How would it even be possible to take away losing rating points in top cut though? And I just completely disagree with that in every way. The whole point of having a top cut is to determine the best player in 2/3 matches. This is why I feel the same about the ratings. Ross is right.
Determining 3rd & 4th Place; 2008 US States & Regionals
- Thread starter PokeDaddy
- Start date
- Status
Cyrus
Iron Chef - Master Emeritus
It's easier than it sounds, Chad: all they have to do with the ELO in top cut matches is calculate it normally, but drop the loser's points. You keep doing this until the single elim is over.
That's how it would work. You still achieve the effect of finding out who's the best player, and the best player is rewarded HEAVILY in points, but at the same time you don't punish people for losing to the best player in out rounds.
I fail to see what you disagree with, Chad. You know through years of playing that 9th-16th 5-2's are almost always punished in the points, while the resistance-missing 5-2's are barely phased. You know that after two ranked losses, it's just adding insult to injury to the 4th place player, who ends up losing more than almost anyone else in the top cut, DESPITE winning two straight matches.
Ratings are meant to determine the best, most successful players in any given season. Do you think that 4th losing more points than 5th-16th, as well as 9th-16th losing more points than resistance whiffers is fair?
It's clearly not fair, and I see that as the only legitimate way of fixing things.
That's how it would work. You still achieve the effect of finding out who's the best player, and the best player is rewarded HEAVILY in points, but at the same time you don't punish people for losing to the best player in out rounds.
I fail to see what you disagree with, Chad. You know through years of playing that 9th-16th 5-2's are almost always punished in the points, while the resistance-missing 5-2's are barely phased. You know that after two ranked losses, it's just adding insult to injury to the 4th place player, who ends up losing more than almost anyone else in the top cut, DESPITE winning two straight matches.
Ratings are meant to determine the best, most successful players in any given season. Do you think that 4th losing more points than 5th-16th, as well as 9th-16th losing more points than resistance whiffers is fair?
It's clearly not fair, and I see that as the only legitimate way of fixing things.
Last edited:
Patriarch: Do you think it's fair to lose 2 games in the top 8 and not lose any points? It seems you are taking one unfair thing and replacing it with another unfair thing.
IMHO, if you play a game, there should be points on the line. It's not fair that 4th could lose more points than 17th, but 4th plays more games and thus has more of a chance to gain points too.
IMHO, if you play a game, there should be points on the line. It's not fair that 4th could lose more points than 17th, but 4th plays more games and thus has more of a chance to gain points too.
Cyrus
Iron Chef - Master Emeritus
Of course it's fair. But before I go into my shpeel, lemme say one thing: look at this the same way as the rankings do. The person didn't lose two games, but rather lost a whole match.
But yeah, I do think it's fair, because by canceling out the loss in the cut, points actually correspond to placement (bar ELO's impact on ratings), and how well you performed in the swiss to get to that placement.
Last edited:
NoPoke
Active Member
Quite a few players in the tournament will finish with two sequential losses. Its not restricted to the top cut. Fourth place is not special in this respect.
Abandoning zero sum would be a bad thing! Just turn your minds to all the ways that a reward only system could be manipulated when nobody looses points.
K values in the top cut could be reduced for all, or the maximum transfer of points capped. Neither approach breaks the zero-sum property. The arguement for this is that on any given day all the top cut entrants are capable of winning, so the redistribution of points between those that make the cut should not be extreme.
I do wonder if there is a way of using the whole tournament's results including the final standings in the adjustments made to each entrants rating.
Abandoning zero sum would be a bad thing! Just turn your minds to all the ways that a reward only system could be manipulated when nobody looses points.
K values in the top cut could be reduced for all, or the maximum transfer of points capped. Neither approach breaks the zero-sum property. The arguement for this is that on any given day all the top cut entrants are capable of winning, so the redistribution of points between those that make the cut should not be extreme.
I do wonder if there is a way of using the whole tournament's results including the final standings in the adjustments made to each entrants rating.
Cyrus
Iron Chef - Master Emeritus
Nopoke: good points. Now that you mention it, I see that such a system, where no one loses points in the top cut, "could" be plagued with drops and concessions. However, the current system we have now is plagued with drops and concessions, so would it be too significant a difference?
I don't know about a reduction in K value for the top cut, because essentially any given tournament's best players are in that cut. The reason why we even have K value is to determine various "levels" of play, so it would be counterproductive to lower the k value during a tournament's most competitive portion.
Maximum transfer sounds nice, but I'd be more inclined to focus on a maximum "loss."
Or, we could just ignore the negligible difference between 9th-16th and 17th, and instead declare the 3rd/4th consolation match unranked. That way, 3rd doesn't end up with as many or more points than 2nd place every tournament.
By the way, I hope I'm not pushing this discussion too far off topic. I just recognize that with the severe final four issues, there are also severe top cut issues in general.
I don't know about a reduction in K value for the top cut, because essentially any given tournament's best players are in that cut. The reason why we even have K value is to determine various "levels" of play, so it would be counterproductive to lower the k value during a tournament's most competitive portion.
Maximum transfer sounds nice, but I'd be more inclined to focus on a maximum "loss."
Or, we could just ignore the negligible difference between 9th-16th and 17th, and instead declare the 3rd/4th consolation match unranked. That way, 3rd doesn't end up with as many or more points than 2nd place every tournament.
By the way, I hope I'm not pushing this discussion too far off topic. I just recognize that with the severe final four issues, there are also severe top cut issues in general.
NoPoke
Active Member
I understood that reducing K values when highly rated player meet was common practive in Chess. (Could easily have that wrong!)
The K value in Arpad Elos original work was never intended as a reward parameter. It is a dynamics parameter that controls the damping and settling time at which players underlying skill is established. For these reasons I would prefer a constant K value all season, with if anything higher K values early season when ratings instability has the fewest negative consequences.
I don't think it is off topic to discuss the issues behind the choices in the opening post, though I probably did stray OT with my mentioning of K as a dynamics parameter.
The K value in Arpad Elos original work was never intended as a reward parameter. It is a dynamics parameter that controls the damping and settling time at which players underlying skill is established. For these reasons I would prefer a constant K value all season, with if anything higher K values early season when ratings instability has the fewest negative consequences.
I don't think it is off topic to discuss the issues behind the choices in the opening post, though I probably did stray OT with my mentioning of K as a dynamics parameter.
Coming in 4th place would be terrible, but if you have to play off for prizes, which means you played a full match best 2 of 3 dont you think that if your the better player(chad,kettles,ross would all think you were) AND it isn't a 90-10 match up. That you should win and gain some points from your previous loss.Which was probably a donk or a 90-10 match up.
It's a chance to gain OR lose points after you lost in top 4.
Or I could be completely wrong. Because I have never gotten 4th in a premier event that had a 3/4th playoff. I don't even remember getting 3rd.
It's a chance to gain OR lose points after you lost in top 4.
Or I could be completely wrong. Because I have never gotten 4th in a premier event that had a 3/4th playoff. I don't even remember getting 3rd.
SlimeyGrimey
New Member
I do have a problem with the fact that 4th currently receives fewer rating points than someone making top 8, though I don't like the idea of having an un-ranked match. Having no 3/4 match seems kind of lame as well, because you're basically awarding the 3rd place trophy arbitrarily to one of the players.
I kind of like kettler's idea of no ranking point losses in top cut. It automatically results in the higher placed players getting more points than those who placed lower than they did. Although it also has issues with not being zero-sum, and giving players more incentive to concede.
No 3rd/4th match seems like a decent solution, though they might as well get rid of the 3rd place trophy if they're going to do that because with no match to determine who gets it, its hard to say 3rd REALLY did better than 4th
I kind of like kettler's idea of no ranking point losses in top cut. It automatically results in the higher placed players getting more points than those who placed lower than they did. Although it also has issues with not being zero-sum, and giving players more incentive to concede.
No 3rd/4th match seems like a decent solution, though they might as well get rid of the 3rd place trophy if they're going to do that because with no match to determine who gets it, its hard to say 3rd REALLY did better than 4th
rerisenphoenix
New Member
I like the idea of playing for #3 in a non-points match. As, if points were on the line, you could lose a majority of the points you've earned making top cut! Whereas, should points not be thrown into the mix, it is simply a match for a trophy, not points.
JandPDS
New Member
If you play a match you need to loose or gain points
Why is everyone only looking at this subject from the 4th place finishers point of view? The 3rd place person gains points, so only one person is hurt and that is the 4th place finisher, Frankly if someone losses in Top 4 and 3rd 4th, don't they deserve to loose points?
The 3rd place person and the 2nd place person gain about the same points and that is how it should be.
The 4th place person looses points and they should. Maybe they should allow a looser in the Top 4 to drop from the tournament prior to the 3rd 4th playoff and accept the 4th place prize if they are not willing to risk rating points.
Why is everyone only looking at this subject from the 4th place finishers point of view? The 3rd place person gains points, so only one person is hurt and that is the 4th place finisher, Frankly if someone losses in Top 4 and 3rd 4th, don't they deserve to loose points?
The 3rd place person and the 2nd place person gain about the same points and that is how it should be.
The 4th place person looses points and they should. Maybe they should allow a looser in the Top 4 to drop from the tournament prior to the 3rd 4th playoff and accept the 4th place prize if they are not willing to risk rating points.
Cyrus
Iron Chef - Master Emeritus
People look at it from the 4th place perspective because that is the most disproportionate gain out of anyone in the top cut. Often, the fourth place finisher gains less points than the person he/she beat in the top eight. Is that right by ANY means? Absolutely not.
charmander rox
New Member
I agree.
Perhaps the 3rd place and 4th place should have to agree on whether it's points or not?
HurricaneWarty
New Member
WAY too many opportunities to abuse this. If two friends are facing each other they could decide to count it for points, and the one that doesn't need the points can just concede to his friend who is only a few points out of a ratings invite. This might actually be the one change that would raise the drops we see!
Luxatos
<a href="http://pokegym.net/forums/showpost.php?p=
Assuming a tournament with a top-16 cut. The top 8 should have better ratings gains from the playoff games than the losers of the first round. Likewise, the top 4 should have better gains than the losers of round 2. The finalists have better gains than the semifinal losers. And the winner has better gains than the second place player.
If the 3/4 game is played for points, then not only does the 4th place player get bumped down to a similar ratings bonus as 5-8, the 3rd place player gets bumped up to the same ratings bonus as the 2nd place player who quite probably beat them in the previous round.
A prize being on the line does not mean it has to be a points match. An official judge officiating it doesn't mean it has to be a points match. And there are plenty of games which are sanctioned by POP and officiated by official judges which are not played for points (Prereleases, fun format, unlimited format, non-premier tournaments, etc.)
I know this was a rambling post, but all my points converge on the central one that this game between third and fourth place doesn't have to be, and shouldn't be, a game with points on the line. (by "doesn't have to be" I mean that logically speaking, not according to the official tournament guidelines, which I admit I haven't read closely for premier tournaments.)
If the 3/4 game is played for points, then not only does the 4th place player get bumped down to a similar ratings bonus as 5-8, the 3rd place player gets bumped up to the same ratings bonus as the 2nd place player who quite probably beat them in the previous round.
A prize being on the line does not mean it has to be a points match. An official judge officiating it doesn't mean it has to be a points match. And there are plenty of games which are sanctioned by POP and officiated by official judges which are not played for points (Prereleases, fun format, unlimited format, non-premier tournaments, etc.)
I know this was a rambling post, but all my points converge on the central one that this game between third and fourth place doesn't have to be, and shouldn't be, a game with points on the line. (by "doesn't have to be" I mean that logically speaking, not according to the official tournament guidelines, which I admit I haven't read closely for premier tournaments.)
Dark_Mewtwo
New Member
First, no one wants to lose points in the ranking system. However, if you choose an option to make third and forth place "a no points" match, what about the winner who worked hard and receives none? If you are concerned about your ranking and don't want to lose another match, can you not just drop?
Thanks,
Randy
Thanks,
Randy
JandPDS
New Member
Yes just drop
If you loose in T4 and are to chicken to risk losing more points in the 3rd & 4th playoff, then yes you should be allowed to drop and accept the 4th place prize, while you opponent gets 3rd place and no points are gained or lost.But if both players decide to play for the prize then points need to be on the line.
If you loose in T4 and are to chicken to risk losing more points in the 3rd & 4th playoff, then yes you should be allowed to drop and accept the 4th place prize, while you opponent gets 3rd place and no points are gained or lost.But if both players decide to play for the prize then points need to be on the line.
IF the tourney is set to play off 3rd/4th, then dropping is the same as a loss and you lose the points. Cannot drop in the T4 w/o a loss counting (even semi-finals) once the top cut is established and announced.
This is in the tourney rules already.
Keith
Cyrus
Iron Chef - Master Emeritus
This is the exact same point that I'm making in other posts, and I'm glad you're on the same train of thought.
5th place>4th place, point-wise? Come on now, POP.
NoPoke
Active Member
The only tournament where finishing fourth really matters is the last tournament of the season: Nationals in most countries. With T4 qualifying at the USA nats it is not particlarly important there which just leaves all the other Nationals around the world.
The winner of a match gains points from the loser. Its how the rating system works. It is possible to devise systems where a pool of points is distributed amongst all entrants but then you have to deal with a different complaint: That players ratings can change even when they aren't involved in the particular match. Future match outcomes will also affect your rating.
The winner of a match gains points from the loser. Its how the rating system works. It is possible to devise systems where a pool of points is distributed amongst all entrants but then you have to deal with a different complaint: That players ratings can change even when they aren't involved in the particular match. Future match outcomes will also affect your rating.
- Status