Author Topic: Top Cut (Read 37934 times)

Chris · « **Reply #150 on:** September 09, 2012, 11:14:41 AM »

I am firmly and completely against byes once we hit top cut. That's obscenely unfair to anyone who made top cut and has to play in the first round. We should, in my opinion, stick to 8 or 16 people in top cut, to keep it fair for everyone. I like Olijar's suggestion on the number of people. Personally, I would rather see single elimination with a best 2/3 system (sideboard might be a bit much, but I'm not opposed to it either). Can we all agree that top cut should start when the final player has become undefeated?

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #151 on:** September 09, 2012, 12:33:27 PM »

I agree on byes. No way should we have those. I'm not opposed to sideboard 2/3, but I'm not super in favor either. I'd be open to it if we could find a good way to do.

jbeers285 · « **Reply #152 on:** September 09, 2012, 05:38:23 PM »

Bye are completely fair if you want a bye then earn it

Master KChief · « **Reply #153 on:** September 09, 2012, 05:47:31 PM »

The only 'earned' byes I'm aware of is in MTG, where you may earn a 1st/2nd/3rd round Swiss bye for a Grand Prix. Even then, the way to earn them is by winning a significant number of high-level tournaments before that and/or getting an overall high ranking as a player. That sort of system is simply not something we can possibly accomplish with Redemption any time soon with only one truly competitive tournament a year.

jbeers285 · « **Reply #154 on:** September 09, 2012, 11:06:25 PM »

Yes you can based off your top cut idea select 12 people
This play out is base on top seed always winning
1st round of top cut
1bye.
2 bye
3 bye
4 bye
5vs12
6vs11
7vs10
8vs9

2nd round
1vs8
2vs7
3vs6
4vs5

3rd round
1vs4
2vs3

Final
1vs2

Red · « **Reply #155 on:** October 03, 2012, 12:02:03 AM »

Quote from: CactusRob on September 09, 2012, 09:00:31 AM

I am willing to allow the following trial for this tournament season:

Top Cut will be allowed (not required) for categories over 31 people. So if the tournament host, with input from his players, wants to give it a try it will be okay with me.

Given that, we need to nail down the format for hosts that want to try it.

Bump. This is huge. Get to work nailing down formats people. Please.

Master KChief · « **Reply #156 on:** October 03, 2012, 01:06:46 AM »

Yeah, so let's get to work nailing down the format for Nats 2013.

lp670sv · « **Reply #157 on:** January 17, 2013, 08:02:46 PM »

Sorry for the necropost but I feel like this will be a fairly short topic and doesn't warrant a new thread, what if, to help with matchmaking for top cut tournaments of States or higher, we did use a ranking system based on W/L record and opponents W/L record in tournaments only, but to avoid the, I guess you would call it, "toxic competitive spirit" of "no I'm better than him" blah blah, we would only make the rankings available to tournament hosts AT their actual tournaments. This would help ensure the better players make the finals while also avoiding the bickering of a public ranking system.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #158 on:** January 21, 2013, 04:03:19 AM »

I like the idea of only the host seeing the rankings pre-tournament.

I also like the idea of putting people into original groupings without any rankings posted. This would have looked something like this for the 2012 T1-2p at Nats:

Aaron Gilliam        Allen Collins        Alex Lewis        Anders Zeller
Caleb Stanley      Andrew Wester    Alex Olijar        Brian Jones
Josh Swinson      Andy Stanley        Drew Wills        Dylan Roe
Martin Miller        Jacob Centers     Eric Mullins        James Courtney
Megan Bernin      Kenneth Omalley   Rob A/Roy C      Roberto Villanova

Andrew Wills        Ben Michaliszyn     Caleb Clark        Chris Egley
John Justus        Blake Maust        Chris Ericson       Josh Brinkman
Jonathan Gresson   Daniel Huisinga     Ezri Adams        Josiah Weiss
Kevin McIlrath        Ian Kratzer        Jason Dailey       Spencer Arrowood
Logan Lowry        Jesse Wright        Jay Chambers     Wyatt Marcum

Christian Fong        Cody Smith        Dakota Dabney    Dario Villanova      James Justus
Connor Magras     Jacob Arrowood   John Earley        Mark Underwood   Jerome Beers
Jonathan Pequignot   James Roepke      Kaleb Matthews   Neeka Parker        Luke Marshall
Keith Lance        Jonah Weiss        Rebeccah Collins   Nick Marshell        Matt Townsend
Rex Adams        Steven Shyers      Zac Cornell        Ty Adams        Travis Brown

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #159 on:** January 21, 2013, 09:44:29 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on January 21, 2013, 04:03:19 AM

I like the idea of only the host seeing the rankings pre-tournament.

Assuming that the host does not play in that category....

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #160 on:** January 21, 2013, 04:30:19 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on January 21, 2013, 09:44:29 AM

Assuming that the host does not play in that category....

I agree. There would be too much room for accusing a conflict of interest for the someone to put themselves in a bracket. I would trust many of our great hosts to actually do this fairly, however the Bible does say to avoid even the appearance of evil.

lp670sv · « **Reply #161 on:** January 21, 2013, 04:37:09 PM »

The alternative is to have a program generate the matchups based on the rankings that only it knows. The algothrim with be agreed upon and then the program would take the results of each game and store them beyond just that tournament.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #162 on:** January 21, 2013, 10:41:17 PM »

How were those rankings determined? My guess is either "here's who did well, let's keep them apart" which is ridiculous because its hindsight logic or "this is who i know is good, let's keep them apart" which is ridiculous because you don't know every player.

Red · « **Reply #163 on:** January 21, 2013, 10:48:38 PM »

What's worse, is group two is stacked pitifully.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #164 on:** January 21, 2013, 10:55:26 PM »

Quote from: Red on January 21, 2013, 10:48:38 PM

What's worse, is group two is stacked pitifully.

The group you're in is a great example of why this system stinks. Chris Ericson is a top player, you are a upper tier player, and Jason Dailey is an upper tier player, but Prof doesn't know that because he probably has no idea who Jason Dailey is.

Red · « **Reply #165 on:** January 21, 2013, 11:24:20 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 21, 2013, 10:55:26 PM

Quote from: Red on January 21, 2013, 10:48:38 PM
What's worse, is group two is stacked pitifully.

The group you're in is a great example of why this system stinks. Chris Ericson is a top player, you are a upper tier player, and Jason Dailey is an upper tier player, but Prof doesn't know that because he probably has no idea who Jason Dailey is.

Neither do I, But you left out Brinkman, Pol, Maust, and Greeson.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #166 on:** January 21, 2013, 11:27:12 PM »

Quote from: Red on January 21, 2013, 11:24:20 PM

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 21, 2013, 10:55:26 PM
Quote from: Red on January 21, 2013, 10:48:38 PM
What's worse, is group two is stacked pitifully.

The group you're in is a great example of why this system stinks. Chris Ericson is a top player, you are a upper tier player, and Jason Dailey is an upper tier player, but Prof doesn't know that because he probably has no idea who Jason Dailey is.
Neither do I, But you left out Brinkman, Pol, Maust, and Greeson.

They are in group of 5. Those players aren't with you.

Red · « **Reply #167 on:** January 21, 2013, 11:30:23 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 21, 2013, 11:27:12 PM

Quote from: Red on January 21, 2013, 11:24:20 PM
Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 21, 2013, 10:55:26 PM
Quote from: Red on January 21, 2013, 10:48:38 PM
What's worse, is group two is stacked pitifully.

The group you're in is a great example of why this system stinks. Chris Ericson is a top player, you are a upper tier player, and Jason Dailey is an upper tier player, but Prof doesn't know that because he probably has no idea who Jason Dailey is.
Neither do I, But you left out Brinkman, Pol, Maust, and Greeson.

They are in group of 5. Those players aren't with you.

It seems I didn't notice that. Still the groups are majorly stacked.

lp670sv · « **Reply #168 on:** January 22, 2013, 12:17:13 AM »

The system would be pretty simple, your w-l record weighted towards your total opponents win loss record. So if you're 87-0 but all of your opponents are sub 500 (something I wouldn't think possible since this would only count tournament play) you would be ranked lower than someone whose 70-17 but whose opponents are significantly tougher.

Eds it: also, the system should start from scratch to avoid biases such as the rankings listed above. Many just keep track the first year and then the second year start to implement the system.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #169 on:** January 22, 2013, 05:04:41 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 21, 2013, 10:55:26 PM

The group you're in is a great example of why this system stinks. Chris Ericson is a top player, you are a upper tier player, and Jason Dailey is an upper tier player, but Prof doesn't know that because he probably has no idea who Jason Dailey is.

You are right that Chris and Jay (red) are both very good players. But I think that this is actually pretty balanced with the other groups. You are also right that I have no idea who Jason Dailey is. So if he is also a top player without me knowing it, then I would have messed up a bit there. Ideally these groups would be determined by a group of probably 4 people representing the NE, Minn, West, and everywhere else. That way at least one of those people probably would know all of the players who need to be factored in for balancing purposes.

Starting from scratch is a bad idea because it doesn't account for good players who don't have a history. For instance, Caleb Stanley finished #11 last summer. He's never played at Nats before, but I could have told you prior to the tournament that he would do at least decently well.

lp670sv · « **Reply #170 on:** January 22, 2013, 05:14:10 PM »

If you haven't proven you are a good player in tournaments, you can't be ranked. Ranking someone based on how we think they will do is not fair to the people who have already earned their ranking.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #171 on:** January 22, 2013, 07:50:50 PM »

Quote from: lp670sv on January 22, 2013, 05:14:10 PM

If you haven't proven you are a good player in tournaments, you can't be ranked. Ranking someone based on how we think they will do is not fair to the people who have already earned their ranking.

Pol hadn't played in a live tournament for years prior to this year's Nats, but it would be unfair to put him in a group with another top 10 player just because of his hiatus. Everyone knows he is an excellent player, and that has to be taken into consideration.

Master KChief · « **Reply #172 on:** January 22, 2013, 07:58:59 PM »

Your point just further perpetuates how flawed this method is with personal bias and favoritism. No one should get a free ticket for not actually doing anything.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #173 on:** January 22, 2013, 10:01:40 PM »

1 - I'm not concerned about Pol's feelings here. He would do fine in a group with another heavy-hitter like Martin or Greeson. He would also do fine in a group that lacked those caliber of players. I'm more concerned about the other guys in the group. It's not fair to them to put 2 players like that (which they have virtually no chance of beating) in the same group when other groups only have to face 1 player of that level.

2 - I think it is silly to say that it demonstrates a bad kind of bias and favoritism to recognize that some players are clearly better than the average Redemption player. Everyone who has been involved at the top levels of this game for a long time knows that Pol, Martin, Greeson, Westy, Olijar, JSB, Roepke, and Early are all top 20 players in the country. There is nothing wrong with admitting this and splitting them up for the first 4 rounds of Nats.

3 - Another nice thing about this system (if done ideally) is that all the MN players could be put in different groups. All the NE players could be put in different groups. All the KY/OH players could be put in different groups, etc. That would prevent the common complaint that people travel all the way to Nats, just to end up playing the guy they drove with in the first round.

Chris · « **Reply #174 on:** January 22, 2013, 10:07:09 PM »

Underwood, you seem continually fixated on this idea that past achievements should mean anything at Nats, and I've yet to see a good reason why this is. Can you please explain for me?

News:

Author Topic: Top Cut (Read 37934 times)

Chris

Chris