Cockatrice tournament system May 12, 2016, 4:53 PM
GalacticPresident I think the system for the cockatrice tournaments with group stage and final stage is great, with one exception. Two people from each group advance to the final pool to play against the successful players from the other pools. The result from the match between the two players from the same group is transferred, which means it counts double, once for the group stage and again in the final pool. It is now possible to win the group stage but still go to the final pool with a loss if one happens to have only lost against the second seed of one's group. I think we should find a way to change that because it is just not fair and also distorts the end result!
Imagine this: Player 1 wins group A with 4 wins and 1 loss to Player 2. Player 2 comes in second with 3 wins and 2 losses. In the final pool, both players win the same amount of matches. In this case, player 2 ends up in front of player 1 in the final standings, despite having won 1 match less.

In my point of view, the player with the most points in his group should have an edge in the final pool, no matter if he won or lost against the player who happens to come in second.

I can think of 2 fair scenarios who the system could be changed:
1: The results from the group stage are not transferred at all.
2: The results from the group stage are not transferred at all and the group winners enter the final pool with +3 points.

What do you guys think of that?
last page
Max2070 May 22, 2016, 1:12 AM mtgo tournaments are in real time. So 4 round = 4 hours, that's all.
GalacticPresident May 23, 2016, 3:31 PM @Max:

your thinking would be correct if we were considering the average of the results. In that case, indeed, more the matches you play, more the result is accurate. But here only the last match count. So considering % based on "wins twice" and "win once" is not relevant at all. (it is also why I detailled case by case who win the last match in my explanation)
For instance, I can loose 99 matches (because of bad MU) and win the last by luck ! in that case only the last match would be take into account (let's imagine 100 pool phase xD), your probabilities above would be 99% for the player who deserve but in the and with rematch the 1% player win ...
An other way of doing would be to take this average but on two match only it's not relevant ... (which can be discuss)

so for me this statement remains true => rematch is equivalent to transfert (detailled here)



You are correct that my calculations are only true if we look at the sum of both matches, the probabilities for just the second match are independant of any previous results. It does show however that, if you generally look at the problem, transferring results cut off about 50% of the possible outcomes (if we continue to refer to my example of the 55-45 matchup). In total that might seem fair, because the favored player will just win 55% of the matches, which represents the odds. But the same way you critizised my way of thinking, your way also cares about "the big picture" and doesn't focus on the individual matchup. Because by not replaying, only the extreme outcomes (1 player wins twice) are taken into account. The bad thing about that is, that the factor "luck" is disproportionately important.
To refer to your example about the lucky 1% win: This is the exact reason why transferring is worse than deleting. If you turn your example around, and the first match is decided in favor of the 1% player, suddenly that unlikely outcome is doubled!!! While if you replay or delete, the result happened only once. You gave the perfect example to clarify my point, you just have to imagine that your extreme case happens in the first match, not the second.

So I still am convinced that deleting is far more fair, because the danger of multiplying extreme results is not there. Maybe you see it now? I think my argumentation is solid, we'll see! :-P

please, help me to figure out why a pool winner would deserve an advantage ? as i recalled in my previous message the levels of pools are not the same at all (easy pool, difficult pool, ...). a second rank player in difficult pool can deserve far more than a first rank player in an easy pool (and it's what we observe some time in final pool)



I didn't intend to compare pools with each other. 2 players advance from each pool. Each player doesn't have to play 1 match in final pool. Group A winner doesn't play against a winner from another pool, while second rank player from group A doesn't play against a second rank player from another pool.
I think a pool winner deserves to have an advantage over the second ranked player from that same pool, because he performed better. Assuming that pool winners are on average better than 2nd ranked players, this is a small benefit for winning the pool.


@Swiss tournament:
I'm curious how it works out, I've ever participated so I don't know and the opinions of the players who know the system seem to differ. As we see with the current pool system tournament, no tournament format can garantuee that matches are played. If people don't play, they don't play. With the Swiss tournament I think there should be a deadline. Matches that are not played until then end 1-1. It is the same as in the current tournaments, only that players maybe have less of an idea what the other players play, which makes intentional not-playing less enticing.
Both tournaments have their merits, I don't see a clear "winner". We'll see.
zombie33 Jun 20, 2016, 2:01 PM In order to fix a bug in Challonge with bye. The following system will be used in our future tournament.

- If we play a tournament with an odd number of player i will add another player called "bye" and enter a 2-0 result against this player.
- If a player drop the tournament, i will rename this player : "Bye" and use the same system as before.
- Of course if they are two "Bye" i will delete both of them.
GalacticPresident Jun 20, 2016, 2:05 PM Great idea!
Lorebroker Jun 20, 2016, 5:53 PM Yeah, a dummy makes a lot of sense!