New Redemption Grab Bag now includes a random FoOF or RoA pack! Available at Cactus website.
You can only use Head-to-Head rankings if all the points tied players did in fact play each other. Since not all of them did you have to use differential. A and B should have tied for first with player C taking third.
Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on June 24, 2012, 05:02:47 AMYou can only use Head-to-Head rankings if all the points tied players did in fact play each other. Since not all of them did you have to use differential. A and B should have tied for first with player C taking third.Apparently you and I are both wrong on this, RDT.
Chris Bany's spreadsheet has the following results posted... Nic second, Tyler third, Gabe fourth, and Sam fifth. This is based on the following games played:Nic had two wins, beating Tyler and Sam and not playing Gabe.Tyler had a win and a loss, losing to Nic, beating Gabe and not playing Sam.Gabe had a win and a loss, losing to Tyler, beating Sam, and not playing Nic.Lastly, Sam had two losses.
Quote from: ReyZen on June 23, 2012, 10:40:25 PMNo extra round was played nor will be played for a tie breaker.Facts:1. Player A lost to Player D.2. Player B lost to Player C.3. Player C lost to Player A.Need more inputs and your own 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th placer individual judgments, please.In this case, I would do it like this:1. Player D2. Player A3. Player C4. Player B5. Player E
No extra round was played nor will be played for a tie breaker.Facts:1. Player A lost to Player D.2. Player B lost to Player C.3. Player C lost to Player A.Need more inputs and your own 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th placer individual judgments, please.
Further to my previous post, when I say Swiss works better than Elimination I mean that it works better toward fun and fellowship because everyone keeps playing. If the goal were purely to find winners and losers, we go with a straight double elimination format and see who is left standing. No thank you.
I too agree with the above final rankings. Player D tied the other four in points and defeated player A without losing to the other three players. It's not perfect but, that how I rule it. I am open to rewording the tournament guide if someone has a better form of words. Mark U's idea is interesting but, can we word it such that hosts can follow it. It will almost always be very difficult for every top ranked player to play each other. Consider college football. Moreover, I am not going to ask tournament host to start adding playoff rounds. And I still believe strongly that this system works better than our old elmination system even though issues like this come up.
Okay, so from what Tim has said, it sounds like John and Roy decided to use the rankings that I'd suggested and a few others agreed on? [...] It sounds like either side has some precedent to go off of, which makes the situation confusing and certainly frustrating, though I'm sure Tim and Sam aren't harboring personal grudges against anyone.
How I understand the ranking system:1. Points2. Head-to-Head unless there is a loop (A beat B, B beat C, C beat A)3. DifferencialThe only time Head-to-head is dismissed is if there is an actual loop. If no loop exists, a clear hierarchy can be followed. Placement of player E in the hierarchy must be based solely on differencial, which places him last.
What if in this case all of the other facts remained as stated except that Player E had the highest Lost Soul differential? Would Player E have placed first (by reason of Lost Soul Differential) or would he still have placed last (by reason of "didn't play anyone good")?
Quote from: EmJayBee83 on June 24, 2012, 09:54:21 PMWhat if in this case all of the other facts remained as stated except that Player E had the highest Lost Soul differential? Would Player E have placed first (by reason of Lost Soul Differential) or would he still have placed last (by reason of "didn't play anyone good")?Firstly, I can't imagine how player E could even possibly have the highest LS differential and not have been higher enough ranked in any previous round to play any of the other top 5 players.
However, assuming that this is even possible (which I don't think it is), then I would still put Player E in last on the grounds that his "strength of schedule" was significantly easier than all of the other tied players.
So, your position is that Player E should be penalized because he could only play the games that the host put before him?
Quote from: EmJayBee83 on June 25, 2012, 01:50:04 AMSo, your position is that Player E should be penalized because he could only play the games that the host put before him?Firstly, I disagree with the way you are presenting this. It's not like the host specifically kept Player E out of games against the top players.
So if a player doesn't play any of the other top 5 people in a tournament, then that player must have done more poorly all tournament long until the last game, and therefore was never close enough to the top to play any of those players. Recognizing that fact is not "penalizing" anyone, it is simply observing that they did NOT play to the level necessary to compete against the top players, and therefore don't deserve to be ranked ahead of those players.
Secondly, since you have thought of a scenario already where this is even possible, please share it.
I was trying to echo the phrasing that people critical of the BCS use every year...The winky was meant to go with both sentences of that comment--not just the second.
On a side note, I once lost a tournament (took second) without losing a single game, solely because I received a first round bye with the resulting LS differential of zero. Would you classify my loss in this tournament as a deficiency in my level of competitive play?
OK. Player E loses his first round game by a score of 5-3 (because his SoG was the last card in his deck ), wins the next three by scores of 5-4, and the last by 5-0. Players A, B, C, and D each lose a single game by the score of 5-4, and win all of their remaining games by 5-4 margins. Up through the final round, Player E never gets ranked in the top four because he is always down either by game points or ls differential compared to other players. To add some intrigue, Player A who ended up first in head to head (A beat B who beat C who beat D)--actually lost to player F which is the same player that player E beat 5-0 in the final round. At the end the scores are 12 for players A-E. A, B, C, and D have a LS differential of 3, while E has a differential of 6.
Again, I don't see how this is possible unless you are leaving out the information that you also did NOT win all your games.
Quote from: Prof Underwood on June 25, 2012, 08:13:38 AMAgain, I don't see how this is possible unless you are leaving out the information that you also did NOT win all your games. He said that he did not lose.
I think you are underestimating the number of participants, especially for multiplayer where there are significantly fewer rounds.
The winner is the player with the highest game score after the last round. If two or more players are tied for 1st place in game score, rank as lower any who lost a head to head match with a player tied for 1st. If the players did not face each other, then the Lost Soul Score is examined. The player with the highest Lost Soul Score is the Winner.
Hey,After nationals 2009 we decided to change the tie-breaker system to head-to-head before differential. When we made the change we didn't iron out the details of 3+ way ties which lead to a lots of confused hosts and inconsistent resolutions to 3+ way ties. After nationals 2010 we decided to abandon the head-to-head tie-breaker for 3+ way ties.The 2009 change made it into the tournament guide, the 2010 change didn't.For the elders reading this, the thread regarding the 2010 change can be found here.