Round Robin Rule. Is it time for a change?

[koontz1973]

For the past few months, I have been running a series of round robin tournaments (12 completed, 1 ongoing, 1 waiting for privileges and 2 waiting for players). Most of these tournaments have had an out right winner but in some, a technical win has been awarded according to the rule below.

One round, everyone plays everyone in 1 on 1 matches; at the same time. Player with most wins, wins the tournament. If two players are tied the player that won the 1v1 match wins the tourney--if multiple players are tied and there is no clear head to head winner -all the players involved will play another round robin

This rule started out slightly different and with the help of HighlanderAttack and SirSebstar it has been refined to what it is today, not changed.

This rule is the same for all my round robin tournaments including doubles and triples (with words changed) and I believe it to be the fairest way to give a winner, but I have not been on the receiving end of a technical loss.

I want and need to hear everyone's views on this before the next one is set up so I have PM'd all players involved in one of my round robins.

Next one will be set up in 12 days time so get your views in now.

[SirSebstar]

I voted to keep it as it is. After all, I already lost a final to this rule, so if it works and it is clear then its good.
Obviously I understand the rule now and although its sometimes a bit hard to see it come down to 1 gameresult its basicly fair and easy.
Everybody plays their games, get the point and either wins or not. The outright winner deserves the tournament anyways. If you beat the #2 in the underling games, that’s obvious too. With more players, and 1 player having beaten all the other equal competition, its obvious.
And the rule does allow for 3 or more players to be tied, and then go a round robin on those players…

So basicly, I am happy with the simplicity and elegance of the rule. Not so happy to have lost to HA with equal games, but it’s a good incentive to always play every game as an important game.

And as a Tournament Organizer I have to say, I am quite charmed of the idea. Its designed to keep the extra work to a minimum, low hassle and clear winners. Very sweet.

[hagardunor]

a vote 1

[Dibbler]

I understand the rule as stated but if you wish to reword it then say

If two teams or players are tied at the end of the round robin, then the head to head game will be used as the tiebreaker with the winner of the game winning the tournament. Should more than 2 teams or players be tied at the end of the round robin then a second round robin, with only the tied teams or players included, will be used to break the tie.

Your rule is good as is and is used regularly in sports leagues to break ties at the end of the season. Similar situation here.

[koontz1973]

I understand the rule as stated but if you wish to reword it then say

If two teams or players are tied at the end of the round robin, then the head to head game will be used as the tiebreaker with the winner of the game winning the tournament. Should more than 2 teams or players be tied at the end of the round robin then a second round robin, with only the tied teams or players included, will be used to break the tie.

Your rule is good as is and is used regularly in sports leagues to break ties at the end of the season. Similar situation here.

One round, every team plays every other team, (2 on 2), team with the most wins, wins the tournament.
If two teams are tied the team that won the match wins the tourney--if multiple teams are tied and there is no clear head to head winner -all the teams involved will play another round robin

This is the rule as stated in my latest doubles RR. As you can see, it is very similar to the singles one and your own suggestion.

Yours is more clear but I would add that if there is no clear head to head winner. If team A beats team B and C, they are clearly the winner as it is the same as if only two teams tied.

[koontz1973]

I voted to keep it as it is. After all, I already lost a final to this rule, so if it works and it is clear then its good.
Obviously I understand the rule now and although its sometimes a bit hard to see it come down to 1 gameresult its basicly fair and easy.
Everybody plays their games, get the point and either wins or not. The outright winner deserves the tournament anyways. If you beat the #2 in the underling games, that’s obvious too. With more players, and 1 player having beaten all the other equal competition, its obvious.
And the rule does allow for 3 or more players to be tied, and then go a round robin on those players…

So basicly, I am happy with the simplicity and elegance of the rule. Not so happy to have lost to HA with equal games, but it’s a good incentive to always play every game as an important game.

And as a Tournament Organizer I have to say, I am quite charmed of the idea. Its designed to keep the extra work to a minimum, low hassle and clear winners. Very sweet.

As a former loser with this rule, thanks for saying to keep it the same.
The extra work involved does not matter. I want all the players to go away happy, and this is not the case with the latest doubles tourney.

I am happy to always see the same faces like yourself (a previous winner ) but when a new person comes in and believes the rule to be unfair or dishonest, I believe it is time for a rethink or at least get some ideas

[Dibbler]

Yeah mine doesn't account for the possibility of 3 or more teams being tied but one team has beaten all the others.

I think your wording is pretty clear on its own.

I like your rule, its simple and doesn't force you to do a lot of extra work at the end of the tourney

[koontz1973]

Yeah mine doesn't account for the possibility of 3 or more teams being tied but one team has beaten all the others.

I think your wording is pretty clear on its own.

I like your rule, its simple and doesn't force you to do a lot of extra work at the end of the tourney

The work does not bother me. If it did, I would not do it.

I ask this as someone in my latest doubles one asked for it to be changed for the future. Maybe have all tied teams play a series of 3 games. I said no as this was not the same. I am always open to new ideas and I just want to see how everyone feels and can a new better version be used in the future.

[TheKidsTrumpet]

Yeah mine doesn't account for the possibility of 3 or more teams being tied but one team has beaten all the others.

I think your wording is pretty clear on its own.

I like your rule, its simple and doesn't force you to do a lot of extra work at the end of the tourney

The work does not bother me. If it did, I would not do it.

I ask this as someone in my latest doubles one asked for it to be changed for the future. Maybe have all tied teams play a series of 3 games. I said no as this was not the same. I am always open to new ideas and I just want to see how everyone feels and can a new better version be used in the future.

In Redemption (Part One) towards the end when the leaderboard was close between aalii, HA and I with still open games being played that rule sorta kept me pressing on, to pay attention, cause in the back of my mind I knew if I tied aalii I would win, so I at least needed that many wins; however, if HA also tied I knew he had beaten me and aalii had beaten him so it would be a 3 way tie breaker, which would have been fun too.

I frankly like the rule as is, if everyone pays attention when they sign up and read it they have no excuse to complain or say it should be changed after they tie and lose and realize hey, wait... why'd I lose? Read the rules yo. Thanks for the tourney Koontz, look forward to more =)

[DJENRE]

I told you already my point of view by PM. Keep it like that

[koontz1973]

I told you already my point of view by PM. Keep it like that

And for those who did not get to read his PM, it said to keep it as is.

[koontz1973]

In Redemption (Part One) towards the end when the leaderboard was close between aalii, HA and I with still open games being played that rule sorta kept me pressing on, to pay attention, cause in the back of my mind I knew if I tied aalii I would win, so I at least needed that many wins; however, if HA also tied I knew he had beaten me and aalii had beaten him so it would be a 3 way tie breaker, which would have been fun too.

I frankly like the rule as is, if everyone pays attention when they sign up and read it they have no excuse to complain or say it should be changed after they tie and lose and realize hey, wait... why'd I lose? Read the rules yo. Thanks for the tourney Koontz, look forward to more =)

That was an exciting finish. HA told me to tell aalii he had won. I had to explain to him that it may come down to the 3 way between you three. I had also miscounted the wins for aalii and you before that and had not realised it was so close. I always double check the wins at the end.

I am looking forward to a play off, never had one yet.

[koontz1973]

So far, two people have said it is time for a change. Who I wonder and why? If you want to see a change, tell me what it should be and lets get a debate going.

edit: I do not care about the who part, but the why yes. If you feel the rule is unfair then say so and state your reasons.

[SirSebstar]

you might not mind the extra work, and for that applause
but the players involved reconn a series of game's and then they get an extention..
I know i am looking to downsize on games, not increase them (oh and by the way stop with those perfectly aluring tournaments will you... i am getting addictd to them)

Still, i know when i was confronted with them the first time, i was slightly miffed to see the prize go by me...lol. its morally wrong, but yea, i really wanted that win. So i can understand a new player being confronted with such a thing saying hey thats not fair.
However it really is, because its up front and real.

Maybe i should have taken the B route.
Just make a collapsable piece of text with an real example, and not take ABC but names, like mine. (permission granted) and maybe HA's.
to Show people what its really about.

[koontz1973]

you might not mind the extra work, and for that applause
but the players involved reconn a series of game's and then they get an extention..
I know i am looking to downsize on games, not increase them (oh and by the way stop with those perfectly aluring tournaments will you... i am getting addictd to them)

No I will not stop. I am having fun doing this. Maybe we should start a support group.

Maybe i should have taken the B route.
Just make a collapsable piece of text with an real example, and not take ABC but names, like mine. (permission granted) and maybe HA's.
to Show people what its really about.

Good idea. Now this is what I a, after. Ideas to make sure it does not get people upset. Give an example like yours would help with the understanding. But how to do it without being overly long?

[koontz1973]

Just PM'ed to me.

it's ok by me:)

Alternately, if you want to keep from having to throw an extra round at tied players you can add bonus points, 1 per each game won when not having the first turn, to make the group of tied players smaller and even get down to one. Inspired by the SYB tournies and used in mine (as granted by TheCrown, maker of the SYB (Strain Your Brain) tournies).

If this is not a big goal for u, i think you should keep it as it is:)

yours,
BlackZ

[SirSebstar]

I did it with ABC, i think this works.

show: Example Victory rules

[koontz1973]

I did it with ABC, i think this works.

show: Example Victory rules

That is how I explained it to you and HA when you had your photo finish. This is why the rule was refined in the first place to make it clearer that this would happen. I am going to add a spoiler to the next one with this in. Just so all players can see what will happen in case of a tie.

Long winded I know but it seems that it needs to be added to stop any arguments in the next ones.

[CAPK81]

We have lost twice to the tie breaker rule i guess you would call it. But I would not change that rule. This tourney is a fast quick action one and a lot of fun. I think it is quite easy to understand if you read the rules and a very simple fair rule. No need to have extra rounds. In fact we have lost to both those examples that you listed above

[koontz1973]

We have lost twice to the tie breaker rule i guess you would call it. But I would not change that rule. This tourney is a fast quick action one and a lot of fun. I think it is quite easy to understand if you read the rules and a very simple fair rule. No need to have extra rounds. In fact we have lost to both those examples that you listed above

If I am not mistaken, charmir and I beat you with this rule. It is the one and only tournament win we have as a doubles, singles and triples.

But thanks for saying not to change it. Like SirSebstar you have lost a tournament to this rule, but you still keep coming back for more. That gives me hope for the future.

Now we just need aallii to back you up as he just lost the singles (Redemption (Part one)) to this rule.

[aalii]

Hi Koontz
I voted for a change only because I think a best of, let's say 3 playoff, would be better. However, I must say, the rules have been VERY clear and there can be no arguing about them. If the rule stays the same, I good with that too. When we sign up, we know how the winner will be determined in the event of a tie. So, whatever is decided, let the tourneys continue

[Nikita42]

I would keep it the same. I've run a couple Round Robin tournaments and that's the method I use to break ties as well.

[koontz1973]

Hi Koontz
I voted for a change only because I think a best of, let's say 3 playoff, would be better. However, I must say, the rules have been VERY clear and there can be no arguing about them. If the rule stays the same, I good with that too. When we sign up, we know how the winner will be determined in the event of a tie. So, whatever is decided, let the tourneys continue

So with a best of 3 play off, how to go about it.
A beats B in normal play but both on 11 wins. (play off happens)
A beats B again so 2/0, they win.
B beats A so we have the third game. Sounds OK so far.

But,

What if we have 3 or 4 players/teams on 11 wins. Unless A had beaten them all, this would result in the second round as of now. But how to go about the 3 game play off without it becoming a 1v1 normal tournament.

If you have an idea, give it for this and it might get changed.

"Just thinking allowed".

How would the player who beat the other(s) in open play feel if he was forced to play again the same person who he has already beaten.

Add more players to the tournament so the likely hood of this happening is smaller. OK for teams tournaments but singles are already 16 players / 15 games each. Raising it to 25 to stop this happening means getting 24 games. Would players be willing to accept 24 games (1v1) at one time.

Split the tournament into 2.

[koontz1973]

Provide a link for questions and answers. In the event of a misunderstanding, have an open link for all to see whereas one can post a concern or question (or rant); the answer can also be shown here in an attempt to defuse a situation.

This is a good idea and will be added to future tournaments. That way new players can post questions and see all the answers discussed.

[elGrande]

I am a bit confused as to why you don't choose to run 'round robin' as you like. Who has decided that the way you had it outlined in your initial post is the correct way. My first tournament was round robin, and I used a points system to determine the winners and it was also NOT 1v1. There are many ways to do things and to decide tiebreakers.

If I was running a 1v1 group play with 4 players..

It would be a 3 map series (means you play ALL 3 maps.. not a best of)..
Each map is worth 2 points win, -1 for DQ.

So each map can be 6:0, 4:2, 6:-3, ..etc..

Each player would play the others in their group 1 time (1 match)..
A maximum of 18 points can be earned.
This will help lower the number of possible ties and the fact that each match is a 3 map series.. you will always have a tie breaker already decided between players. There will never be a tie among players..

However, in cases that 3 players are tied in points..

You first look at their head to head, then you look at only the matches (wins/losses) among the 3 players that are tied..

Using this system, you will hardly ever have ties that need additional matches.

John "El Grande" Clark
Executive Director of Operations
Cyber Sports Network
www.cyber-sports.net