Author Topic: Top Cut (Read 38691 times)

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #50 on:** September 03, 2012, 08:55:05 AM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on September 02, 2012, 09:13:44 PM

You want to know what the top 1/3 of the field did against each other? Fine.

Martin Miller: 7-1
John Earley: 2-2
Jonathon Greeson: 6-2
Connor Magras: 1-1 (with a timeout loss as well)
Matt Townsend: 3-3
Daniel Huisinga: 4-2
Chris Ericson: 6-3
Alex Olijar: 4-3
Josh Brinkman: 4-3
Jay Chambers: 2-2
Caleb Stanley: 0-1
Mark Underwood: 1-3 with a timeout win
James Roepke: 1-3
James Courtney: 3-2
Andrew Wester: 1-3
Chris Egley: 1-0
Jacob Arrowood: 1-3
Brian Jones: 1-4
Nic Marshall: 1-3
Christian Fong: 0-4

Thanks. There are definitely some things that stand out there. Just to pick on my own playgroup, how did Caleb Stanley finish higher by only playing 1 top player (and losing to them) than James Courtney who played 5 top players (and beat 3 of them)? And to pick on a couple good friends, how did John Early finish higher than Jon Greeson? (nm John beat Jon head to head)

What if we went at this from a different perspective? Instead of doing a top-cut for the last rounds of a tournament, what if we did like soccer in the olympics for the early rounds. All the people could be broken up into groups of 6 people who played round-robin for the first 5 rounds. Then we could do swiss with everyone after that based on the results so far. The people running the tournament could make sure that each group had no more than 1 or 2 of the people from Kirk's List or the top 20 RNRS players from the year, or whatever method people think is best.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #51 on:** September 03, 2012, 09:09:52 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on September 03, 2012, 08:55:05 AM

What if we went at this from a different perspective? Instead of doing a top-cut for the last rounds of a tournament, what if we did like soccer in the olympics for the early rounds. All the people could be broken up into groups of 6 people who played round-robin for the first 5 rounds. Then we could do swiss with everyone after that based on the results so far. The people running the tournament could make sure that each group had no more than 1 or 2 of the people from Kirk's List or the top 20 RNRS players from the year, or whatever method people think is best.

Are you seriously proposing a completely new format that drags in the politics of either "best player" lists or RNRS rankings into Nationals?

Chris · « **Reply #52 on:** September 03, 2012, 09:53:56 AM »

Mark, I'm not sure there's ANY way to even come close to accurately measuring players for a National tournament without doing it manually, due to the fact that Kirk's list is missing some stronger players that simply haven't been around that long (or only came into their own this year), RNRS is not a good indicator of skill level, and there's really no other solid list to look at. Who would chair such a committee? The Elders? Keep in mind that many of them would find themselves placed high on the list, and you are then in danger of having other members cry foul, not because of assumed malicious intent, but due to the obvious inherent bias there. I'm not quite sure you'd rather propose a complicated and roundabout way to achieve assumed "fairness" (which has a lot of problems I'll let someone else address) rather than simply implement a system that other CCGs have proved time and time again to work wonderfully.

Korunks · « **Reply #53 on:** September 03, 2012, 09:54:40 AM »

Been waiting to weigh in on this, so here goes. Top Cut will not solve the perceived fairness issue about those who make it to the top. There is always the chance that some one makes it in by a so called "weak" schedule, however in order to win they must defeat all other top players. But the current system has the same problem so IMO that is a wash. Top Cut solves for me the largest problem, inadequate and frankly confusing and bizarre rules about tie breakers. PA states is the worse case I have had in a while but at my tournaments we frequently have ties for closed categories, type1 multi-player, and both type 2 formats, maybe it is the evenness of our playing field( a lot of players are pretty close in skill) or something else I do not know. But this issue has caused a lot of headaches for me because no matter what the rules was or is I have players that leave feeling cheated. A topcut would clearly solve that issue, at least. And I thought that is what this whole thread was about. We may never solve the fairness issue in any format but at least we would have a concrete, simple format for final rankings. The rules for ties are the part of hosting I hate the most because in the end some one leaves unhappy because no one quite gets the rules even after I explain them. We need a better system and I have seen nothing else suggested that would solve this problem(Rules for ties). I also agree with Chris that several people at my tournaments would enjoy some down time if they are not in the topcut, doubt that they would care. I would love to be able to have mini categories or a small iron man at my tournaments so they could have something to do in between while top cut finishes. Topcut should be at least be an option for all levels of play.

Just my

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #54 on:** September 03, 2012, 01:38:51 PM »

Quote from: Chris on September 03, 2012, 09:53:56 AM

I'm not quite sure you'd rather propose a complicated and roundabout way to achieve assumed "fairness" (which has a lot of problems I'll let someone else address) rather than simply implement a system that other CCGs have proved time and time again to work wonderfully.

It is worth noting in this respect that MtG actually has a National player ranking system that include the results from all sanctioned tournaments, and they do not go down the proposed route.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #55 on:** September 03, 2012, 02:13:57 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on September 03, 2012, 08:55:05 AM

What if we went at this from a different perspective? Instead of doing a top-cut for the last rounds of a tournament, what if we did like soccer in the olympics for the early rounds. All the people could be broken up into groups of 6 people who played round-robin for the first 5 rounds. Then we could do swiss with everyone after that based on the results so far. The people running the tournament could make sure that each group had no more than 1 or 2 of the people from Kirk's List or the top 20 RNRS players from the year, or whatever method people think is best.

You seem like you've hardened your heart against top cut. What problems do you still have with it?

Also, Kirk's list shouldn't be taken so seriously. RDT isn't even on it, and he's easily one of the top 3 regular T1-2P players. RNRS is also silly, because there are some people who straight up just don't go to tournaments (like myself, this year, or Minister Polaris).

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #56 on:** September 03, 2012, 05:03:57 PM »

OK, first things first. I am NOT proposing anything at this point. I'm actually OK with just continuing to do things the way we are. I'm just throwing out a different idea to see if anyone thinks it's worth considering.

Second of all, I haven't "hardened my heart" against top-cut. I just continue to believe that it has an elitist feel to it because it limits people at the finish of a tournament with an obvious cut-off that tells everyone else that they're not good enough. I also believe that top-cut does NOT solve the fairness issue because some people would get in following weak early round competition while others would NOT get in following tough early round competition. (I'm glad that at least Korunks seems to also see this).

Third of all, I understand people's hesitancy with Kirk's list, or RNRS, or I suppose we could go back several months to Alex's list. Perhaps they seem better to me because I seem to end up about the same place on all of them (19 Kirk, 18 RNRS, 18 Alex), and because most of the names there seem to be relatively accurate based on my experience having played most of them. Maybe we could be like the BCS and have some sort of formula that combined all those lists to make a master list, and then use that. The nice thing about using a list like that at the beginning of the tournament rather than the end is that it only set's people opening rounds, and leaves the finish in the hands of the players themselves. It makes everyone's strength of schedule about equal, but still let's everyone feel like they have a shot throughout the whole tournament.

I guess basically, I just think that if we're going to force things, we should do it at the beginning of the tournament, and then open things up for the finish. This seems more fun and free than starting the tournament with total freedom, and then clamping down at the end.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #57 on:** September 03, 2012, 05:09:03 PM »

Tournaments are "elitist" by nature. If you're not in the top half, you're not good enough. If you're not in the top 10, you're not good enough. If you don't place, you're not good enough. If you don't win, you're not good enough, It's only a question of degrees, so I don't think that argument can be used to oppose top-cut.

I don't really like the idea of seeding because it would greatly benefit people like me who only go to Nationals and maybe Regionals, so we have 0 RNRS points at the start of the big tournament in spite of being in the running for first. RNRS is only a good way to rank players within regional playgroup clusters, but is a poor indicator of actual player ranking on a national scale.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #58 on:** September 03, 2012, 05:09:35 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on September 03, 2012, 05:03:57 PM

OK, first things first. I am NOT proposing anything at this point. I'm actually OK with just continuing to do things the way we are. I'm just throwing out a different idea to see if anyone thinks it's worth considering.

Second of all, I haven't "hardened my heart" against top-cut. I just continue to believe that it has an elitist feel to it because it limits people at the finish of a tournament with an obvious cut-off that tells everyone else that they're not good enough. I also believe that top-cut does NOT solve the fairness issue because some people would get in following weak early round competition while others would NOT get in following tough early round competition. (I'm glad that at least Korunks seems to also see this).

Third of all, I understand people's hesitancy with Kirk's list, or RNRS, or I suppose we could go back several months to Alex's list. Perhaps they seem better to me because I seem to end up about the same place on all of them (19 Kirk, 18 RNRS, 18 Alex), and because most of the names there seem to be relatively accurate based on my experience having played most of them. Maybe we could be like the BCS and have some sort of formula that combined all those lists to make a master list, and then use that. The nice thing about using a list like that at the beginning of the tournament rather than the end is that it only set's people opening rounds, and leaves the finish in the hands of the players themselves. It makes everyone's strength of schedule about equal, but still let's everyone feel like they have a shot throughout the whole tournament.

I guess basically, I just think that if we're going to force things, we should do it at the beginning of the tournament, and then open things up for the finish. This seems more fun and free than starting the tournament with total freedom, and then clamping down at the end.

So top cut is elitist but ranking players and establishing pools of players based on ranking is not elitist?

Lol Consistency issues.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #59 on:** September 03, 2012, 05:39:55 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on September 03, 2012, 05:09:35 PM

So top cut is elitist but ranking players and establishing pools of players based on ranking is not elitist?

Basically, yes. Telling people they're not good enough to even compete for anywhere in the top 8/16/32 is elitist. Telling people that they haven't proved themselves yet to put themselves on a list, but then letting them play their way to the finish of a tournament is NOT elitist. Sure maybe they'll be a bit insulted that they aren't on the list, but as long as they perform well in their grouping, then they'll come out of the grouping near the top of the standings and have a chance to win the whole tournament. I don't think people would be nearly as upset by that as they would if they took some early losses to tough opponents, but felt like they could've come back to finish in the top 10 if given the chance. But they weren't even given the chance because they didn't make that top cut.

Chris · « **Reply #60 on:** September 03, 2012, 05:59:07 PM »

I don't see much good coming out of getting into an argument over which idea is more elitist. What I will say, however, is that if a person did not make it into the top 32 by six rounds, they had zero chance of placing anyway, so why not draw the line earlier to make it fairer to the people who do have a shot? In case we hurt their feelings? Their feelings are going to be hurt regardless if they're getting upset that they didn't perform well. I say 32 rather than 16 because I believe the former has a better chance of being implemented, while the latter is my personal preference.

Master KChief · « **Reply #61 on:** September 03, 2012, 06:48:19 PM »

Top 32 after just 5 rounds? I think that's too much of a top cut with too few rounds for seeding. I'm not sure on the exact numbers, but if we use the National average of 82 players, I know there are going to be quite a few of X-2's and possibly some X-3's after just 5 rounds. I'm curious to see the number of X-0's, X-1's, X-2's, and X-3's after 5 rounds with 82 people, the formula being:

n is number of players.
r is number of rounds.
l is number of losses.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #62 on:** September 03, 2012, 07:03:36 PM »

I think Chris meant after 6 rounds, not by the 6th round.

Master KChief · « **Reply #63 on:** September 03, 2012, 07:06:58 PM »

If it is top 32 after 6 rounds, then that makes it an 11 round tournament.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #64 on:** September 03, 2012, 07:14:50 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on September 03, 2012, 07:06:58 PM

If it is top 32 after 6 rounds, then that makes it an 11 round tournament.

Only for the top 8(?) players (assuming double elimination). That's:
A. A price I'm glad to pay.
B. Not going to be an issue with time, since the last 5 rounds will probably go quickly.

Master KChief · « **Reply #65 on:** September 03, 2012, 07:34:51 PM »

I was not going by double elim. I was going by the standardized top cut with single elim, with regular swiss rounds still going on for everybody under top cut.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #66 on:** September 03, 2012, 08:19:20 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on September 03, 2012, 07:34:51 PM

I was not going by double elim. I was going by the standardized top cut with single elim, with regular swiss rounds still going on for everybody under top cut.

I like the idea of double elim to the point of one undefeated person due to needing to decide second and third place.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #67 on:** September 03, 2012, 08:20:55 PM »

Quote from: Chris on September 03, 2012, 05:59:07 PM

I don't see much good coming out of getting into an argument over which idea is more elitist.

But it is the very idea that top-cut comes across as elitist that turns me (and YMT, and perhaps others) off to it. If you want to convince people that this is the way to go, then it is worthwhile to have the discussion of whether it is or not, and whether there is a less elitist way to accomplish the same goal.

Quote from: Chris on September 03, 2012, 05:59:07 PM

if a person did not make it into the top 32 by six rounds, they had zero chance of placing anyway

Again, it's NOT all about placing. Some people (like me) play for the top 10. Some people play for the top 20. If you do a top-cut, then no one even has a chance to make it into that top number because they aren't there at a certain earlier point in the tournament. Without a top-cut they still have a chance to achieve their personal goal. With a top-cut it is no longer possible. To me, that is a detriment of the top-cut system.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #68 on:** September 03, 2012, 08:26:16 PM »

So play for making the top cut. It just changes your objective.

Chris · « **Reply #69 on:** September 03, 2012, 08:36:20 PM »

Quote

But it is the very idea that top-cut comes across as elitist that turns me (and YMT, and perhaps others) off to it. If you want to convince people that this is the way to go, then it is worthwhile to have the discussion of whether it is or not, and whether there is a less elitist way to accomplish the same goal.

Competition is, inherently, elitist. Remember that it's the national tournament, not the national gathering. Any proposal to make the tournament system more fair at the top tables can be accused of being elitist. I'd simply like to skip a bunch of the playtest steps by using a format that's been used successfully by other CCGs for years now.

Quote

Again, it's NOT all about placing. Some people (like me) play for the top 10. Some people play for the top 20. If you do a top-cut, then no one even has a chance to make it into that top number because they aren't there at a certain earlier point in the tournament. Without a top-cut they still have a chance to achieve their personal goal. With a top-cut it is no longer possible. To me, that is a detriment of the top-cut system.

As I said earlier, I do not believe that the mini-goals people set for themselves should take precedent over legitimate fairness. My goal for my first two nats was to make it in the top half of the competition, my goal for TN was to make top 10. Newer players can simply try to make top cut, especially if it's at 32 (and thus, much more attainable), and more experienced players can simply hope to make the top 16, 8, etc.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #70 on:** September 03, 2012, 08:40:51 PM »

Prof, you've always said strength of schedule should be taken into account when considering final rankings. This is a way to do that without complication. Everybody has to play at least 5 good people.

Master KChief · « **Reply #71 on:** September 03, 2012, 08:53:40 PM »

Quote from: Westy on September 03, 2012, 08:19:20 PM

Quote from: Master KChief on September 03, 2012, 07:34:51 PM
I was not going by double elim. I was going by the standardized top cut with single elim, with regular swiss rounds still going on for everybody under top cut.
I like the idea of double elim to the point of one undefeated person due to needing to decide second and third place.

Winners of top 4 proceed to finals, losers of top 4 play each other to determine 3rd and 4th.

Chris · « **Reply #72 on:** September 03, 2012, 08:55:53 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on September 03, 2012, 08:53:40 PM

Quote from: Westy on September 03, 2012, 08:19:20 PM
Quote from: Master KChief on September 03, 2012, 07:34:51 PM
I was not going by double elim. I was going by the standardized top cut with single elim, with regular swiss rounds still going on for everybody under top cut.
I like the idea of double elim to the point of one undefeated person due to needing to decide second and third place.

Winners of top 4 proceed to finals, losers of top 4 play each other to determine 3rd and 4th.

I've always liked single elimination with this.

Master KChief · « **Reply #73 on:** September 03, 2012, 09:10:14 PM »

Quote from: Chris on September 03, 2012, 08:55:53 PM

Quote from: Master KChief on September 03, 2012, 08:53:40 PM
Quote from: Westy on September 03, 2012, 08:19:20 PM
Quote from: Master KChief on September 03, 2012, 07:34:51 PM
I was not going by double elim. I was going by the standardized top cut with single elim, with regular swiss rounds still going on for everybody under top cut.
I like the idea of double elim to the point of one undefeated person due to needing to decide second and third place.

Winners of top 4 proceed to finals, losers of top 4 play each other to determine 3rd and 4th.

I've always liked single elimination with this.

Yes, I mean, wouldn't double elim take forever, even for top cut? Especially if a top 32 was instituted?

Quote from: Prof Underwood on September 03, 2012, 08:20:55 PM

Again, it's NOT all about placing. Some people (like me) play for the top 10. Some people play for the top 20. If you do a top-cut, then no one even has a chance to make it into that top number because they aren't there at a certain earlier point in the tournament. Without a top-cut they still have a chance to achieve their personal goal. With a top-cut it is no longer possible. To me, that is a detriment of the top-cut system.

This is all pretty much semantics. What about the person that does not place top 10/20 in an all-Swiss tournament within 10 rounds? Do they now complain that 'they weren't there' after 10 rounds, and thus need more rounds to place? C'mon now. After a certain number of rounds, it comes to a point where most if not all of the players that performed the best are seeded to the top. Top cut takes over from there to ensure the best will always play the best.

And lets be realistic. If a person hasn't made top 32 at Nationals, a number picking up nearly 40% of the entire field of the Nationals average, then more chances than not they a) aren't terribly competitive or b) simply don't care and just wants to play for fun. Lets not ruin it for the people that do care by continuing to play on a flawed system.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #74 on:** September 03, 2012, 09:13:21 PM »

I don't get why double elimination would make it so much longer if you play the same number of rounds, which is what I've been saying. Once there is only one undefeated person, tournament is over.

News:

Author Topic: Top Cut (Read 38691 times)

Chris

Warrior_Monk

Chris

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

Chris

Warrior_Monk

Chris

Warrior_Monk