PDA

View Full Version : tipping 2010 ideas


ma re
Dec 20th, 2009, 10:31 AM
Any ideas for next season?

My suggestions:

a) each player gets to manage (moderate) one tournament in a season; I'm sure no one would mind, less people would doubt fairness and it would be fun; I'd let top four from last year to manage slams, others would manage smaller tournaments based on their '09 ranking (those high ranked would get to manage larger events); of course, we'd need to see the final rankings for '09 to be able to decide who manages what
b) calendar decided upon in advance and only those tournaments played, without "surprise events" or special "grand prix" ideas; also I'd say no ITF's as of next year
c) "best of 15" ranking system, so only your best 15 results count for the rankings; it'd be fun, and besides, you wouldn't have to play an event if you'd see you can't achieve a top15 result by playing it (less work for a manager).

Which ones you'd like and which ones you wouldn't? Do you have any other suggestions?

Hele.
Dec 20th, 2009, 04:16 PM
i especially like this c) suggestion :yeah:
also, i think we should make new system of ranking points(more similar to real tour) like in every other game(for example FITD, TT, suicide) where rankings points are based on a real tour system.

ma re
Dec 20th, 2009, 06:20 PM
So you suggest that points earned during the tournament don't count as ranking points i.e. that the ranking points are fixed depending on the level of the tournament? That might create a lot of ties in the rankings, especially in the first few months of the season, don't you think?

I don't mind sticking to the same system we had this year, 200 bonus points (on top of those earned during the tournament) for winning a slam or a SEC, 160 for winning a premier level event (like IW), and a 120 for international level events (like Birmingham).

To further explain my A) idea; Marco would manage AO, Tales would manage RG, who ever was 3rd last year would manage Wimbledon, 4th would do US Open, 5 would do SEC, 6 would do Bali (int. SEC), those ranked 7-25 would manage premier events (7th would manage the first premier of the year - Sydney on week 2, 8th would manage the second one of the season etc.), players from 26 to 36 would manage international events. So who ever was 26th last year would manage the first tournament of the season (and decide which one will it be, Auckland or Brisbane) since two international series events are played on the first week and we agreed to play only one event per week.

Nice to see people having ideas to make the game more interesting!

Edy.
Dec 20th, 2009, 06:44 PM
@ma re: I like all of your suggestions :)

Maybe we could request a tournament we would like to run like Suicide or Tennis Tipping? If a few players would request the same tournament, the higher ranked one would run it or something like that but everyone could run max. 1 Grand Slam, 1 Premier...!? :p

ma re
Dec 20th, 2009, 06:54 PM
Edy, I don't mind your suggestion, but only if all the players would run the same total number of tournaments, and I think we'd soon run out of tournaments that way:lol: Reason - some folks would mind if some players would manage only one tournament and some would manage like 3, or something. I don't mind people requesting which tournament they'd like to run, based on their ranking.

Tales
Dec 22nd, 2009, 05:53 PM
I like your suggestions as well.

If we are looking for a new point system I think a similar system to FITD would fit best. For example a first place in a grand slam gives you 2000 points, second place 1400 points, 3-4 900 points and so on. But I don't see why it couldn't work the way it is now if people want that.

We need someone to manage the rankings. It's a lot more complicated when points needs to be defended and it's only the top 15. Maybe we could ask admins of other games for excel blueprints if there aren't any smart people around here?

ma re
Dec 22nd, 2009, 06:46 PM
Tales,

I don't really know what FITD is (tipping is the only game I'm in), but I wouldn't want to copy the points system from anywhere else. I think we should keep it as original as possible. Not sure if my suggestions already exist in some games, if they do, then I'm OK if we don't use them. I'm not objecting your idea (tennisfan_77 suggested something very similar, if not the same), but I think the one we have now is more unique and not something that's just copied from real tennis or some other game. Also, counting correct picks and adding them to bonus points gives less chance of ties in the rankings.

Regarding your second paragraph, are you suggesting that we again have only one manager? I suggested a diferent manager for every tournament thinking that it might make some players more happy about that part of the game. I believe that we have enough smart people here, but in order to have an entry list (defending points) we'd need info about how much points every player earned at each of the tournaments, and Marco is the only one who can provide us with those.

Also, it'd be nice to have more players join this discussion, or at least give us their thoughts about our ideas.

Tales
Dec 22nd, 2009, 07:38 PM
No, in other games the one in charge of the rankings uses the managers tournament rankings to create the overall ranking. It would be a bad idea to pass it around. As for the previous tournaments you can find everyone from Brisbane to Cincinnati in a thread further down and it's not hard to find the rest.

ma re
Dec 23rd, 2009, 07:32 AM
Ah, got it - so one manager for overall rankings (sounds logical). But it would be best if it would be someone who doesen't play (maybe ask sexysova or adrian to do it, cause they say they won't play anymore). That person would be kind of a supervisor and react in situations when there's a suspicion of cheating. You're right that we could find top15 results with a bit of work. I'm fine about doing it, but I'll let you know if I need some help.

Another issue. Do we create another year-end ranking list for '09 with just top15 results or leave this one?

And a suggestion. How about we don't count points from people who haven't played a whole tournament? Many folks tip for a day or two but you still have to count their points and include them in the rankings. Some of them only show up for a tournament or two and don't even play those all the way.

About the top15 system. Since it's an entry ranking, how will do points come off? Every week, or we'll just replace those points from top15 with the new ones. It's tricky to do a top15 entry because our '09 points are based on over 30 events. For instance if last year's Brisbane isn't among my top15 results, do my Brisbane points come off after the tournament and are replaced by new points (if those are top15)? What do you guys suggest?

ma re
Dec 27th, 2009, 12:32 PM
Top15 results for '09 is not easy to calculate, cause final rankings for some tournaments have never been posted (like New Haven, for example).

Tales
Dec 27th, 2009, 06:27 PM
If you want to use the 2009 points you have to collect every score, list them from highest to lowest and then count the best 15. Also give each tournament a number from #01 to #52. So if Brisbane is #02, and the Brisbane points from year 2009 are in your best 15, they are replaced by whatever is your 16th best result in #03 year 2010. If Brisbane is moved to #05 they drop off in #03 anyway. It's important to know which tournament is in which week if we are using 52-week ranking system. I prefer doing it like this.

I don't see why we need someone who doesn't play to take care of the total rankings, but I don't mind anyway. You ask.

I say we count people who doesn't play the whole tournament. They may play other tournaments and their points should be counted. Also people might not be able to play everyday for some reason. But if you mean people who play one or two days for the entire year and that's it, I guess there's no reason to include them, but it's not much work and you never know if they will play again or not.

Tell me if you need help. Divide it by tournaments or players and let me do the rest :)

Tales
Dec 27th, 2009, 06:54 PM
Here's 2009

02 - Brisbane
02 - Auckland
03 - Sydney
03 - Hobart
04/05 - Australian Open
07 - Paris
07 - Pattya
08 - Dubai
09 - Acupulco
10 - Monterry
11/12 - Indian Wells
13/14 - Miami
15 - Ponte Vedra
15 - Marbella
16 - Charleston
18 - Stuttgart
19 - Rome
20 - Madrid
21 - Warsaw
22/23 - French Open
24 - Birmingham
25 - Eastbourne
25 - Hertogenbosch
26/27 - Wimbledon
28 - Budapest
29 - Palermo
29 - Prague
30 - Slovenia Open
30 - Bad Gastein
31 - Stanford
32 - Los Angeles
33 - Cincinatti
34 - Roger's Cup
35 - New Haven
36/37 - Us Open
38 - Guanzhou
38 - Quebec
39 - Seoul
39 - Tashkent
40 - Tokyo
41 - Beijing
42 - Linz
43 - Moscow
44 - YEC

ma re
Dec 28th, 2009, 07:42 AM
Did we even establish points that would be awarded for results in '09 SEC? Don't think so.

ma re
Dec 29th, 2009, 02:11 PM
Your '09 calendar is missing some events;

week 8 - Memphis and Bogota
week 16 - Barcelona
week 18 - Fes
week 19 - Estoril
week 21 - Strasbourg
week 28 - Bastad
week 31 - Istanbul
week 42 - Osaka
week 43 - Luxembourg

ma re
Dec 29th, 2009, 07:46 PM
Vote in a new poll regarding changes in the ranking system!

Tales
Dec 29th, 2009, 11:41 PM
Besides tennisfan over a week ago, you and me are the only ones here. It's the off season after all. I say we hijack this thing and make the decisions for ourselves >_> On that note, I can do Brisbane and then we work on who manages the other ones when everyone returns for the season.

ma re
Dec 30th, 2009, 07:21 AM
Agreed.

ronim1
Jan 1st, 2010, 07:15 AM
Does anyone know what is the status with Attila?

Tales
Jan 3rd, 2010, 08:08 PM
I suggest we put down a rule against editing of posts. If the post has been edited after a match has been completed we won't know wether or not the pick has been changed. For convenience and to avoid problems and confrontations I suggest we disallow editing of any kind for any reason and any change in picks must be made in a new post or none of the picks will count. What do you think? Too rough? I'm taking this up now because it happened in Brisbane and I didn't know what to do.

ma re
Jan 4th, 2010, 07:48 AM
I'm for it, and I'd like to make another suggestion, that managers should post rankings daily. Sometimes it's OK to have them after each round, but sometimes rounds don't last full days i.e. matches from different rounds are played at the same day so rankings after certain round can become confusing.

elle-marie
Jan 4th, 2010, 03:26 PM
I like the new rules and agree with them.:-)

ronim1
Jan 4th, 2010, 05:36 PM
1) I agree with not allowing editing. shouls be clear cut about this. no exceptions whatsoever.
2) regarding rankings, I have nothing againts posting as much as possible, but a mandatory posting after each round should be required by the managers.

Mare and Tales- you're doing a great job. Keep it up :)

Hele.
Jan 4th, 2010, 06:56 PM
i think we should have 8 mandatory tournaments (4 grand slams, indian wells, miami, madrid and beijing) + 10 others. i'm not sure but i think that is real system. :yeah:

Tales
Jan 9th, 2010, 01:45 PM
About ties, are the amount of games guessed used even if both players in question picked the wrong winner? They should if both or one of them(if it's about 8th and 9th) is in the top 8. But I remember Marco not considering the amount of games guessed if they were both wrong. As I said I think they should, if not we need to find another tiebreaker method or agree that several people can share the same position(to take it to the extreme we can end up with two winners)

If one of them guessed the correct winner, that one gets the advantage, I guess that is logical? It happened this time with the 8th and 9th.

ma re
Jan 9th, 2010, 02:01 PM
About ties, are the amount of games guessed used even if both players in question picked the wrong winner? They should if both or one of them(if it's about 8th and 9th) is in the top 8. But I remember Marco not considering the amount of games guessed if they were both wrong. As I said I think they should, if not we need to find another tiebreaker method or agree that several people can share the same position(to take it to the extreme we can end up with two winners)

If one of them guessed the correct winner, that one gets the advantage, I guess that is logical? It happened this time with the 8th and 9th.

Not sure I understand what you're saying. We still have a rule of "the faster tipper wins":confused: If neither tips the winner and both players end up inside top8 then the number of games played in a match counts, and if that's not enough then we have the rule of the faster one.

Tales
Jan 9th, 2010, 02:08 PM
Ok, fine.

But if only one of them guessed the correct winner, then what? Does the fastest one get the advantage even if he guessed wrong?

ma re
Jan 9th, 2010, 02:34 PM
Ok, fine.

But if only one of them guessed the correct winner, then what? Does the fastest one get the advantage even if he guessed wrong?

I say no. It means more to guess correctly than to guess faster and wrong (in my opinion).

ma re
Jan 10th, 2010, 05:42 PM
Another thing we have to talk about are season-ending championships. I suggest we play both of them (international series SEC and the top8 SEC) and give points for both. But since we haven't decided on the details, feel free to suggest anything. Here are my thoughts.

Originally, to qualify for Bali, players have to be among 12 highest ranked players who have won an international series (IS) title during the year. But since we only play one event per week, we'll only play 9 IS events, so we can't copy the original qualifying system. I suggest that we let those who have won any of IS events directly in, and only allow those players to play Bali. As far as points go, I suggest that we reward every correct tipp of a round robin match with 3 point, every correct tipp for semifinals with 10 points, and a correct tipp for the finals with 30 points (guessing number of games and the faster tipper rules stay). Top 4 get bonus points, 140 for the winner, 105 for the 2nd place, and 70 for 3rd and 4th. Maximum amount of points you can win this way is 226 (more than on IS, less than on Premier).

When it comes to top8 SEC, I think we should reward each correct tipp in round robin with 5 points, each correct semifinal pick with 25 points, and a correct pick in the finals with 100 points. (guessing games and faster tipper stay). Bonus points, 180 for the winner, 135 for the 2nd place, 90 for 3rd and 4th. Maximum amount of points you can win this way is 390 (more than on Premier, less than on slams).

Any suggestions?

ma re
Jan 11th, 2010, 07:57 AM
I edited the post above, with a new idea.

Tales
Jan 15th, 2010, 08:22 PM
For ties I suggest this step by step method:

1. The player who is closest in games guessed.
2. The player who guessed the winner.
3. The player who got the most correct picks in round 1. If equal move on to round 2 and so on.
4. The player who posted the fastest post in the final. If no one posted in the final go backwards to the semis and so on.
5. If you get this far they didn't play :rolleyes:

Step 3 could be changed to overall most picks guessed correctly if people prefer that.

ma re
Jan 16th, 2010, 08:42 AM
Well, when it comes to ties we have pretty much everything worked out, but the kind that happened in Sydney is really something unexpected. I don't know about your #3 suggestion, I'd rather have something like checking who had more correct tips in the semis, than quarters, than last16 etc., until we find a tie-breaker. But as we see in the Sydney example, not even that (or even counting the overall number of correct picks) guarantees to resolve all ties. So I think we can either give them both bonus points (which can one day result in multiple winners, which could be especially tricky for international series events if we want the winners of those to qualify for Bali), or create a rule that only tipping the final match makes you eligible for bonus points. I have nothing against either of these players (don't want them to take it personally or something), but I think the later should be employed, just to make sure there are no multiple winners some day.

Tales
Jan 16th, 2010, 09:22 AM
We don't have "everything worked out" if a situation like Sydney happens, no matter how unexpected it is.

What about the fastest poster? If neither posted in the final we could see who posted fastest in the semi final and so on.

Are you saying that if a person doesn't tip in the final he doesn't get bonus points? That's hardly fair. And that doesn't solve multiple winners if it was to happen.

Ok, so we have these choices as for now. If others have suggestions that would be great.

1. The player who is closest in games guessed.
2. The player who guessed the winner.
3. The player who got the most correct picks in round 1. If equal move on to round 2 and so on.
4. The player who posted the fastest post in the final. If no one posted in the final go backwards to the semis and so on.


1. The player who is closest in games guessed.
2. The player who guessed the winner.
3. The player who got the most correct picks in the semi final. If the same, move backwards to quarterfinal and so on.
4. The player who posted the fastest post in the final. If no one posted in the final go backwards to the semis and so on.

ma re
Jan 16th, 2010, 11:48 AM
Your fastest semi etc. idea sounds OK to me, but I still think there's only one solution to the ties and that's the one I proposed earlier. Yes I'm suggesting that you can get bonus points only if you tipped the final match. I don't see it as unfair, it will at least make people play, eventhough they're not happy with how they did prior to the finals. So if you don't care about your result enough to play the whole tournament, someone who cares should get the bonus points. Also, that way any tie will be resolved, cause if those who don't play are excluded from bonus points, you just put the next best player instead of them in top8. And if he is tied with another player, rules of games played in the final and the faster tipper stay - no chance for a tie.

Tales
Jan 16th, 2010, 07:45 PM
I have no idea what you are saying. It would be much easier if you explained by making a step by step solution, because no manager will be able to read the rules by that.

Hele.
Jan 16th, 2010, 07:50 PM
about ranks points i think we should use tour points.
for example if someone wins on international even he should win 280 points (and without correct picks pts), 2nd should get 200 pts, 3rd and 4th 130, etc...if it's premier event than winner should get 470, finalist 320, etc...

Tales
Jan 16th, 2010, 07:50 PM
Are you really saying that people who don't pick in the final are excluded from bonus point and shoved out of top 8? That's crazy. No way I'm going with that.

Hele.
Jan 16th, 2010, 07:53 PM
about tournament ranks i think we should play who gets most correctly picks(so, for every correct picks 1 point). if there is a tie than player who is correct higher round should be in advantage. if everything is same than who posts eariler last round.

Tales
Jan 16th, 2010, 07:53 PM
about ranks points i think we should use tour points.
for example if someone wins on international even he should win 280 points (and without correct picks pts), 2nd should get 200 pts, 3rd and 4th 130, etc...if it's premier event than winner should get 470, finalist 320, etc...

We could, but it works ok like it is. Also as said earlier every other game is doing that, we don't need to follow the crowd.

Tales
Jan 16th, 2010, 07:55 PM
about tournament ranks i think we should play who gets most correctly picks(so, for every correct picks 1 point). if there is a tie than player who is correct higher round should be in advantage. if everything is same than who posts eariler last round.

Pretty much the same I suggested right?

Thanks for coming here btw. Usually just me and ma re.

Hele.
Jan 16th, 2010, 07:55 PM
Are you really saying that people who don't pick in the final are excluded from bonus point and shoved out of top 8? That's crazy. No way I'm going with that.

i'm saying this. for example: you now won sidney. you win 470 pts. than who is second(i think jean), he wins 320, third and fourth 200 pts, etc...like in real ranks.

Hele.
Jan 16th, 2010, 07:58 PM
Pretty much the same I suggested right?

Thanks for coming here btw. Usually just me and ma re.

sorry, i haven't read anything of last suggestions :lol:.
you are welcome :hug:
oh, and we can ask someone to make a nice banner for tipping and i can make some little banners? what do you think?

Tales
Jan 16th, 2010, 08:07 PM
i'm saying this. for example: you now won sidney. you win 470 pts. than who is second(i think jean), he wins 320, third and fourth 200 pts, etc...like in real ranks.

Sorry, that was meant for ma re. Didn't expect someone else to post at the same time.

Hele.
Jan 16th, 2010, 08:17 PM
i also don't agree with ma re's last idea :hug:

ma re
Jan 17th, 2010, 08:46 AM
Tales, yes I suggested that those who don't play the finals can't get the bonus points, but if you folks don't agree I'm OK with that, we won't do it. BTW, when you said that we should count who was quicker backwards if two of them don't play the finals (to see who was quicker in semis), I thought you were talking about doing that in Sydney, but now it turns out that you meant that for future tournaments. I guess I didn't understand you. So I'll give them both bonus points now, but we should do the "quicker in semis" in the future, if we ever get a situation like the one in Sydney.

Tennisfan_77, I invested a lot of time and effort in creating the ranking system we use today and Tales helped a lot. It was a lot of work, and I sure don't plan doing it all over again whenever someone gets some idea. If you think you could manage the new ranking system yourself and if you'd like to do so, feel free to post a poll about your idea (explaining it the best way you can) and if people like it, I have nothing against you taking over the rankings. That's how I got to managing rankings, got an idea, made a poll, gathered all the materials, created a worksheet and started doing it. So if you feel like it, I have nothing against.

But when it comes to your idea of giving a point for each correct pick no matter what stage of the tournament it is, I have to say I'm against it, cause it would create much more ties than we have now. Didn't we have that system before (a point per pick, no matter the level) and changed it to this one for the very reason of ties? Take Sydney as an example. With a current system we had 6 people in some kind of ties, four at 37 points and two at 36. If your system would be employed we would have three people with 20 points, four people with 19, two with 18, two with 17 and two with 13 points - that's a heck of a lot of ties. I know they can be resolved in all kinds of ways, but it would be a lot of additional work, which is not necessary with the currenty system of 1-2-3-4-5.

ronim1
Jan 17th, 2010, 05:31 PM
Hey guys, I think we should give it a rest.
You have build a system which could work, including the tie breakdown.
Why don't you freeze what was agreed upon for 2-3months, and than give it another look?

Hele.
Jan 17th, 2010, 06:42 PM
i think we can do a change of rank system for next season and this year i can run a race with my system.

Tales
Jan 17th, 2010, 08:07 PM
Hey guys, I think we should give it a rest.
You have build a system which could work, including the tie breakdown.
Why don't you freeze what was agreed upon for 2-3months, and than give it another look?

I agree.

This is the tiebreaker as for now. It's non-negotiable for the next three months!


1. The player who is closest in games guessed.
2. The player who guessed the winner.
3. The player who got the most correct picks in the semi final. If the same, move backwards to quarterfinal and so on.
4. The player who posted the fastest post in the final. If no one posted in the final go backwards to the semis and so on.



tennisfan_77: WTF?

Hele.
Jan 17th, 2010, 08:56 PM
i mean, this season it's ok to keep what you and ma re have agreed and updated :yeah: and paralely i can run rank(race) with this system(what was my idea) and from next season we can constantly play with it

ma re
Jan 18th, 2010, 08:19 AM
If Tennisfan wants to do race I have no objections, as long as it's based on a specified number of events (something like top15 that we have in the entry), so that you don't have to play every single event in order to be close to the top. We could use race to see who'll qualify for Doha (unless someone objects)?

Tales
Jan 18th, 2010, 04:45 PM
If he use the top 15 what would be the difference between his and yours? The whole point of a race is that it counts every single point. I don't see why we need to do it. WTA has stopped doing it and we really don't need two rankings. Let's pick this up again in december.

ma re
Jan 18th, 2010, 05:17 PM
Well the difference would be in that entry is based on the last 52 weeks (so from mid January '09 to mid January '10 for example) while race would count only certain points in this calendar year, so they would difer. WTA does use race, check out "Race to Sony Ericsson Champs" on their website (under "rankings"), and uses the same principle. But OK, if people would object this I'm fine with whatever you decide. She can create a poll about her idea and see how people feel about it.

Tales
Jan 18th, 2010, 06:54 PM
Eventually they will be identical won't they? That's how the WTA ranking and race works. I think that makes an additional ranking list kinda pointless other than knowing your prospects for entering YEC. I just have to say that I personally don't want two rankings. Not right now, we have made enough changes and it will all be too confusing if started with new rankings again in between tournaments and we have already abolished one system and made a new and now we're considering make yet another one. And I mean what would be the official ranking? Which one should people consider?

This should have been suggested earlier prefferably before the season started. I think we are good now and should just play the game and be happy about it. No one complains unlike last season when people quit in protest. I think we have worked out all the problems; tournament thread are created in time, there is fairness with different managers, the rankings are close to the real tour and frequent players aren't favoured too much and we have a proper tiebreak solution(it was wobbly last season, I remember it changed a couple times)

ronim1
Mar 7th, 2010, 09:36 PM
I think we have to discuss what has happened in the Monterrey tourney.

Players started to pick the finals, before both of the semis were played. This somehow contradicts the Idea giving an advantage to faster posts for the finals.

I don't think we would see in the first round players posting picks for the finals:.....If xxx wins ins first round and yyy wins ins second round etc.

In my opinion it should be published that if people post the finals pick before the semis have ended, their game counts will not be taken into consideration for placing matters.

Hele.
Mar 7th, 2010, 09:42 PM
luckly this hasn't happened to me, but i think that this should be alowed because someone can't be all the day in front of the computer :shrug:. and this wasn't players mistake. they are not guilty because match was delayed.

Tales
Mar 7th, 2010, 10:36 PM
I didn't even know the semi finals weren't finished.

The amount of games guessed should count anyway, even if he or she posted the final pick before the semis were finished. But if step 4 has to be used, I agree the player should be excluded if he or she posted the final pick before the semis were finished.

The best thing would to be replace step 4 with something else that is more based on skill then who got on the computer first. Alternative 3 is to allow ties. The problem is the low probability of having two winners.

WhoAmI?
Mar 8th, 2010, 08:00 AM
luckly this hasn't happened to me, but i think that this should be alowed because someone can't be all the day in front of the computer :shrug:. and this wasn't players mistake. they are not guilty because match was delayed.

I agree with this:)

It's rare some player has to play 2 rounds in the same day anyways, but if they do it should be allowed to make your pick the way some players did for Monterrey.

m4816k
Mar 9th, 2010, 10:13 AM
I guessed the winner of that first semi and would pick her (Hantuchova) to win who ever she would face anyway, so I decided to make an early pick. Not that I have benefited from it...:lol:

ronim1
Mar 9th, 2010, 05:38 PM
I wasn't referring to the pick of the player, but only to the games played post.
Of course there are cases when people aren't able to post a pick, and they will post a pick also for the day after, which is quite all right.
I only meant, that in those cases the games count should not be used for determine final rankings.

Tales
Mar 10th, 2010, 06:27 AM
But what has posting early and guessing games got to do with each other? You don't guess better just because you posted earlier. As I said, it's much better when the only alternative left to determine the ranking is to look at the faster poster, but not those who posted earlier because they got an unfair advantage by doing so.

Tales
Apr 3rd, 2010, 02:31 PM
Should we count retirements? It says in the general first post that "walkover and retirements doesn't count" but I'm pretty sure Marco Nicole counted retirements so I assumed it was lost in translation and continued the practice in 2010. I changed the first post to just "walkover doesn't count" and hoped other manager would follow, but now I see WhoAmI still has the line "walkover and retirements doesn't count" so either he is copying another thread or he doesn't agree.

I want to know what other, managers and not, are doing and want to do. Should retirements count?

ma re
Apr 3rd, 2010, 03:42 PM
Should we count retirements? It says in the general first post that "walkover and retirements doesn't count" but I'm pretty sure Marco Nicole counted retirements so I assumed it was lost in translation and continued the practice in 2010. I changed the first post to just "walkover doesn't count" and hoped other manager would follow, but now I see WhoAmI still has the line "walkover and retirements doesn't count" so either he is copying another thread or he doesn't agree.

I want to know what other, managers and not, are doing and want to do. Should retirements count?

I think we should count retirements, but not count walkovers. Cause if I remember corectly, the rule says that if even one point was played, then the match counts, otherwise it doesen't.

WhoAmI?
Apr 3rd, 2010, 07:07 PM
I copied the first post from someone before i first managed and then continued to copy from there. I can of course change it however you say it must be:) (oh, and i'm a she)

And I also remember reading the rule about playing 1 point to count the match (i was specially looking it up).

EDIT: the line
If there's 1 point played in a match then the match counts (walkover or retirement doesn´t count). is a bit controversial indeed, because first it says 1 point played in the match makes it count and then says retirement won't count. So, I'll just delete the retirement part from there.
:)

Tales
Apr 3rd, 2010, 08:58 PM
That's good then. I was a bit worried we might have different practices that gave different rankings ;)

ronim1
May 14th, 2010, 07:42 AM
i;m a bit confused.
As Sasja stated this week, there is a rule:
"Deadline for posting your tips is until the scheduled start of the first match of the day local time."

This rule wasn't present in the past, and even not at the start of this year-Brisbane.

In my opinion, one of the nicest aspect of this game, is to participate, even if you skipped a day, and in the past , even if you were late and skipped a game or more.
Today it is very easy for the manager to know exactly when each game had started. For example, in http://xscores.com/LiveScore.do , each match shows the exact hour it was started.

I think we should review this change of the rule.

ma re
May 14th, 2010, 08:11 AM
^^ Not sure what do you mean, that we should allow people to post picks during matches? I don't think that would really be fair or even fun, cause people would (for example) come to the idea for waiting for the first set to end and post then. Or worse, someone would wait for a match point to post:lol: But I do agree that not all the picks should be posted before the start of the first match, and I'm certainly not saying that if you're late for the first match that all your picks should be invalid, but I do think the one for which you're late shouldn't count. In my opinion, we should rephrase the rule into something like: "Pick for each match should be posted before the scheduled start of that match.".

Tales
May 14th, 2010, 08:24 AM
The last thing ma re wrote is the rule we always have followed, both this year and last year.

Don't where the rule Sasja mentioned comes from. It first appears in ma re's thread in Australian Open.

ma re
May 14th, 2010, 08:29 AM
The last thing ma re wrote is the rule we always have followed, both this year and last year.

Don't where the rule Sasja mentioned comes from. It first appears in ma re's thread in Australian Open.

Yup, I constructed that sentence, I guess I should've come up with a better one. This way, people can misinterpret the rule. I'll use the one from my previous post next time (in Warsaw).

ronim1
May 15th, 2010, 10:25 PM
Of course I didn't mean for a much which has started to be counted.
But any match which hasn't started should be playable. Regarding the time, matches are sometimes postponed even for a long time, so that time should be the actual time, not "scheduled time"

ma re
May 16th, 2010, 07:21 AM
^^ No problem with me, if there's a way to know the exact time each match has started, cause it would be hard for moderators to constantly look at livescores or streamings to determine the time when the match started.

ronim1
May 16th, 2010, 05:41 PM
As I wrote before, there is a site which shows the exact time every match has started.
One only has to personalize his position regarding GMT clock.

Tales
Dec 22nd, 2010, 06:29 PM
How do people feel about switching step 1 and 2? I was thinking guessing the winner should be prioritized over someone who guessed the number of games. The game is about guessing the correct winners after all. If I don't get sufficient people to agree I'll leave it for another year.


Tiebreaker
1. The player who is closest in games guessed.
2. The player who guessed the winner.
3. The player who got the most correct picks in the semi final. If the same, move backwards to quarterfinal and so on.
4. The player who posted the fastest post in the final. If no one posted in the final go backwards to the semis and so on.

ma re
Dec 23rd, 2010, 08:00 AM
^^ If I understand you correctly, you suggest that, if there's a case where:

- player X guesses the winner
- player Y doesen't
- but player Y is closer in the number of games

...player X gets the higher spot in the tournament standings?

That would also mean that the number of games is used only when both (or neither) players get the winner right, and they still have the same number of points.

If that's what you suggest, I don't have anything against this idea. However, there's not much time left, so if we want to change this, we have to move fast, so creating something like a poll, or inviting people into this discussion should be done A.S.A.P.

ronim1
Dec 23rd, 2010, 04:39 PM
Actually I was sure this was the case anyway.

If player x has 20 points and guessed the looser of the finals, it should be obvious that player y, who has the same amount of points, but picked the winner should be higher ranked.

Inktrailer
Dec 23rd, 2010, 07:12 PM
I see why ronim thought it was the case anyway as I did too when I first read it. But yes, so if only one player picked the winner in the final then they'd have caught up the other player on points by virtue of that pick.

This is really difficult... it gives the advantage to the person chasing, because they would win even though they didn't have more points, it would purely be because they got the winning finalist. There's only two finalists but that one pick becomes worth more than a few second round picks combined.

I'm leaning towards the tie-breaker being the number of games in the final. If someone has the same number of points despite an incorrect pick in the final, they've had a good tournament, and Tipping is about the whole tournament as much of the final. Picking the number of games shows you have an idea of how the game will pan out. You might think it will be two close sets with the third being won 7-6, but lose the tournament because you got the wrong winner. Somebody might have caught you on points because they picked right winner, even though they said it would be over in 20 games.

So number of games in the final is my vote, but I'm happy if other people pick the opposite, they're both close calls.

ma re
Dec 23rd, 2010, 07:26 PM
So to sum it up in as few words as possible...Tales suggest that the number of games as a tie-breaker is employed only between players who have picked the same winner in the final.

Btw, I now see Ink's point of view as well and honestly I'm fine with which ever we go for; let the democracy speak:)

WhoAmI?
Dec 23rd, 2010, 09:10 PM
I'm for the old rule (the current one).

The final gives the most points anyway, so the chaser hasn't been doing as good in the previous rounds, but would be heavily favored over the one who got the winner wrong.

Ianto_Jones
Dec 24th, 2010, 05:26 AM
I'm a fan of the new rule?

Can I call it that?

Let's say that for instance in the First Round of a random tournament..I picked Heather Watson to beat Justine Henin and nobody else did in the entire tournament (and heather WINS!!!!!!) I think that pick should be worth as much as a finals pick no matter what. It should come down to who has the closes number of games picked in the final...

I've been in situations where I'm forced to change my winner in hopes to catch up....it never works....ahhhhh
but I really think it should come down to games in the end.

Sasja
Dec 24th, 2010, 06:24 AM
Actually I was sure this was the case anyway.

If player x has 20 points and guessed the looser of the finals, it should be obvious that player y, who has the same amount of points, but picked the winner should be higher ranked.

I agree. I think the player who picks the winner should be higher ranked.

KittyTennis
Dec 24th, 2010, 02:07 PM
Actually I was sure this was the case anyway.

If player x has 20 points and guessed the looser of the finals, it should be obvious that player y, who has the same amount of points, but picked the winner should be higher ranked.

I agree. I think the player who picks the winner should be higher ranked.

I agree with ronim1 and Sasja.

ma re
Jan 1st, 2011, 10:31 AM
OK folks, we're into the new year so I think it's about time to decide on this new rule thing. So since there aren't many of us here who have expressed opinion on this matter, and since the votes are like 60:40 in favor of the new rule, I think we should go for the rule change. I also think that losing a former #1 over something that most of us won't mind isn't worth it, so I'll give my vote to Tales' suggestion and call it official.

Just a note though, that in Tales' original post on this matter, he quoted something that isn't entirely correct. He quoted rules in which this is the case...

Tiebreaker
1. The player who is closest in games guessed.
2. The player who guessed the winner.
3. The player who got the most correct picks in the semi final. If the same, move backwards to quarterfinal and so on.
4. The player who posted the fastest post in the final. If no one posted in the final go backwards to the semis and so on.

...and we don't really play by this at all, instead we always place #4 before #3, so this is either a mistake or something that was never really implemented.

So there we have it, to resolve ties as of now, the rules are as follows:

1. The player who guessed the winner.
2. If both or neither guessed the winner, person closer in the number of games.
3. If they tipped the same number of games, the one who posted earlier.
4. If neither posted for the finals, the person who got more points in the semis. If not even that decides it, we go backwards comparing points in previous rounds.

Tales
Jan 8th, 2011, 01:42 PM
I copied that from the rule thread....Posting the fastest post is all about circumstances, who is at home, who is at work etc and should obviously be a last resort. I'm pretty sure that's what been used and it has been in the rule thread for a very long time. And that's what has been copied in every tipping thread.

I thought it was too close to go through with the change and considering there has been no complaints before I just left the topic to die.

Losing me? Lol. :P

ronim1
Jan 9th, 2011, 06:43 PM
OK folks, we're into the new year so I think it's about time to decide on this new rule thing. So since there aren't many of us here who have expressed opinion on this matter, and since the votes are like 60:40 in favor of the new rule, I think we should go for the rule change. I also think that losing a former #1 over something that most of us won't mind isn't worth it, so I'll give my vote to Tales' suggestion and call it official.

Just a note though, that in Tales' original post on this matter, he quoted something that isn't entirely correct. He quoted rules in which this is the case...

Tiebreaker
1. The player who is closest in games guessed.
2. The player who guessed the winner.
3. The player who got the most correct picks in the semi final. If the same, move backwards to quarterfinal and so on.
4. The player who posted the fastest post in the final. If no one posted in the final go backwards to the semis and so on.

...and we don't really play by this at all, instead we always place #4 before #3, so this is either a mistake or something that was never really implemented.

So there we have it, to resolve ties as of now, the rules are as follows:

1. The player who guessed the winner.
2. If both or neither guessed the winner, person closer in the number of games.
3. If they tipped the same number of games, the one who posted earlier.
4. If neither posted for the finals, the person who got more points in the semis. If not even that decides it, we go backwards comparing points in previous rounds.



I agree

ronim1
Mar 10th, 2011, 06:44 AM
I've just noticed that somehow the retirement rule has changed.

In the How to play and rule thread - 2010, post #1 , it is written that:

"If there's 1 point played in a match then the match counts (walkover doesn´t count)."

But in today's tourney (INDIAN WELLS):

"If there's 1 point played in a match then the match counts (walkover or retirement doesn't count"

Since when did retirments not count?
I suggest we put this back from the next tournement.

As long as there was 1 point played, the match should be counted.

Ralph214
Mar 10th, 2011, 06:47 AM
I've just noticed that somehow the retirement rule has changed.

In the How to play and rule thread - 2010, post #1 , it is written that:

"If there's 1 point played in a match then the match counts (walkover doesn´t count)."

But in today's tourney (INDIAN WELLS):

"If there's 1 point played in a match then the match counts (walkover or retirement doesn't count"

Since when did retirments not count?
I suggest we put this back from the next tournement.

As long as there was 1 point played, the match should be counted.

The tournament I managed in Dubai counted retirements. I'm not sure where this new rule came from.

Ianto_Jones
Mar 10th, 2011, 07:33 AM
well.

in that case...how do you decide who won the Arn-Errani match?

it was 6-6 (1-1) when Arn retired. do the people who picked Errani get a point?
SPORTS
Mirza won 2-1 though which meant that she won. (due to oprandi retiring)

I could be wrong about the rules I posted. Should I count those or not?

I just don't see it as fair for people to get a point when their player who had a shot at winning gets injured. It almost seems unsporting to me to gain points based on injuries.

WhoAmI?
Mar 10th, 2011, 07:52 AM
So far we have counted the retirements. The player who goes to the next round due to retirement, is the winner. In current case Mirza.

If the match doesn't take place (like a last minute withdrawal and thus there's a LL playing), then it doesn't count.

Maybe it's unsporting, but the player who benefited from the retirement, gets points and money:shrug:

Ianto_Jones
Mar 10th, 2011, 07:58 AM
True. I'm gonna count them. Shouldn't change much.

ma re
Mar 10th, 2011, 08:20 AM
Guys, gals...the rule in cases that we talk about hasn't changed, maybe just the sound of a sentence. True, we have added the word "retirement" some months ago (don't remember when exactly), mostly because of last minute retirements. But this still doesn't change much, cause in the case of IW, these matches that ended with retirements were actually played for several games and the rule says "if there's 1 point played in a match, then the match counts". For example, the Errani-Arn match wouldn't have counted for points if Arn would've retired before a single point was played - and that didn't happen. Same as for that other match, they both count for points.

Hope this solves the dilemma:)

ronim1
Mar 10th, 2011, 09:01 AM
Thanks to all for clearing the matter.

ma re
Mar 10th, 2011, 09:12 AM
Wrong choice of words is to blame for all this; it should've been stated: "...(walkover or a pre-match retirement doesn't count)" - that way everything would've been perfectly clear. Let's make sure it says that from now on.

ma re
Sep 23rd, 2012, 08:36 PM
Anyone up for Tipping Challenger Tour 2012? We have 10 weeks in the off season (between the end of Moscow and the first tournament in 2013), so I thought we might spend them playing challengers just for fun. Points wouldn't count for rankings, but we could count points in those several challengers and proclaim the winner. We'd always play the strongest challenger of the week or the one which the manager would choose if there are several of the same category played that week.

So what say you:cool:

BlackPanther.
Sep 23rd, 2012, 11:36 PM
Yes :hearts:

HawkAussie
Sep 24th, 2012, 01:03 AM
Oh yeah

ma re
Sep 24th, 2012, 09:26 AM
Here are tournaments that we would play if we'd go ahead with this idea:

October

22nd - Poitiers 100k
29th - Barnstaple 75k

November

5th - Phoenix 75k
12th - Helsinki or Zawada 25k
19th - Toyota 75k+H
26th - Dubai 75k

December

3rd & 10th - only futures are played, I suggest we skip those
17th - Ankara 50k
24th - Pune 25k

We should also make bonus points as simple as possible, I suggest top 8 for 100k and 75k events, and top 4 in 50k and 25k tournaments. In other words:

100k - 100, 75, 50, 40
75k - 75, 60, 40, 30 (maybe 5 more for each in 75k+H)
50k - 50, 35, 25
25k - 25, 15, 10

We also have to figure out how we'll know if someone's picks were late, cause these matches (especially those from 25k's) are not always seen on live scoring.

Frederik
Oct 25th, 2012, 01:48 AM
Didn't see this before.

Sounds like a good idea.

ma re
Oct 25th, 2012, 07:42 AM
At first it sounded good to me too, but then I thought about it some more and realized how many problems we might have with those events, considering we have them with large WTA tournaments too. Just think of all the potential for mess with the scheduling on some 25k in the middle of nowhere. Also, we barely got through a season in terms of managing, and I'm not too optimistic about the number of people that would be interesting in helping out here either. And I can't help but wonder how many players we would even have in these events.

ma re
Nov 12th, 2012, 01:50 PM
NEW

POLL

HERE! (http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?p=22464495#post22464495)

ma re
Jan 2nd, 2013, 07:15 PM
I just got a potentially very good idea.

How about if we would add the number of correct picks made by a player to his tournament points and then add bonus points? It would:

a) put more emphasize on guessing right, which was something Hakon (I think) suggested

b) solve many end-of-tournament ties

What do you guys think?


P. S. Just as an example...player A has point distribution such as 8/14/9/8/5 for a total of 44, while player B has 7/12/12/8/5 for a total of 44, but player A gets 21 extra point for correct picks while B gets 20, which immediately solves the tie. Each then is awarded with appropriate bonus points.

ronim1
Jan 3rd, 2013, 07:22 AM
I just got a potentially very good idea.

How about if we would add the number of correct picks made by a player to his tournament points and then add bonus points? It would:

a) put more emphasize on guessing right, which was something Hakon (I think) suggested

b) solve many end-of-tournament ties

What do you guys think?


P. S. Just as an example...player A has point distribution such as 8/14/9/8/5 for a total of 44, while player B has 7/12/12/8/5 for a total of 44, but player A gets 21 extra point for correct picks while B gets 20, which immediately solves the tie. Each then is awarded with appropriate bonus points.

I think this is the best idea next to the invention of the wheel.

:worship:


Seriously now, this would bring a new dimension to this game.
Should there be also a difference on points given regarding the rounds played or seeded players vs none?

ma re
Jan 3rd, 2013, 07:52 AM
Should there be also a difference on points given regarding the rounds played or seeded players vs none?

Great to see I'm not crazy and that someone else actually likes the idea:lol: Regarding your question, I think that at first just giving a point per correct pick (regardless of round or the seeds) would be enough, cause I'm not a fan of implementing too many new things at once, but with time we might tweak it if people get the feeling that it would be good to expand on this.

I think we need a poll about this.

I even came up with a name! Watch this...extra points (how original!) :lol:

EDIT: I forgot to say that this would also lessen the importance of a final match and the manipulations in the finals which are a regular occurence nowdays.

ma re
Jan 3rd, 2013, 09:37 AM
Poll has just been opened HERE (http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?t=472979).