Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Who takes 2nd?

At the North Central Regional Tournament we had a three way tie for First Place. Please give your inpute on who should take 2nd so I can make sure I get it right. Three elders were present and we could not come to a conclution.

We played 6 rounds.

Player A  15 points 15 ls       Beat player B, did not play player C
Player B  15 points 11 ls       Lost to player A, Beat player C
Player C  15 Points 13 ls       Lost to player B, did not play player A


Player C lost to player B but has a higher LS differenal

Who should take 2nd place.

So this happened in June at Northeast regionals, then in July at PA states and North Central regionals?

I think we need to reevaluate our current system. Just saying.

I would say that player B should bc LS differential should decide if head to head is a loop.
Like for instance
 A beat B
 B beat C
 C beat A

But that is not the case here

Other then a loop, I think head to head is more important.

Especially since LS differential could be skewed based on who got lucky and played a worse opponent early.

I understand that A C B is the correct ruling based on the system, but change is coming to remedy this (from what I had heard).  I don't see any reasonable person opposing A B C even now. We all know the current ranking system has holes and as humans we think and can see what should happen here. 

If I was hosting I would give it Nameless based on human intelligence overcoming a deficientcy in the ranking system. 

If I was C I would hand it to B H2H should trump LSD any day

Just my opinion though and I can see an argument to state that the system is currently in place and should be followed to the exact until the system
Is edited.

I think we all agree that regardless of how 2nd and 3rd flesh out, player A takes first.

He beat player B head to head and differential, and player C on LS differential.

At that point since first is locked in, you look only at players B and C for 2nd and 3rd. So the fact that player C never played player A doesn't matter, and player B wins via head to head.

That's the way I feel about it.

That being said, I'm not 100% sure that's how its currently being ruled, or if that will be the way that it is ruled in the future.

Putting all kidding aside, a top cut would resolve all disputes like this.

Not just that, but to minimize these issues, all high-level tournaments should only use an odd number of rounds.  In PA States (and I'm almost certain NE Regional, but I wasn't as involved with the points), we had a clear and distinct winner (or two players with clear tie-breakers) after 3 rounds.  If we went to 5 rounds, we would have also had a clear and distinct winner.  Having even numbers of rounds increases the number of players with the same points.

Again, Nats is hosting 6 and 10 round events in almost every category.  I strongly urge everyone to consider going to an odd number or this will happen again.  And I say again not only because it has happened at 4 major tournaments in a little over a month, but because from what I hear, there have been tie-breaker controversies at Nats in the past.

Not just that, but to minimize these issues, all high-level tournaments should only use an odd number of rounds.  In PA States (and I'm almost certain NE Regional, but I wasn't as involved with the points), we had a clear and distinct winner (or two players with clear tie-breakers) after 3 rounds.  If we went to 5 rounds, we would have also had a clear and distinct winner.  Having even numbers of rounds increases the number of players with the same points.

NE Regional had 5 rounds. Odd or even rounds has nothing to do with it.

Quote from: everytribe on July 23, 2012, 08:57:19 PM

Quote from: Redoubter on July 23, 2012, 06:39:51 PM

Not just that, but to minimize these issues, all high-level tournaments should only use an odd number of rounds.  In PA States (and I'm almost certain NE Regional, but I wasn't as involved with the points), we had a clear and distinct winner (or two players with clear tie-breakers) after 3 rounds.  If we went to 5 rounds, we would have also had a clear and distinct winner.  Having even numbers of rounds increases the number of players with the same points.

NE Regional had 5 rounds. Odd or even rounds has nothing to do with it.

Actually, we had 6 rounds - Otherwise player C couldn't have 15 points and a loss to player B

I think you are referring to different tournaments.  He was referring to NE Regionals, while you seem to be referring to NC Regionals

Ah, I see.

I'm not sure if Bill meant to refer to NE or NC there.

NC for sure had 6 rounds though, just as an FYI.

If I remember correctly NE regionals did have 5 rounds (because I think I went 3-2 for type I 2player), and it had a bigger tie at the top than the one discussed here.

Using my proposed new method of ranking makes this easy

1 - How many victory points do they have?
          (the more the better)
2 - How many games did they play against ranked players (top 3 including ties)?
          (the more the better)
3 - What was their winning % in those games?
          (the more the better)
4 - What was their LS differential?
          (the more the better)

1 - Victory Points - They are all tied at 15, move on to the next question.
2 - Strength of Schedule - B played 2 top players, A and C only played 1.  B is in 1st place.
3 - Success at the Top - A is 100% against top players.  C is 0% against top players.
4 - LS Differential - not necessary.

Rankings = B, A, C

The big problem with this is that A beat B head-to-head.  However what isn't shown in the info given in the original post is that A must have lost to a lower ranked player to be tied in VPs with the others.  I would argue that losing to a lower player is worse than losing to a top player, and therefore B actually had a better tournament overall.  Therefore I think the ranking system above still works.

Of course this is still in the proposal stage.  So comments are welcome

Using my proposed new method of ranking makes this easy

Quote

1 - How many victory points do they have?
          (the more the better)
2 - How many games did they play against ranked players (top 3 including ties)?
          (the more the better)
3 - What was their winning % in those games?
          (the more the better)
4 - What was their LS differential?
          (the more the better)

1 - Victory Points - They are all tied at 15, move on to the next question.
2 - Strength of Schedule - B played 2 top players, A and C only played 1.  B is in 1st place.
3 - Success at the Top - A is 100% against top players.  C is 0% against top players.
4 - LS Differential - not necessary.

Rankings = B, A, C

The big problem with this is that A beat B head-to-head.  However what isn't shown in the info given in the original post is that A must have lost to a lower ranked player to be tied in VPs with the others.  I would argue that losing to a lower player is worse than losing to a top player, and therefore B actually had a better tournament overall.  Therefore I think the ranking system above still works.

Of course this is still in the proposal stage.  So comments are welcome

Player A has to be declared the winner.  A has the most lost souls and beat B head to head.

I think we all agree that regardless of how 2nd and 3rd flesh out, player A takes first.

He beat player B head to head and differential, and player C on LS differential.

At that point since first is locked in, you look only at players B and C for 2nd and 3rd. So the fact that player C never played player A doesn't matter, and player B wins via head to head.

That's the way I feel about it.

That being said, I'm not 100% sure that's how its currently being ruled, or if that will be the way that it is ruled in the future.

I agree with Jon about B getting second place and about not being 100% sure that's how it is currently being ruled or if that will be the way it is ruled in the future.

This would give B 1st based on his loss being to a more quality opponent then A's loss was to.   Interesting, I can say I'm not against incorporating some sort of strength of schedule into placing.

Quote from: everytribe on July 24, 2012, 01:15:48 PM

Player A has to be declared the winner.  A has the most lost souls and beat B head to head.

I understand that argument.  But it isn't surprising that A has the most LSs considering that he only played 1 game against the top players.  Player B played more games against top opponents and has a higher quality loss than A.  I think there can be a good case that Player B had the better tournament.  Can you see my side of things as well?

No I really can't see your side of things here - You can't argue that Player B had the better tournament if you're only looking at 2 out of 6 of his games.

If you were to incorporate all of his games into a 'Strength of Schedule' (SoS) number, and that number was higher than Player A's SoS# then maybe. As is, for all you know Player A lost to the 4th place player, beating the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th in addition to his victory over player B (2nd) While Player B could have lost to 1st, and beaten 8th 9th 10th 11th and 3rd for his 5 wins.

Wouldn't you argue then that Player A had the 'Better' tournament? He beat better overall competition in his run, even if he only played one of the people who placed.