
BGonline.org Forums
New standard method for resolving 3way ties on the ABT
Posted By: Colin Owen
Date: Monday, 25 June 2018, at 3:46 a.m.
In Response To: New standard method for resolving 3way ties on the ABT (Rich Munitz)
In my first post on this thread I stated that I believed that it took a mean of 7/3 matches to resolve 1st place in a 3 player RR. I see from your working that my calculation was wrong, though it should have been obvious to me that the mean had to be more than 2.5. Your recalculated 10/3 matches means I was a whole match out. The mean, however, is based upon some assumptions. One, that bg is a skillless game; as it isn't, the mean is slightly reduced. More significantly though, it also assumes that the length of matches in any subsequent RR's remain unchanged. As I've stated, they wouldn't have to be, and surely shouldn't.
The 2 match format that you have adopted may well  if the ABT points and prize money are appropriately spaced  be "a reasonably equitable resolution". But the fact remains that it randomly gives one player a 50% chance of winning the title and trophy, whereas the other two players each have just half that chance.
If byes were assigned at the beginning of the tournament, like they usually are, this would have a similar random effect upon players equity of course. But, if actually winning a tournament means something, here is an opportunity to try to make it totally fair.
If each win one match in an 11 point RR (don't they average 1.5 hours, not 2?) and time is at a premium, a further RR can have matches as short as you like (even 1 point), with the USBGF 2 match format as a final 1 point expedite system if needed. Alternatively, employ the 2 match system straight after an initial RR tie. There need be no excessive delays (" 4.5 hours, or 6 hours, etc.").
I already stated that, bearing in mind my learning of the prevalence of side events in the USA (no one begrudges TD's the right to make money) and their possible clash with the main tournament: "the USBGF system for 3 way finishes makes more sense."
So, I didn't understand your: "To everyone else, it is simply a logical and practical suggestion."
But, if and when there can be no such clash, is it not worth risking paying a moderate price in time to provide each of the 3 remaining players an equal chance to win the tournament?

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.