billiv15 wrote:
I think a "Better win" is more important than a "Bad Loss".
Totally fine with this
billiv15 wrote:
I think a "Better win" is more important than a "Bad Loss".
as for Jason's two ideas, I like SoS removing the worst person. In fact I think that is incredibly simple, and could easily be inserted into the system with ease. It also would mean "full SoS" could still be used later as a further tie breaker, which I like.
Every system can use full SoS as a later tie-breaker. I thought we always had that in mind.
I don't think it's any easier than simply counting to 1. With the system of the first tie-breaker being if someone beat an opponent with a better record, it is the quickest and easiest way to find that "better win".
More often than not, nobody at 4-2 will have beaten a 5-1. And if they have, they deserve to be elevated. In WI - Jonny would have been #4 before anything else had to be considered.
We could still use Jason's system, but only after we confirm that the other categories are tied.
A. # of games won vs opponents with a better record.
B. # of games won vs opponents with the same record.
C. Jason's modified SoS
D. Full SoS
billiv15 wrote:
SoS will take into account a Bad Loss. Obviously it's entirely possible someone someday could manage to lose to a 1-5, then beat two 5-1s or something crazy, but I don't particularly think we will need an additional increase to this in particular. In fact, I actually think removing the worst "win" from SoS should actually increase the effects of a bad loss.
You're right about it increasing the weight of a bad loss, but it does not give much additional weight to beating someone better. I think that deserves greater weight.
billiv15 wrote:
Say someone did the following.
L 1-5
W 2-4
W 3-3
L 4-2
W 3-3
W 4-2
Sos = 17/36 or 47%
Modified with the removal of the worst win = 46%. It's actually a net drop in SoS because that huge loss takes on more importance.
Now let's look at someone who doesn't do that, but gets hit by a bad first round opponent.
W 0-6
W 3-3
W 4-2
L 6-0
W 5-1
L 5-1
SoS = 23/36 = 64%
MSoS = 77%
In my system we wouldn't have to have it come down to any form of SoS, since all we had to do was see that Player B beat a 5-1, and Player A did not.
They are tied in score and record, and did not play head to head - but player B beat a 5-1. Player B advances. Easy, simple and valid.
Here's a situation where Jason's system alone breaks down:
Player AL 5-1
W 0-6
W 3-3
L 6-0
W 3-3
W 4-2
Sos = 21/36 or 63.88%
Modified with the removal of the worst win = 70%.
Player BW 1-5
W 1-5
W 3-3
L 6-0
W 5-1
L 5-1
SoS = 21/36 = 63.88%
MSoS = 66.66%
So they had the same overall SoS, but player A wins with Jason's system. To me clearly player B was better, because player B beat a 5-1, and lost to the same two guys Player A did.
I really think extra weight should be given to beating a 5-1