18-0 at Nationals has a gripe.

[PokePop]

It's pokegym, pots need to be stirred.

Myabe we should replace the Pokeball in the logo with a pot...

But I certainly have no issue with any issues being brought up and discussed publicly.
That's what we're here for.

 

[Prime]

I think this is a legit complaint. Although there is nothing TPCi can do, they should have not changed their minds half way through a tournament, listening to the players excuse or not.

How would you have liked it if you dropped after going 2-3, only for them to announce that they changed the top cut to top 256, and that all X-3s will make it in?

Very similar scenario.

 

[NoPoke]

FWIW and at the risk of kicking the wasp nest. The tournament was improved by the change but Martin suffered. Martin suffered a loss of opportunity rather than being actually worse off by the change.

Why was the way to execute the top cut not decided before going in?

That looks like a rhetorical question, one that suggests that this aspect was unplanned. I doubt that was the case.

Maybe I don't understand, but that does not look like a suitable question for a public forum. At least not one that you can expect POP to answer in a way that allows further discussion. It was discussion you wanted right and not just a rant. Not that I have a problem if it was to have a rant as I do understand the decision process you went through.

 

[MrMeches]

IMHO, he is lucky he made it to 4-0 after his remarks during round 3. Have sour grapes, but do it with respect to the situation. It sound to me that there was already a plan in place to protect his rating and get the invite through Rankings. 1 loss would not have obliterated his ranking going 4-1 as you would have to go back and "guess" who the opponent would be ot even begin deciding how many points would've been lost.

It is as the old saying goes... "Those that can, do. Those that can't, complain."

Fish

Stirring the pot is good, but have a legitimate gripe. Choosing to drop is an Individuals option. If you do so well in States and Regionals, why second guess at Nats?

 

[ryanvergel]

IMHO, he is lucky he made it to 4-0 after his remarks during round 3. Have sour grapes, but do it with respect to the situation. It sound to me that there was already a plan in place to protect his rating and get the invite through Rankings. 1 loss would not have obliterated his ranking going 4-1 as you would have to go back and "guess" who the opponent would be ot even begin deciding how many points would've been lost.

It is as the old saying goes... "Those that can, do. Those that can't, complain."

Fish

Stirring the pot is good, but have a legitimate gripe. Choosing to drop is an Individuals option. If you do so well in States and Regionals, why second guess at Nats?

Did you just ignore entirely what NoPoke posted just above you?

I want to go to worlds. At 1850 I think I'm on the bubble. => Got to play nats.

So what strategy makes sense given the wide open format with lots of potential for donks? So I make a plan...

Whoever wins has to be good but they have to be lucky too. I want to eliminate as much luck as possible.
1-0 and drop? what is the point as +6 points isn't a big boost
2-0 and drop? [see 1-0!]
3-0 and drop? might be enough will see what the field feels like on the day.
4-0 and drop? +24 points that should be a safe Worlds invite.

4-1 is a wash on points, I probablly have to go 8-1 to recover the same position as I would have if I drop at 4-0.

The big day arrives.

Tournament structure is announced: flights with deep SEF, day one single game for each round including first two rounds of SEF. day one starts with 8 swiss rounds.

So what does that mean? If I 7-1 swiss I'm up a bit but I've already decided that I need a bit more than that. Once in the SEF the only way out is with another loss. First pair of SEF is single game. Hmmm. I could flip heads and I'm out At 7-1 there is no way I can go 8-1. The only way to 8-1 this is to go 8-0 in the swiss

So at 4-0 I drop and lock in the worlds invite. 8-0 in the swiss is a big ask.

Later a detail on the SEF is changed. It is an important detail as I rate my chances in match play much more than single game. 7-1 swiss followed by b-o-3 SEF >> 7-1 swiss followed by single game SEF. *grrr* If I'd known I might have stayed in. I like b-o-3 *grr* and double-*grrr*

A very detailed explanation of what warrants Martin's grapes.

Please read this post, guys.

Why second guess Nats? Because of the tournament structure that was announced? If you play a stage 2 comeback deck (upper energy) then you are worse in a double single elimination round. There are a plethora of reasons why he would drop.

His complaint is legitimate- why was the decision changed mid-tournament? Does this set a precedent for other changes mid-tournament?

Keep, stirring, Martin.

Not sour grapes. Not trolling. Not stirring the pot.

Calling it that is just being snide and snippy. And looks to be just an effort to squelch discussion.

Legitimate question.

 

[MrMeches]

ryan, No I didn't ignore what he posted... however the likelihood of knowing exactly who his opponent was going to be, their ranking at the time of the match, and ultimately the outcome is hypothetical at best. If he plays a new player that this is their first Nats and has had luck of the draw to this point, Martin could be 5-0... announcement made, then he decides to finish it out. His opponent is Martin's auto win and he goes 5-0, announcement made.. he finishes. His opponent is Martin's autoloss he is 4-1... then I can support sour grapes.

In short, it is a personal decision to drop from a tournament. (Ryan, Did you not read what I posted) THis game is strategy and Risk.... through Martin's own proclamation of how well he did during the season, me think's a playter of his caliber would have at least played it out.. but that is just me. Instead we get ot read the Wo-is-me comments.

TPCi did the best they could withe the information in front of them. They listened to the issues and corrected the b-o-3 situation. If protecting your ranking is more important, then don't come on with sour grapes of how it played out. If winning the the tournament is more important, then more than likely Martin could've made T-16 or better and got the invite anyway.

THese are the decisions we each make in our lives.... some work out for us, others don't. If you still got your Invite.... where is the complaint? You coulda ended up 4-2 drop and missed the invite...

Fish

 

[ryanvergel]

ryan, No I didn't ignore what he posted... however the likelihood of knowing exactly who his opponent was going to be, their ranking at the time of the match, and ultimately the outcome is hypothetical at best. If he plays a new player that this is their first Nats and has had luck of the draw to this point, Martin could be 5-0... announcement made, then he decides to finish it out. His opponent is Martin's auto win and he goes 5-0, announcement made.. he finishes. His opponent is Martin's autoloss he is 4-1... then I can support sour grapes.

In short, it is a personal decision to drop from a tournament. (Ryan, Did you not read what I posted) THis game is strategy and Risk.... through Martin's own proclamation of how well he did during the season, me think's a playter of his caliber would have at least played it out.. but that is just me. Instead we get ot read the Wo-is-me comments.

TPCi did the best they could withe the information in front of them. They listened to the issues and corrected the b-o-3 situation. If protecting your ranking is more important, then don't come on with sour grapes of how it played out. If winning the the tournament is more important, then more than likely Martin could've made T-16 or better and got the invite anyway.

THese are the decisions we each make in our lives.... some work out for us, others don't. If you still got your Invite.... where is the complaint? You coulda ended up 4-2 drop and missed the invite...

Fish

His complaint is that he made a decision based on the presented information to him (two rounds of single elimination top cut), and immediately after he made an irreversible decision (to drop at 4-0), the decision was changed (to make it best of three in 45 minutes) such that he would have made a different decision (to not drop).

He never said it was a bad decision by the organizers. He merely pointed out a few discrepencies- like WHY was the decision changed midway through? Does this set precedence to change a tournament structure mid-tournament? There are a lot of questions we should be asking, and Martin definitely has legitimately sour grapes.

He is the one guy out of the hundred who this actually negatively impacted. We can't just shrug him off because he's a minority being affected. The organizers said the tournament would be run one way, and then they changed it midway, but after people already made decisions.

 

[rokman]

Myabe we should replace the Pokeball in the logo with a pot..

Too easy........ :wink:

 

[DukeFireBird]

did Martin go back to the reg desk after the announcment?

Im pretty sure that Dave/Pete would probably allowed Martin to reenter if it was same round.

My question, did he ask to be let back in due to the change in procedure?

If the answer is no, then the point is moot.
If the answer is yes, then there are some sour grapes.

All of this is of course Martins decision and I personally do not see what difference is it to drop at 4-0 weather T128 was bo1 or bo3

 

[Lawman]

Look, I understand the question. Why was a change made midstream? Everyone expects a bo3 SEF bc that is what they come to expect ALL YEAR LONG. When OP brass looked at the size of the pre regs, they had to make certain calls. I'm sure they discussed many options pre tourney, based on last years #s, etc. They then decided to do 2 pods. (Could have been 4, but that could have made it messy when you merge for SEFs). They allowed for a T128 (64 each pod, which clearly was the right call based on the sheer size of each pod of about 350).

Did Martin truly drop bc of the announcement? If that is the case, why wait until rd 4? Why not 3-0 drop? Just bc you dropped at the same rd PUI decided to change back to bo3 in all SEFs, they didnt do it to spite the OP. IMO, OP brass did this to correct what SEFs should be.

If anyone has any proof that Martin dropped solely bc of this issue, I'd love to hear it. It may have factored into his decision, but I'm confident that this was not the SOLE reason. I think a lil something called a secured worlds invite was more important to Martin. He has already won Nats before, but not the big world prize. I cannot fault him at all for that decision.

@Ian: My math may be a bit off, but I doubt that Martin was gaining only 6 pts a win by the time he hit 3-0. 4-0 land. Likewise, at that level, I doubt he would have been skinned for 20+ pts too, if he lost at that point in the tourney. My son played @ Nats. In the 2nd rd, he played someone 170 pts higher than him. The oppo won 8.81 pts off him. They were both 1-0 at the time. I'd find it hard to believe that a MA would get to 4-0 at Nats, and be ranked below 1700 at that moment in time!

Keith

 

[NoPoke]

Keith, I was merely showing the kind of calculation that several players consider prior to Nationals. If it were my own calculation then I think I'd have been slightly more generous with the points and considered 3-0 a safe point to lock in the invite. I expect that 7-1 would be good enough too. That Martin dropped at 4-0 suggests to me that he was being somewhat more pessimistic about the potential gain or was a bit spooked by the prospect of single game single elimination. Both are understandable positions.

 

[Poteet24]

THis game is strategy and Risk.... through Martin's own proclamation of how well he did during the season, me think's a playter of his caliber would have at least played it out..

Completely agree that the game is strategy and risk. But why should the tournament structure be a risk?

The tournament structure should have been set in stone from before round one to the end of the finals, that way people could think strategically about entering, how and what to play.

Having it change mid way is risking a chance that a situation like his arrives, or other sour grapes potentials.

There should have been no risk that the structure would have changed. I find his sour grapes completely legitimate.

His complaint is that he made a decision based on the presented information to him (two rounds of single elimination top cut), and immediately after he made an irreversible decision (to drop at 4-0), the decision was changed (to make it best of three in 45 minutes) such that he would have made a different decision (to not drop)

+ 1

 

[doomsday24]

did Martin go back to the reg desk after the announcment?

Im pretty sure that Dave/Pete would probably allowed Martin to reenter if it was same round.

My question, did he ask to be let back in due to the change in procedure?

If the answer is no, then the point is moot.
If the answer is yes, then there are some sour grapes.

That is a pretty darn good question. One that I am curious to know the answer to.

 

[billbilski]

He is the one guy out of the hundred who this actually negatively impacted. We can't just shrug him off because he's a minority being affected. .

Of course they can.This is how decisions have been made in the civilized world since it's inception(As Spock says "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"). Was the change optimal? Of course not. Was the change really that big of a deal if one person is affected and he gets the invite anyhow? NO. Should POP recognize this and learn a lesson by trying to avoid mid tourney changes. YES. In the end it was one small issue that I'm sure POP recognizes as less than optimal, but in the greater scheme of things hardly deserves what I'm sure will be a long protracted 15 page post......

 

[SteveP]

When you consider that Top 128/64 were only 45-minute rounds, best-of-3 was NOT much of a concession for TPCi to make for the players. Certainly, it was better than 40-minute, 1-game matches, but as far as TPCi was concerned, the change was only a 5-minute difference, though I'm guessing sudden death probably occured enough to cause the rounds to go on longer.

I think Martin made a decent choice to drop to keep his ranking. Would he have dropped had the playoffs been entirely best-of-3? I'm not a seer, but neither is Martin. It would've been really nice to know about the playoffs upfront, but then again, it could've been worse. TPCi could've announced best-of-3 upfront, then changed to best-of-1.

Hopefully, Martin isn't just "second guessing" his decision to drop early, using this change as a scapegoat for his decision.

 

[SLOW DECK]

I thought they did a great job in adjusting the tournment to size of the group and time alloted. I think this is this flexibility is the price we pay to have an all comers event. I don't see this as a major issue that is worthy of complaint status to the larger success of the event in 2009 in the hall. (outside the hall there were issues)

Now, more on the "Ranking Weasels", it is a dangerous game to drop to hope to protect a invite. I think of the saying "cut off your nose to spite your face", why would you drop from US Nationals a top notch tournment with large scholarships, extreme prestige, and paid trips to worlds, just to protect an invite to Worlds. No one remembers who had invites to worlds, who top 4 in worlds, we only remember the winners of the big events. There are really only a few people that I can actually forgive dropping at US Nationals to "protect" an invite: Martin, Seena, Gino, Chris Fulup, and now POOKA.

The rest of us should just play it out to see if we can win US National trophy, a trophy that I view just as hair below the World Championship.

My 2 cents only.

 

[Muk Man]

At the end of all this... Martin asked a very Important Question that everyone has semmed to ignore....Will these be the rules at worlds.

Because, everyone knows how important deck choice is this format, and knowing ahead of time if you're playing BO3 is a major factor...

So what is the offical format of worlds this year?

 

[PokePop]

At the end of all this... Martin asked a very Important Question that everyone has semmed to ignore....Will these be the rules at worlds.

Because, everyone knows how important deck choice is this format, and knowing ahead of time if you're playing BO3 is a major factor...

So what is the offical format of worlds this year?

Might be best to ask that in its own topic.
It's unlikely TPCi is reading through all the posts in this thread to pull that one question out to answer.
And it is a good question to get nailed down.

 

[Lawman]

From the OP website Re: Worlds FAQ:

"What is the tournament structure?
The tournament is run using the Modified (DP-on) Format and Swiss plus Single Elimination pairings. The number of Swiss rounds run will depend on total attendance at the event.

After Swiss rounds are complete, there will be a cut to single-elimination finals. The top players (number to be determined by final attendance) from each age division will then play in the single-elimination finals on Saturday, August 15th, beginning at 9:00 A.M.

Single-elimination finals will be a best-of-three game format. Each single-elimination round will last 75 minutes. "

So, there's your answer Martin and MukMan. A simple click to the op website does the trick!

Keith

 

[edwarpy]

From the OP website Re: Worlds FAQ:

"What is the tournament structure?
The tournament is run using the Modified (DP-on) Format and Swiss plus Single Elimination pairings. The number of Swiss rounds run will depend on total attendance at the event.

After Swiss rounds are complete, there will be a cut to single-elimination finals. The top players (number to be determined by final attendance) from each age division will then play in the single-elimination finals on Saturday, August 15th, beginning at 9:00 A.M.

Single-elimination finals will be a best-of-three game format. Each single-elimination round will last 75 minutes. "

So, there's your answer Martin and MukMan. A simple click to the op website does the trick!

Keith

1. Pre-Tournament Announcements
The Tournament Organizer must announce the details of a tournament at the beginning of the event.
This includes the number of rounds that will be played, the number of players who will participate in the
Single Elimination rounds (if the event style is Swiss plus Single Elimination), how many players will
receive prizes, and other information pertinent to the operation of the event.

2. Approved Tournament Styles
Sanctioned Pokémon TCG tournaments may only be run as Swiss, Single Elimination, or Swiss plus
Single Elimination events. Other tournament styles may be run but may not be sanctioned without prior
approval by Pokémon Organized Play.

2.1. Swiss
The intent of the Swiss pairing method is to determine a single winner by pairing players with
the same, or similar, match record against each other until there is only one undefeated player.
(Please note that, with drops, it is possible for the winner of a Swiss tournament to have lost one
or more matches—i.e., if the undefeated player drops.)

There's your real answer, POP will arbitrarily choose to violate whatever rule it wants.