PDA

View Full Version : Suicide Tennis | Rules |


416_Man
Jan 22nd, 2006, 04:06 PM
win·ner (wĭn'er)

noun

One that wins, especially a victor in sports or a notably successful person.

winnaar Sieger νικητής gagnant רעיון מבטיח vincitore победитель vinnare الظافر succé лауреат εχέγγυο επιτυχίας Erfolg

Concept
1. Each day of play, you must pick 1 winner playing a WTA main draw singles match. Of course, the player that you choose, is playing one match scheduled to be played that day (as seen on the order of play).

2. This is where the twist comes in. Once you pick someone, you cannot choose them again for the rest of the tournament. So, you don't want to waste a pick on Clijsters or Sharapova to win in early round matches.

3. You must choose one player to win each day. If you forget, are sick, or are unable to reach a computer, it will be treated as a wrong pick, and you will be out of the tournament. As well, your pick must be chosen before the first match has commenced, otherwise it will be considered a wrong pick, and thus you will again, be out of the tournament.

For Example:

On DAY 02 daniela86 chooses Paola Suarez. From that point on, daniela86 (assuming he qualifies) is unable to choose Paola Suarez again. It is especially significant when on the semifinal day, you are choosing who you believe will win in the semifinals, but also lose in the final.

4. Only in the case of a walkover, or a withdrawal, each player is allowed to have a back-up pick, selected at the same time as their initial pick. That back-up pick will only be used in the occurence of a walkover or withdrawal, as stated above. Retirements do count as completed matches.


Replacement picks must be identitified like this:

BACK-UP PICK - Daniela Hantuchova

If it is not clearly identitified, then both picks will be declared invalid.


For Example:

Hobart - 2006 - Day 1 Matches:

Severine Bremond vs [WC] Christina Wheeler
[Q] Anne Kremer vs [2] Klara Koukalova
[Q] Olga Poutchkova vs Mara Santangelo
[1] Katarina Srebotnik vs [WC] Casey Dellacqua
Michaella Krajicek vs Maret Ani
[Q] Arantxa Parra Santonja vs Kristina Brandi
[3] Anna Smashnova vs Laura Granville
Mashona Washington vs Emilie Loit
Evgenia Linetskaya vs Alona Bondarenko
Martina Sucha vs Jelena Kostanic

andrew_uk chooses Jelena Kostanic and "Back-Up Pick - Klara Koukalova"
Chevina chooses Katarina Srebotnik and "Back-up Pick - Laura Granville"
pirlo chooses Anna Smashnova and "Back-up Pick - Michaella Krajicek"

Day 1 Match Results:

[Q] Anne Kremer def. [2] Klara Koukalova
Jelena Kostanic def. Martina Sucha
[WC] Casey Dellacqua def. [LL] Aleksandra Wozniak (Wozniak replaces Srebotnik in the main draw, due to her withdrawal)
Laura Granville def. [3] Anna Smashnova
Michaella Krajicek def. Maret Ani

andrew_uk's pick of Kostanic is correct, he has qualified for Day 2.
Chevina's pick of Srebotnik is invalid, due to her withdrawal. However, because his back-up pick is correct, he has qualified for Day 2.
pirlo's pick of Smashnova is incorrect, therefore he has not qualified for Day 2.

Despite andrew_uk and Chevina qualifying for Day 2, they are not allowed to choose their picks from Day 1 for the remainder of the tournament (for andrew_uk that would be Kostanic, and for Chevina that would be Granville).

5. As you get deeper into the draws, you have to start picking based on not only who you think will win, but who is likely to lose down the road. And remember, if you are still alive come semi-final time, you are not only picking who you think would win a semi, but also who would lose the final, since you could not pick the same player again.

Remember, every choice, whether good or bad, can be deadly...

416_Man
Jan 22nd, 2006, 04:17 PM
los·er (lū'zer)

noun

One that fails consistently, especially a person with bad luck or poor skills.

mislukkeling Verlierer ηττημένος perdant χαμένος perdente проигравший förlorare Versager perdedor الخاسر מפסידן fracasado Versager


Game Play

1. You have until beginning of the day's match play to pick your player. Once matches have started, you cannot pick a player.

2. Pick one player per day (not per round) to win; if he wins, you are still in the game, if he loses, you are out.

3. If you pick a player whose match is rescheduled for the next day, your original pick still stands.

4. No changing your mind! Once you've picked a player, it sticks.

5. Please make your pick in a timely fashion. Game host reserves the right to disqualify a participant if he feels that the late pick rule is being abused.

6. In order to avoid confusion, please name your pick by the player's last name. NO nicknames or first names. In the case where players share the same last name (e.g. Williams) please use the player's first initial as well (e.g. S. Williams).

7. No sick/off days allowed, nor are stragglers allowed in after the first day of match play has commenced.

8. At the moment, no doubles matches will be included in this game.

i) Tournament Schedule

1. Each player is allowed to play only one tournament each week. As soon as he has selected his first choice in the thread, he has confirmed his commitment.

2. The tournament thread will be entitled:

" Suicide (Insert Tournament Location) "

And will be found within its respective tournament forum.

3. The tournament schedule will mimic the WTA Tour 2006 Calendar. All tournaments will be played, as long as one player has selected their choices before the first day has begun.

4. You may compete in as many weeks of the WTA Tour season as you wish, noting that you only compete in one tournament each week.

ii) Winning

1. There are two ways in which a player can win a tournament:

- If you are the only player to have correctly chosen the winner for each day's play through the final day.

- If in a tournament of greater than 15 players, you have lasted the longest, albeit Day 2, Day 4, Day 6, etc.

ii) In the event of a tie the following will occur

a) The player who had more picks during the tournament is deemed the winner.

For example:

Chris 84 and Gavnich77 are both eliminated on DAY 04 of Suicide Bangkok. Hoiwever, Gavnich was eliminated because he had no picks remaining, while Chris 84 was eliminated because his pick was incorrect. Therefore, Chris 84 is announced the winner.

b)If still in the event of a tie for first and second place, the player whose picks lost fewer games (ONLY in the round that they were selected), will be determined as having won.

For example:

Benjiboy and jrm have both lost on Day 5 in Suicide Sydney. In order to determine who is the winner, and who is the finalist, all of the games lost by their picks are tallied up. This includes their pick who lost her match, thus eliminating them.

jrm's picks have lost a total of 36 games, in the rounds chosen by her.
Benjiboy's picks have lost a total of 22 games, in the rounds chosen by him.

Because Benjiboy's picks have lost fewer games, he is declared winner of Suicide Australia.

c) In the event that they are still tied, the picks who lost fewer sets when they were chosen, including the round in which the pick had lost, will be tallied. The tally which includes fewer sets lost, will be deemed the winner.

d) In the event that they are still tied, the player who posted their pciks earlier on the final day (the final day that they were both still posting choices) will be declared the winner.

iii) Rankings

1. Rankings are based upon how far each person survives in a tournament, with each day you survive, the greater number of points you will receive.

2. The rankings will be completed in similar format to the "ATP Champions Race".

The mandatory tournaments include:
- Australian Open
- Indian Wells
- Miami
- French Open
- Wimbledon
- US Open

Those 6 mandatory counting tournaments, will be combined with your 10 best tournament results.

3. If at the end of the season, you rank amongst the Top 8 players of Suicide Tennis, you will qualify for the Year Endings Championships.

iv) Fed Cup

a) Team Nomination Rules

1. Fed Cup will occur during designated points throughout the year, as indicated by the ITF and WTA Tours.

2. In order to form a team, a minimum of 2 players up to a maximum of 5, will be required. Note, a country can only be represented once, therefore there can not be Australia #1 and Australia #2. However, if you are not selected but wish to participate, you may (for the enitre year) respresent an alternate nation. A Fed Cup player, can only represent one nation each year.

3. The player ranked highest in the Suicide Tennis rankings, will be deemed captain, and be required to select his teammates. It is recommended that you completely fill your roster, though it is your decision.

b) Game Play Rules

1. As a team, you must decide who you believe will be the winning country for each round of World Group action. If the country you have chosen wins the tie, you qualify for the following round. If the country you chose loses, you will be eliminated.

b) Note, only the Team Captain is allowed to post the team's prediction.

2. However, in true Suicide Tennis style, you are not allowed to choose that same country again for the remainder that your team is in contention. As well, to ensure suspence for later rounds, all picks must be PMed to 416_Man. The picks will be revealed following the final, or when a team has dropped out of the competition.

For Example:

In the first round of 2006 Fed Cup, these are the following matches:

Italy v. Zimbabwe
Croatia v. France
Indonesia v. Switzerland
United States of America v. Venezuela

Team Australia chooses Croatia as their pick. Team Canada chooses Venezuela as their pick. Team Romania chooses France as their pick.

The Results:

France def. Croatia
United States of America def. Venezuela

As a result, Team Australia's pick of Croatia is incorrect, because they did not win their tie. Team Canada's pick of Venezuela is also incorrect, because they too, did not win their tie. Both incorrect picks, disqualify them from the Fed Cup. However, Team Romania's selection of France is correct, and thus, they qualify for the next round of Fed Cup. However, Team Romania, is not allowed to choose France (as their pick), for the remainder of the Fed Cup tournament.

3. a) In the case of a tie during the final round of competition, each team's country's lost matches are totalled, and the team with fewer lost matches by their country wins.

For Example:

Team Australia and Team Denmark are the last teams remaining in Suicide Fed Cup. After the final they remain tied. However, all of Team Australia's lost matches by the country's they had chosen in each round totals 5 (Italy def. Zimbabwe 4-1, France def. Italy 3-2, and United States def. France 3-2) . On the other hand, Team Denmark's lost matches by the country's that had selected in each round totals 6. Therefore, Team Australia are deemed winners of the Fed Cup.

b) If there is still a tie, the number of lost sets by the country chosen in each round are totalled.

c) If a tie remains, the team who stated their prediction earlier in the final round, will be deemed the winners of Fed Cup.

v) Absenses

1. I realize that it is inevitable that trips, or inabilities to reach the computer will arise. As a result this will be the approaches

a) If you know you will only be away for the following day:

- If the OOP is not yet out, choose who you believe will win based on the draw. Make a list of 3-4 players maximum that you believe will win, if they are to play tomorrow. It should appear like this:

" I won't be able to predict for DAY 2, as a result if I am to qualify these are my choices:

1. Anastasia Myskina
2. Justine Henin-Hardenne
3. Na Li "

It is assumed then, that if Myskina's match is to be played, then you have chosen her as your pick for that day. If she doesn't play then Justine is your pick, and etc. In the occurence that one player withdraws, the player immediately following that player in your list, will be considered the "Back-Up Pick".

b) If you are to be away for more than one day:

- You have no choice, but to use the above example, and then list your picks as match winner over match winner. It should appear like this:

" I won't be able to predict for DAY 2, DAY 3, or DAY 4, as a result if I am to qualify these are my choices:

DAY 2
1. Anastasia Myskina
2. Justine Henin-Hardenne
3. Na Li

DAY 3
1. Winner of Schnyder/Myskina over Hingis/Stosur
2. Winner of Davenport/Henin-Hardenne over Sharapova/Petrova
3. Winner of Koukalova/Kremer over Santangelo/Pierce

DAY 4
1. Winner of Schnyder/Myskina/Hingis/Stosur over the winner of Davenport/Henin-Hardenne/Sharapova/Petrova
2. Winner of Koukalova/KremerSantangelo/Pierce over the winner of Dementieva/Schruff/Pennetta/Muller

If your picks are opposite each other (e.g. predicting Muller over Pennetta and Pennetta over Muller in the same day), then whichever is labelled 1, will be considered your choice. Thus leaving, #2, invalid.

Be careful not to abuse the system above, if it is becoming more and more frequent, I'll recommend you take a break from the game.

Furthermore, if there are anymore questions, concerns, or inquiries, please PM me, or post it in this thread. Thank-you.

416_Man
Jan 22nd, 2006, 04:21 PM
This game is based on upon a concept created by tangerine_dream on Men's Tennis Forums. It is with her consent that this game was reproduced for WTA World.

-VSR-
Jan 22nd, 2006, 05:47 PM
I like it, count me in!

iPatty
Jan 22nd, 2006, 05:53 PM
Yeah, I saw this over on MTF and it looked really fun. You can count me in as well :yeah:

Shonami Slam
Jan 22nd, 2006, 07:05 PM
looking very nice jesse :)
sadly, i won't be able to participate much.

-jenks-
Jan 22nd, 2006, 07:46 PM
Sounds fun, I'm in.

twight6
Jan 22nd, 2006, 08:23 PM
I'm in! :wavey:

I have a question about the rankings at the end. What if i don't play one of the 6 mandatory tournaments b/c i am sick, on vacation, or something along those lines? Do i just get 0 points for that tournament?

-Sonic-
Jan 22nd, 2006, 08:32 PM
I'm in too, looks great.

UDACHi
Jan 22nd, 2006, 08:36 PM
I'll gladly join.

416_Man
Jan 22nd, 2006, 09:06 PM
I'm in! :wavey:

I have a question about the rankings at the end. What if i don't play one of the 6 mandatory tournaments b/c i am sick, on vacation, or something along those lines? Do i just get 0 points for that tournament?

Just like right now on the WTA, if you skip any of the grandslams and Miami, you will receive 0. For this game, I've also included Indian Wells, so that all of the 2 week tournaments will be given a greater amount of importance.

Remember that if you can atleast give in your picks up until DAY 5 or 6, you'll still be able to receive points up until that date, and every point counts ;).

Thanks for all of you showing your support :)! We'll be starting the week of Tokyo PPO.

Hayato
Jan 22nd, 2006, 11:47 PM
in as well please.

Aleksz
Jan 22nd, 2006, 11:59 PM
I like this kind of game :bounce:

Simplicity
Jan 23rd, 2006, 03:37 AM
I'll take those odds. I'm down!

Mateo Mathieu
Jan 23rd, 2006, 03:58 AM
Count me in! :D

Ellery
Jan 23rd, 2006, 02:12 PM
I join.

DoctorG
Jan 23rd, 2006, 04:26 PM
I will surely give this game a try, great idea! :yeah:

LUXXXAS
Jan 23rd, 2006, 05:48 PM
I want to play;0

selyoink
Jan 23rd, 2006, 06:52 PM
This sounds like a fun game. I will definitely try to play.

Taz Warrior
Jan 23rd, 2006, 07:59 PM
I'm definitely going to give this a go.

Hachiko
Jan 24th, 2006, 12:44 AM
It sounds great, Jesse! I will play it for sure.

James
Jan 24th, 2006, 08:44 AM
I will play. :D

TennisPlayingFox
Jan 25th, 2006, 02:40 AM
I'm in, these things are awesome

Gnaag
Jan 25th, 2006, 05:35 PM
Count me in.

SloKid
Jan 28th, 2006, 01:09 AM
I saw it on MTF as well, there they also have vCash money prizes :lol:

SilK
Jan 28th, 2006, 01:43 AM
I'm here to become #1 and beat all you motherfuckers. :hehehe:

Havok
Jan 28th, 2006, 11:05 PM
In. Btw, Tangerine_Dream is a lady.;)

416_Man
Jan 28th, 2006, 11:54 PM
In. Btw, Tangerine_Dream is a lady.;)

I thought so, because in her rules it was always "hostess", it all makes sense now. Thanks bud. :D

Davenselesport
Jan 29th, 2006, 04:30 PM
I can't wait! When will the Tokyo thread be up?

SloKid
Jan 29th, 2006, 04:40 PM
I can't wait! When will the Tokyo thread be up?
It's already up ;)

http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?t=216728

Davenselesport
Jan 30th, 2006, 11:16 PM
I will be out of town for Indian Wells... can I send my picks in advance and if the player I pick is out, I just lose?
At least I would get a few points this way.

416_Man
Jan 31st, 2006, 12:45 AM
I will be out of town for Indian Wells... can I send my picks in advance and if the player I pick is out, I just lose?
At least I would get a few points this way.

Absolutely, I'll allow you to tell someone your picks and have them post for you (ie. they're a friend that you call, or will be with, etc), if that is easier.

Taz Warrior
Feb 3rd, 2006, 09:30 AM
Hi,

One question: will there be a limit to the number of people in a tournament or will rankings be used to determine entries into tournaments in future, otherwise it will be very difficult to get people to play the lower tier events as they get less points and they're more unpredictable? So in a week such as next week when there are 2 events (Paris and Pattaya), most people are likely to opt for Paris.

416_Man
Feb 3rd, 2006, 11:13 AM
Hi,

One question: will there be a limit to the number of people in a tournament or will rankings be used to determine entries into tournaments in future, otherwise it will be very difficult to get people to play the lower tier events as they get less points and they're more unpredictable? So in a week such as next week when there are 2 events (Paris and Pattaya), most people are likely to opt for Paris.

There won't be any cut offs. There may be "byes" in the near future, meaning that the Top 4 or Top 8, would not have to pick for the first day of play ;).

nitsansh
Feb 25th, 2006, 01:59 PM
win·ner (wĭn'er)

noun

One that wins, especially a victor in sports or a notably successful person.

winnaar Sieger νικητής gagnant רעיון מבטיח vincitore победитель vinnare الظافر succé лауреат εχέγγυο επιτυχίας Erfolg

The Hebrew version is wrong.
It should be מנצח.

oooo86
Mar 13th, 2007, 03:25 AM
how can i go in???

Michael_21
May 23rd, 2007, 05:09 PM
im in if i can join now

Petkorazzi
May 23rd, 2007, 05:14 PM
you dont need to join .. you can just go to the Suicide Roland Garros Thread, write in and that's it ;)

Michael_21
May 23rd, 2007, 05:18 PM
ok thanx :D

Michael_21
May 27th, 2007, 12:28 PM
what does it mean when it says (with pick) next to some of the days like in the roland garros tournament

DAVAJ MKirilenko
May 27th, 2007, 03:23 PM
what does it mean when it says (with pick) next to some of the days like in the roland garros tournament

With pick, means that you still have a player to pick at that day.

Michael_21
May 27th, 2007, 04:02 PM
ok thanx:D

*Paris*
Jun 13th, 2007, 09:58 PM
Hi

Are there any restrictions ? will I be able to committ for Eastbourne?

DAVAJ MKirilenko
Jun 13th, 2007, 10:34 PM
Hi

Are there any restrictions ? will I be able to committ for Eastbourne?

No, not at all. Everyone can start playing it :)
But read the rules that are written carefully. If you still have questions after that, you can always ask.

Enjoy.

*Paris*
Jun 14th, 2007, 12:07 PM
Ok thanks, I've already read the rules (well done by the way), but I just asked because I saw there was restrictions for PAW

In The Zone
Aug 6th, 2007, 03:05 PM
Bump.

Renalicious
Apr 14th, 2008, 01:26 PM
I have a question - if on SF day, both matches are walkover what happens?

delicatecutter
May 4th, 2008, 02:07 AM
I have a question. How is it decided how many people get byes in a tournament? Is that at the manager's discretion? I know that Tier III and IV's don't have them but for other events I've seen anywhere from 8 up to like 32.

In The Zone
May 4th, 2008, 03:06 AM
I have a question. How is it decided how many people get byes in a tournament? Is that at the manager's discretion? I know that Tier III and IV's don't have them but for other events I've seen anywhere from 8 up to like 32.

Depends on the # of seeds in the tournament. 56 draws or larger have 16 seeds. IW/Miami have 32. Slams have no byes. 32 draws have 8 byes. :)

Andreas
Jul 2nd, 2008, 12:13 PM
There's something I don't really understand about the rule of lost games:
With the current rules, losing in a tie break or 5-7 is worse than losing 0-6, and losing 0-6 is the same as losing 4-6. Isn't there a better way to calculate it, or? :confused:
For example differences in lost sets?

wateva
Jul 31st, 2008, 07:42 AM
i have a question...
how can a poster continue playing this game even though he/she was banned from the forum?
they are banned for a reason and to give them the privilege of playing a game of this forum doesn't sound right. :shrug:

DAVAJ MKirilenko
Sep 11th, 2008, 06:40 PM
I want to make a new rule.
Chris 84 was seeded in New Haven, but never post a pick.
The manager just gave him 0 points and let the rest the rest.

GoV&Rena made an invalid pick on day 1. Got 1 point. But was the 9th ranked player in the tournament.
I suggest for the next tournaments that the next one will get a bye when 1 of the seeds don't post a pick at day 2.

joe87
Sep 11th, 2008, 08:01 PM
I want to make a new rule.
Chris 84 was seeded in New Haven, but never post a pick.
The manager just gave him 0 points and let the rest the rest.

GoV&Rena made an invalid pick on day 1. Got 1 point. But was the 9th ranked player in the tournament.
I suggest for the next tournaments that the next one will get a bye when 1 of the seeds don't post a pick at day 2.

yes, that would be better :yeah:

In The Zone
Sep 11th, 2008, 09:10 PM
I want to make a new rule.
Chris 84 was seeded in New Haven, but never post a pick.
The manager just gave him 0 points and let the rest the rest.

GoV&Rena made an invalid pick on day 1. Got 1 point. But was the 9th ranked player in the tournament.
I suggest for the next tournaments that the next one will get a bye when 1 of the seeds don't post a pick at day 2.

yes, that would be better :yeah:

That is what we have done in practice. I PMed GoV&Rena about it but he posted his Day 2 pick after the last match had started. So he could not post a Day 2 pick. So we had no choice.

DAVAJ MKirilenko
Sep 12th, 2008, 06:25 AM
That is what we have done in practice. I PMed GoV&Rena about it but he posted his Day 2 pick after the last match had started. So he could not post a Day 2 pick. So we had no choice.

Ok. But now we can also add it to the rules which are posted in the first post of every tournament.
It also means that GoV&Rena will get 0 points in the future. This time I gave 1 point. Cause the Kleybanova pick changes in Bye.

In The Zone
Sep 12th, 2008, 05:45 PM
Ok. But now we can also add it to the rules which are posted in the first post of every tournament.
It also means that GoV&Rena will get 0 points in the future. This time I gave 1 point. Cause the Kleybanova pick changes in Bye.

Okay. :)

DAVAJ MKirilenko
Sep 23rd, 2009, 06:03 PM
It's time we update the rule about how to decide the winner.

Lost sets.
As 2nd, lost games. I think we better can change it into biggest +.
If a player wins 6-1 6-2. That player gets +9.
In this case the players who win by retirement won't get the advantage anymore. They get 0 games lost when the opponent retires at 0-3. Even worst if it happens in the first game.
If someone retires when she's 5-0 up and you choose the player who is 5-0 down, you get a -5, instead of 5 games lost. You're already lucky enough that that player didn't lose a set or even the match.
In this way we won't have problem anymore with 6-0 6-7 6-0 is worse than 6-0 0-6 6-0.

Good idea?

Wedgie619
Sep 23rd, 2009, 10:54 PM
It's time we update the rule about how to decide the winner.

Lost sets.
As 2nd, lost games. I think we better can change it into biggest +.
If a player wins 6-1 6-2. That player gets +9.
In this case the players who win by retirement won't get the advantage anymore. They get 0 games lost when the opponent retires at 0-3. Even worst if it happens in the first game.
If someone retires when she's 5-0 up and you choose the player who is 5-0 down, you get a -5, instead of 5 games lost. You're already lucky enough that that player didn't lose a set or even the match.
In this way we won't have problem anymore with 6-0 6-7 6-0 is worse than 6-0 0-6 6-0.

Good idea?

I like the new way to calculate games... its very similar to the calculating game won v lost percentage (but much easier) which I think is fairer then just games lost

In The Zone
Sep 24th, 2009, 08:11 AM
It's time we update the rule about how to decide the winner.

Lost sets.
As 2nd, lost games. I think we better can change it into biggest +.
If a player wins 6-1 6-2. That player gets +9.
In this case the players who win by retirement won't get the advantage anymore. They get 0 games lost when the opponent retires at 0-3. Even worst if it happens in the first game.
If someone retires when she's 5-0 up and you choose the player who is 5-0 down, you get a -5, instead of 5 games lost. You're already lucky enough that that player didn't lose a set or even the match.
In this way we won't have problem anymore with 6-0 6-7 6-0 is worse than 6-0 0-6 6-0.

Good idea?

I'm not sure how I feel about it. It's a bit more complicated. I like that retirements count in our game because that's the point of our game -- suicide, whether it benefits you or goes against you.

I'll hold out how I feel about it while more people comment.

DarkchildSwiss
Sep 24th, 2009, 09:59 PM
i prefer the current rules over the suggested one.

Broseghini
Sep 24th, 2009, 10:13 PM
i prefer the current rules too.

Andreas
Sep 27th, 2009, 10:54 AM
I was wondering, in order to qualify for Bali, you need to win a title on International level, right?

In The Zone
Sep 28th, 2009, 03:07 AM
I was wondering, in order to qualify for Bali, you need to win a title on International level, right?

For Bali, we ran our own "Race to Bali" which will have the Top 12 players who scored the highest amount of points in international events.

DAVAJ MKirilenko
Sep 28th, 2009, 07:15 PM
I'm not sure how I feel about it. It's a bit more complicated. I like that retirements count in our game because that's the point of our game -- suicide, whether it benefits you or goes against you.

I'll hold out how I feel about it while more people comment.

It's not more complicated. 6-1 6-2 is not 1+2 but 12-3.
I just don't think that retirements has to be such an advantage.
Afterall sport is about winning and not cause of problems of the opponent.
If you make the same picks till the QF. Then SF's are 6-3 6-3 and 0-5 retirement and no pick left at the last day for both. Just won't be fair that the 0-5 wins, cause you're already lucky enough to survive that. And like I said, it would also eliminate the 6-0 0-6 6-0 as being better than 6-0 6-7 6-0.
I do agree that we count retirements for the game itself. 6-1 5-0 and retirement from the opponent would be fair to use the backup. A 1-6 0-5 retirement is so rare that we can't consider that as a disadvantage.

Retirements just shouldn't give you so much advantage as it is now.

Wedgie619
Oct 1st, 2009, 04:14 AM
I was looking at the infomation on the Bali Tournament and wasn't able to find out about the ranking points you get...
but i found out that there is a "12-woman round robin singles format (four groups of three players)"... so in regards to the rules, will it be like the the YEC and after the round robin, all picks are reset???
I presume there would be Day 1-3 of round robin play, (Reset picks) and then the SF and F on Day 5???

Danars
Dec 8th, 2009, 04:40 PM
In :)

Wedgie619
Dec 12th, 2009, 09:57 PM
It's not more complicated. 6-1 6-2 is not 1+2 but 12-3.
I just don't think that retirements has to be such an advantage.
Afterall sport is about winning and not cause of problems of the opponent.
If you make the same picks till the QF. Then SF's are 6-3 6-3 and 0-5 retirement and no pick left at the last day for both. Just won't be fair that the 0-5 wins, cause you're already lucky enough to survive that. And like I said, it would also eliminate the 6-0 0-6 6-0 as being better than 6-0 6-7 6-0.
I do agree that we count retirements for the game itself. 6-1 5-0 and retirement from the opponent would be fair to use the backup. A 1-6 0-5 retirement is so rare that we can't consider that as a disadvantage.

Retirements just shouldn't give you so much advantage as it is now.

I think these 2 points are the reason why the +/- game calculation system should be used instead of the "games lost" one...

If we had a situation like at the ATP YEC where 2 players have lost the same amount of sets/games, under current rules the player who posted first would win... but what if the player who DIDN'T post first had won more games (ie. player A [44-40], player B [45-40])... wouldn't it be fairer if player be won as they had won more game??? and the +/- games calculation system eliminates this situation as well...

I really dont like the "whoever post first rule" and this system would ALMOST eliminate this as it is really unlikely that someone whould win/lose the same amount of games/set (if picking different people)....

-----------------------------------------------------

Also I know ITZ did it for Bali but i dont see why the YEC has Day 6 No pick...
This is imposible as you have 4 players to pick on SF day and therefore if you win the SF you have 1 to pick on the final day... The winnner of the other SF...

YEC Current points
DAY 1: 210
DAY 2: 290
DAY 3: 375
DAY 4: 675
DAY 5: 825:(Invalid)
DAY 6: 1050 (No Pick)
DAY 6: 1230 (Invalid)
DAY 6: 1500 (Winner)

I would like to see the Day 6 I go down to 1050 as it gives better incentive to pick the SF yopu think will lose in the final and not just the easy SF...

Carotastrophe
Apr 9th, 2010, 01:33 AM
Count me in-Starting now! do you have to be over 3 months to play?

In The Zone
Apr 11th, 2010, 12:53 AM
Nope. You may play. :)

the jackal
Apr 15th, 2010, 02:36 PM
shouldnt there be a pre-requisite that only players who have won an international event can take part in the race to bali (as it is on the actual tour)?

Deck
May 19th, 2010, 07:04 AM
this tournament again shows that having first round bys in this game is totally unfair and is totally unnecessary. It adds nothing to the game and just makes it unfair.

Supported.

Jolene
May 23rd, 2010, 04:37 PM
It's one thing to have byes; I don't love it, but I get the rationale, but I think there needs to be some serious thought given to how to handle players with byes when it comes to the tiebreaker. It seems very unfair that players not only get the advantage of not having to pick in the first round but automatically losing 0 sets/0 games when there's a tiebreaker. So the players who really made all picks/all rounds and already have a better case for deserving to win are disadvantaged against them. Why shouldn't players with byes be asked to pick someone for the first round whose games/sets will be counted against them only in the event of a tiebreaker?

DarkchildSwiss
May 23rd, 2010, 05:19 PM
this bye discussion is really annoying me this week. is it just because I won this tournament or why is it just coming up this week? little bit confused. there were 7 other players who also had a bye this week and they did not win. it is also about strategy.

DAVAJ MKirilenko
May 23rd, 2010, 05:48 PM
Sets/games lost is only there to the decide the winner. The points stay the same.

Deck
May 23rd, 2010, 07:13 PM
this bye discussion is really annoying me this week. is it just because I won this tournament or why is it just coming up this week?

:lol: Yes Sir, everybody's against you:kiss:

I also find it weird that there has to be one winner and one runner-up in the end like in real. Why not call everybody who makes it through winners:confused:

Jolene
May 24th, 2010, 02:29 AM
It's not all about points though, it's fun to try to win, and the rules for how to decide who wins should be fair. It seems like the last few tournaments have been very close, and so the bye/tiebreaker rules have really made a difference, maybe that's why it's coming up now.

Deck
Jun 19th, 2010, 12:18 AM
As people wrote that the tournament threads are not the appropriate place to discuss rules:

I want to emphasize that I strongly oppose the bye rule. Reasons have been given by various users to a sufficient extent, so I will keep it short. It's unjust to include byes only because they are in WTA tournaments - completely pointless.
Shall we limit tournaments to the number of real participants? No.
Shall we introduce direct encounters like they are common in global tennis? Of course not.
Shall we limit the number of tournaments players are allowed to play due to exhaustion and injuries? Never.
All bullshit. And so is the bye rule. It serves in real tennis to allow top players who made the final in the previous week to have some rest and enter in round 2, so they won't have to withdraw. Where's the parallel to suicide tennis? Realism my ass. This is NOT the WTA. It's a tipping game in an online forum, nothing more.

Conclusion: Get rid of this crap.

twight6
Jun 19th, 2010, 12:36 AM
As people wrote that the tournament threads are not the appropriate place to discuss rules:

I want to emphasize that I strongly oppose the bye rule. Reasons have been given by various users to a sufficient extent, so I will keep it short. It's unjust to include byes only because they are in WTA tournaments - completely pointless.
Shall we limit tournaments to the number of real participants? No.
Shall we introduce direct encounters like they are common in global tennis? Of course not.
Shall we limit the number of tournaments players are allowed to play due to exhaustion and injuries? Never.
All bullshit. And so is the bye rule. It serves in real tennis to allow top players who made the final in the previous week to have some rest and enter in round 2, so they won't have to withdraw. Where's the parallel to suicide tennis? Realism my ass. This is NOT the WTA. It's a tipping game in an online forum, nothing more.

Conclusion: Get rid of this crap.

Although I appreciate your post, it could do without the sarcasm and harsh words-- it really ruins your attempt at being civil.

Anyway, perhaps it is time for this rule to be brought back up for consideration. You should try contacting a few of the organizers and getting their opinion. I think a poll for everyone to vote on would be a good idea, but not without the consent of the organizers and their approval that if the votes are there, the rule will actually be changed

DAVAJ MKirilenko
Jun 19th, 2010, 12:44 AM
If we take a next step the bye's will stay. Maybe it can be changed that bye's won't count to decide the winner.
Deck really shows not to like the rule how it is now. But this kind of language won't help.

twight6
Jun 19th, 2010, 12:47 AM
If we take a next step the bye's will stay. Maybe it can be changed that bye's won't count to decide the winner.
Deck really shows not to like the rule how it is now. But this kind of language won't help.

I gree about the language, and I also agree that the byes will most likely stay with a vote. However, it's one of those times (and I have seen a few of them since I started playing this game) when strong opposition is coming up to the bye rule, and I think it should be settled so that the bickering and complaining doesn't continue.

That's pretty much how it works: people join or change their opinion and the opposition gets strong, and then a vote or discussion happens and the bye rule is upheld, and the opposition is calmed down... for a while, then it starts over again :shrug:

delicatecutter
Jun 19th, 2010, 06:31 AM
Maybe if I have time later, I can look at all the times the winner won because he/she had a Bye. I know I had a Bye in Charleston but lost the TB anyway. :shrug:

The players who have earned a bye have done just that--earned it.

Deck
Jun 21st, 2010, 12:37 PM
If we take a next step the bye's will stay. Maybe it can be changed that bye's won't count to decide the winner.
Deck really shows not to like the rule how it is now. But this kind of language won't help.

:spit: Seriously...twight and you can impossibly be that soft to be bothered by the language. If you are, man up:shrug: And check my points again. You know I'm right. The only argument for the rule I've seen so far, is that they deserve a seeding/bye. How about bringing in Protected Rankings then to make the whole thing more complic... euh realistic. And talking about strong opposition: The only reason there isn't any in this thread is because a very low percentage of people actually looks in here or maybe even knows it exists. Sorry, but that's how it is. The number of clicks is misleading, it's not that much for 4.5 years. And yes, my opinion would be the very same if I had a ranking that would give me a bye.

ClijstersGOAT
Jun 24th, 2010, 09:35 PM
Maybe if I have time later, I can look at all the times the winner won because he/she had a Bye. I know I had a Bye in Charleston but lost the TB anyway. :shrug:

The players who have earned a bye have done just that--earned it.

Please explain to me why have they earned it ? Why should the players with a high ranking be helped to retain their high ranking and why should the contenders and the rookies be handicapped ? Because that is what the BYE rule does, it makes all the other players handicapped.

twight6
Jun 24th, 2010, 10:30 PM
:spit: Seriously...twight and you can impossibly be that soft to be bothered by the language. If you are, man up:shrug: And check my points again. You know I'm right. The only argument for the rule I've seen so far, is that they deserve a seeding/bye. How about bringing in Protected Rankings then to make the whole thing more complic... euh realistic. And talking about strong opposition: The only reason there isn't any in this thread is because a very low percentage of people actually looks in here or maybe even knows it exists. Sorry, but that's how it is. The number of clicks is misleading, it's not that much for 4.5 years. And yes, my opinion would be the very same if I had a ranking that would give me a bye.

It's not that we're "bothered" by them- I use foul language all the time. The point is, if you want people to take you seriously and pay attention to your posts, swearing and degrading people isn't going to help.

It makes you look very ignorant and trashy-- like you're unable to come up with a better way to express yourself. And in an argument, that's not how you should want to represent yourself.

Actually, on second thought, please continue swearing because it helps to exemplify exaclty what kind of person you are :wavey:

twight6
Jun 24th, 2010, 10:32 PM
Please explain to me why have they earned it ? Why should the players with a high ranking be helped to retain their high ranking and why should the contenders and the rookies be handicapped ? Because that is what the BYE rule does, it makes all the other players handicapped.

Sure, it handicaps them to an extent, but how much? Day 1 is (arguably) the easy day to pick correctly in Suicide- all the favorites should come through. And, since they're the top seeds, aren't they the ones that are, nine times out of ten, going to pick correctly on Day 1 anyway?

Everyone started out at the bottom of the rankings at some point, and the top players all managed to overcome the "handicap" to receive byes. Without byes, what possible point do the rankings serve?

ClijstersGOAT
Jun 24th, 2010, 10:45 PM
Without byes, what possible point do the rankings serve?

Are you kiding me ?

You think people want to get to the top, because they want to have BYEs ?

:help:

delicatecutter
Jun 25th, 2010, 03:21 AM
I admit when I first started playing this game 3 years ago I hated the byes and thought they were unfair. But as I moved up the rankings I realized how hard and grueling this game is. It takes a lot of skill to get yourself to the top of the rankings and be in the position of earning a bye. Again, if I have the time I will see how often a Bye has been the dealbreaker when it comes to tournaments this year. Like I said, in Charleston I had a Bye and still lost because that evil bitch Wozniacki retired. I didn't bitch about it, thems the breaks. In any case, there are no Byes in the 4 Slams where most of the points are to be made in this game. I think that evens the playing field out quite a bit. We saw this at Wimbly when IDK like 3 or 4 of the top ranked players lost on Day 1. Many of them had hella points to defend at Wimbly also.

twight6
Jun 25th, 2010, 03:37 AM
Are you kiding me ?

You think people want to get to the top, because they want to have BYEs ?

:help:

No, I'm saying: what reward is there for being near the top, besides saying "I'm near the top"? In other fantasy games, you get byes, just like in the WTA. The argument has always been: without byes in Suicide, the rankings are as pointless as the FITD rankings :tape:

ClijstersGOAT
Jun 25th, 2010, 10:01 AM
No, I'm saying: what reward is there for being near the top, besides saying "I'm near the top"? In other fantasy games, you get byes, just like in the WTA. The argument has always been: without byes in Suicide, the rankings are as pointless as the FITD rankings :tape:

Being near the top means that you have a chance to get to the top. The purpose of every ranking is motivation, it shows how much better you have to do to get where you want to get. Besides, for some people being top3 or top5 might also be quite satisfying.

I admit when I first started playing this game 3 years ago I hated the byes and thought they were unfair. But as I moved up the rankings I realized how hard and grueling this game is. It takes a lot of skill to get yourself to the top of the rankings and be in the position of earning a bye. Again, if I have the time I will see how often a Bye has been the dealbreaker when it comes to tournaments this year. Like I said, in Charleston I had a Bye and still lost because that evil bitch Wozniacki retired. I didn't bitch about it, thems the breaks. In any case, there are no Byes in the 4 Slams where most of the points are to be made in this game. I think that evens the playing field out quite a bit. We saw this at Wimbly when IDK like 3 or 4 of the top ranked players lost on Day 1. Many of them had hella points to defend at Wimbly also.

The situation at Wimbledon shows exactly why there shouldn't be any byes. If there were byes, those players, that picked Baltacha in 1st round would still probably be in the tournament, which would be unfair. They made a wrong pick in first round and are rightfully out of the tournament. I don't see any reason why the rules should be different in other tournaments than in the slams.

NyCPsU
Jun 25th, 2010, 02:54 PM
This whole argument is dumb, and I am not saying that just because I am currently in the top 5 and recieving byes. I twice started this game with no ranking and fought my way to the top. Its clearly possible. If the byes favored people at the top as much as you people make it out to be then wouldn't you assume the top of the rankings would stay the same much more than it does. Besides the "elite" few of us (:angel:) the top of the rankings are filled with different people all the time. Look at the ranking points, they clearly favor people who make good picks at the end of a tournament, not the beginning. Of course there is the occasional tournament where there is mass suicide on day 1 and the seeds have an advantage but it happens much less than you would actually think. Also if a seed makes an incorrect pick on Day 2 they recieve only one point as if they went out on Day 1. If there is mass suicide on Day 2 then they are actually at a disadvantage(albeit a small one) to the rest of the players ranking points wise.

I do agree that when figuring out who wins the tournament it probably isn't fair that the seeds aren't picking on Day 1. Maybe we can have the seeds make a pick just in case they make it to the end and the # of games lost by that pick will be factored into their overall score, but if the pick loses then they are still in.

Also, pay attention in the threads. Most people who have byes make Day 1 picks anyway just in case they don't have a bye and almost always their pick wins. ;)

twight6
Jun 25th, 2010, 03:05 PM
This whole argument is dumb, and I am not saying that just because I am currently in the top 5 and recieving byes. I twice started this game with no ranking and fought my way to the top. Its clearly possible. If the byes favored people at the top as much as you people make it out to be then wouldn't you assume the top of the rankings would stay the same much more than it does. Besides the "elite" few of us (:angel:) the top of the rankings are filled with different people all the time. Look at the ranking points, they clearly favor people who make good picks at the end of a tournament, not the beginning. Of course there is the occasional tournament where there is mass suicide on day 1 and the seeds have an advantage but it happens much less than you would actually think. Also if a seed makes an incorrect pick on Day 2 they recieve only one point as if they went out on Day 1. If there is mass suicide on Day 2 then they are actually at a disadvantage(albeit a small one) to the rest of the players ranking points wise.

I do agree that when figuring out who wins the tournament it probably isn't fair that the seeds aren't picking on Day 1. Maybe we can have the seeds make a pick just in case they make it to the end and the # of games lost by that pick will be factored into their overall score, but if the pick loses then they are still in.

Also, pay attention in the threads. Most people who have byes make Day 1 picks anyway just in case they don't have a bye and almost always their pick wins. ;)

Great post :yeah: Pretty much what I think.

As for deciding the winner, I also think it's unfair... Did anyone ever consider an average games lost to figure it out? That way, one less match wouldn't matter :shrug:

ClijstersGOAT
Jun 25th, 2010, 03:20 PM
This whole argument is dumb, and I am not saying that just because I am currently in the top 5 and recieving byes.

Just because? So you admit that this is one of the reasons you are in favour of the byes.
Since you admit that you are biased in this then maybe your opinion should not be taken seriously. This is how it works in the real world. If someone is biased, his opinion doesn't count.

I twice started this game with no ranking and fought my way to the top. Its clearly possible. If the byes favored people at the top as much as you people make it out to be then wouldn't you assume the top of the rankings would stay the same much more than it does. Besides the "elite" few of us (:angel:) the top of the rankings are filled with different people all the time.

Who said it's not possible ?
Who said that BYEs favour people at the top much ?
Please don't manipulate our words ! :mad:

I only said that byes are helpful to the top players I didn't say it's a big help.
My question is why should the top players be helped at all ?

twight6
Jun 25th, 2010, 04:34 PM
Just because? So you admit that this is one of the reasons you are in favour of the byes.
Since you admit that you are biased in this then maybe your opinion should not be taken seriously. This is how it works in the real world. If someone is biased, his opinion doesn't count.



Who said it's not possible ?
Who said that BYEs favour people at the top much ?
Please don't manipulate our words ! :mad:

I only said that byes are helpful to the top players I didn't say it's a big help.
My question is why should the top players be helped at all ?

Don't twist the words "just because" :rolleyes:. You don't know if that's actually what he meant. He could've meant: Yes, I'm at the top of the game, but that's not why I feel this way.

And to answer your last question, they should be helped for the simple reason that they are top players. They've made it to the top of the game, and they should get some reward in the tournament. Just like WTA players get BYEs when they're seeded, so should Suicide players. And I've never been anywhere near the top of this game and I feel that way :tape:

ClijstersGOAT
Jun 25th, 2010, 05:29 PM
And to answer your last question, they should be helped for the simple reason that they are top players. They've made it to the top of the game, and they should get some reward in the tournament.

Being a top player should be reward enough and certainly would be reward enough for me.

Helping top players stay at the top is against the most basic concepts of sport and competition in general.


Just like WTA players get BYEs when they're seeded, so should Suicide players.

Again you are making a fool of yourself by comparing Suicide to real tennis. Byes in real tennis have practical justification, which doesn't apply at all to a virtual game.


I dont know why am I even talking to you. You gave me bad rep for expressing my opinion about the byes :help: You are obviously a troll.

twight6
Jun 25th, 2010, 05:51 PM
Being a top player should be reward enough and certainly would be reward enough for me.

Helping top players stay at the top is against the most basic concepts of sport and competition in general.

Again you are making a fool of yourself by comparing Suicide to real tennis. Byes in real tennis have practical justification, which doesn't apply at all to a virtual game.

So helping top players stay at the top is a basic concept in real competition, but not virtual competition? Which, virtual competition is modeled after real competition? That doesn't make any sense :confused:

Real tennis, BYEs give top players a pass for one round- tehy don't have to play, have no chance of losing. In Suicide, BYEs give top players a pass for the frist day- tehy don't have to pick, therefore have no chance of being knocked out. In that sense, BYEs do the exact same thing. Players move up the rankings, and once they get there, they get the reward of a day off at the start of the tournament-- in both real tennis and suicide.

Sure, BYEs have other purposes in real tennis, but in this basic sense BYEs do the same thing in both real and Suicide.


I dont know why am I even talking to you. You gave me bad rep for expressing my opinion about the byes :help: You are obviously a troll.

And you're talking to me because I'm the only one who wants to take the time and patience to discuss this with you. If you don't want to have a realistic conversation about it, talk to yourself, because you're not getting anywhere with any of the other Suicide players.

:wavey:

ClijstersGOAT
Jun 25th, 2010, 06:11 PM
So helping top players stay at the top is a basic concept in real competition, but not virtual competition?

Which part of what I said here:

Byes in real tennis have practical justification, which doesn't apply at all to a virtual game.

didn't you understand ?

You are not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you :wavey:

twight6
Jun 25th, 2010, 08:22 PM
Which part of what I said here:



didn't you understand ?

You are not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you :wavey:

I responded to that here:
Real tennis, BYEs give top players a pass for one round- tehy don't have to play, have no chance of losing. In Suicide, BYEs give top players a pass for the frist day- tehy don't have to pick, therefore have no chance of being knocked out. In that sense, BYEs do the exact same thing. Players move up the rankings, and once they get there, they get the reward of a day off at the start of the tournament-- in both real tennis and suicide.

The justification for BYEs in suicide is very simple: the best players deserve a break, a free pass on DAY01, for being the best players. :shrug:

There's absolutely practical justification in Suicide as well; how "practical" is a matter of opinion, obviously.

ClijstersGOAT
Jun 25th, 2010, 09:19 PM
I responded to that here:


The justification for BYEs in suicide is very simple: the best players deserve a break, a free pass on DAY01, for being the best players. :shrug:

There's absolutely practical justification in Suicide as well; how "practical" is a matter of opinion, obviously.

:help: :banghead: :sobbing:
:hug: :wavey:

Wedgie619
Jul 2nd, 2010, 04:07 AM
On the Topic of Byes...

I used to be a top player (ranked 5) now after Wimbledon... in ranked like 36...
I honestly see the arguement that those with byes have an advantage in winning a tournament, however I recieved many byes and never won a tournament!!! :lol:
I like Byes... Even if im not going to get one anytime soon

Tales
Aug 3rd, 2010, 06:48 AM
Speaking of seeds, what exactly is the rules for giving byes? When do we not and when do we? I don't manage tournaments that often and I never recieve byes myself so I keep forgetting. And the rules haven't been updated since dinosaurs wandered the earth. The first page doesn't even include the word seed(and the tiebreak method is wrong).

There are two byes in Wozniacki Open, does that mean two byes in the forum game?

Wedgie619
Aug 3rd, 2010, 08:40 AM
Any tournament other then International Events or GS recieve a BYE...
The No/ of seeds in the WTA tournament correspond to the No/ of BYEs is Suicide

Ivanovic2008
Oct 2nd, 2010, 07:21 AM
Where do i join

DAVAJ MKirilenko
Oct 2nd, 2010, 11:51 AM
Where do i join

There's a Beijing thread. Just go to the tournament of China open. You can still play there.

ricky7
Jan 13th, 2011, 09:08 AM
Quite Informative!!

the jackal
Jan 21st, 2011, 09:30 AM
A question:
OOP: A vs B, C vs D

My pick A, BU: C.

B withdraws and is replaced by LL.
So will my match be decided by the winner of A vs LL or C vs D?

royce23487
Apr 2nd, 2011, 08:43 PM
Can I join?

Shadowcat
Apr 4th, 2011, 03:01 PM
Can I join?

There's a thread at Marbella for rookies...but I think it will be too late to join, although you still can give it a try...

ronim1
Apr 4th, 2011, 07:47 PM
You can pick as long as it hadn't started.

mmarto193
Apr 9th, 2011, 02:16 PM
Can I play in suicide or I should wait 3 months like a Tennis Tipping :angel:

Miracle Worker
Apr 9th, 2011, 04:36 PM
Can I play in suicide or I should wait 3 months like a Tennis Tipping :angel:

You can start whenever you want :wavey:

So, you have to find correct thread about this and start playing :)

Ivanovic2008
Apr 9th, 2011, 06:08 PM
Can I join?

Håkon
Jun 22nd, 2011, 02:37 PM
Rule question:

if someone picks a match that isn't played, and then wants to change it, is that allowed? It says 'no changing your mind' so I've assumed it isn't...

See this post (http://www.tennisforum.com/showpost.php?p=19769711&postcount=473) and further discussion.

Miracle Worker
Jun 22nd, 2011, 02:40 PM
Rule question:

if someone picks a match that isn't played, and then wants to change it, is that allowed? It says 'no changing your mind' so I've assumed it isn't...

See this post (http://www.tennisforum.com/showpost.php?p=19769711&postcount=473) and further discussion.

I think the answer is "No". If player made his pick he can't change this pick.

DAVAJ MKirilenko
Jun 24th, 2011, 11:22 PM
You can't change picks. If you choose a player who won't play then you can pick another one.

longtin23
Oct 16th, 2011, 09:40 AM
Just want to make sure that in Day 7, No picks mean you can't pick anyone and Invalid means you pick the wrong winner??

Second question is we use the +?? games to determine the winner, right??

JustPetko
Oct 16th, 2011, 08:16 PM
Both questions: Yes.

In The Zone
Oct 22nd, 2011, 11:29 PM
How are we doing Bali nowadays? Total points in internationals or MM winners?

DAVAJ MKirilenko
Oct 23rd, 2011, 08:37 AM
How are we doing Bali nowadays? Total points in internationals or MM winners?

Just like last year, total points. 8 players will qualify.
The names will be posted soon.

the jackal
Dec 26th, 2011, 07:57 AM
If we are changing rules (and keeping byes), we could at least change the rule regarding winning the title, in case of tie:

1. The set win-loss differential, followed by the game win-loss differential (instead of no of games lost, which IMO makes no sense - a 6-7 loss is worse than a 0-6 loss? )

2. In case of byes, start considering the games/sets lost from the second round onwards. Else its ridiculously unfair for a person to lose out on the title just cos someone had a first round bye. I say this despite being ranked 4 and hence on the favourable side of the byes rule, cos a first round bye deciding the eventual winner is just contrary to logic, IMO :p

the jackal
Dec 26th, 2011, 08:07 AM
And a rule question (I asked this before too, but did not get a reply, so am asking again):

OOP (first round): A vs B, C vs D .

I pick A, back up C.
B withdraws and is replaced by LL.
Since I had picked A, will my result be decided by the A vs LL match? Or is it that since B withdrew my back up pick will be used regardless of the A vs LL match, and my result decided by the C vs D match?

Thank you.

DAVAJ MKirilenko
Dec 26th, 2011, 10:04 AM
If we are changing rules (and keeping byes), we could at least change the rule regarding winning the title, in case of tie:

1. The set win-loss differential, followed by the game win-loss differential (instead of no of games lost, which IMO makes no sense - a 6-7 loss is worse than a 0-6 loss? )

2. In case of byes, start considering the games/sets lost from the second round onwards. Else its ridiculously unfair for a person to lose out on the title just cos someone had a first round bye. I say this despite being ranked 4 and hence on the favourable side of the byes rule, cos a first round bye deciding the eventual winner is just contrary to logic, IMO :p


Your first point is indeed also my point of view and I also gave it as suggestion before. This rule will be added as well.

We have bye's so the seeded players don't have to send for day 1. Then they also get 0 sets and 0 games loss. If they have to pick for day 1 to make it count for a TB, then you always have seeded players who forget to pick. Also, it rarely happens that a seeded player wins because of the bye.
Ok, it's an advantage but only for a TB. For the points it doesn't matter anyway.





And a rule question (I asked this before too, but did not get a reply, so am asking again):

OOP (first round): A vs B, C vs D .

I pick A, back up C.
B withdraws and is replaced by LL.
Since I had picked A, will my result be decided by the A vs LL match? Or is it that since B withdrew my back up pick will be used regardless of the A vs LL match, and my result decided by the C vs D match?

Thank you.

If a player withdraws, the match will be cancelled and your backup will count.

Wedgie619
Dec 26th, 2011, 10:29 AM
If we are changing rules (and keeping byes), we could at least change the rule regarding winning the title, in case of tie:

1. The set win-loss differential, followed by the game win-loss differential (instead of no of games lost, which IMO makes no sense - a 6-7 loss is worse than a 0-6 loss? )

2. In case of byes, start considering the games/sets lost from the second round onwards. Else its ridiculously unfair for a person to lose out on the title just cos someone had a first round bye. I say this despite being ranked 4 and hence on the favourable side of the byes rule, cos a first round bye deciding the eventual winner is just contrary to logic, IMO :p

I am all for the differential rule being applied... and was in the same position as you before (i think ranked 5)...
However this the advantages those without the BYE, as for them to be in contention for the title they would have had to have a successful Day 1 pick as as suck will always have a slightly better win-loss differential in terms of sets...

The only way to eliminate an advantage all together for both seeds and non seeds are to count from Day 2 onwards... which I can see working but some might find that difficult to comprehend...

Wedgie619
Dec 26th, 2011, 10:32 AM
Your first point is indeed also my point of view and I also gave it as suggestion before. This rule will be added as well.

We have bye's so the seeded players don't have to send for day 1. Then they also get 0 sets and 0 games loss. If they have to pick for day 1 to make it count for a TB, then you always have seeded players who forget to pick. Also, it rarely happens that a seeded player wins because of the bye.
Ok, it's an advantage but only for a TB. For the points it doesn't matter anyway.

I think though that after say the first half of the year in which we can gradually implement the rule that even seeded players MUST choose on Day 1... all players will eventually become used to the rule and start following this...

I mean we could only try it out right??? Coz this would be the farest way to decide...

the jackal
Dec 26th, 2011, 10:16 PM
Ok, it's an advantage but only for a TB. For the points it doesn't matter anyway.



Agreed it doesnt affect the points, but there is a great sense of achievement in winning a title! :)
I know that I at least would have been mighty pissed if i had lost out on a title just cos someone else had a bye in the first round , so I presume others will be as well. If it can be replaced by a better rule, why not?



The only way to eliminate an advantage all together for both seeds and non seeds are to count from Day 2 onwards... which I can see working but some might find that difficult to comprehend...

That is exactly what I was suggesting...leave out the first round for TB purposes.


I think though that after say the first half of the year in which we can gradually implement the rule that even seeded players MUST choose on Day 1... all players will eventually become used to the rule and start following this...

I mean we could only try it out right??? Coz this would be the farest way to decide...

I agree, if this can be implemented, it will be the fairest way to decide.

the jackal
Dec 26th, 2011, 10:25 PM
Your first point is indeed also my point of view and I also gave it as suggestion before. This rule will be added as well.



Changing only this rule and not the other could lead to a backlash from other seeded players...cos now the TB rule will work against the seeds :p

the jackal
Dec 30th, 2011, 06:18 AM
So what are the final changes to the rules for 2012?

Wedgie619
Dec 30th, 2011, 07:15 AM
I think we can/should make it a rule in that everyone must pick a Day 1 Match to be in... (I mean everyone even the seeds used to post "in" or "i should have a bye for day 1"- something along those lines)...

I mean even say for the first 2/3 months we only ask thay everyone post a pick for day one and if they dont then just send the a message saying next time you must... and say my Indian Wells/Miami that if they dont post a day one pick... they still recieve their bye (by picking on day 2) but cannot win the title if they make it to the end...

the jackal
Dec 30th, 2011, 08:53 AM
I think we can/should make it a rule in that everyone must pick a Day 1 Match to be in... (I mean everyone even the seeds used to post "in" or "i should have a bye for day 1"- something along those lines)...

I mean even say for the first 2/3 months we only ask thay everyone post a pick for day one and if they dont then just send the a message saying next time you must... and say my Indian Wells/Miami that if they dont post a day one pick... they still recieve their bye (by picking on day 2) but cannot win the title if they make it to the end...

I agree :yeah:
(Though perhaps instead of saying 'they cannot win the title' , maybe they get a 0 game differential for round 1 if they dont pick, which will put them at a comparative disadvantage, but not put them out of contention all together).

Wedgie619
Dec 30th, 2011, 09:46 AM
I agree :yeah:
(Though perhaps instead of saying 'they cannot win the title' , maybe they get a 0 game differential for round 1 if they dont pick, which will put them at a comparative disadvantage, but not put them out of contention all together).

ok I probably didnt really think the whole 'cannot win the title' thing out properly but making them have a 0 games differental does sound like a very happy median...

purtov
Dec 30th, 2011, 02:37 PM
Wedgie619, the jackal, whether it seems, what it is insignificant variation of rules?
You agree so that seeded player had the big advantage, it does not do pick in the first round.
But look for a way to deprive with its additional small advantage, complicating rules.

Not variations. If want validity, cancel Bye.

Wedgie619
Jan 3rd, 2012, 09:09 PM
OK im going to write everything I think on the BYE matter in one post so my idea is easy to follow...

1. I agree with the rule that there should be BYEs (or something akin to it) in the premier tournaments...

2. I think that, in terms of a way to decide the winner of a tournament, the BYE has a too big of an advantage for the seeds...

3. To counteract this I propose that ALL SEEDED (and therefore people recieving a BYE) MUST PICK ON DAY 1. If their Day 1 pick loses, they continue on in the tournament, but are unable to win the title if made the final day. If their pick wins, then they continue to play Suicide Tennis as per every other player...

****My only question then would be: Would the Seed be alowed to 'repick' those they did on day 1?
I only ask this because if they can, then on Day 1 they could pick a heavy favourite to win the tournament (say Serena) without the remifications of not having to be able to pick her in the later rounds... Whereas if they could NOT 'repick' their Day 1 pick, then they would be playing the whole tournament (almost) EXACTLY like everyone else with the only benifit being if their Day 1 pick loses, they are still in the tournament...

I personally like the idea that they CANNOT 'repick' their Day 1 pick again...

Wedgie619
Jan 3rd, 2012, 09:13 PM
Oh and just to add that thsi SHOULDNT be a hard rule to implement (whatever the change - if their is one - to the rule) because a Seeded player in Brisbane, PMed me after he didn't post Day 1 picks, saying that they would from now on as per the purposed change in rules...

Håkon
Jan 3rd, 2012, 10:22 PM
I have little to say except that I agree with Wedgie above.

Oh and to declare conflict of interest I'm ranked 31st so I probably would never get a bye. :o

DAVAJ MKirilenko
Jan 4th, 2012, 07:24 AM
The first pick for seeds only count to see who's the winner of the tournament. So yes, they can repick the player. I also don't think it's such an advantage that they can pick Serena or Clijsters at day 1. It doesn't say they have easy wins and maybe they don't even play. If the player even loses at day 1 then it's unlikely they will win the tournament cause you lost already 2 sets (except for retirement).

Wedgie619
Jan 4th, 2012, 09:39 AM
So is this now an official rule... That ALL player must choose a day 1 match (with the seeds being able to repick their day 1 player???

And what if the seed doesnt pick??? do they recieve a 6/0 6/0 loss???

the jackal
Jan 4th, 2012, 01:24 PM
The first pick for seeds only count to see who's the winner of the tournament. So yes, they can repick the player. I also don't think it's such an advantage that they can pick Serena or Clijsters at day 1. It doesn't say they have easy wins and maybe they don't even play. If the player even loses at day 1 then it's unlikely they will win the tournament cause you lost already 2 sets (except for retirement).

I agree. Make it official :)

Miracle Worker
Jan 4th, 2012, 01:30 PM
Another new rules :eek:

I have to learn all of these now :spit:

DAVAJ MKirilenko
Jan 5th, 2012, 12:23 AM
And what if the seed doesnt pick??? do they recieve a 6/0 6/0 loss???

That's the only problem, I don't know about that yet.

traddles
Jan 13th, 2012, 10:08 PM
Can I join Suicide Melbourne or it is only for the Top 150?

DAVAJ MKirilenko
Jan 15th, 2012, 10:35 AM
Can I join Suicide Melbourne or it is only for the Top 150?

No ranking needed, so yes you can play!

JustPetko
Feb 15th, 2012, 10:00 PM
In Bogota we have 3 remaining players who are out on Day 3. Should I determine the winner or there's no winner? :confused:

DAVAJ MKirilenko
Feb 16th, 2012, 04:21 AM
In Bogota we have 3 remaining players who are out on Day 3. Should I determine the winner or there's no winner? :confused:

d) In the event that they are still tied, the player who posted their pciks earlier on the final day (the final day that they were both still posting choices) will be declared the winner.

James
Feb 16th, 2012, 11:42 AM
d) In the event that they are still tied, the player who posted their pciks earlier on the final day (the final day that they were both still posting choices) will be declared the winner.

Why is only point d relevant here? Are points a until c not used?

DAVAJ MKirilenko
Feb 18th, 2012, 03:30 PM
Why is only point d relevant here? Are points a until c not used?

Of course, but I thought this was a situation when everything was tied. I didn't check the thread, but of course we start with A.

ronim1
Feb 29th, 2012, 01:44 PM
In BMW Malaysian Open , Radwanska was scheduled in OOP for Day 2, her match was postponed to day 3. Some posted her as legitimate pick for day 3. Wasn't there a rule that forbid to pick a player for the next day, if match was postponed?

delicatecutter
Mar 4th, 2012, 03:30 AM
Yes, that match can NOT be used as a Day 3 match.

Payam
Mar 4th, 2012, 03:35 AM
I read almost all the posts in this thread and didn't find anything that says this pick can not be chosen as a valid pick. There is only the first rule:

1. Each day of play, you must pick 1 winner playing a WTA main draw singles match. Of course, the player that you choose, is playing one match scheduled to be played that day (as seen on the order of play).

Based on which there shouldn't be any problems for picking Radwanska for the 3rd day, because she has been in the order of the the play of the 3rd day.

delicatecutter
Mar 4th, 2012, 03:40 AM
No it means the day she was originally on the OOP. Of course she's going to be on the OOP for the next day as well cause her match was held-over. (And of course some of these rules need to be clarified.)

If you need any proof, just go back and read some of the Suicide Wimbledon threads from the past few years (where rain has been a constant issue.) This has always been the rule.

Payam
Mar 4th, 2012, 03:47 AM
Oh ok, thanks for the clarification. ;)

delicatecutter
Mar 4th, 2012, 03:50 AM
No problem. ;)

delicatecutter
Mar 19th, 2012, 01:56 AM
That's the only problem, I don't know about that yet.

I think that Seeds that don't pick for Day 1 and make it to the end should not be eligible to win the tournament. It's the only fair way to do it. This is how I've worded it for the Miami tournament and put in the thread title for all seeds to read this rule.

I also think that Seeds who pick players on Day 1 who lose should still be eligible to win if there's a tie-breaker because it's for tie-breaking purposes only and they will be at a disadvantage by losing at least 12 games. The seeds have earned their bye and their Day 1 pick should not count for anything other than for games lost.

Buitenzorg
Mar 21st, 2012, 12:19 AM
How many seed for Miami? I hope 32 ;)

JustPetko
Apr 25th, 2012, 05:51 PM
I have a question.
Today in Stuttgart R1, Cibulkova had to play against Hantuchova, but Daniela retired and was replaced by Amanmuradova. Should I use Cibulkova picks and all Hantuchova picks replace by back-ups or use them in both situations?

DAVAJ MKirilenko
Apr 26th, 2012, 07:26 AM
I have a question.
Today in Stuttgart R1, Cibulkova had to play against Hantuchova, but Daniela retired and was replaced by Amanmuradova. Should I use Cibulkova picks and all Hantuchova picks replace by back-ups or use them in both situations?

The match changed at the last moment, so it's invalid now. For every player who picked Cibulkova or Hantuchova the backup will be used.

purtov
Apr 29th, 2012, 05:26 AM
I have lived till 6-th day!
I was finished suicide in 2-nd day, but by not clear way for me have been reanimated.
My choice:
D2: Cibulkova
BU: Barthel
Hantuchova it is not mentioned in my picks, therefore there is no difference, it played or was removed.

And if Cibulkova has won and Barthel has lost? Then to me will include BU, and game is finished... Illogically somehow...

mat87to
May 7th, 2012, 01:32 PM
Can i play more than one tournament for week?

JustPetko
May 7th, 2012, 05:59 PM
Can i play more than one tournament for week?

No. Only one tournament per week.

Richie's
May 13th, 2012, 11:35 AM
Can someone take a look on Madrid's thread?
We're 6 players on DAY 09 with no picks.
I am the only seeded, who received a DAY 01 BYE.
All the rest lost 2 sets and I lost 1 set. So, what's going on with the rule? Who is the winner?

I'd the impression that we look at lost sets and then lost games. Am I wrong?

delicatecutter
May 13th, 2012, 02:38 PM
I'm confused as well. I thought games lost was the first tie-breaker so why are people saying sets lost is. Did the rule change? And where?

Mynarco
May 13th, 2012, 02:54 PM
http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?p=20636095&highlight=set+lost#post20636095

these might be the ones suggesting Sets lost > Games lost

delicatecutter
May 13th, 2012, 03:01 PM
That post doesn't even make sense to me. :hysteric:

DAVAJ MKirilenko
May 13th, 2012, 03:36 PM
c) In the event that they are still tied, the picks who lost fewer sets when they were chosen, including the round in which the pick had lost, will be tallied. The tally which includes fewer sets lost, will be deemed the winner.

This is still what counts.

delicatecutter
May 13th, 2012, 03:53 PM
I am not seeing how they are still tied though. There is no tie after games lost.

Richie's
May 13th, 2012, 05:41 PM
Using b) (ONLY in the round that they were selected) both Serena and Azarenka lost 6 games on DAY 08
That's drive us to c), where I lost 1 set (not including BU Stosur on DAY 01 BYE)

So, what happens? Even if you count Stosur's lost set, it's 2 for everyone. Then if you head to d) I am the one who post first on DAY 08 and 09....
I can not understand this new rule and how we count the winner, in which order.

delicatecutter
May 13th, 2012, 05:54 PM
I thought the first tie-breaker for games lost was for all your picks over all the rounds. That's how I've always done it and always seen it done. I'm really confused now and I feel bad if you should win the tournament..

Richie's
May 13th, 2012, 06:16 PM
Nope. It's not personal because I'm confused about the rules too. Losing sets is always > than losing games (logical)
And I don't know what's going on with DAY 01 BYE/picks. If it counts, i can not see a reason having a BYE on DAY 01 as it will finally count...

delicatecutter
May 13th, 2012, 06:26 PM
The Bye rule is because people were mad that it was too much of an advantage when it came to tie-breakers. That's why it counts now. The only advantage of having a Bye now is that you can't lose on Day 1.

Mynarco
May 13th, 2012, 07:21 PM
That post doesn't even make sense to me. :hysteric:

Sorry I was to quote Sjoerd's reply at the above of the page

So right now it is

Set lost > Games lost yeah?
That makes sense

(too bad this OP is long gone otherwise he could have changed the template)

Miracle Worker
May 13th, 2012, 07:26 PM
Nope. It's not personal because I'm confused about the rules too. Losing sets is always > than losing games (logical)
And I don't know what's going on with DAY 01 BYE/picks. If it counts, i can not see a reason having a BYE on DAY 01 as it will finally count...

Maybe it's logical but in last season losing games > losing sets :spit:

ronim1
May 14th, 2012, 04:37 PM
Maybe it's logical but in last season losing games > losing sets :spit:

That's why they changed it.

To my understanding, the Bye Change is exactly as delicatecutter stated---> Seeded cannot be suicidal after 1st Day, but have to send their pick for solving TB situations, exactly as in Madrid.
In this case the set lost of the first match should be counted.

delicatecutter
May 14th, 2012, 06:23 PM
For the purposes of Madrid, the overall result is right because 4 people are tied on sets lost (2) and then the next tie-breaker is games lost and come on lena still has lost the least amount of games.

Is this for sure the rule now that sets lots>games lost?

Richie's
May 14th, 2012, 09:29 PM
^ Yes.
I think DAVAJ MKirilenko must have a look and make the things more clear.

PM him. I did it but no answer back.

DAVAJ MKirilenko
May 19th, 2012, 06:27 PM
c) In the event that they are still tied, the picks who lost fewer sets when they were chosen, including the round in which the pick had lost, will be tallied. The tally which includes fewer sets lost, will be deemed the winner.

This is still what counts.

This post was not right of course. The rules are the same as from the start. So it's:


) In the event of a tie the following will occur

a) The player who had more picks during the tournament is deemed the winner.

b)If still in the event of a tie for first and second place, the player whose picks lost fewer games (ONLY in the round that they were selected), will be determined as having won.


c) In the event that they are still tied, the picks who lost fewer sets when they were chosen, including the round in which the pick had lost, will be tallied. The tally which includes fewer sets lost, will be deemed the winner.

d) In the event that they are still tied, the player who posted their pciks earlier on the final day (the final day that they were both still posting choices) will be declared the winner.

Richie's
May 20th, 2012, 10:03 AM
b)If still in the event of a tie for first and second place, the player whose picks lost fewer games (ONLY in the round that they were selected), will be determined as having won.

So, it's genaral and game lost>set lost... :lol:
It's no fair (to me). Anyway. Thanks.

Sabinator.
May 30th, 2012, 09:00 AM
I'm In as a new player :)

JustWonderful
Sep 6th, 2012, 12:33 AM
Hi, Just wondering if it was okay to play from next week? I have just run a version of this game on a different forum and really enjoyed it. Wanted to play more regularly so joined this forum! I see some games say you need to be a member for two months and have 100 posts etc. Does this apply for Suicide tennis??

ronim1
Sep 6th, 2012, 10:18 PM
Hi, Just wondering if it was okay to play from next week? I have just run a version of this game on a different forum and really enjoyed it. Wanted to play more regularly so joined this forum! I see some games say you need to be a member for two months and have 100 posts etc. Does this apply for Suicide tennis??

No condition here.

Just start playing and enjoy.

Good luck.

Wedgie619
Jan 9th, 2013, 01:21 AM
I know it has been discussed beforehand but I was managing Hobart this week and there was a 3way tie for first with the only differing picks being on day 2. People lost (games/sets) 9/0, 7/1, 7/0... Just imagine for a second that their third score (7/0) hadn't played, then under current rules the player with score 7/1 would have been champion...

I honestly think this rule or sets>games needs to be changed as wining in straights 7/6 7/6 should still be better then winning 4/6 6/0 6/0...

Also im sure that everyone knows how to calculate percentages which is why i think that it shouldnt be number of games lost, but % of games won... that way losing 7/6 (46%) is better then losing 0/6 (0%)... whereas under current rules, it isn't

EDIT: This is how it is done in both WTA and ATP season ending championships, andto a lesser extent, the hopman cup and Adalaid a couple of years ago when the ATP trialed the RR format for a weekly tournament

Håkon
Jan 11th, 2013, 11:14 AM
Yeah, I agree with Wedgie about percentages. Seems fairer.

Davidspell
Jan 2nd, 2014, 06:27 PM
Hey! In Suicide Tennis Auckland remains only one player. In Day 5, he picked Flipkens but he picked Flipkens before in Day 3. He is disqualified or he can change his pick?

DAVAJ MKirilenko
Jan 2nd, 2014, 08:17 PM
Hey! In Suicide Tennis Auckland remains only one player. In Day 5, he picked Flipkens but he picked Flipkens before in Day 3. He is disqualified or he can change his pick?

Then he's backup will be used. If backup is not valid as well, he can pick again.

Davidspell
Jan 2nd, 2014, 08:18 PM
He didn't pick any back-up, so he need to pick again. Thanks!