Round Robin Rule. Is it time for a change?

[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

[koontz1973]

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
http://www.cyber-sports.net

You make lots of points and I will try to answer all of them. No one said the way I do it is the correct way. There are many different formats to the RR.

I chose to run the RR tournaments like this as they are fast. The 1 v 1 games can take a long time but the majority of the 120 games are finished with in under 5 days. It is intense. HighlanderAttack and SirSebstar can and have finished all games in 2 days.

Your tournament is not what I would call a round robin but a group tournament. You had 4 player games with the same 4 players in each game. Similar to these two.
viewtopic.php?f=90&t=136489
viewtopic.php?f=91&t=134394
The Expanding Horizons uses the same format as yours as well as the points system. Less chance of a tie I agree, but there is still a chance which is why, even with this one I placed the rule of a points tie, they play another game.

Another good example of a RR would be the Berlin 1961 that is going on now with each player playing each other 5 games and points being awarded for how ever many games you beat over your opponent. This one however is played over a much longer period of time.
viewtopic.php?t=134607
As you can see, with 3 rounds left, the top 4 are within 30 points of each other. Again it may come down to two players being tied on points and it being decided over there 5 games. Same situation as mine with the games between players deciding the outcome. It does not matter how you do it, at some point, you have to award the win to someone.

With your one, how did you decide on the ties in the groups?

No matter what system you employ in a RR tournament, you will always have ties. With my one, more so maybe, which is why the rule was written. The players who sign up know this and accept it. My question is, can it be done fairer within the parameters of the format I have chosen to do the tournaments in?

[Blitzaholic]

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.

agreed, if two teams win 6 games each and lose 1. Then just make an extra game where the two teams with best records face off in one final game to determine the winner.

it really is not fair to have 2 teams tied with same exact record and give it to the team that beat you, because you beat the team that beat them. so, it is fair to create one extra game to settle it.

[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.

agreed, if two teams win 6 games each and lose 1. Then just make an extra game where the two teams with best records face off in one final game to determine the winner.

it really is not fair to have 2 teams tied with same exact record and give it to the team that beat you, because you beat the team that beat them. so, it is fair to create one extra game to settle it.

You agreed with Dibbler, which agrees with the rule as stated. Then you go on to say that you would change it.

[SirSebstar]

LOL, yea. It took me a while to see where the true differences lie. I think Blitz is talking about teams only.
I have to admit that if you see each game as a final’s game, then the situation of team A winning over team B who are both tied should indeed give the win to team A (In a Koontz ruled tournament only!!).

Where team B won over team C that has beaten team A another faceoff is then not required.

This I feel ONLY applies to Koontz, ruled tournaments. Koontz tournaments are intended to be short brutal affairs, with maximum rule clarity and a total dedication to the concept that each game is a tournament finals.. This keeps them short, which is a major contributor to its attractiveness.

On the other hand there is Blitzes argument. After all, there should never be a tie, the winner should always be clear. And while with Koontz it is always clear, but maybe not always perceived to be fair, and considering I don not mind the occasional faceoff. Though, lets admit it. If there is a 3 way tied, where team A beats both team B and C, but then looses the faceoff due to whatever, also does not always make sense.

I’d stick to whatever rules the TO has placed ni the tournament, but with a Koontz rule, at least you know upfront what is going to happen when. You’d better just win it outright, and if you can’t, then eliminate those of the competition that can match you.. If you fail in those respects, then maybe you should not be allowed to win the tournament.

Food for thought..

[koontz1973]

I believe that the problem lies not so much as in the rule as it is read, but by the players not reading it before signing up.

In both cases where I have been brought to task on this, the first question has always been what happens in a tie situation?

Blitzaholic has asked for a second play off game to determine the winner.
Is it fair then to then declare a winner when two teams have beaten each other once only?
Do we then go for a third deciding game?
And if we do that, both teams can get back to having even wins.
Where do I draw the line in the sand and say enough is enough.