yoyofsho16
New Member
Huh. Crazy stuff this year. Did anybody record how far Noah's game went over time? I was astounded, it felt like an hour.
18-0 at Nationals has a gripe.
- Thread starter Martin
- Start date
- Status
Huh. Crazy stuff this year. Did anybody record how far Noah's game went over time? I was astounded, it felt like an hour.
MrMeches
New Member
Correct old man.. it was Swiss -1 to provide the top 64 in each flight instead of only the top 32 in each flight. Are we going to get sour Grapes over that now too??
"If we would've went 9 rounds like we were supposed too, I could have made T32 in my flight and then I coulda been the Champ..."
"If we would've went 9 rounds like we were supposed too, I could have made T32 in my flight and then I coulda been the Champ..."
But Fish.....they got a 9th rd, errrrr, top 64 in each age group w/o donking! Bo3 45 mins in that rd. WoW....where will the grapes come from now? LOL
Keith
Martin, I completely understand your gripes. It's more than fair to express concern. Why should a tournament have to change before the cut as to how they will conduct the elimination rounds? It's not a matter whether one format is better than the other, but why make the change DURING the tournament? THat really does look bad on tournament officials becasue even though it is the right call, it was an inappropriate time to do so.
Though I have to ask you martin, you're riding a 4-0 deck and all of a sudden you lose confidence becuase of single elimination and the chaces of you getting knocked out in a turn? Yes, you wanted to protect your rating, but I don't think dropping out to protect your rating supposedly is the right move. Understandable indeed, but all worried over losing one game? THen why even play in the event if you're that worried abotu losing a game? I'm not quite sure what the process is for ratings, this is something I need more clarification on.
I just don't see why you decided to go for it all in a tournament, which should be the character of a pokemon player, rather than playing what seems to be a selective strategy of riding a winning streak by manipulating where and how long you'll play. I need to understand why it seems to be so important to drop a tournament like that. I remember you were not so afraid of getting ko'ed in hte first turn in the past.
Though I have to ask you martin, you're riding a 4-0 deck and all of a sudden you lose confidence becuase of single elimination and the chaces of you getting knocked out in a turn? Yes, you wanted to protect your rating, but I don't think dropping out to protect your rating supposedly is the right move. Understandable indeed, but all worried over losing one game? THen why even play in the event if you're that worried abotu losing a game? I'm not quite sure what the process is for ratings, this is something I need more clarification on.
I just don't see why you decided to go for it all in a tournament, which should be the character of a pokemon player, rather than playing what seems to be a selective strategy of riding a winning streak by manipulating where and how long you'll play. I need to understand why it seems to be so important to drop a tournament like that. I remember you were not so afraid of getting ko'ed in hte first turn in the past.
Look, I don't know who you are, but let me tell you, your whole response is a bit weak. Let me explain, since you don't even play the card game and have been "happily retired" for four years I am simply puzzled by how you can drop in an accuse me of any sort of lack of confidence in my ability to play the card game. Besides, I have made well over $10,000 playing it. The reason I was at the National championship was because I won a trip through regionals, the same regional tournament which locked me into the championship rating wise through preformance. The structure announced was DOUBLE single elimination, not single elimination. When the top 128 was announced you would play a single elim game, then another to widdle down to 32 players. That means one loss in swiss, and one loss in either of those single elim rounds, and my invite to the championship was possibly in jeopardy. The decision had nothing to do with my "confidence" more so than applying risk/reward ratio. Besides, I'm not the only person to sit out/drop due to rating and the other people who did are at/above my skill level, so I don't understand where you are getting at one bit besides making an attempt to take a shot at my abilities. Trolling much?
Strike: The reason he played in the tournament at all is because he was sitting at an 1850 rating. It was estimated ( incorrectly, 1850 was quite safe ) that 1850 would roughly be the cut off point. We suspected 1865-1870 would be the "safe zone" so he played in order to boost his rating to the point where he would get the invite, opposed to MAYBE get the invite. So " Why would you even enter if you planned to drop" is a pretty uninformed statement to make. With the rating invite system in place now, it is very beneficial to manage your rating to the best of your ability.
Have you never gone into a tournament and realized " this deck isn't a good choice for the day "? Martin and I were testing the days before Nationals, and Martin wasn't quite comfortable with any of his choices. He ended up going with Flygon, and by round 2 realized the deck wasn't a great choice for the day, but he needed the invite. We had discussed his goal should be 3-0 drop. Against better judgment, he played round 4 anyways. It worked out, as he won, but it was a nailbitter, and had he lost, a 3-1 record would require him to continue to play at least another round. A 3-2 record would effectively end his Worlds chances unless he managed to make it into top 64. I know at Worlds last year, I ran Empoleon. I started off 4-0, but I KNEW my choice was flawed, and that each game was a struggle. There are a LOT of TERRIBLE players at Nationals. Starting off 3-0, or even 4-0 doesn't mean much if your opposition was subpar.
I personally feel that the change mid-tournament IS rather shady. Now, I do feel it was a change for the better, but after 4 rounds of play? Ever since the rating system was implemented, there have been players very mindful of their rating going into Nationals. I played John Kettler in 07 round 1, and he dropped after his first loss to conserve rating and secure his trip to Hawaii. PUI should realize that a change like this DOES effect those players who aim to use Nationals to pad their rating. I'll put it this way. If I had to win 2 MATCHES in a row opposed to 2 GAMES, my decision as to whether to drop or not is VERY different. This format has a LOT of start based luck. Between FTKs and value of getting the first supporter use, or even just dead draws ( we STILL desperately need an optional mulligan system, fyi )
You have to look at it from Martin's perspective. Unless he X-1s or X-0s swiss, he ends up with a 6-2 record. If he loses either top 128 or top 64, his chance of making Worlds ( based on the estimated 1850ish cutoff, which was generally accepted as a good speculation by those who analyzed the new K values and past results and adjusted for attendance speculation ) were low. I'll put it this way. The odds of 2-0ing back to back games against 2 of the top 128 players in all of Nationals after swiss at BEST is 70-30 regardless of skill. SO assuming he gets a standard 6-2 record, by continuing he has a 30% chance of throwing away Worlds. Now look at the odds of him BENEFITTING. He has to win both games, plus his top 32 game to make top 16 and money. He has top top 4 to make SIGNIFICANT value out of his decision. The odds of any player making top 4 is UNBELIEVABLY less than 30%. The risk vs reward of him continuing the event simply wasn't there. Now, if you switch those t128 and t64 games to MATCHPLAY, the statistics change DRASTICALLY. When your logically making tough decisions when there is a lot on the line, so called "irrelevant" changes are VERY relevant.
See, I'm learning all sorts of new things lately. Like, for instance, I'm learning a lot about other languages. I never knew "cowardly" was idiot for "smart". Hey, at least I'm apparently being enlightened. It is very easy to judge what Martin did when your not in his position. When you truly grasp the odds and have experienced the truly competitive side of the game, you do get a different understanding of it.
As for Banette EX: I dunno what constitutes a bigger cry baby, someone who potentially loses scholarship money and a free trip to Worlds over a legitimate gripe, or someone who whines on a message board about something that isn't any of their business.
I'll summarize with this. I don't blame PUI. I in fact applaud the fact that they took the initiative to IMPROVE their tournament structure when it is simple enough to do so. They made the right decision. They should have made it earlier, but late is better than never. At the same time, Martin is COMPLETELY justified in his complaint at the same time. The problem is, significantly more people would have legitimate complaints had they KEPT it single elim and lost in those rounds than Martin and the very few others ( if any ) whose decisions were legitimately affected by this change. So yes, Martin took a bad beat here, but it was still the right decision. Why people have to look at any given situation and assume black and whites is beyond me. One side isn't going to be right and one wrong. If PUI was right, it doesn't mean Martin was wrong and vice versa. Once the initial poor decision to do single elim game top 132 and 64 rounds was announced, people were going to be victims. I feel bad for those who were hindered by the change, but it was still the right change. Its a shame it came so late in the tournament, but like I said, better late than never. Still, a huge number of people on this board really need to grow up. Or at least improve their ability to think logically, or at least to escape their egocentric mindset. Simply because you wouldn't act or think a certain way doesn't mean its wrong for others to.
It is perfectly fun to play this game mainly for fun, and it is perfectly fun to play this game because you enjoy the competitive side of it. Yet I don't ever see competitive players belittling or attacking players for being casual, yet I see quite a lot of the opposite. I'm not sure if your aware of it, but it looks rather childish of you, and downright silly. So stop. Please? Thanks.
Have you never gone into a tournament and realized " this deck isn't a good choice for the day "? Martin and I were testing the days before Nationals, and Martin wasn't quite comfortable with any of his choices. He ended up going with Flygon, and by round 2 realized the deck wasn't a great choice for the day, but he needed the invite. We had discussed his goal should be 3-0 drop. Against better judgment, he played round 4 anyways. It worked out, as he won, but it was a nailbitter, and had he lost, a 3-1 record would require him to continue to play at least another round. A 3-2 record would effectively end his Worlds chances unless he managed to make it into top 64. I know at Worlds last year, I ran Empoleon. I started off 4-0, but I KNEW my choice was flawed, and that each game was a struggle. There are a LOT of TERRIBLE players at Nationals. Starting off 3-0, or even 4-0 doesn't mean much if your opposition was subpar.
I personally feel that the change mid-tournament IS rather shady. Now, I do feel it was a change for the better, but after 4 rounds of play? Ever since the rating system was implemented, there have been players very mindful of their rating going into Nationals. I played John Kettler in 07 round 1, and he dropped after his first loss to conserve rating and secure his trip to Hawaii. PUI should realize that a change like this DOES effect those players who aim to use Nationals to pad their rating. I'll put it this way. If I had to win 2 MATCHES in a row opposed to 2 GAMES, my decision as to whether to drop or not is VERY different. This format has a LOT of start based luck. Between FTKs and value of getting the first supporter use, or even just dead draws ( we STILL desperately need an optional mulligan system, fyi )
You have to look at it from Martin's perspective. Unless he X-1s or X-0s swiss, he ends up with a 6-2 record. If he loses either top 128 or top 64, his chance of making Worlds ( based on the estimated 1850ish cutoff, which was generally accepted as a good speculation by those who analyzed the new K values and past results and adjusted for attendance speculation ) were low. I'll put it this way. The odds of 2-0ing back to back games against 2 of the top 128 players in all of Nationals after swiss at BEST is 70-30 regardless of skill. SO assuming he gets a standard 6-2 record, by continuing he has a 30% chance of throwing away Worlds. Now look at the odds of him BENEFITTING. He has to win both games, plus his top 32 game to make top 16 and money. He has top top 4 to make SIGNIFICANT value out of his decision. The odds of any player making top 4 is UNBELIEVABLY less than 30%. The risk vs reward of him continuing the event simply wasn't there. Now, if you switch those t128 and t64 games to MATCHPLAY, the statistics change DRASTICALLY. When your logically making tough decisions when there is a lot on the line, so called "irrelevant" changes are VERY relevant.
See, I'm learning all sorts of new things lately. Like, for instance, I'm learning a lot about other languages. I never knew "cowardly" was idiot for "smart". Hey, at least I'm apparently being enlightened. It is very easy to judge what Martin did when your not in his position. When you truly grasp the odds and have experienced the truly competitive side of the game, you do get a different understanding of it.
As for Banette EX: I dunno what constitutes a bigger cry baby, someone who potentially loses scholarship money and a free trip to Worlds over a legitimate gripe, or someone who whines on a message board about something that isn't any of their business.
I'll summarize with this. I don't blame PUI. I in fact applaud the fact that they took the initiative to IMPROVE their tournament structure when it is simple enough to do so. They made the right decision. They should have made it earlier, but late is better than never. At the same time, Martin is COMPLETELY justified in his complaint at the same time. The problem is, significantly more people would have legitimate complaints had they KEPT it single elim and lost in those rounds than Martin and the very few others ( if any ) whose decisions were legitimately affected by this change. So yes, Martin took a bad beat here, but it was still the right decision. Why people have to look at any given situation and assume black and whites is beyond me. One side isn't going to be right and one wrong. If PUI was right, it doesn't mean Martin was wrong and vice versa. Once the initial poor decision to do single elim game top 132 and 64 rounds was announced, people were going to be victims. I feel bad for those who were hindered by the change, but it was still the right change. Its a shame it came so late in the tournament, but like I said, better late than never. Still, a huge number of people on this board really need to grow up. Or at least improve their ability to think logically, or at least to escape their egocentric mindset. Simply because you wouldn't act or think a certain way doesn't mean its wrong for others to.
It is perfectly fun to play this game mainly for fun, and it is perfectly fun to play this game because you enjoy the competitive side of it. Yet I don't ever see competitive players belittling or attacking players for being casual, yet I see quite a lot of the opposite. I'm not sure if your aware of it, but it looks rather childish of you, and downright silly. So stop. Please? Thanks.
I really hope you are being sarcastic. This is one of the sillist things I have ever read.
you guys really don't remember the winner of the first WotC professor event in SD?
'mom
'mom
i'm shocked too, I hope this is all one big joke because this is downright creepy. I played with these people...
yoyofsho16
New Member
Wow, your rights are so much more important than everyone else who was at that tournament.
Alazor
Active Member
I like you already. National Champion or not, this reminds me of a certain Toy Story scene.
Whether this had an effect on the event, it may have. Is it important enough to affect other events in the future?
Maybe.
i'm gonna bow out of this one because I see a very bad road this could lead down, but my main point here is to think about the mentality of palyers, when they are so concerned about taking one loss to the point that they will quit midway of a successful tournament in order to protect a rating...I'm just not sure what it means to be competitive at that point and where it's headed.
Like I said, I'm bowing out.
-Dallas "troll" Dalton
Clearly you did not read my fellow National Champion (2007) Chris Fulop's post under the handle Ruiner. That pretty much sums up everything and explains it. Look, Strife, my main beef here is that you don't even play the game and want to critique a strategy made by 2 of the games champions. Seems BONKERS to me!
Controversial
New Member
GinoLombardi21
New Member
I wish pokemon would abide to what they say they're going to do on the rules on the go-pokemon website. I understand the reason for breaking the 524 players Masters Division cap because the United States Nationals is an open event and they feel no one should be excluded so they decided to break the cap and let more players in. I disagree with their TOP 128 & TOP 64 cut to be played the same day as day 1. Top cut should be day two always. It was almost 10 @ night and so many people were making mistakes because they were tired.
Another thing I disagreed with was the best of 3 with 45 minutes in TOP 128/TOP 64. I feel that rule affected my deck choice if they would have announced that before the tournament. I played Flygon for US nationals. Flygon is a comeback deck, it takes time to outplay your opponent. When I heard about 45 minutes top cut with best of three I felt that if I would have knew about this rule I would have played a faster deck such as gengar, machamp, kingdra, beedrill, or an SP varient. This way if you lose game one you have a chance to win game 2 fast and probably win game 3.
Im a little upset of how pokemon always does things like this but im used to it. I can't really complain about US nationals because I had a good time and I only got one warning THE WHOLE EVENT!
Another thing I disagreed with was the best of 3 with 45 minutes in TOP 128/TOP 64. I feel that rule affected my deck choice if they would have announced that before the tournament. I played Flygon for US nationals. Flygon is a comeback deck, it takes time to outplay your opponent. When I heard about 45 minutes top cut with best of three I felt that if I would have knew about this rule I would have played a faster deck such as gengar, machamp, kingdra, beedrill, or an SP varient. This way if you lose game one you have a chance to win game 2 fast and probably win game 3.
Im a little upset of how pokemon always does things like this but im used to it. I can't really complain about US nationals because I had a good time and I only got one warning THE WHOLE EVENT!
That brings up an interesting point. Does endurance need to be a factor less important in a Pokemon tournament? Logically, this would be the only event of the year where it might be the most important key due to the annual record breaking attendance.
Last edited:
- Status