It's this one. You remove the entire record of the worst player you beat from your entire SoS. It's a very minor change, but does enough to make a difference. People will understand it, it's simple, and prevents what we want to prevent.


Then you are removing 3 games, and limiting SoS too far. This amounts to who played the best 3 games, not including the quality of the two losses, and removing the lowest win. I'm not opposed to using it, but if we want who you lost to to matter, which I think we do, the simple method above is superior by far. This could be a secondary tie breaker before full SoS after the above if we want it. Its still better than full SoS I believe.

Agreed it is the better of the two. I think if we use this we should add the second method after it, before full SoS.

I even think we should add a few more steps after, even if we don't ever use them. SoS is tied sometimes, and the thought of it coming down to a roll-off makes me ill.

I think after these two, it should THEN go:

# of wins vs opponents with better records
then
# of wins vs opponents with the same record
then
SoS vs opponents you lost to

THEN

roll off



Absolutely no reason not to have extra tie-breakers, even if they rarely (if ever) get used.

Roll off is only when absolutely every other conceivable category is tied.

I think if we do these two, then full SoS, we have done all we can. The others are just as random as a roll off in all honesty, and it would never get that far anyway.

So if I have it right, what I propose is the following:

1. Points
2. Total Wins
3. H2H (1 player has beaten all other tied players)
4. SoS minus the game that hurts SoS the most (worst win).
5. SoS only defeated players minus the game that hurts SoS the most (worst win).
6. Full SoS
7. Roll Off

It should be worst win, otherwise someone could have a loss erased

I really don't think it's anywhere near as random as a roll off. Nothing is.

I think if 2 players are tied down to SoS, then # of wins vs opponents with better records followed by # of wins vs opponents with the same record is totally valid.

Why not make a roll off a virtual impossibilty as opposed to just improbable. It certainly won't hurt anything.

I can definately get behind this. It let's SOS do its job by determining who had the best overall day that one day, while at the same time removing that 1 outlier that can drag it down. Jerrod will be happy to hear that we are adopting his method of tiebreaks for our tourneys (can we call it the Jerrod tiebreak method lol?). Doesn't penalize you for losing to players who finsih above you and does penalize you for losing to players behind you. I think we just about nailed it.

I think so also, I'll get Brad on writing it up officially, and post it back here in this thread

If this is the route we're going I am fine with it but we need to get specifc on some wording.

I really think "The game that hurts SoS the most" is vague and could mean a bad loss. I am under the impression that it should only be a win vs a bad record opponent that should be dropped.

I also think H2H should be spelled out explicitly, and it should be made clear that it has to be rechecked after every step.

Finally - I really do think adding extra steps (even if it is after SoS) is a good call for the slim chance of it coming down to a roll off. Having beaten someone with a better record is way more of a valid reason for advancing someone who is tied after SoS than a roll off. Basically I want to insure that it will NEVER come down to a roll off.


So with all that in mind here's what it might look like:

1. Points
2. Record
3. Head to Head - One player must have defeated all other players at the tied level, or else move onto the next step. Head to Head must be rechecked after each step that a player is eliminated from a tie.
4. Modified Strength of Schedule Average of opponents' records, leaving out the opponent with the worst record who this player defeated
5. Modified Strength of Schedule vs Wins Average of only opponents' records who this player defeated, leaving out the opponent with the worst record
6. Full Strength of Schedule Average of all opponents' records
7. Number of wins against opponents with a greater record
8. Number of wins against opponents with the same record
9. Strength of Schedule vs Losses Average of only opponents' records who this player was defeated by
10. Roll Off[/quote]

So if you tie but have more points does that count as a win for the record part?

if you mean 2 pt wins lou then yes.

so someone like daniel who goes 5-1 with 12 pts would be ahead of someone like me who went 4-2 with 12 points

2pt is a tie not a win by our rules. Just wondering.

Actually that's not true. It has always counted as a win as far as record is concerned (and always will).

Really it's just semantics when we say that it's not a win. It's just a method to encourage people to finish games, but it's actually meaningless.

You get 2 points or 3 points. Obviously everyone would rather have 3 points. But as far as our system (both before and what is proposed now), 2 pointers still count as wins.

There are no ties. Ever.

No, by definition in the floor rules, it's a tie. It just counts as a "win" for purposes of "record" in the tournament ranking system.

Right



Lou - to more definitively answer your question, I would say it has to count as a win in every ranking tie breaker.

It already does for record and H2H, so it wouldn't make any sense to switch it up for Modified SoS or any other category.

It is a good point to bring up, so we can make it clear in the rules

Perhaps: For purposes of ranking tie breakers, all games where a player recieved 2 (or 3) victory points will be considered a "win"

I would like to see people who finish games get rewarded over people who sit on leads!

If someone goes 3-2 with 9pts I feel should be higher than someone who goes 1-1-3 with 9pts.

I'm confused. Points beat all. It's above record even. There is no way to reward someone more.

For our purposes nobody with 2 losses and even a single 2 pointer will probably ever make the top 8.

This is deciding how to break ties after that point

I'm really confused here. First, how can you go 1-1-3? Second, how do you get anywhere close to 9 pts unless you win at least 3 games?

Where this system will factor in and really matter, is when someone gets 12 pts in the GenCon championships. You have to have a minimum of 4 wins, with all of them being 3 pointers to even be in the running.

So at this tie-breaking point 3/2 has already made the separation, and all players are tied in both points and record, so it's sorta moot for all practical purposes.

Don't worry Lou, this new proposal won't change the necessity to get full 3 point victories. It's more about how to break the tie between the guys who got 4 wins with all 3 point victories. Anyone with 4 wins and even a single 2 pointer will be sitting on the sidelines.

I know it wont change the 3\2 I just want to reward people who win not tie. 1-1-3 1 3pt win 1 loss 3 2pts ties = 9pts, 3-2 3 3pt wins 2 losses = 9 pts