| |
BGonline.org Forums
Madison - Thank you
Posted By: neilkaz In Response To: Madison - Thank you (Coolrey)
Date: Wednesday, 3 September 2008, at 4:56 p.m.
As one who hates the concept of a bye, I have to say that handling 24 players isn't easy. I really don't care to give 1st round byes, and prefer to play down to 3 players and settle things by round robin. As far as I recall, the staff had allready determined that we'd be doing a RR of the final 3 players, and this was discussed with me, prior to the start of the masters when they felt they'd get 24 rather than 32 players, but with about 20 signed up, they didn't want to nip it at 16.
Anyhow, if the Masters had 1st round byes, it is a 5 round event. As it was, if a player won two stright in the RR, (50%) of the time, it is a 5 round event. The two losers could split 2/3 places, or if they wish play a match for it. 25% of the time the RR will take 3 rounds which occurs when the guy who didn't play the first RR match wins two straight. The other 25% of the time the RR ties.
If the RR tied, we'd determined that we'd split the prize money 3 ways and do a quicky RR (perhaps 5 pt matches if time permitted, but most likely 1 pters) for the title and trophy. Hence the concept of setting a 3 player RR situation if pressed for time with 1 pt matches was born and discussed and the staff liked the idea.
As the weekend wore on, it became very clear that there'd be little time to get the masters in. Steve was alive in both events and doubles as well, and Richard, the other of the 3 in the Masters, was far along in the conso. I being tied up going 7-2 in the main and hadn't had time to play Bob Glass to determine the other of three masters finalists.
Therefore, it became obvious and noting Richard had a certainly not unreasonable flight time of around 5-6 PM, that we'd have to split the Masters prize money and play a 5 pt match RR for the title as 11 pt matches might have lasted til 7 or 8 pm and still been a 3 way tie.
I was not taking a shot by proposing that we play a quicky RR of 1 pters for the critical bye in the Open money. Yes, it was my idea, but we'd allready discussed this possibilty if the Masters RR tied. No one on the very professional staff wanted draw a bye into the money randomly. The other two players didn't object to a playing 1 pt matches, and as far as I could tell, they preferred it to random draw. Random draw with some compensating cash from the one getting the bye to those two playing the extra round was also discussed briefly, but it was felt that it would be fairer to play BG for the bye.
Playing 1 pt matches in the quickest and most random way to play BG, IMHO. But, if one of the players involved had objected, we'd have worked out some compensating cash formula.
The Swiss event is a different idea than other tourneys and there nevers seems to be a fair way to deal with playoffs. MUCH better would be to just continue the event 11 or 12 rounds of 9 pointers and then end it. The tourney was 12 rounds anyhow and this format in Indy with playoffs drawn after 8 rounds often went 13 rounds. Yes..12 rounds, Matt beat me to go 8-2, and then lost to Tim in rd 11. Tim beat Steve in rd 12 to win.
Lets say that the Swiss had been extended further. Noting Steve at 9-0 and Neil, Tim, Matt at 7-2. So..lets say Steve beats Neil to go 10-0 and Tim beats Matt. Matt and Neil are 7-3 and out. Steve is 10-0 and Tim is 8-2. In a true Swiss knock out Tim then has to beat Steve 3 times to win. But, honestly there'd be no reason for that sillyness as Steve should just be declared winner for 10-0 and Tim is obviously 2nd and Matt and I 3/4. This is fairer to Steve, than having him only 50% to win the T by being put into the finals.. or 75% if Tim has to beat him twice. This also ends the event in a timely manner and can anyone honestly say that the 10-0 player shouldn't be first place ?
OK now..lets say in round 10, I beat Steve making him 9-1 and me 8-2. Tim beats Matt so Matt is out (sorry Matt) and Tim is also 8-2. Round 11 is then me playing Tim with the loser, in this case me being out but winning 3rd prize. Tim is then 9-2 and plays Steve for the title, but in the true Swiss would have to beat him twice as no one can be out til they lose thrice. Thus 50% of the time the T is 12 rounds and 50% 13 rounds but it won't take too long since all matches remain 9 pts.
I'm just tossing out ideas for consideration, since forming a playoff is rarely a straight forward thing and it is next to impossible to be fair to all players. Lets say that Steve was 9-0 and there were 4 7-2's. This seems easy..put Steve into the finals, and the other 4 play down to see who plays Steve for the title. But looking from Steve's perspective, he's 9-0 and the guy who survives thru the quarters and semis is 9-2. It doesn't seem right that 9-2 should be 50% to win the T over 9-0. One can certainly see why I really prefer extending the Swiss all the way !! Perhaps in the interest of saving time there can be a provision that a lone 10-0 or maybe 10-1 has won the event and the event can stop and prizes awarded to whom ever's left, or if two are tied for a prize, they can play off.
Note that extending the Swiss til the end may take 13 rounds, but if you keep it 9 pt matches, that should be OK. What about consolation ? Well, I wouldn't have one and would just award prizes to the top 10-15% of the players in the Swiss. Does someone who goes 10-2 deserve twice as much money as someone who goes 9-3 ? I really don't think so. What about the guy who goes 9-3, does he deserve twice what the guys who went 8-3 get ? I doubt it.
Thus with the extended Swiss and no conso but 3 losses and out, we'd expect something like this.. 10-2,9-3,8-3,8-3,7-3,7-3,7-3 maybe it's not unreasonable to award all 7 players a prize (no conso) but it seems too much for the winner if awarded on a 8,4,2,2,1,1,1 scale with the winner getting 42% of the pot.
Just some ideas..as there's no really fair way to do a playoff unless all remaining have equal records and no byes are given. ie extremely unlikely.
Re: that critical bye into the money, as distasteful as it seems, it seems best to have simply drawn for it (unless playing rd 10) and to compensate those two who didn't get it with cash. (easy to make a formula where all 3 have same money equity)
Here's something that happened in Indy a few years ago. I went 8-0 and was only seeded into the semis even though a couple years prior the guy who went 8-0 was seeded into finals. There were a few more players in that latter year so it just didn't seem to work out to put the 8-0 guy directly into finals. In the semis I lost to an 8-2 guy, named Ray who just crushed me and went on the win the event. I didn't even get 3/4 since for some reason only 1/2 were played in the main and 3/4 in the conso. I went into the conso semis and was crushed and had to be content with 3/4 in conso ! I'm not crying over split milk and things like this have happened both ways for us in Indy, but will again point out that it really wasn't fair for Steve at 9-0 to be beaten by someone with two losses only once and lose the event !
Extend the Swiss please .. neilkaz ..
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.