| |
BGonline.org Forums
Swiss - Inviting Cheating?
Posted By: neilkaz In Response To: Swiss - Inviting Cheating? (pfeifrot)
Date: Friday, 5 September 2008, at 6:44 p.m.
Your point is a valid one, even with every effort being made to pair players with like records it isn't always possible. I do have to mention that I don't think it is too easy to completely dump a BG match and not have it noticed during the late rounds of an event where there are at least a couple watchers for every match. Certainly one could play poorly and reduce his chances to win the match considerably but if nearly anyone in Open (just about everyone is known, at least here in the US) played hopelessly, it would be quite obvious.
Once again, almost everyone in the T room knows almost everyone else in the room to at least some extent. When I consider the full Open field of 46 other players that we had in Madison, honestly no names flash at me as people who'd consider dumping a match to someone else under any circumstances. The game really is quite "clean" in the US and with many of us taking pride in integrity.
But lets say that I'm wrong about two of the players and they are scumbags. Consider the very unlikely chance that one of the two cheats is 8-2 and the other is 7-3 ! Consider than if there's and even number of players 8-2 or better, then none play a 7-3, but if there's an odd number, only one 8-2 will play a 7-3. I think you'll see that there's less than 1 chance in 100 of these two players meeting in rd 11.
What about someone dumping in rd 10 ? OK a 7-2 is playing a 6-3 and the 6-3 dumps the match, thereby getting nothing whereas the 8-2 is guaranteed money now since even if he loses next, he's 8-3 and if he wins next he's 9-2 and likely about 50% to win the T. Incentive to dump there ? Well somewhat, but once again I doubt there were two players in the room who'd do such a thing, and the chances of them being paired are very small.
Your point is, as I see it, questioning whether someone who can win the T outright should ever be playing someone who can only win a lower prize. I thought of this but really doubt that we'd have more than 1 incident of dumping in 100 events ! The reason I have players continuing until round 11 or 4 losses, is that players continue to 4 losses under the former methods for the T which has been run for many years. Those with 3 losses, this past weekend the 6-3's went into the conso. I am proposing to do away with the conso since it is simpler to run the event, and since with 47 players we'll usually have 6 players at 8-3 or better and they all get a prize. Maybe there's only be 5 sometimes, maybe 7 once in a while, certainly the number would change a bit with 10 more or 10 fewer entrants, but the % of people getting prizes would be about the same. All would know that they have to go 8-3 to get a prize.
The other reason that I am proposing the 11 rd 8-3 thing is that if we keep the 3 loss players around, we don't have the issues giving late round byes to players a round or two from winning the entire event. (We may have to give a bye to a 7-3 if we have an odd number of players and that puts the lucky guy into the split for the lowest prize (typically 3rd thru 6th))(I think I have a rather fair method of dealing with byes and will discuss later)
OK so looking back at last weekend's event but with the stipulation that with 3 losses you're out, and you get one of the prizes based on being one of the last players to get three losses. ie the longer you survive without losing your third match the more likely to get a prize.
In rd 9, Tim, Neil,& Matt, were 6-2 and playing 3 other 6-2's. While Steve was 8-0 playing Brad who was 6-2. Steve,Tim, Neil, and Matt won and kept playing the main, while, if we assumed 3 losses and you are done, there'd be 4 equal players put out after rd 9 and all would be looking for a prize unless the event was only going to pay 4 places ! (too few for 47 players)
Lets say Brad had won in rd 9, now there's 5 players still alive, and only 3 put out of the event. Do those 3 now not get a prize bcuz there's 5 players still left ? That certainly would suck, when they note they would have likely gotten a split of something if Brad has lost and joined them at 6-3. Also now there's 5 players left for rd 10. Neil,Tim,Matt,and Brad at 7-2 and Steve at 8-1. Who's getting a super important bye ? Let's say it's Neil who is now 8-2. Brad plays Tim and loses and is 7-3 and gets 5th place since Matt beats Steve and both are 8-2. Four players are 8-2 so things resolve nicely in two more rounds, but OMG that bye I got was HUGE too huge IMHO. But if Steve beats Matt, Matt and Brad are out and we're left with 3 players. Neil and Tim at 8-2 and Steve at 9-1. How do we handle that ? You could say that Neil plays Tim and the winner has to beat Steve twice, but why does Steve get the bye rather than Tim ? And if Steve only has to be defeated once, that is not true Swiss inspite of his bye and what if Steve had caught a 1st round bye, Tim is entitled to the bye since he's the only one of us three who didn't get an earlier one.
So as you all can see, to avoid the thorny issues of 10th round losers not knowing if they are getting a small prize and minimize chances of super important byes in rd 11 along the path to 1st place, I keep the 3 loss players playing until rd 11 (possibly rd 12 in a considerably larger event that has 3 players at 9-2 or better, again to avoid a super-bye).
Cheating by dumping a match..well possible, but I don't think it would occur in more than 1 in a 100 events and I can live with that as I suspect most others could, noting that this Swiss is only one T a year here in the US.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.