BRAutumn: no top cut

[P_A]

I have one last question that I need answering. In an event where the winner goes 5-0, what makes you think that a player who is 4-1 will win out if they had played a top cut? I suppose TPCi has the stats on a lot of games by now. I'm also sure that they have found out what the odds are of that happening and used it to make their decision. If they felt the odds were pretty even, I'm sure we wouldn't be having this discussion now. If the odds were substantially favorable towards the 5-0 player, and TPCi wanted to try to shorten BR's and make them less competitive, this is the way to go. Legitimacy of the skills aside (and you almost had a believer of me with that by the way), either the luckiest player OR the most skillful player will prevail at these BR's - hey, maybe both being the same player. I know this will sound rude, but I really don't mean it that way: If you happen to get to be that person and you feel you want to be legitimate, you can always have the option to go have a match between yourself and the 4-1 player on your own time I suppose. Prove to yourself and to others that a top cut match is necessary by tracking your match here on the gym. Then perhaps TPCi will have reason to change their minds about a lack of top cut.

 

[ShuckleLVX]

Please stop lumping us all together nopoke as it gets the conversation no where...sure there are going to be idiots who post on here but hey this is Pokegym. Some of us really care about the game and are trying to have a serious discussion about the pros and cons of top cut.

I am getting really tired of whenever a good point is brought "you guys" simply deflect the question to this same "group" of people. Lets have an honest discussion here which Eriks post did a great job of continuing.

Erik: You always seem to say what I want to say simply using better words.

I'd rather him lump some people together than have you calling an undefined group of people "idiots" and implying they don't care about the game.

 

[Jaeger]

I'd rather him lump some people together than have you calling an undefined group of people "idiots" and implying they don't care about the game.

I to can make a post that does nothing to advance the conversation...can we get back on topic?

---------- Post added 08/06/2012 at 02:04 AM ----------

I would worry about how well you would do to begin with, not being able to afford any of the newer cards you might need to show up and win the events you're so worried about.

I also like how you just assume "I'm bad" yet jump all over me for saying idiots (and where did I say they didn't care about the game) which I was mainly refering to people who who aren't open to descussion and fail to realize there is a line between what we want and what is realistic. I see nothing wrong on discussing wear this line is, but I do feel its important to realize that it is there.

 

[ShuckleLVX]

I to can make a post that does nothing to advance the conversation...can we get back on topic?

---------- Post added 08/06/2012 at 02:04 AM ----------



I also like how you just assume "I'm bad" yet jump all over me for saying idiots (and where did I say they didn't care about the game) which I was mainly refering to people who who aren't open to descussion and fail to realize there is a line between what we want and what is realistic. I see nothing wrong on discussing wear this line is, but I do feel its important to realize that it is there.

Nothing in there says you're bad. If you understood the whole of the text you're not quoting all of, you would see that I was saying that if 4 packs was a huge deal to you, you likely couldn't afford things like Darkrai (Worth ~15 packs at BRs, need 2-4), Mewtwo (Worth ~10 packs at BRs, need ~2), Catchers (Worth ~2 packs each at BRs, need 3-4). That's about 56 packs of cards worth of cards at least, so if 4 packs was a big deal, well, 56 packs would be mind blowing, no? Partial quotes out of context are fun, I guess?

Nothing stated you were bad. Nothing implied you were bad. You stated people in this thread are idiots. You implied they didn't care about the game. (By the way, that was where you said "Some of us" really care about the game, implying others (easily inferred to be your afore-mentioned 'idiots') didn't.)

 

[eriknance]

I have one last question that I need answering. In an event where the winner goes 5-0, what makes you think that a player who is 4-1 will win out if they had played a top cut? I suppose TPCi has the stats on a lot of games by now. I'm also sure that they have found out what the odds are of that happening and used it to make their decision. If they felt the odds were pretty even, I'm sure we wouldn't be having this discussion now. If the odds were substantially favorable towards the 5-0 player, and TPCi wanted to try to shorten BR's and make them less competitive, this is the way to go. Legitimacy of the skills aside (and you almost had a believer of me with that by the way), either the luckiest player OR the most skillful player will prevail at these BR's - hey, maybe both being the same player. I know this will sound rude, but I really don't mean it that way: If you happen to get to be that person and you feel you want to be legitimate, you can always have the option to go have a match between yourself and the 4-1 player on your own time I suppose. Prove to yourself and to others that a top cut match is necessary by tracking your match here on the gym. Then perhaps TPCi will have reason to change their minds about a lack of top cut.

But P_A, you answered your own question earlier when you talked about how everyone has the same "luck factor" hanging over their heads at these tournaments. I think 4-1s have a decent shot in the top cut because that single loss might have occurred from a bad opening hand, a random donk, going second, missing an important energy drop, prizing important cards, and so on. Don't assume that TPCi pores over oodles and oodles of data like you said, and I won't assume that they don't. What I do know is that it's not uncommon for X-1s in the swiss to win tournaments. It's the reason top cuts exist in the first place: it further helps to differentiate skill from luck. This goes back to the tournament rules of course.

Also, I don't understand your statement about either the "luckiest" or "most skilful" player winning BRs. It's just not so black and white like that. There are so many factors that go into these tournaments it's ridiculous. There are, however, plenty of players who perform consistently well season after season. Having top cuts helps to differentiate those players, it's that simple.

 

[Aron Figaro]

But P_A, you answered your own question earlier when you talked about how everyone has the same "luck factor" hanging over their heads at these tournaments. I think 4-1s have a decent shot in the top cut because that single loss might have occurred from a bad opening hand, a random donk, going second, missing an important energy drop, prizing important cards, and so on. Don't assume that TPCi pores over oodles and oodles of data like you said, and I won't assume that they don't. What I do know is that it's not uncommon for X-1s in the swiss to win tournaments. It's the reason top cuts exist in the first place: it further helps to differentiate skill from luck. This goes back to the tournament rules of course.

Also, I don't understand your statement about either the "luckiest" or "most skilful" player winning BRs. It's just not so black and white like that. There are so many factors that go into these tournaments it's ridiculous. There are, however, plenty of players who perform consistently well season after season. Having top cuts helps to differentiate those players, it's that simple.

This. As someone who's been playing Pokemon TCG since launch, and Magic and Star Wars before that, I can tell you there are a lot of factors that go into who wins a tournament:

- Base Skill Level and Game Sense: someone who knows the correct plays and can read probabilities
- Mental State: Players have bad days, long nights, work stress, party hangovers, and so many other reasons why they aren't in tip-top shape for a tournament. This is a strong effect on their base skill level.
- Reputation/Intimidation Factor: I know players as good as the "greats" in the game who rarely beat these top players, simply because they're afraid of them. It throws off their skill. There are also players who go to great lengths to be intimidating, showing up looking fresh out of jail, acting like a bunch of wannabe gangsters, etc. The effect is similar: an intimidated player isn't going to play as well.
- Judging: I'm opening a nasty can of worms with this one, but judges aren't perfect, and it can affect who wins a tournament if a judge makes a bad call. This can be for a lot of reasons, be it an honest mistake or outright collusion. Players should remember (unless it's changing in 2012) they have the right to appeal to the head judge.
- Cheating: It relates to the above, but players cheat. I find Pokemon cheaters get away with more than in other games, because the rules are a little looser and the mentality is more casual. As someone who's been on the serious side of TCGs for a long time, I sometimes wonder if Pokemon judges are on happy pills all the time. I do really wish for one thing in Pokemon above all else: stricter materials restrictions. Hand out dice at majors, and restrict sleeves at majors to matte single colour, just like MTG.
- Luck: It's a TCG, which means there's an inherant random element. People get lucky, and just win on that alone. Be it getting good matchups all day, or flipping five Agility heads in a row, luck matters.

 

[P_A]

You're right, I did answer that each person has the same amount of chance to win based on their luck or skill, and another person's lack thereof. But if the quantifiable data suggested to TPCi that overwhelming evidence leads more often to a win by the 5-0 player AND they had other reasons to want to shorten the events and make them less important, then this would be the way to go.

I'm not going into the right and wrong of the decision, Erik, nor am I stating my preference.

As for your last statement, wouldn't you class those "players who perform consistently well" as some of the most skillful players? What is there to understand? Are you saying that those ones CAN'T win without a top cut? Is that some sort of strategy by those "consistent" players to lose the first round getting an easier shot at the top spot? I'm just spitballing here, obviously, but if that is a legitimate ploy by some, then this will obviously change their minds about their style of play, wouldn't it?

Edit: My statement in that post was to set up this important bit of information: If you feel that your 5-0 win (without top cut) may not be "legitimate" then on your own time play out a top cut, and record the results here on the gym. If enough people do this, and the evidence shows that the 4-1 player wins more often then TPCi will have to change their minds. No top cut is a done deal for these BR's - the decision has been made. But you have an opportunity to change future BR's - get it?

 

[NoPoke]

Jaeger, I want the serious discussion too. Framed in a way that has the most chance of a positive outcome. I'm not too sure which side of the fence you sit or how far you might be in the direction of either lunatic fringes where POP can do no wrong or POP can do no right. Most of us are near the middle. I know that I don't always agree with POPs decisions in detail but I will always try to get the best for the players out of any decision I have to work with. The removal of top cut from USA battle roads was no longer a point for discussion once made. I don't know what was said on the PTO forums but from where I sit I can see that collectively the player and organiser base blew the option for matchplay in swiss. Maybe not at every event but at least at some. Actually more than some, quite likely the majority of events would have been able to use matchplay during swiss if not for every round then for the last round.

Nobody can seriously believe that USA battle roads last year were universally a good thing under the new CP system? I know that some players believe that the way to fix them was to make them even bigger but that is obviously not POPs view.

POP aren't the bad guys in this. The players aren't the bad guys either before anyone tries to make that connection. But collectively an opportunity for improvement was lost.

 

[Jaeger]

NoPoke: I'm a realist...I love P!P and I love the people that work for them and I've even on a first name bases with a few of them. I honestly think I have the same goal as P!P which is the best and healhist game possible. I might disagree with them on how to achieve that, but I always remember that we have the same goal. This is why I hate when ever I post something that disagrees with P!P that certain people seem to think I hate the company or am ungrateful. Good positive discussion is important on both sides.

Now to restate some points:

1.) I'm under the impression that P!P either feels that BRs played to large of an impact on Worlds invites this year or that they want to return BRs to the small local tournaments they were orginally meant to be.

I agree 100% with them on this, I feel to many players "abused" BRs in their efforts to get an invite, and they aren't the small steping stone tournament they were orginally supposed to be.

P!Ps answer to this was to remove Top Cut from BRs to prevent scooping (which also was a major issue at BRs, though it did nothing if 2 friends played in swiss) and to give players less of a reason to travel. I feel for this change to be positive they also need to remove CPs but the jurys still out on that.

My suggestion would have been to simply remove CPs from BR thus leaving players very little incentive to travel and even less incentive to scoop to friends.

P!P and I have the same view just different ways to go about it. Perhaps they will reconsider for Summer BRs.

As for match play, if they wanted to remove Top Cut in favor of match play, I could get behind that as well. I believe Europe uses matchs play in tournaments and this would be a great way to introduce the US to it and a low level event. Match play would also reduce the amount of luck in deciding a winner. If you lose the best 2/3 I don't think you can really complain about not winning the tournament.

I really just want to keep a good discussion going. I would gladly talk to P!P in more of a 1-1 process, but that is simply not feasable so threads like this are the best chance the player base has of communicating their thoughts and feelings.

 

[Team CREAM]

At this point, CP better not be given out. They do not want to encourage dropping again.

 

[P_A]

:lol: Team CREAM, I can appreciate the irony of that statement coming from a person with that signature. But getting beyond that, can you reiterate why that would be a problem? Hey, I'm honestly trying hard to figure out why that would be sooo bad.

 

[JandPDS]

I have one last question that I need answering. In an event where the winner goes 5-0, what makes you think that a player who is 4-1 will win out if they had played a top cut? I suppose TPCi has the stats on a lot of games by now. I'm also sure that they have found out what the odds are of that happening and used it to make their decision. If they felt the odds were pretty even, I'm sure we wouldn't be having this discussion now. If the odds were substantially favorable towards the 5-0 player, and TPCi wanted to try to shorten BR's and make them less competitive, this is the way to go. Legitimacy of the skills aside (and you almost had a believer of me with that by the way), either the luckiest player OR the most skillful player will prevail at these BR's - hey, maybe both being the same player. I know this will sound rude, but I really don't mean it that way: If you happen to get to be that person and you feel you want to be legitimate, you can always have the option to go have a match between yourself and the 4-1 player on your own time I suppose. Prove to yourself and to others that a top cut match is necessary by tracking your match here on the gym. Then perhaps TPCi will have reason to change their minds about a lack of top cut.

Its called the curse pf the First. More often then not the player who is undefeated in swiss losses in the top cut. I would say that the person who is undefeated only wins the tourney around 40% of the time.

 

[psychup2034]

Its called the curse pf the First. More often then not the player who is undefeated in swiss losses in the top cut. I would say that the person who is undefeated only wins the tourney around 40% of the time.

Simple statistics says that the "curse of the first" isn't real at all. It's merely being caused by a cognitive bias in your mind. The effect you're describing is commonly referred to as "regression to the mean" in statistics.

If the 40% win rate you describe for the undefeated player is true, that's actually pretty damn good. Any player has a 25% win of winning the event after getting into top 4, everything else being equal.

 

[JandPDS]

Simple statistics says that the "curse of the first" isn't real at all. It's merely being caused by a cognitive bias in your mind. The effect you're describing is commonly referred to as "regression to the mean" in statistics.

If the 40% win rate you describe for the undefeated player is true, that's actually pretty damn good. Any player has a 25% win of winning the event after getting into top 4, everything else being equal.

Yes but now we are going from the undefeated swiss player winning 40% of the time to winning 100% of the time and that is not good.

Funny item, I was cleaning up a closet this week and I found a box that cotained our Pokemon Tournament rusults from our past events that we hosted . In one the events the #1 seed was 5-0 and there were three 4-1s in the top cut. # 3 seed was Ross C and the #4 seed was David C.

Well David was victorius over the undefeated player and Ross defeated the #2 seed in the first round of the top cut. Then Ross beat David in the Finals to win the Battle Road Title, who would have guessed that they would meet again in the finals of annother Poekmon Tournament... only that one would have a bit more on the line.

 

[LucarioLvlX]

As someone who has played in, judged and organized more Battle Road tournaments than I can count, eliminating the top cut is the best news I have heard in a long time. Be seeing you in September.

 

[homeofmew]

Well here's I See it

a.
If you go x-0 and 1st after swiss with top cut you can loose and get 3rd.
if the 2nd place also looses they get 4th.

b.
the 4th place person after 2 wins can get to 2nd by beating 1st after swiss.

So depending on which side you are on you are either gonna like top cut or not like it.

For example, There was a tournament I was 3rd after swiss but won in t4 but lost in t2 so I got 2nd.

Also in another event I was 2nd after swiss, lost and the 1st place lost and got 4th.

Assuming the prize support is the same - You still have to go x-0 or x-1 to get any prizes. It's not like it wasn't that way before.

 

[Team Cook]

Assuming the prize support is the same - You still have to go x-0 or x-1 to get any prizes. It's not like it wasn't that way before.

The prize support will stay the same for Battle Roads. Still waiting on CP information though.

 

[homeofmew]

hmm assuming the CP would be the same: For the CP collectors I can see where they might get upset, since they see it as "another chance" to "maybe" get 1 more CP? I mean going x-0 is hard to pull off, and I'll agree with people there. But it's not like it's a lot of CP.

Now if the CP was reduced/eliminated I could see people not showing up to BRs.
But then again people like me don't collect CP that hardcore (whooo 1 CP!?) .
However the people with the most money this season who want to collect CP will go to as many regionals and states they can get to.

 

[JandPDS]

Would this be allowed?
Once a BR is finished and the Prizes are all distributed, would it be ok if a TO wished to hold a side event afterwards that invited the the Top 4 finishers in the Battle Road to compete in a mini tourney of best 2 our of 3 games? This would not count for any points or aything, it would just be for fun.

 

[P_A]

I think TPCi frowns upon that - if it's sanctioned, since all sanctioned events must be open to any participants that are eligible to play under their floor rules. However if it's not sanctioned .... you can invite anyone you want to play in an event you control. It's called an 'Invitational.' Doesn't mean that the rest of the players would appreciate it though. That's why I advocate doing that sort of thing on your own time.