Check out our Event Calendar! View birthdays, holidays and upcoming tournaments!
Quote from: Alex_Olijar on September 03, 2012, 05:09:35 PMSo 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.
So top cut is elitist but ranking players and establishing pools of players based on ranking is not elitist?
Can you clarify your position, perhaps with an example (top 16 for instance). I'm under the impression that a player keeps playing until they suffer 2 losses.
If my math is right.
Quote from: Alex_Olijar on September 03, 2012, 05:09:35 PMSo 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.
The problem I see is the 4 4-1's at the end. How do you possibly resolve those without adding at least 3 more rounds?
Quote from: Master KChief on September 03, 2012, 10:39:00 PMThe problem I see is the 4 4-1's at the end. How do you possibly resolve those without adding at least 3 more rounds?There are several options.First, take into account the swiss rounds. Second, head-to-head. Lost Soul Diff, etc.
Also, Westy, I don't think anyone was talking about double elimination were they? I thought they were talking about best-two-out-of-three single elimination.
So what if a good player loses to a good player during the swiss portion and doesn't qualify for the top cut?
By top cutting, we would have avoided some of the strange results you see above (for example, John Earley would have been in serious issue of being cut if he didn't perform after going 3-2 his first five rounds).
The reality of the situation is that if you were to top cut ...the winner will ...have defeated at least 4 players of high standing
Also, as a side note, if we had top cut at 16 following Greeson's status as lone undefeated after Round 6, six new players would have made the top cut in comparison to the actual top 16 players following round 10.
Does anyone really think that John Earley is NOT one of the top 16 players at Nats this past summer in T1-2p?
The problem there is that this defeats the whole purpose of top-cut. If the goal is to make the best players play each other the most games to get a clear winner, then having a top-cut ends up messing that up when some of the players in top-cut get there due to an easy early schedule.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Does anyone really think that John Earley is NOT one of the top 16 players at Nats this past summer in T1-2p? So if he doesn't even make the top-cut due to a really tough early schedule, then that shortchanges both him and the top-cut system as a whole.
Not if a large number of the players in the top cut got their from an easy early schedule. This would still create unfair games within the top-cut itself as some players get much easier opponents than others.
Quote from: Alex_Olijar on September 03, 2012, 09:23:54 PMSo what if a good player loses to a good player during the swiss portion and doesn't qualify for the top cut?The problem there is that this defeats the whole purpose of top-cut. If the goal is to make the best players play each other the most games to get a clear winner, then having a top-cut ends up messing that up when some of the players in top-cut get there due to an easy early schedule.
Quote from: Alex_Olijar on September 03, 2012, 09:23:54 PMBy top cutting, we would have avoided some of the strange results you see above (for example, John Earley would have been in serious issue of being cut if he didn't perform after going 3-2 his first five rounds).This is exactly what I'm talking about. Does anyone really think that John Earley is NOT one of the top 16 players at Nats this past summer in T1-2p? So if he doesn't even make the top-cut due to a really tough early schedule, then that shortchanges both him and the top-cut system as a whole.
Quote from: Alex_Olijar on September 03, 2012, 09:23:54 PMThe reality of the situation is that if you were to top cut ...the winner will ...have defeated at least 4 players of high standingNot if a large number of the players in the top cut got their from an easy early schedule. This would still create unfair games within the top-cut itself as some players get much easier opponents than others.
Quote from: Alex_Olijar on September 03, 2012, 09:23:54 PMAlso, as a side note, if we had top cut at 16 following Greeson's status as lone undefeated after Round 6, six new players would have made the top cut in comparison to the actual top 16 players following round 10.This is another reason why top-cut doesn't work. Based on a free swiss system, it became evident after enough rounds that those 6 players really didn't belong in the top 16. Yet if a hard top-cut had been used, then the 6 players who earned their way into the top 16 would've been locked out of those positions.
The problem with this argument is that given an infinite number of rounds, virtually every player and deck will regress to the mean of approximately 80% of the available points.
Given an infinite number of rounds, every player and deck will regress to exactly an indeterminate percentage of the available points. I think. YMT, I need your help. Or Jordan. Or Ken is a math teacher too, right?
No - I was pointing out that if you played an infinite number of rounds you can't calculate your winrate because you can't just go and divide by infinity.
Given enough rounds, every deck will theoretically regress to its actual ability, the best of which is typically around an 80% win rate.
Quote from: Alex_Olijar on September 04, 2012, 05:48:44 PMGiven enough rounds, every deck will theoretically regress to its actual ability, the best of which is typically around an 80% win rate.By "deck" I assume you mean "deck + player." Trust me, I have proven time and again that I am fully capable of having my tournament performance come nowhere near the rate you would expect from the deck alone.
"top cut" ...guarantees two things: One, the winner had to win 3/4/5 straight games against his/her best competitors, and two, there will be no heartbreak or complaining over convoluted tie-breakers.