One of the questions we talked about was to consider switching the pairing software to go by points, not wins. It currently still uses the old wins rule in setting up who plays who, leading to odd locations at times in tournaments of who is where at what table. Ted was planning to look into it.

The thing to remember though, is that just because person A got a 1 point loss, you also have to have someone who did not specifically tied with you for it to really matter. Because they maybe had one too.

As for the explanation of why Jim won the tie breaker, it has to do with our tiebreakers after points. WotC Swiss rules screwed over anyone who got a bye. We changed that years ago. It should never punish you. And only in one very specific set of circumstances can it even possibly help you. We did see that finally happen with Jim.

The reason is this. The bye counts as full points win, and does not factor into SoS at all. So facing a bye means your SoS will be divided by less players than the people who did not face the bye. So in this case 4 instead of 5. And if it happens that your 4 real opponents were good high record players, then you can be "helped" if tournament standings come down to the SoS tie breaker. It's rare, but not impossible.

But what I'd like to see changed is that SoS be calculated by points, not by wins. And that's a bigger fix to the software that would require some testing. But in my head and Ted agreed it seemed more logical with our current system.

Bill everything you said is correct with one exception - the software does pair by points, not record.

This was illustrated unfortunately very well in the TILE WARS tournament. In the third round there were only two undefeateds, Player A 2-0 with 5 points, and player B 2-0 with 4 points. Player C was 1-1 with 4 points. Player A and Player C got paired together. The pairing was incorrect, and this threw off the tournament results. There was unfortunate "must do what the computer says" mindless following, and of course, then both undefeateds won, Player A getting a 2 pt win and Player B getting a 3 point win - thus making it a complete tie 3-0 with 7pts each.

This is actually a flaw in the software either way. Because 2-0 with 4pts should be ahead of 1-1 with 4 points regardless.

Really this system breaks down in small tournaments anyway. We won't use 3-2-1 in TILE WARS next year. It's a format where every game completes regardless, so there are no ties.

All this aside - we do use the Swiss Pairing system. Innate in this system is that it is set up for undefeateds to play each other above all. If there are an even number of undefeateds, they should all be playing each other (obviously if there is an odd number, 1 must be paired down). It defeats the entire point of the system to have that not happen. We have already basterdized it enough with 3-2, and 3-2-1 has compounded the issue.

If one or both player are a little slow and the game ends after 30 min. but before 45 mi. it's a 2 pt victory.

Player B will admit that player A's squad, upon reflection, would have whuped him hard.

The "A" squad had the most P.I. (politicaly incorrect) name ever It was also the funniest the whole weekend. LMFAO.

That's probably right. I think I was thinking of the SoS question.

Totally agree, it's not fair to penalize a guy just because there was an odd number of players in the tournament. I was a little confused at the end of Swiss, but it was easier to accept with a great guy like Jim getting that Top 8 spot. The best thing is that most people feel it was a positive experience.

Yeah, I was completely fine with it once I remembered that change to the Bye-SoS calculation. All's well that ends well.

And besides, whether there was an error or not, your friendship is more important to me than a Top 8 appearance.

Actually, the WOTC system calculates SOS the same way we do now. Number of opponents wins vs number of opponents losses, bye isn't an opponent so was never counted. This is the way that SOS should be calculated (IMO). This is also sort of where the misconception that an opponent who dropped would hurt your SOS. Also not true. It is all about the win-loss percentage of your opponents. So someone whose opps went 6-2 for instance (.75) would have a better SOS than someone whose opps whent 7-4 (.63)

yeah, to remind of not making the top 8. Just what I always wanted....

At one of the Frosty Cons I got the "Sportsman" trophy. We all know what that means - butt kicking with a smile.
When I see it my thoughts are "wow! what a cool trophy" not "humph". It's all about perspective. They are both cool trophies.