|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/31/2010
Posts: 1,628
|
So I feel like getting a 3 point win for a bye is just plain crazy.... Take MinisMania, Christian came in 5th place after going 3-1 with 8 points, now he beat 2 of the people that made it into the top 4, and did not make top 4 mainly because someone drew a bye and got a 3 point win. Can someone please explain to me why someone that gets a bye gets a 3 point win?
Just to state where I stand I think a bye should be a 2 point win.
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator, Rules Guy
Joined: 8/24/2008
Posts: 5,201
|
So, someone should be penalized if there is an odd number of players? The first bye is completely random. After that, it goes to the person at the bottom, essentially double penalizing them. Byes are already bad when you get to Strength of Schedule tiebreakers.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/31/2010
Posts: 1,628
|
Sithborg wrote:So, someone should be penalized if there is an odd number of players? The first bye is completely random. After that, it goes to the person at the bottom, essentially double penalizing them. Byes are already bad when you get to Strength of Schedule tiebreakers. So someone should be rewarded with a full 3 point win for nothing... Getting into top 4 because of a bye is retarded christian went 3-1 against 2 of the top 4 in the tournament got just as many 3 point wins against living opponents as the person he played, but failed to make top 4 because his opponent was given 3 points although he beat that person 200-3.....sad
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator, Rules Guy
Joined: 8/24/2008
Posts: 5,201
|
Deaths_Baine wrote:Sithborg wrote:So, someone should be penalized if there is an odd number of players? The first bye is completely random. After that, it goes to the person at the bottom, essentially double penalizing them. Byes are already bad when you get to Strength of Schedule tiebreakers. So someone should be rewarded with a full 3 point win for nothing... Getting into top 4 because of a bye is retarded christian went 3-1 against 2 of the top 4 in the tournament got just as many 3 point wins against living opponents as the person he played, but failed to make top 4 because his opponent was given 3 points although he beat that person 200-3.....sad Should that person be knocked out of contention because he drew the short end of the stick at the beginning of the tournament? It's one of those issues where there is no easy answer. Whenever you go to tiebreakers, someone is going to get screwed, no matter what they are.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/31/2010
Posts: 1,628
|
Sithborg wrote:Deaths_Baine wrote:Sithborg wrote:So, someone should be penalized if there is an odd number of players? The first bye is completely random. After that, it goes to the person at the bottom, essentially double penalizing them. Byes are already bad when you get to Strength of Schedule tiebreakers. So someone should be rewarded with a full 3 point win for nothing... Getting into top 4 because of a bye is retarded christian went 3-1 against 2 of the top 4 in the tournament got just as many 3 point wins against living opponents as the person he played, but failed to make top 4 because his opponent was given 3 points although he beat that person 200-3.....sad Should that person be knocked out of contention because he drew the short end of the stick at the beginning of the tournament? It's one of those issues where there is no easy answer. Whenever you go to tiebreakers, someone is going to get screwed, no matter what they are. A 2 point win does not knock you right out. you still have the other 3/4 games to get 3 point wins. Just seems to me that they are given a huge advantage right off, while everyone else has a chance for a loss, a 2 point win, or a 3 point win, you are just guaranteed a 3 point win... for nothing.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/27/2008
Posts: 832
|
Full win for a bye is absolutely the way it has to stay. The 3-2-0 scoring is solid, it works. First round pairings are completely random, we don't pair by record ranking. So in the case of MM2, it could have been anyone that got the bye, truly that roster was an all star SWM event. Many players came from many hours away to attend. Especially with the crazy prize support up for grabs, a player comes all that way to be randomly assigned a Bye win, and you would rather they already start behind with a 2 pt win? 3pt wins were not in short supply, but if a bye win was only 2 pts if it was someone from out of town they should have just got back in the car and drove home because there would be no coming back from that.
Right now, I happen to be going through the same thing trying to explain to SWX player's their scoring 5-3-1-0 system is whack and they should adopt a modified version of the one we use for SWM. (They need a 1 for tie wins, because it is possible no one might be able to make a kill in the allotted time. We'd just give them a double loss in SWM, but we have Gambit where, that game does not).
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/30/2008
Posts: 2,093
|
The player playing has some control over whether a game is a 2 or 3 pt game.
A player not playing (getting a bye) has zero control.
Getting a bye should not be a penalty. How upsetting would it be to have the reverse situation be true. I got the bye and because it was only a 2 pt win I got left out of the playoff.
And who knows maybe christian would have finished 5th even with a 3 pt win. It can be difficult to predict how it would have turned out. Unfortunately there has to be some tiebreaker. Unless we have a very specific number of players there will always be someone left out or someone who got in via the tiebreaker.
As long as the 1st round bye remains random then it is fine.
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator, Rules Guy
Joined: 8/24/2008
Posts: 5,201
|
A bye puts you at the bottom in terms of Strength of Schedule. So not only do you have a Timed Win to make up, but you have to hope that it doesn't go to Strength of Schedule. It doesn't matter, when it comes down to tie breakers, someone always gets screwed. In your example, someone got into the final four you didn't feel they deserved. Either of the two players got screwed because of the tie breaker, which came down to pure chance, most likely. A bye hurts your Strength of Schedule so much, that I see it being also unfair to make it a timed win. The first, and maybe the second round, byes are so random, that it can kill a person's chance.
Here's the question, perhaps the "robbed" player should've tried harder for a 3 pt victory.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/30/2008
Posts: 2,093
|
Deaths_Baine wrote:Sithborg wrote:Deaths_Baine wrote:Sithborg wrote:So, someone should be penalized if there is an odd number of players? The first bye is completely random. After that, it goes to the person at the bottom, essentially double penalizing them. Byes are already bad when you get to Strength of Schedule tiebreakers. So someone should be rewarded with a full 3 point win for nothing... Getting into top 4 because of a bye is retarded christian went 3-1 against 2 of the top 4 in the tournament got just as many 3 point wins against living opponents as the person he played, but failed to make top 4 because his opponent was given 3 points although he beat that person 200-3.....sad Should that person be knocked out of contention because he drew the short end of the stick at the beginning of the tournament? It's one of those issues where there is no easy answer. Whenever you go to tiebreakers, someone is going to get screwed, no matter what they are. A 2 point win does not knock you right out. you still have the other 3/4 games to get 3 point wins. Just seems to me that they are given a huge advantage right off, while everyone else has a chance for a loss, a 2 point win, or a 3 point win, you are just guaranteed a 3 point win... for nothing. But since only 1 person in any tourney can go undefeated a 2 pt win (especially in a smaller tourney) can hurt quite a bit because we have to assume that the 1 person getting the rd 1 bye isn't going to also be the person going undefeated. So take your example if the bye only got 2 pts then the player would have been a point back of the cut-off just because they got the bye?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/23/2010
Posts: 3,562
Location: The Hutt, New Zealand
|
I've never drawn the first round bye in a tournament, but I think I'd prefer not to, as I'm going to probably draw a tough opponent in the second round who's just had a 3 point win. They'll be all warmed up and ready to go, and I'll be starting cold. I tend to be superstitious about that kind of thing though....
Win percentage is important too - say there are two players tied on 9 points in a 5 round tournament, and one has a bye and two 3 point wins and the other has three 3 point wins. The player without a bye has a win percentage of 3/5 = 60% and the player with a bye has a win percentage of 2/4 = 50%.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/2/2008
Posts: 522
Location: Chicago
|
Deaths_Baine wrote:So I feel like getting a 3 point win for a bye is just plain crazy.... Take MinisMania, Christian came in 5th place after going 3-1 with 8 points, now he beat 2 of the people that made it into the top 4, and did not make top 4 mainly because someone drew a bye and got a 3 point win. Can someone please explain to me why someone that gets a bye gets a 3 point win?
Just to state where I stand I think a bye should be a 2 point win. if he got 3 x 3 point wins he would've beaten the other player on SoS because the bye puts at the bottom of SoS. there is no other way to do this as to give the player with a bye a 2 point win will pretty much rule them out of any tie breakers at that level.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/23/2009
Posts: 1,195
|
Just get all 3 point wins and you wouldn't have to worry about it.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/27/2008
Posts: 832
|
To CLobot you listen.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/31/2010
Posts: 1,628
|
R5Don4 wrote:Full win for a bye is absolutely the way it has to stay. The 3-2-0 scoring is solid, it works. First round pairings are completely random, we don't pair by record ranking. So in the case of MM2, it could have been anyone that got the bye, truly that roster was an all star SWM event. Many players came from many hours away to attend. Especially with the crazy prize support up for grabs, a player comes all that way to be randomly assigned a Bye win, and you would rather they already start behind with a 2 pt win? 3pt wins were not in short supply, but if a bye win was only 2 pts if it was someone from out of town they should have just got back in the car and drove home because there would be no coming back from that.
no because he has three other games to play, so he can win out and still be fine with a 2 point bye. If you get the bye you still have the same odds of winning out that everyone else has except one of your 3 point wins is free. I am sorry but saying just get all 3 point wins is not a defense for this argument because sometimes you have horrible match ups and playing for the 3 point win would be suicide, but a bye is the perfect thing to receive free 3 point win, thats it. you did not earn those 3 points you did have an hour time limit or even have a shot at anything other then getting 3 points. Like I said if you receive a 2 point win, you still have the rest of the tournament to win out. I feel like a bye is just giving someone a free loss because someone can go 2of 3 after getting a bye and still have 9 points and just like in this scenario they can be destroyed in their game 200-3 and still be ahead of the person they just lost to.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/31/2010
Posts: 1,628
|
Sithborg wrote:A bye puts you at the bottom in terms of Strength of Schedule. So not only do you have a Timed Win to make up, but you have to hope that it doesn't go to Strength of Schedule. It doesn't matter, when it comes down to tie breakers, someone always gets screwed. In your example, someone got into the final four you didn't feel they deserved. Either of the two players got screwed because of the tie breaker, which came down to pure chance, most likely. A bye hurts your Strength of Schedule so much, that I see it being also unfair to make it a timed win. The first, and maybe the second round, byes are so random, that it can kill a person's chance.
Here's the question, perhaps the "robbed" player should've tried harder for a 3 pt victory. ummm, this player beat 3 hall of famers, and played 3 of the top 4, so I would say he played pretty dang hard.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/30/2008
Posts: 2,093
|
Except we forget that a 2 pt win isn't a win. A 2 pt win is a tie that we have to declare a winner in. When we consider that, then it is very easily clear that a bye should be 3 pts.
Also Tim (the person with the bye) was in 3rd place after the Swiss. I was the person in 4th place. I would have been the one bumped if that final game had been a 3 pt win in all likliehood. Or my SOS could have been better than his (or Dan's if he had won) and he would have still been in 3rd place. Because don't forget HTH TBs are only supposed to come into play if all tied players played each other and since I didn't play Spry or Tim we would automatically skip those and go to SOS. I have no idea what Christians SOS ended up being but it is possible that he could still have ended up in 5th place.
The problem with your argument that there are still other games to play/win is that if the bye player only gets 2 pts then they have to go undefeated otherwise they are at a disadvantage (ie at 3-1 the most they could have is 8 under your proposed system) and the person that gets a bye is rarely the person who goes undefeated.
For instance Tim (who had the bye) went 2-1 in his 3 games he played earning 6 points in those games for an average of 3 points per win against opps. Christian went 3-1 for 8 points with an average of 2.66 points per win against live opps. I don't see how you can ever say that the player that earned the maximum number of points they could per win should be behind someone who didn't.
I didn't really watch the final game but both players should have been playing for a 3 pt win (and players should always play that way) because it was pretty well known with the player turnout we had that it would take 9 points to make the top 4 and to my knowledge both players had were at 6 pts going in. It has been well documented (among regionals) that if you get a 2 pt win at any point during a tourney that unless you go undefeated that you are basically praying to the gods that you make top 4. So in bad matchups you just have to play for it and take risks that you might not normally take.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/31/2010
Posts: 1,628
|
urbanjedi wrote:Except we forget that a 2 pt win isn't a win. A 2 pt win is a tie that we have to declare a winner in. When we consider that, then it is very easily clear that a bye should be 3 pts.
Also Tim (the person with the bye) was in 3rd place after the Swiss. I was the person in 4th place. I would have been the one bumped if that final game had been a 3 pt win in all likliehood. Or my SOS could have been better than his (or Dan's if he had won) and he would have still been in 3rd place. Because don't forget HTH TBs are only supposed to come into play if all tied players played each other and since I didn't play Spry or Tim we would automatically skip those and go to SOS. I have no idea what Christians SOS ended up being but it is possible that he could still have ended up in 5th place.
The problem with your argument that there are still other games to play/win is that if the bye player only gets 2 pts then they have to go undefeated otherwise they are at a disadvantage (ie at 3-1 the most they could have is 8 under your proposed system) and the person that gets a bye is rarely the person who goes undefeated.
For instance Tim (who had the bye) went 2-1 in his 3 games he played earning 6 points in those games for an average of 3 points per win against opps. Christian went 3-1 for 8 points with an average of 2.66 points per win against live opps. I don't see how you can ever say that the player that earned the maximum number of points they could per win should be behind someone who didn't.
I didn't really watch the final game but both players should have been playing for a 3 pt win (and players should always play that way) because it was pretty well known with the player turnout we had that it would take 9 points to make the top 4 and to my knowledge both players had were at 6 pts going in. It has been well documented (among regionals) that if you get a 2 pt win at any point during a tourney that unless you go undefeated that you are basically praying to the gods that you make top 4. So in bad matchups you just have to play for it and take risks that you might not normally take.
no one had a harder SoS he played 3 of the top 4. But I can see I am the absolute minority lol, so we can just let this convo end.
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator, Rules Guy
Joined: 8/24/2008
Posts: 5,201
|
Deaths_Baine wrote:no one had a harder SoS he played 3 of the top 4. But I can see I am the absolute minority lol, so we can just let this convo end. It would help if you weren't so focused on one specific instance. As far as I can see, you want either Strength of Schedule or Head to Head tiebreakers to have more importance than Full/Timed wins. The first round Bye is completely random. It is completely unfair to penalize players for getting a bye because of this. In a tournament, you could elmiminate the "best" player from contention merely by chance. IS THAT FAIR. A lot of work went into redoing the tournament point scoring. No matter what, the tiebreakers will screw someone. In this specific case, it was your friend, who was punished for being unable to claim a full victory, and not chance the chance of the draw, like the person who got in over him (or the other person who would get knocked out). As it is, I think it is more important to keep penalizing timed wins, and not making byes autolosses.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/19/2010
Posts: 1,291
|
No one hit their cpu.... No this isn't a typo.... And no, I am currently not drinking any type of alcohol... Trevor... Brother-In-Law... Deaths_Baine..... We do not see eye to eye on this  I have been thinking about this ever since it happened. And originally, I was questioning how this works. BUT, to say Timmer didn't deserve to make it to the top 4 is crazy. I 100% agree he should've of been there, and I 100% agree Christian should've been there. ( And for the record, I actually think Christians squad was the best one out there, you guys should really check this out..... Because... The Prophet has predicted a squad of this type to win GENCON!) I think the system is flawed and perfect at te same time. I do find it crazy that a guy can beat 3 HOF, and 2 of the top 4 and not make it in because someone else had a bye.... But I also agree you can not fault someone who is randomly selected to get the 1st round bye. They are at an immediate disadvantage, not playing and going in cold as someone else has mentioned against someone rearing a red hot 3 point win with their squad. Now, a solution? None. This system seems to work ( exception for Christian, who has now missed the top 4/8 in each of his appearances by 1 point and had in fact beaten multiple people who did make it, sorry Christian) for the better part of the time. I do, however, feel that a top 4 only is just ludacris. As long as 15 people show up to an event, I feel there should always be a top 8. Narrowing to a top 4 just limits so much, and seems to me can cause multiple scenarios that don't end well for multiple people. MM2 I can see not having a top 8, mainly because of the prize, so I can't fault Bronson on that one. But, I think for future events, Regionals or not, I think a top 8 is a neccessity. If you can't finish in the top 8, you have no reason to complain... Plenty of chances to make up ground. A top 4... VERY VERY VERY small room for error. With this being said, I will now leavew you guys with some words of wisdom: " Everyone needs a brother-in-law to argue with. Everyone needs a home. What we don't need, is more Naboo Troopers." Shmi15
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 10/17/2010
Posts: 3,682
Location: Beggers Canyon Tatooine
|
Weeks wrote:Just get all 3 point wins and you wouldn't have to worry about it. exactly! like we all did in the top 8 @ GenCon! LOL  win or win not, there is no losing 
|
|
|
Guest |