Moderator: Tournament Directors
Dibbler wrote: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.
SirSebstar wrote: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.
Dibbler wrote: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 wrote:Dibbler wrote: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.
DJENRE wrote:I told you already my point of view by PM. Keep it like that
thekidstrumpet wrote: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 =)
SirSebstar wrote: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)
SirSebstar wrote: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.
BlackZ wrote: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 wrote:I did it with ABC, i think this works.
CAPK81 wrote: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
aalii wrote: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
charmir wrote: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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users