baby mario
Front Page Article Editor<br><a href="http://pokeg
What percentage is 16 out of 134?
16 / 134 x 100 = 11.94%
16 / 134 x 100 = 11.94%
Does States need a bigger cap when it comes to Top Cut?
- Thread starter TheDarkTwins
- Start date
- Status
psychup2034
New Member
ShuckleLVX
Active Member
727 came from the correct math.
Here's a quick and easy way to convert a % into the original figure, assuming you have enough information.
16 / X(This represents Top 16 out of the original number, which is our mystery figure, known as a 'variable')
2.2 / 100 (This represents the 2.2% in your claim)
Since 2.2% is supposed to be the Top 16, we can set those two figures equal to each other, like so:
2.2/100=16/X
Now, we cross multiply to be rid of those pesky fractions. To do that, Multiply 2.2 by X, and 16 by 100, leaving us with the following:
2.2x=1600
Now, we use the order of operations to isolate our variable (the Mystery Figure in the equation - the total number of masters in your claim). That is done by dividing 2.2X AND 1600 by 2.2, in order to leave X all on it's own on one side of the equals sign. That leaves us with....
X=727.27272727 (repeating, of course)
Now, we can verify that that number is correct for your claim by multiplying it by the decimal equivalent of your percentage (2.2), which would be .022.
727.272727 * .022 = 16!
Which means, in order for top 16 to consist of 2.2% of the total number of masters players, there must have been 727.272727 Masters!
Last edited:
King Piplup
Active Member
Correct Math=
16/134*100...
11.9%...
16/134*100...
11.9%...
ShuckleLVX
Active Member
I had more fun typing out the longer way >.>
If everyone can play nice, here's the spreadsheet I use to figure out placements needed and such.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApTl61fIWzKqdFUxeHRMaTR2OVJrSmNlc0RuWF9nbmc
This is public, and shared by everyone that's looking at it, so any changes will show on everyone's screen. Personally, probably best to copy it to your own google docs account if you have one. Otherwise, try and just edit the number of players and what number the cap is (if any) so that none of the other forumlas get messed up for people.
Pretty interesting to see the results.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApTl61fIWzKqdFUxeHRMaTR2OVJrSmNlc0RuWF9nbmc
This is public, and shared by everyone that's looking at it, so any changes will show on everyone's screen. Personally, probably best to copy it to your own google docs account if you have one. Otherwise, try and just edit the number of players and what number the cap is (if any) so that none of the other forumlas get messed up for people.
Pretty interesting to see the results.
Ness
Member
This solution still rewards skill, but takes less time than expanding the Top Cut. Ta-da!
ShuckleLVX
Active Member
The difference between an extra round of Swiss, and an extra TC round, is realistically about 15 minutes. As a Judge, I would honestly prefer an extra TC round if we were to add anything. During TC, we have less wandering to do, and can have better focus. It also lets most of the players leave, which puts less stress on the event staff in general.
Miamisportsfan45
Active Member
As I've said in posts above, I reflected and gave my input on the case being this. But again, missing top cut by decimals is just ridiculous when it's in larger amounts. When it's a single person, it's different because it reflects on that throughout the day. However, again you can't control who you're paired with so it's not always the case.
Point is, when you miss top cut because an opponent dropped early in the day or lost a single game, it shouldn't have affected whether you make top cut or not. It was out of your control.
TheDarkTwins
Active Member
Clearly Drew, and a few others, just missed out on Top Cut. So, here we are. If players know how many wins they need to get in to Top Cut there would be a lot of negotiating, followed by concessions. Nobody should feel entitled to anything. Show up, play the game, have some fun and be thankful.
Okay, I'll give you that I was massively disappointed to miss cut once against going 5-2 on resistance. I've had it happen every time I've gone that in the Prof. Cup, a CC this year, and States. I just think that if you are going to give CP points to players, it shouldn't be based on how my opponents did. I think that having a system where all 5-2's make it is the better choice. It's not fun when you do well enough to ensure yourself to make cut, only be told because of percentage points you can't get a fair shot to win, even though you deserved it.
It's not fair for half of the 5-2's to make it, and others to miss, just because a States has more players. I mean giving me 2 CP for finishing 19th where T16 gets at least 3 is another slap in the face. I now lose a better chance to earn a Worlds invite based on percentage points? How is that fair at all? I know life's not fair, but there are way to make it easier to accomplish. I mean there should be a sliding scale record wise of what makes cut. MTG has it right, they give all players that are X-2 a chance. I obviously can understand it depends on the event and everything, but if a CC has 14 players that are 5-2 or better, shouldn't they all get an equal shot to win in top cut?
On another point, the ONLY excuse I've heard is lack of time to ensure that all 5-2's make it in. That's a poor excuse. You can start the event earlier. You can give yourself an extra few hours to make this happen. It's not asking too much as many people think it might be. I understand where those are saying are coming from, but I just don't agree with it.
I think the new system has only a little bit to do with it. I think it's more of that if you go 5-2, you should make cut at States. You shouldn't be missing with that type of record. I'm more understanding at a CC (still not happy about it), but when the stakes are bigger, it matters more.
I agree. It's not my fault if I get paired up against someone who is playing a theme deck compared to someone who consistently makes top cut in tournaments. I mean if I got paired up against Jimmy O. in R1, win or lose, I've got a better chance resistance wise than if I play someone who is playing a theme deck. It's not my fault, and I shouldn't be punished because of it.
As far as the AZ, that's totally off topic, can we please not worry about the typo or error that Vaporeon made? It's not the point of this discussion in any sense.
Drew
NoPoke
Active Member
Increasing the number of swiss rounds has many benefits.
and a few negatives
[you can argue that some of the above are corollaries rather than independent pluses/minuses ]
- It is more efficient on time than increasing the top cut.
- It makes resistance less important( but it is still an unavoidable factor with power of two top cuts)
- It makes the swiss results a better fit to the top cut.
- With more swiss rounds the early round random pairing becomes less important.
- There is more play between the top players on the day so the seeding into the cut should be better.
- You get a chance to play your way into the top cut as against relying upon other players helping with resistance.
- it fixes some currently ugly misfits between cut and rounds that we have right now eg 63 players T8.
and a few negatives
- It does take longer than doing nothing.
- Top 2 minimum becomes needed for almost every tournament as there is less chance of a single undefeated at the end of swiss.
- the software would have to be updated
- you can't predict what unforseen side effects there might be as they are by definition unforseen!
[you can argue that some of the above are corollaries rather than independent pluses/minuses ]
ZombieFrankenstein
New Member
My head just exploded...
Miamisportsfan45
Active Member
Not sure if you remember me from years back, during the former EX format. I played in PA, but was a Senior at that time. Just wondering :lol:
But in any sense, I feel your frustration. This happened to me during Cities not too long ago. Missing top cut because of resistance when there were nearly 10 people with the same record as me. Completely frustrating as we'd driven an hour and a half out of the way to attend. My resistance was slaughtered by a loss to a player when I had all of my Eels prized in my deck in addition to a few other key Pokemon. Barely had a chance.
meganium45
Active Member
The key here is the kicker points that are awarded based on attendance.
17th Place through 32nd Place
2 Championship Points (if division attendance is 64 or greater)
33rd Place through 64th Place
1 Championship Point (if division attendance is 128 or greater)
This is the way it was announced, and seems pretty ideal.
I know you hate to compare to other games, but we just ran a 288 person YGO regional that only cut to a top 8. Their "equalizer" is that they give invites to Nats for the T32 for each Regional. No Yugioh Event should ever be held that is projected to last past 8 or 9 pm....how would that affect how we do Pokemon? There you go at 2.5% of the attendance.
At this point, unless the attendance is over 160 for a division, you get to 10%
From a player perspective, those that usually want the larger cut, are those that missed the cut...barely.
I am not an advocate of expanding the masters top cut just to do so. I can see the logic behind it, but am not necessarily a fan, and that is running events that are usually on time. T16 is fine for States in my opinion.
Vince
17th Place through 32nd Place
2 Championship Points (if division attendance is 64 or greater)
33rd Place through 64th Place
1 Championship Point (if division attendance is 128 or greater)
This is the way it was announced, and seems pretty ideal.
I know you hate to compare to other games, but we just ran a 288 person YGO regional that only cut to a top 8. Their "equalizer" is that they give invites to Nats for the T32 for each Regional. No Yugioh Event should ever be held that is projected to last past 8 or 9 pm....how would that affect how we do Pokemon? There you go at 2.5% of the attendance.
At this point, unless the attendance is over 160 for a division, you get to 10%
From a player perspective, those that usually want the larger cut, are those that missed the cut...barely.
I am not an advocate of expanding the masters top cut just to do so. I can see the logic behind it, but am not necessarily a fan, and that is running events that are usually on time. T16 is fine for States in my opinion.
Vince
Viva piñata
Active Member
So if there was top 32 in states us judges would have to be at the event at 6:30am to set up the rest of what has to be done on top of what they do before hand to set up then if the judge stays till the last second it might be as late as 2am thats at least 17 hours being there do you understand how tired we get after these events? we can deal with it but at some point enough is enough no one wants to stay till 1 am or later playing not even judges, top 16 is fine but all it comes down to is the people that place 17 through 32 complaining about missing cut...
16x0.134, speechless.
The natural progression for events is clearly going to be 2 day States, but it'd be good if P!P tried to anticipate the growth and allow a bigger cut or plan 2 day events ahead of time, rather than have disappointed players on the day of the event.
Honestly guys, this question really has nothing to do with judges or sour grapes from players 17 - 32 or time constraints. What everyone should be looking at is the math.
The tournament guidelines say that 128+ players in a division gets a top 32. This follows the math reasoning, 2^3 = top 2, 2^4 = top 4, 2^5 = top 8, 2^6 = top 16, and so 2^7 = 128 = top 32. This is what's mathematically needed to get approximately the top 25% of players into the top cut from swiss rounds. The math says that's what it should be, and TPCi says that's what it should be.
For whatever reason, TPCi has put an artificial limit on this to cap it at 16. So the answer to the original question, Does States need a bigger cap when it comes to Top Cut? Yes, it SHOULD have a bigger top cut cap IF places are getting more than 127 players in a division.
Now there are all sorts of other reasons for why TPCi has put a limit of 16 on the top cut, but the unbiased answer is yes.
Past that, you have to start looking at biased answers to the question. These can come from PTOs/Staff who have to run the event. These can come from players who have to attend the event. These can come from Venue Holders, who have to supply the event space, etc.
Personally, if TPCi wants to actually have this game around, then they should be the ones making sure that any extra accommodations to make "ideal" tournaments happen. Running tournaments that are not "ideal" or not otherwise incentivised, will lead to players eventually leaving the game in the long run.
From a players standpoint, the tournament better be "ideal" (read: mathematically sound, so in this case top 32), or the prizes for the tournament better reflect the "unfairness" of the tournament (if it's mathematically harder to win).
TPCi could make sure that tournaments are "ideal" by paying PTOs enough to cover a two day event, or by putting money toward the event space rather than the PTO doing it, or some other help that would let a States have a top 32 in a comfortable matter. Or they could leave a limit on it so that they don't have to spend more money to change the event, but they then have to make the prizes better, to compensate for the increased difficulty.
If they don't do one of the two above things then players will leave this game.
It's harder to do the second option at this point, because not every States is bumping up against this top cut cap. So if they up the prizes for a tournament that isn't needing a higher cap, then they have made that tournament more valuable to attend. It's much more effective, when you have varying size tournaments that are supposed to be the same caliber to instead use the first option and only pay for extra days that are needed or however they'd want to accomodate.
There is a third option as well, and that's have caps on the number of players that can enter a tournament. If you're going to cap the top cut to 16 players, then cap the attendance to 127 per division. This option, however, is undesirable as it doesn't allow for the game to grow, since it is artificially being limited. In all of these discussions we have to assume that TPCi wants to grow the game, and thus expand their business, otherwise, they can do whatever the heck they want since they don't care about their business.
The tournament guidelines say that 128+ players in a division gets a top 32. This follows the math reasoning, 2^3 = top 2, 2^4 = top 4, 2^5 = top 8, 2^6 = top 16, and so 2^7 = 128 = top 32. This is what's mathematically needed to get approximately the top 25% of players into the top cut from swiss rounds. The math says that's what it should be, and TPCi says that's what it should be.
For whatever reason, TPCi has put an artificial limit on this to cap it at 16. So the answer to the original question, Does States need a bigger cap when it comes to Top Cut? Yes, it SHOULD have a bigger top cut cap IF places are getting more than 127 players in a division.
Now there are all sorts of other reasons for why TPCi has put a limit of 16 on the top cut, but the unbiased answer is yes.
Past that, you have to start looking at biased answers to the question. These can come from PTOs/Staff who have to run the event. These can come from players who have to attend the event. These can come from Venue Holders, who have to supply the event space, etc.
Personally, if TPCi wants to actually have this game around, then they should be the ones making sure that any extra accommodations to make "ideal" tournaments happen. Running tournaments that are not "ideal" or not otherwise incentivised, will lead to players eventually leaving the game in the long run.
From a players standpoint, the tournament better be "ideal" (read: mathematically sound, so in this case top 32), or the prizes for the tournament better reflect the "unfairness" of the tournament (if it's mathematically harder to win).
TPCi could make sure that tournaments are "ideal" by paying PTOs enough to cover a two day event, or by putting money toward the event space rather than the PTO doing it, or some other help that would let a States have a top 32 in a comfortable matter. Or they could leave a limit on it so that they don't have to spend more money to change the event, but they then have to make the prizes better, to compensate for the increased difficulty.
If they don't do one of the two above things then players will leave this game.
It's harder to do the second option at this point, because not every States is bumping up against this top cut cap. So if they up the prizes for a tournament that isn't needing a higher cap, then they have made that tournament more valuable to attend. It's much more effective, when you have varying size tournaments that are supposed to be the same caliber to instead use the first option and only pay for extra days that are needed or however they'd want to accomodate.
There is a third option as well, and that's have caps on the number of players that can enter a tournament. If you're going to cap the top cut to 16 players, then cap the attendance to 127 per division. This option, however, is undesirable as it doesn't allow for the game to grow, since it is artificially being limited. In all of these discussions we have to assume that TPCi wants to grow the game, and thus expand their business, otherwise, they can do whatever the heck they want since they don't care about their business.
TheDarkTwins
Active Member
Yes, we played once. You played Polistall, I played Lati@s, but that's kind of off point.
Vince, I'm sorry but that's not really the some thing. Yu-Gi-Oh has the worst top cut structure of any game.
The other thing is that why do I only get 2 points, when other 5-2's get a chance at 3 or more points? How is that fair? I think that not okay. It should have some type of equal opportunity for everyone, even if it is giving 3 points to all 5-2's. I just don't think that comparing it to Yu-Gi-Oh really gets the point across clearly.
Drew
NoPoke
Active Member
@Ditto : or they could impose a maximum attendance , Or change the tournament rules on top cuts (which has happened in the past)
I don't know any practical way to make a quart go into a pint pot. Even if that would be ideal from a storage point of view.
@Drew: IF the only issue here is the single Championship Point difference between a 5-2 who misses the cut and those who are knocked out first found of the cut then there is no "big problem" to fix. There is always going to be a bubble boy/girl.
I'm in favour of all X-2s making the cut at big events. I'm also in favour on non power of two cuts and eliminating resistance entirely. But I'm also in favour of completing events before midnight - that a 12 hour maximum day is an "ideal" too. That POPs budget has to be shared and not focused primarily upon those areas with high attendance. Trouble is I can't have all that so there has to be compromise and someone is going to be disappointed.
=========================
If you tell me that a tournament let the undefeated, all the X-1s, and many of the X-2s into a cut then right now with just a single CP difference between the many that made it and the some of near misses thenI'm not going to say that is a bad tournament. I'll go further and say that your efforts to secure change are likely to fail. There are much better targets such as 63 players with a T8 where two losses eliminates you.
I don't know any practical way to make a quart go into a pint pot. Even if that would be ideal from a storage point of view.
@Drew: IF the only issue here is the single Championship Point difference between a 5-2 who misses the cut and those who are knocked out first found of the cut then there is no "big problem" to fix. There is always going to be a bubble boy/girl.
I'm in favour of all X-2s making the cut at big events. I'm also in favour on non power of two cuts and eliminating resistance entirely. But I'm also in favour of completing events before midnight - that a 12 hour maximum day is an "ideal" too. That POPs budget has to be shared and not focused primarily upon those areas with high attendance. Trouble is I can't have all that so there has to be compromise and someone is going to be disappointed.
=========================
If you tell me that a tournament let the undefeated, all the X-1s, and many of the X-2s into a cut then right now with just a single CP difference between the many that made it and the some of near misses thenI'm not going to say that is a bad tournament. I'll go further and say that your efforts to secure change are likely to fail. There are much better targets such as 63 players with a T8 where two losses eliminates you.
- Status