Swiss format unfair? I hate it...

Discussion in 'Archive' started by Perfect0ne, Sep 14, 2003.

8 league13 468 60
  1. Perfect0ne

    Perfect0ne New Member

    The last 2 prereleases i went to, I went undefeated alonside this same other kid.
    We were both in 15+ and undefeated, yet I got 1st place both times. I would have gladly given him a tie-breaker in all honesty. They said that it was our win percentage... :confused: ... We Were Both Undefeated!!! Its not anyones fault who they play against! I just hate how you can be undefeated and lose! If you get the bye, its like: sorry, we just randomly chose you to lose, you cant get the box no matter what! And would that be their fault? Thats a messed up system!!! :mad:
  2. GymLeaderPhil

    GymLeaderPhil New Member

    First round byes SHOULD be awarded to the a member in the 10-Under age group in Age Modified Swiss. Most players in that age group will not have the experience nor the chance to reach the top eight or sixteen prizes if they are shared among age groups. Then it is determined by points.

    However if age groups are in seperate tournaments, like the Sandstorm Prerelease, first round byes are completely random. Second round byes are given to a random individual who lost the first round. Third round byes are given to a random individual who lost both two rounds. And so on...

    If an individual recieved a bye, they did not do any work to deserve the place if another person who has the same points did not recieve one. That's the logic in that. A persons win/loss percentage also is consider when breaking a tie in the top eight. If there are conflicting ties in the top eight, single elmimination should be used. Unfortunatly the R/S Challenge and Sandstorm Prerelease tournaments have not used top eight single elimination. If that was in effect, it would be a better idea of who was first and so on. Tiebreakers have NEVER been used in sanctioned tournaments. They are counterproductive.
  3. League Leader Terry

    League Leader Terry New Member

    I've had this problem with byes in L5R, the other game I TO for. However, the way I usually run tournaments, after the Swiss rounds, I have a cut to the top whatever and do Single Elim rounds with them so that there's a clear winner. For instance, if I had 16 people, I'd have 4 Swiss rounds and then cut to the top 4. With that, you're nearly guarenteed to have the two best players in the Finals.
  4. Pidgeotto Trainer

    Pidgeotto Trainer New Member

    Yeah the one thing I would've changed about the Sandstorm pre-release would be a top 8. Nintendo should have them in the serious constructed tournaments. Right? (Looks around for nods) :confused:
  5. ProfessorTorchic

    ProfessorTorchic New Member

    At the gym where I played, they played rounds until they had a definite winner.
    After 4 rounds the 10- under had only one kid with 12 points, so he won the trophy and the box.

    The other two age groups played an additional round that gave them a clear cut winner...
    There were ties for 4-5 and others, but they had playoffs between the tied players to determine a clear cut winner.
    Overall it was a pretty good time....
    The GBA side event was actually more fun and exciting that I thought it be.

    Pidgy, where did you play and how many where in your age group??
  6. Prof. Douglas Zuver

    Prof. Douglas Zuver New Member

    In reply to the Title of This Topic:
    "Swiss format unfair? I hate it..."

    Let us consider the alternative:

    Single Elimination Tournaments

    As you can see, we have just made half of our total players very unhappy...
    They drove two hours and got to play for maybe 30 minutes at a Premier Event.
    I cannot express how much I would dislike that situation.
    As a Judge and Tournament Organizer I am very concerned with
    how much people enjoy any events that I staff in.

    Keeping people playing is very important, it builds better players
    making the future more interesting and challenging by building up
    the amount and skill levels of people you play against.

    Consider carefully before using Single Elimination in any
    tournament especially in any type of limited event,
    Draft, Sealed, or Rochester Draft (the best of all).
    {The Sandstorm Prerelease was a Sealed Limited Event}

    Look what happens in a situation like this:
    People spend a lot of money to get into the event.
    They spend a lot of time and thought on this one special deck
    that they will never ever be able to build again ever,
    because Limited is restricted to whatever you get.
    They are excited about playing Pokemon in a new way.
    They have a good deck; they are a good player.
    They get a poor draw, lose a coin flip, and then have to
    sit on the sidelines before they even had a chance to use
    their deck and find out if their deck strategy was good or not.
    And it is only round One...
    It happens sooner or later to everyone!

    Is there a place for Single Elimination?

    The best example is last years Grinder at the World Championship.
    This was the final chance to get into the World Championship.
    There would be a very large indefinite number of people coming,
    it needed to be tough, quick, and move the unhappy hopefuls
    that would not be in next days World Championship out of the
    building in sections: 50% leave, 25% leave, 12% leave, 6% leave...
    The staff needed an easier day, because it was going to be a
    very long weekend.

    Premier Events often come with special instructions to follow.
    Sometimes it is general guidelines, sometimes they must done
    just so. Each event is different.

    When Tournament Organizers are running their own events,
    they have many options. Running Swiss Rounds without Finals
    using the Computer's Tiebreakers is a good way to let your
    players have tournament experience without using up to much

    Tournament Organizers can also let everyone play Swiss Rounds
    long enough to determine which people are definitely doing better.
    For 7 or less people that is about least three rounds.
    For 8 thru 15 that is about Four Rounds.
    For 16 thru 31 that is about Five Rounds.
    For 32 thru 63 that is about Six Rounds.
    For 64 thru 127 that is about Seven Rounds.

    Then the top Eight People could be chosen to
    play in a Single Elimination Final.
    (This is called cutting to top eight.)
    Player One Vs Player Eight
    Player Two Vs Player Seven
    Player Three Vs Player Six
    Player Four Vs Player Five

    If the tournament is small only the
    top Four Players would be in the Finals.
    Player One Vs Player Four
    Player Two Vs Player Three

    Bigger Tournaments can be divided into Age Groups.
    If that is not done, use Age Modified Swiss, which tells
    the computer to pair people by points first then by age.
    When a tournament starts, everybody has zero points,
    so all the younger kids play each other.

    I believe in the text of your post you stated you would have
    liked to play against the Second Place Person. A Single Elimination
    Final would have done that and more. It is very possible to be
    an undefeated player in a tournament, and lose the very First
    Round of the Single Elimination Finals. That is exactly what happened
    to my opponent at The Fan Appreciation Tournament. There were
    230 very, very good players there.

    If correctly done, Win percentages actually calculate how well
    your opponents played in the rest of the tournament. In a larger
    tournament it will definitely define how strong your opponents were.
    If you beat someone who did not lose to anyone else that should
    be a more important win than beating someone who lost to everyone
    else. It takes a computer to quickly calculate these things up.

    As far as Byes are concerned, I think Phil covered that very well already.
    When possible Byes should always be awarded to losers not winners.
    Also, when possible Byes should be awarded to the youngest players.
    Byes generally are not even noticed much at bigger events.
    And if there are an even number of players, Byes do not happen at all.
    If someone enters a tournament late, I don't give them a Bye, because
    that might encourage some people to show up late. I just enter them
    in the Second Round.
  7. NoPoke

    NoPoke New Member

    Actually the problem and its resolution are both simple.


    With 8 ( or fewer) players three rounds GUARANTEES A SINGLE WINNER

    With 16 or fewer you need 4 rounds.

    With 32 or fewer you need 5 rounds

    The Bye does not decide who wins if you are playing sufficient rounds! The two undefeated players must play each other in the final swiss round.

    Note that there are a variety of different ways of structuring tournaments. These depend upon the desired outcome. Single elimination allows players to go and do something else if an early loss is going to make it very hard to achieve a goal. Using a T8 cut means that players who are not in with a chance of a big prize don't have to stay for the whole tournament. Using a T8 also allows for the number of swiss rounds to be reduced. If there are no side events and you do not anticipate the need for many players to have to leave to catch trains planes etc, then stay with swiss the whole way through, and run more than the minimum number of swiss rounds to allow recovery from that one bad opening hand that every player gets.
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2003
  8. League Leader Terry

    League Leader Terry New Member

    Well, you do have a point. With Swiss, there's no way possible for there to be two underfeated people when it's all over. PerfectOne, how many people did you have and how many rounds did y'all play?

    The topic of just how many rounds are needed for Swiss has come up more than once on the TO list for L5R. Someone actually came up with a simple equation:

    log base 2(number of peeps)=number of rounds. With that, 8 people has 3 rounds, 16 4, 32 5, and so forth.
  9. Perfect0ne

    Perfect0ne New Member

    we had 35 people at Kings games and 4 rounds of 2 out of 3

    in the pokemon center we had over 50 kids and 4 rounds me and the same kid were undefeated twice
  10. League Leader Terry

    League Leader Terry New Member

    Four rounds?!?! You've got to be kidding! Between 32 and 64, the minimum number of Swiss rounds is 5! That explains it. You guys should have had one more round in which you would have played the other undefeated kid and had a clear and uncontested winner. Be sure to mention this to the TOs of those events the next time you see them.
  11. NoPoke

    NoPoke New Member

    35 players requires 6 rounds minimum to guarantee a single overall winner.

    50 Players also requires 6 rounds.

    you must round up the 'rounds = log (base2)[players]' formula.
  12. Perfect0ne

    Perfect0ne New Member

    well ill be sure to let them know next time. Thanx.

    BTW- dotn u think THE pokemon center should have had a better judge than that? He gave away 2 second prizes for 11-14 as well...after giving second to one kid, my friend and another kid were tied for 1st! He then says "......I may have just made a slight mistake"! lol. slight? and my friend was deprived half a box >_<
  13. ukpokemonpro

    ukpokemonpro New Member

    Ah prizes well the TO should lay them out as the players progress through the tourney and that way they can see what they are playing for.

    But it is hard, I am surprized at you playing Matchplay though? This requires a more time than standard swiss and may account for the reduced number of rounds.

    Matchplay will help Iron out the lumps and bumps too but in the end I plump for simple swiss and as many 30 min rounds as you can shake a stick at :)
  14. SomethingElse

    SomethingElse New Member

    also, if tieing or IDing will screw up round results, so easily 2 or 3 could stay undefeated....
  15. League Leader Terry

    League Leader Terry New Member

    From what I've seen, that's up to debate. Some people say round up, some say round down. I think with 35 people, rounding down would be good enough since it's only 3 over. Now, if it was around 60, I'd completely understand rounding up.
  16. NoPoke

    NoPoke New Member

    There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't.

    Trust me: to guarantee an individual winner you round up. Or better yet prove it to yourself.

    [Hint: The answer is exactly the same as the minimum number of bits required to encode a binary number.]
  17. NoPoke

    NoPoke New Member

    It tends not too. A draw or an ID only gets you 1 point as against the full three points for a win. Note that there is a subtle distinction between undefeated and winning. A three point win is the only true win. You have to defeat your opponent within the time allowed.

    [ I was in a tournament and won every game I played yet finished about one third of the way down. All my wins were two points and players with a single defeat finished higher than me. ]
  18. DARKGeNGaR094

    DARKGeNGaR094 New Member

    Even better solution: Start earlier (12.00) finish later (18.00). That way you can play 6 swiss matchplay rounds of 45 mins and have enough time inbetween for eating etc.
  19. Cyrus

    Cyrus Iron Chef - Master Emeritus

    I know how you feel. However, I think what Nintendo needs to do for ALL of its large-scale tournaments is to cut to Top 8. OP ratings should never be the way you lose half a box.

    Now, back at SBZ's and the Challenges, many people, myself included, have been cut off T8's due to OP ratings. There's room to get angry, but there's even more room if you never got a chance, just because of a little bad luck.

    perfect, I don't think swiss is bad. HOWEVER, there needs to be a better way to choose the winner, IMO.
  20. NoPoke

    NoPoke New Member

    DarkGengars suggestion is right.. I even reduce the round times to increase the number of rounds..

    You should all read some of the stuff that gets posted about the bad side of cutting to a T8 on the magic sites. Unless there is a pressing need to reduce the number of players in the main tournament then it is preferable to stay swiss the whole way through the tournament. Little explicit bribery takes place at magic tournaments but there is a lot of implicit bribery and 'custom' involved in the last round of swiss before a T8 cut. I've seen similar behaviour at pokemon tournaments too.

    The very last thing you want to introduce into a tournament is yet more luck.. a cut after the minimum number of swiss rounds does nothing to cancel out the random element in swiss from the initial round pairings. While introducing a whole heap more in the knockout nature of the final rounds.

    Swiss is the best way to run a tournament. But there is still the luck factor associated with the random inital parings in the first couple of rounds. This can be largely overcome by running more rounds than the minimum to establish a single winner.. This allows a player with a bad initial draw to recover in those additional rounds.

    Though I am a great fan of matchplay for pokemon rather than the single games we usually play I still prefer to increase the number of single game rounds in a pokemon tournament rather than switch to the minimum number of matchplay swiss rounds.

    Much of my desire for matchplay arrises from the very real chance of just getting a bad opening hand. Match play overcomes most of that risk. But matchplay with the minimum number of rounds still leaves a large lump of luck in determining the final outcome from the random initial pairings. Increasing the number of rounds and staying with single game rounds gives players a way of recovering from both bad initial pairing and also a bad opening hand.

    Just bolting on a T8 cut does nothing to reduce the inherent randomness in the initial swiss pairing and introduces another load of luck int he three rounds of single elimination. For me a t8 cut JUST DOESN"T CUT IT!
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2003

Share This Page