "strength of schedule" weights early round losses more heavily than later round losses. This is especially troubling because the rounds that you are weighting the heaviest are the same ones that have the most randomness in pairings.
Again, I don't see how this [my example--mjb] happens.
ProfU, this whole thing started with a question about a case where five players ended up going 4-1 in a tournament. You could simply replace the actual scores in games played in that tournament with the scores I used in my example, and the inexorable algorithm of Swiss pairings would have to work out as I said no matter how counter-intuitive it may seem. (At absolute worst you may have to move Mr. Nurge's loss to an earlier round.)
A much more common occurence is going to be similar to the question Ken4Christ4ever posted below. Three players tied with two of them having played each other and one having played neither. In this case it strikes me as more than a little unfair to start by eliminating from consideration the player who didn't play the others.
-
Yes, but have you played in 'a LOT' of big tournaments?
I guess that depends on how you define "a LOT", but by the end of this summer I'll have played in 4 Nats, close to 10 Regionals, and around 15 States.
my last game ended in a timeout tie with the person who ended up taking first.
So as I suspected, you did NOT win all your games. In this case you had 2 players who both went undefeated, and who tied each other in the championship. I think it's entirely fair to determine the winner of that by looking at strength of schedule, and the schedule of the guy who beat 4 people is tougher than the schedule of the guy who beat 3 people. It is unfortunate that you randomly got stuck with the bye, but that was NOT what cost you the tournament. You had your shot to win the tournament by winning the championship game. You didn't do that. So I still see that as a good tournament where you just came up a bit short. I'm glad that you enjoyed it and don't have a problem with the outcome.
My concern is that your proposed "strength of schedule" weights early round losses more heavily than later round losses.
I don't think so. If you lose and early round, and then play me at the end of the tournament and beat me, then we will have the same record (assuming we won the rest of our games). You will be ranked higher which at first looks like my late loss hurt more than your early one. But really both losses put us in a position where we did NOT have the victory assured, and the swiss tournament system paired was successful in getting us to play head-to-head to see who deserved the top spot between the two of us.
A much more common occurence is going to be ...Three players tied with two of them having played each other and one having played neither...it strikes me as more than a little unfair to start by eliminating from consideration the player who didn't play the others.
I don't think it unfair to say that the players who got their victory points against other top players should be ranked higher than the player who got their victory points against weaker players. That actually seems to be the most fair way to do it.
-
Since I brought it up already in this thread and am not sure about what should have been done, here is what happened at Midwest Regionals last month for type 1 2-player:
First and Second place were obvious from game points.
For Third place:
- Player A had 12 points, -1 LS differential, and won against Player C
- Player B had 12 points, 0 LS differential, and didn't play Player A or C
- Player C had 12 points, +2 LS differential, and lost against Player A
According to my understanding of the rules at the time that were explained by John (that head-to-head only counted if everyone had played head-to-head), I awarded Third place to Player C, who had the highest LS differential.
Based on the REG quote that has been provided, should I have ranked Player C lower since he lost against one of the tied players, and given Third place to Player B? Or should I have given Third place to Player A for being the only player to have beaten one of the other tied players?
If Player C should not be in Third place under the current system, what should I do to correct this situation?
Thank you for any guidance!
Ken
I feel a little bad for Ken because he is worried he did something wrong. No worries, you ruled in good faith and it's over. Moreover, a reasonable argument has already been made that you scored correctly. If we go back and try to change placings now, other tournaments would also need to be re-scored. As far as I am concerned those trains have left the station. I just want to nail down the best way to settle three way (or more) "ties" moving forward.
-
Okay, thank you, Rob. :)
-
Hey,
T2-2P from Nationals 2002. Bryon Hake went undefeated (5-0) and got 1st. But he didn't play against the 2nd or 3rd place winners, and only played 1 game against players that finished in the top 7.
Again, how can this possibly happen.
In big swiss style tournaments (and this one wasn't actually that big) with timeouts things get very messy very fast. In this case Bryon played me in round 4. He was in 1st place, I was in 2nd. I had 2 full wins and a winning at time out, which was more than anyone else had (there were 18 players total in the event). I lost my last two games and finished behind anyone who went 3-2, which landed me 9th. Bryon's last round opponent finished 4th. The spreadsheet is on Bany's website if you'd like to look at it.
Six way tie. Player A only played Player E and won. Player B beat players C, D, and E. Player B lost to player F. Player F lost to players C and D. Player C beat player D.
Again, I don't see how this scenario can even happen. How can you have 6 players who all do well enough to finish at the top of a tournament, and yet Player A only played 1 game against ANY of the others to get there.
The actual tournament results we're discussing involves a 5 way tie where one of the players didn't play anyone else they were tied with. It doesn't seem like much of a stretch to expand that to a six way tie where one player only played one of the other people involved. There was a 6 way tie for 5th at Nationals 2002 (outside of placing so it doesn't really matter but still pretty darn near the top) and that group of 6 included 1 player that didn't play anyone else in the group and 1 player that played 1 player in that group.
Also keep in mind that these ties may not be for first place. What if there's a massive tie for 2nd? Then you're evaluating how well the group did against each other while ignoring that one of them may have won against a player that finished better than all of them.
Yes, but have you played in 'a LOT' of big tournaments?
I guess that depends on how you define "a LOT", but by the end of this summer I'll have played in 4 Nats, close to 10 Regionals, and around 15 States.
How many of those tournaments had single events that went 6+ rounds and included 30+ people?
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
How many of those tournaments had single events that went 6+ rounds and included 30+ people?
I've probably been to a handful of tournaments with 30+ people, but the only tournaments that I've been to with 6+ rounds in a single event are my 3 Nats.
Here's an idea that I'm throwing out as a possible solution. What's everyone think of it?
1st tie-breaker is strength of schedule (with more games against tied players getting higher rankings)
2nd tie-breaker is head-to-head winning % against other tied players (assuming the same number of games against tied players).
3rd tie-breaker is LS differential
This would give the most popular ranking of the original scenario of this thread. It would give 3rd place to player A in Ken's scenario (who I think deserves it most for being the only player to beat one of the other players who had the same number of victory points). In SirNobody's example of:
Player A (1-0) 100%
Player B (3-1) 75%
Player C (2-1) 66%
Player D (1-2) 33%
Player E (0-2) 0%
Player F (1-2) 33%
...it would rank them B, C, and then D or F (whichever had higher LS diff).
So does this seem to be fair to most people?
-
Is this all going to be on Tournament Tracker, or are hosts going to have to take a Calculus refresher course before their tournaments?
-
My concern is that your proposed "strength of schedule" weights early round losses more heavily than later round losses.
I don't think so.
ProfU, you seem to be confused by what I was saying. I was making a mathematical statement whose correctness is not really effected by an opinion to the contrary. Weighting early round losses more heavily than later round losses is a feature of your "strength of schedule" criterion.
If the PtB are really going to try and come up with a new tie-breaking system, I hope that they go back and test it against real tournament results and see if they pass the smell test. There are some situations that we know have occurred that at first blush strike us as seeming strange (q.v., Tim's 2002 T2-2P National results and ProfU's reaction to the same). Since our intuition fails us, any off-the-top-of-our-head changes may well make matters worse.
All in all, I think hosts are--at best--only going to get marginal improvements over just using LS Differential so there is not much reason to switch from the simpler system. This is, however, only based on my intuition about how things work.
-
If the PtB are really going to try and come up with a new tie-breaking system, I hope that they go back and test it against real tournament results and see if they pass the smell test.
That's why I included in my last post how my proposal would rank all 3 of the complicated situations that have been mentioned in this thread. I also am opening it up to everyone to try to find a scenario where that proposed method would NOT give results that seem fair.
As I'm thinking about it more I guess I could imagine at least 1 scenario where it might not work:
Player A goes 7-3 at Nats, where all 3 losses (and 1 win) are against other players who tie at 21 VPs.
Player B goes 3-5-2-0 at Nats (5 timeout wins, 2 timeout losses) to also tie with 21 VPs. Their 1 loss was early, and their 3 wins are against other players who tie at 21 VP.
The system I'm proposing would rank Player A higher than Player B because just looking at their games against tied players would have Player A with 4 games (1-3) and Player B with 3 games (3-0). But wouldn't most people believe that the undefeated player, who beat 3 top players should be ranked higher? Or would most people agree that someone who wins 7 games deserves to be ranked higher than someone who can only totally win 3 games?
Since our intuition fails us...This is, however, only based on my intuition
I saw what you did there :)
-
This whole discussion is now moot. Since we have been comparing this process to the BCS system, it is worth noting that the BCS has agreed to have a playoff for the National Championship. Therefore, in the event of future ties in major tournaments with large populations, a winner-takes-all death match will determine the winner.
-
I tried to read most of this thread but may not have hit all of the posts. There's actually a pretty simple and fair way to do this.
If a group of people are tied, and they have all played the same number of games against each other, then you go to head to head record (head to head meaning against the rest of the tied group). If they have not played the same number of games against each other, you go to LS diff. You repeat this process each time a person is “placed.”
So for the original example:
5 way tie with 12 points.
Player A was 1-1.
Player B was 0-1.
Player C was 1-1.
Player D was 1-0.
Player E was 0-0.
Because each player did not play the same number of games, we go to LS diff. Player A and Player B tied with 8. At this point, you can call it a tie or go back to head to head and A has the better record thus winning (though in some instances it could still result in a tie).
For example sake, we'll say that A is now first and B comes in second. We now repeat the process but take out A and B.
3 way tie with 12 points.
Player C was 0-0.
Player D was 0-0.
Player E was 0-0.
Obviously at this point we go to differential and C takes third.
This is how ESPN breaks ties for fantasy footbal play-off rankings (using Points Scored instead of LS Diff obviously). In one of my leagues, there were 5 teams tied for the 4 final play-off spots. And no, I don't want to talk about who got left out... :P