2 of 3 games - how it is judged

[Swampert]

This is a very simple thing. And it was well said earlier. "If you have the time to do 2-3 then by all means do so" Not every venue allowed for the unlimited time. Also people need to understand that its not just one pearson that it applies to. The entire set of top 8 have to play by the same rule. In my personal oppinion i would have liked best two out of three but things dont always turn out the way you want them. I still ranked high enough to be proud of myself. The most important thing we must all understand is that this is a just a game. Some of us take losing or not ranking 1st as a symbol of self worth. Every one who plays is a winner in my book. Truly everyone understands that this game has two major flaws. One is the luck/draw factor. And the other is MONEY. Some of the better players are only defined by the ammount of cards they have. Its true that the more cards you have the better selection you have the better the deck might be. Thats one of the reasons i like draft. Every one is in the same boat. Anyhow ive said to much ill leave it at that i can go on and on about things.

Happy Postings!

 

[SteveP]

I see one very important issue about mixing 1-game Swiss rounds with 3-game Playoff rounds. Depending on the number of games per match, some cards are preferred over others.

At Lord of the Rings Premier events, the Swiss rounds are 1-game matches and the Playoff rounds are best-of-3. After the Swiss rounds, players who make the Playoffs are allowed to change their decks. This might be unreasonable for the Challenges, but if Day 2 of Worlds is the Playoffs, it would add a whole new level of competitiveness (see who the best meta-gamers are) to let the players change decks/cards.

 

[bulbasnore]

Every one who plays is a winner in my book. Truly everyone understands that this game has two major flaws. One is the luck/draw factor. And the other is MONEY. Some of the better players are only defined by the ammount of cards they have.

You make some great comments here!

LUCK: I don't consider this a drawback but part of the strategy. Statistically bias your deck towards consistency & strength and in the long run, skill will get you significant wins.

The good part about this vast but slightly shaky program of Organized Play in the first full year of PUI's stewardship is that for most players there are multiple opportunities to shine and win rewards. This diminishes the LUCK factor to zero for me. I have multiple opportunities, if I can't get it done, its a skill issue. For me LUCK is so 'tired' as an issue in this game.

MONEY: Yah, I hear you. However, I consider this an obstacle not a drawback. We have a player who has VERY little funds. He came to one event just to hang out 'cause he had no entrance fee (another player's Dad sponsored him in the end; no he didn't ask). The guy has been VERY patient with trades and finally built his deck and gave back all his borrowed cards. Multiple T8's in premiere tourneys. That said, I'm NOT a good trader (but my son is ;-). Just saying, its possible even with very little money.

Now folks in areas with few other players and few tourney opportunities (SoCal is really overflowing; I can't even offer a draft tourney we have so many premeire events) will have a hard time evening out luck and overcoming money and I do empathize.

WINNER: As profs, we need to emphasize your first quoted point to our players. Players are bold (taking risks with reputation, loss) and inventive (deck makers/strategists) in pursuit of fun and friendship. They need to be told this.

"This bounty hunter is my kind of scum: fearless and inventive."

--Jabba the Hutt​

 

[bulbasnore]

OK, so then. 2/3 is allowed if declared by the TO at start of the tourney.

The issue I don't think is settled is what to do with an incomplete game (in a 3 game match)?

Personally:

In match play, I favor limiting:

• all games to 30 minutes (in whatever round)
• all matches to 1 hour in Swiss rounds

I would like to state my disagreement with discarding the incomplete match.

This makes 2/3 MUCH LESS usable in Swiss where stalling to win the match is possible & hard to detect. Consider that just because one doesn't plan to use 2/3 in Swiss it is specifically allowed by POP and other TOs may wish to do so. Structuring the win criteria for matches with the assumption they will only be used in Final rounds is therefore not best, in my view.

 

[meganium45]

The incomplete match has to be discarded or the system simply doesn't work.

If you use a one-hour time (which is needed) for 2 of 3, then this will rarely, if ever become an issue.

The point is, which I have hammered before,

Player 1 wins game 1 cleanly, in a game that lasted a long, long time.

Player 2 takes 1 prize in game 2, time is called. Player 2 is declared the winner of game 2 and you have to decide how to do a tiebreaker game?? Too many problems. Too much delay, too much potential abuse. (yes, I know all situations can be abused).

This does penalize player 2, who takes 5 of 6 prizes in game 2, and cannot finish their opponent off cleanly before time is called, but in either scenario, one player is discriminated against in the partial game. I choose to put more emphasis on complete games than partial games, and set the rule down clearly so all players know.

The other aspect of this, is that there needs to be active judging around all elimination rounds, to scout for stalling and delay tactics. A warning, verbally and loud enough to one player will put the rest of the players on notice that delay tactics will not be tolerated.

Heck, maybe I have been lucky to this point, or maybe the time guarantees that the match will get completed, but this issue has NEVER come up in any of my 3 elimination round tourneys to this point.

Enough about the hypotheticals, if it ain't broke, I ain't gonna mess with it.

Meganium45 - finalizing proposed tourney penalty guidelines, hopefully alpha version will be up tonight.

 

[SteveP]

...and in the long run, skill will get you significant wins.

...and there lies the paradox. There is no such thing as "in the long run" when you're playing 1-game, single elimination rounds.

limit...all games to 30 minutes (in whatever round)

I can't agree with that one. There's the possibility of TWO incomplete games now. What do you say to guys like Meganium45 who despise incomplete games?

I would like to state my disagreement with discarding the incomplete match.

YES!!! Something we're in total agreement on. Personally, I hope Meganium45 changes his opinion and decides to count incomplete 2nd games at his Challenges.

 

[meganium45]

At this point, I hope it continues to be a non-issue, with the 1 hour time limit taking care of all of the 2 match situations.

With all the EXs around, it seems like we are all knocking out 3 pokemon anyway!!

It seems to have to cut one of 2 ways, count the match (unfair to the complete game winner) or do not count the match (potentially hurting the partial game winner, and causing a HUGE third game problem)

I am choosing to take care of 2 problems at once with the decision. Trust me, not an easy one for me, and maybe one that has gotten too much play, given the rarity with which it comes up.

If you do not count the incomplete game you:
1. Have a final winner decided immediately
2. Do not have the problem of a "sudden death" third game, which will ALSO be a partial game
3. Have the potential to have a player come this close to winning the second game, and time being called, and being very disappointed and irritated.

If you do count the incomplete game you:
1. Make it so there is NO final winner decided at that point.
2. Have the winner of a round not actually win a completed game, but only two abbreviated matches.
3. Have the potential to have a player who won the only full game, and get robbed in two sudden death type matches be very disappointed and irritated.
4. Have to delay your next round EVEN LONGER thanks to the resolution of a third game.

Note, in either scenario, one player ends up disappointed and irritated. You then have to choose, which has more value, a completed game, or a partial game? Being able to manage your tournament's time, or having repeated "sudden death" situations.

I can see where this is a HUGE deal for Steve, in that he does 2 of 3 with an INSANE 45 minute timeframe. With that situation, I would have to reconsider the partial game ruling, because it will come up a lot. I see no way you can do 2 of 3 with less than one hour. I know Steve does it, and his usual players are trained to play this way, but it would really take some training for that to work.

That is my full and complete explanation, more than most of you wanted to hear, but a rationale behind the madness...

Meganium45

 

[SteveP]

I can see where this is a HUGE deal for Steve, in that he does 2 of 3 with an INSANE 45 minute timeframe.

I don't see why you think that's insane. 45 minutes is the suggested minimum for Magic 3-game matches.

Anyway, we only do 45-minute Swiss rounds. In those rounds, ties are possible. Our Playoff rounds are 60 minutes, except for the untimed final.

Once again M45, your entire argument fails to point out the disadvantages of an incomplete MATCH. If you have an incomplete game, you have an incomplete match.

I don't agree, but that's okay. Hopefully, with 1-hour matches, that should be plenty time to finish at least two games.

So M45, I ask again. Have you run this by PUI? Have they said anything? (Probably not, knowing PUI )

 

[meganium45]

I have been told I can do it this way for my events, but there would not be any overriding mandate at this time for all events.

So, it is OK'd for I.

M45

Oh, and I did do 2 of 3 unlimited time for a $200 cash tourney, did it once, never again. Had a final 4 match that was AggronEX/Wailord v. Sheninja. Took them 3 games and almost 3 hours.....NEVER AGAIN. The other 2 of 3 final 4 match was done in 22 minutes.

M45

 

[SteveP]

Yah, untimed matches are risky. They finally put a 195-minute time-limit for best-of-3 matches in the LOTR playoffs, previous untimed. Maybe I should limit our Gym Challenge to 90 minutes. Good idea M45 (don't have untimed finals).

 

[bulbasnore]

The long run = several premiere events. I'm over the LUCK factor.

If an incomplete game = invalid game, then there is a big problem with allowing ANY incomplete games in any round.

2/3 Swiss: 1 hour matches, first game limited to 30 min max. See how valid match results of WIN, LOSS or TIE work out above.

2/3 Swiss: 90 minute matches, max. Each game limited to 30 min max. You could end up with a tie, theoretically, but after 3 ties I think sudden death is fine. Loser had the opportunity to get it done.

By having a 30 min limit on the game, you avoid the equally unsatisfying extremely short game

except in 1 situation in Swiss --

where you each won one and didn't have time for the third game.

No time to set up? Just set up but tied? Seems consistent with 1 win 1 loss on the games that went longer. Results say you're evening matched. Accept the tie with good grace.

Opponent took an early lead on prizes? Well you tied after the two longer games, this was a tiebreaker. Accept the loss with good grace.

So, is an INCOMPLETE game (on time) an INVALID game?

 

[SteveP]

So, is an INCOMPLETE game (on time) an INVALID game?

I recommend going back and reading the initial post on this topic. Only the 2nd game is ignored if not completed when time is called (at M45's tournaments). Any incomplete 1st and 3rd games WON'T be ignored. I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees some inconsistancy in this concept.

M45 is partially taking this idea from the last WOTC Worlds where ANY incomplete games in the Swiss rounds were NOT counted. I'm not sure if (and how) they applied that same rule to the Top 8.

Finally, do you remember back when WOTC did the Alternate Pokemon Scoring system? 2 points were given to someone you got a timed match win (I believe that was only supposed to be used for 1-game matches)? In that situation:

COMPLETE MATCH > INCOMPLETE MATCH

I think M45 is just trying to extrapolate that concept down to the GAME level, which aint a bad idea. I just think he needs to be consist and either COUNT all incomplete games or IGNORE all incomplete games (like WOTC did at Worlds). Why should the 2nd game be any different than the 1st and 3rd?

Using M45's logic, we have:

INCOMPLETE 1st/3rd GAME > INCOMPLETE 2nd GAME

IMO, the logic should be

INCOMPLETE 1st GAME = INCOMPLETE 2nd GAME = INCOMPLETE 3rd GAME

 

[bulbasnore]

I recommend going back and reading the initial post on this topic. Only the 2nd game is ignored if not completed when time is called (at M45's tournaments).

Sure, I got it. I'm proposing an entire system. Seems complete to me; if it doesn't seem right to others, then at least its out there and could be discussed.

As for throwing out incomplete 2nd or other games, Meg45 has permission to do it that way from POP, and well, I have no problem with it as long as its legal.

Meg45, that system makes me feel like I need a 1st-3rdTKO capable deck (did somethone say Ray/Multi or Wy/Wob/Boost?); if I'm playing Kingrdra Ex or something else that grinds up slow, I'm gonna feel like just shaking hands g/g if we're trying to start the 2nd game with 8 min left. So, I'm going to change my deck to bias the probabilities to the system I'm playing under.

That outlast/grind deck is also going to tend to put me in a position to take a 45-50 min game, if my opponent is smart. If I'm playing against somthing like that and get any advantage, I'm going to slow down, not stall, just run through my checklist each turn deliberately, to tactically draw out the 1st game to make sure the second game is thrown out. I'm not trying to convince you, just saying how I play under those rules.

Guys, making a 30 min game limit in 2/3 elminates problems of both throwing out games, and the nature of the competition changeing between Swiss & Finals. Obviously, I like the consistent time limit. I was trying to show how it is possible under a 2/3 system.

 

[Spectreon]

Personally, after a couple of games that I have had, especially last weekend in OK CC I would welcome best 2-3 matches. I lost the very first round due to bad shuffling (didnt have a good amount time to shuffle after deck check due to participating in the GBA tourney). we played for fun after that, I won round 2, and was well set up for round 3 when they called time on the 25-30 minute match. But since we were playing 1 game matches, it translated to a lose. Again in the first round of the top 8, I was stuck with all 4 of the cards I need to win the match in my prizes (of all the luck, 2 Magnimite and 2 Delcatty, both a 2/2 line). Comparing what my set up time woulda been, and my opponents, I woulda had an easy win had that not happen, getting a best of would have likely changed things to my favor here too.... my only other loss of the day was to a mirror, and it was unlikely to make a 2 game come back here.... but still.... the 2 most important first matches where lost to merely bad shuffles/cards in prizes...

 

[SteveP]

Spectreon, some would have you believe that it's "good" for the game when "luck" wins (or bad luck looses) games rather than skill. There may be those rare occasions when that is true.

But keep this in mind too. When I see my opponent having a bad draw, I play differently. IMO, every good deck MUST have the ability to win on the 2nd/3rd turn if your opponent doesn't get another Pokemon and/or Evolution out by then. You may not actually be able to pull off that 2rd/3rd turn win, but it will keep your opponent "on edge." For example, I hate facing a RayquazaEX at the start of the game knowing that a successful Spiral Growth or Multi Energy can hit me for 80 damage on the second turn.

Sometimes, it's a combination of bad luck (or lack of good luck) by one player and awareness of that bad luck by the other player that wins or looses games. In those situations, skill sometimes plays an important role in the victor's win.

Final analysis.

1. As pointed out by yoshi in another post, the more you play, the higher the probability that randomness will even out.

2. The more you play, the more likely a mistake will be made and good players can skillfully capitalize.

3. A majority of the time, better players will beat lesser players in multi-game matches.

 

[Spectreon]

3. A majority of the time, better players will beat lesser players in multi-game matches.

I'll agree to that for the most part. Alot of times here, we see lots of Mirror Matches though... and those can easily be tipped back and forth more based on luck than skill, early game anyways especially. These types of matches will generally go to the first one set up, and can go both ways rather easily just based on they are the same. I was able to turn a 0-2 record into a top 8 contender, so my randomness of the deck worked itself out, it was just that initial match were I got my first loss, it changes who you play for the rest of the tourney starting out 0-1 or 1-0... I personally cant wait to try out best 2-3 since I m constantly barely loosing or winning matches when facing equally skilled players. Now we have to play good for 2 of 3 matches, not just one. While a bit more taxing, it will be fun to try... I will regard any actual descision to which I like better til after having tried both...

 

[Master Professor Birch]

Quote from Meganium45:

If 2 games have been completed and the third game has not yet started, the third game will be instructed to be started with a 10 minute time limit. If there is no leader after 10 minutes, then the game is played as sudden death - next player to take a prize or who would otherwise win, wins.

If 2 games have been completed, and the third game is a draw and less than 3 turns old, 5 minute extension.

If 2 games have been completed and the third game is a draw and 3 or more turns (both players competed 3rd turn), then sudden death.

If 2 games have been completed and there is a leader in the third game, no matter the turns elapsed, the leading player is the winner.
__________________________________________________


Ok, I agree with Meganium45 with how the 2 out of 3 matches should be ran. EXCEPT, when there is a tie in the match when time is called. I think that when time is called that you should go directly into a "Sudden Death" situation. If game three has not started, let the players start up as a one prize "Sudden Death" game. If they have already started game three, "Sudden Death" begins after the player has ended his/her turn when time was called. In my opinion you should not extent the time depending on where the players are in that game when the time limit ended. I say go directly into "Sudden Death". I hear that luck wins this game or bad luck loses that game. Luck is a big part of playing Pokemon TCG unless someone has built that "perfect" deck where luck is never involved. Every game that my son has lost in "City & State Championships" have been because of bad draws/luck. I tell him that he needs to rebuild his deck to leave the luck factor out. He can't do it and I have seen no one else come up with that perfect deck either. With 2 out of 3 matches, it gives way to the luck factor some what but luck will always factor into every game to an extent.

Master Professor Birch

 

[meganium45]

OK, a call for consistancy....

I will change the rule from 10 minutes to sudden death on the third game, for all situations. That way it will be easier on the judges, more consistant, and you do not have to worry about counting turns, or the like.

Thanks for the input.

M45

 

[SteveP]

I will change the rule from 10 minutes to sudden death on the third game, for all situations. That way it will be easier on the judges, more consistant, and you do not have to worry about counting turns, or the like.

Man, we're getting further and further away from what the Pokemon Floor Rules says guys!

Making it "easier" for the judges should NOT come at the expense of ignoring the Pokemon Floor Rules.

M45, we're trying hard to get POP to develop Penalty Guideline so we can all be on the "same page." Hopefully, when that document arrives, we'll embrace it and adhere to it.

But, right now we have the Pokemon Floor Rules. Do you agree that they take precedence over the Rulebook in tournament play? If you agree, then you MUST reconsider this decision to use Sudden Death (Rulebook) instead of allowing draws (Floor Rules).

**** UPDATE ****

PS. M45, ignore this post if we're only talking about the single elimination playoffs. When you said "all situations," I falsely assumed you were considering best-of-3 for the Swiss rounds.

 

[meganium45]

ALL of these considerations were for playoff, single elim rounds....I have yet to do 2/3 in swiss...

I agree, there should be draws in the swiss rounds, heck, that is the fun of having 1 point situations.

Steve, with you having the most experience in 2/3 matches, I would like your reaction to making the elimination system all next prize wins, to make it uniform and easier to understand.

Thanks

M45