PDA

View Full Version : Rules thread - 2013


ma re
Jan 23rd, 2010, 06:44 PM
Tipping Rules


What is tipping?

Playing Tipping is very easy. The manager will post the Order of Play and then you just tip who you think will win.
We only tip the results of all main draw matches. The QD matches will not be included in the OOP.

For the final match you will also have to guess how many games will be played in the final. This will work as a tiebreaker.

Retirements/walkovers

Every match in which at least 1 point has been played will count as a completed match in Tipping. That means that walkovers do not count.

LL-matches/missing match in the manager's OOP

If a WTA player is replaced by a LL AFTER the OOP has been posted this match will be cancelled, unless there is enough time (-- hours) for tipping players to replace their picks.
The same rule applies if the manager forgets to include on of the matches in the OOP.

Deadline for posting picks

Your picks have to be posted (or sent via PM) before the start of the match. Posts made after the start of a match will not count.

Changing your picks

You're allowed to change your picks before the start of the match. Changes have to be made in a new post without quoting your original post.
Changes made by quoting your original post won't count. Changes made by editing your post will make all of your picks in the edited post invalid.

Tie-breakers

1. The player who guessed the winner.
2. The player who is closest in games guessed.
3. The player who posted the fastest in the final.
4. If no one posted in the final, points from previous rounds are examined going backwards, until a clear advantage of one player is confirmed.

Scoring points

First Round = 1 point per correct tip.
Every additional round = one point more than for the previous, per correct tip.

Bonus points

International

1st: 100
2nd: 75
3rd/4th: 50
5th-8th: 30

Premier

1st: 150
2nd: 100
3rd/4th: 75
5th-8th: 50

Premier 5

1st: 225
2nd: 150
3rd/4th: 100
5th-8th: 75
9th-12th: 35

Premier Mandatory

1st: 250
2nd: 175
3rd/4th: 125
5th-8th: 80
9th-12th: 40

Grand slam

1st: 400
2nd: 275
3rd/4th: 200
5th-8th: 120
9th-12th: 60

---

YEC

1st: 325
2nd: 225
3/4: 150
5-8: 100

TOC

1st: 120
2nd: 90
3/4: 60
5-8: 40

Olympics

1st: 150
2nd: 120
3rd: 90
4th: 70
5-8: 50
9-12: 35

Rankings

Your 16 best results in the past 52 weeks will count towards your ranking. There are no mandatory tournaments.

ma re
Jun 12th, 2010, 09:38 AM
We have already established that the winners of International series events qualify for the year-end tournament in Bali, and that those who finish the year as top 8 in the rankings, qualify for the season-ending championships in Doha.

However, there's one thing to decide. What if a winner of some international series event has already won such a tournament this season? Should we give a "ticket to Bali" to the person who finished 2nd in that event, or just have one player less qualify for Bali? In my opinion it would be better to have one person from each event, so if the winner has already won before, the runner-up should get to qualify. If the runner up has also already qualify, we should reward the player who finished 3rd in that event and so on.

I brought this up, because the above situation could happen in Birmingham, if Elle-Marie or Tennisfan_77 win the tournament.

Any opinions?

WhoAmI?
Jun 12th, 2010, 09:48 AM
There are so many Internationals, that if you'd include a winner (or RU, or 3rd etc) from each of those, doesn't it mean that by the end of the year all the active players could participate (excluding the ones for Doha)?

I'd just have the winners;) (even if im not one of them :sobbing:)

ma re
Jun 12th, 2010, 09:55 AM
^^ You missed the point. I'm not saying we should include several from each International, just that if someone wins his/her second International, someone else should get to qualify, cause this person already qualified.

So for instance, Elle-Marie is leading right now in Birmingham, but she already qualified for Bali by winning in Monterrey, so why not let the runner-up get to qualify from Birmingham? But if Tennisfan_77 who is currently 2nd would be a runner-up, the same question would arise. She won in Marbella and qualified that way, so no point in giving her the quali spot she already has.

WhoAmI?
Jun 12th, 2010, 10:10 AM
Yes I understood it. I meant that won't the winners start to overlap at some point? I counted there are 11 Internationals, which would mean 11 different people playing Bali, exclude the ones playing Doha, this makes 17 different players. We have about 20 active players each tournament (usually same ones). So this basically means everyone plays.

Maybe there should be like a bigger bonus to the ones who are able to win more Internationals+Bali? (As in bonus points.)

EDIT: 19 different players (sorry i can't add 8 to 11 :weirdo:)

ronim1
Jun 12th, 2010, 10:26 AM
In order solve WhoAmI's justified argument, I suggest to rank all Runners Up of int'l events, according to the points they have earned in their turneys.
This will make it just in my opinion.

ma re
Jun 12th, 2010, 10:51 AM
Ronim, that's actually a good suggestion, I have nothing against the best of the runner-up's qualifying. So for instance, if we play 11 internationals and only end up with 8 different people winning them, that would mean that three of the best runner-up's would qualify. Sounds interesting.

WhoAmI, I'm not sure I get what you're trying to say. Winners overlaping (the same person winning more than 1 international) is exactly my concern. Also, I don't know if you're suggesting that only those players that don't qualify for Doha should play Bali? If so, why? I also don't know what you mean by extra bonuses...:confused: If you want, you can write me a PM, so that we don't flood this thread.

P. S. Eventhough we have about 20 people playing tournaments and often those are the same ones, we still have 35 active players this year, by that I mean those who have played at least one event in 2010.

Tales
Jun 12th, 2010, 03:38 PM
Considering we only have 20+ people I don't see why we can't just let everyone who doesn't qualify for Doha play Bali.
With 8 in Doha and 11 from International tournaments we already have 19 qualified people.

Letting people play in both Doha and Bali doesn't sound fair to those who don't qualify to either in my opinion.

And why do you discuss this in this thread? Use the other one that has "ideas" in the topic title...

ma re
Jun 12th, 2010, 04:03 PM
Considering we only have 20+ people I don't see why we can't just let everyone who doesn't qualify for Doha play Bali.

Cause this is the only way to make International tournaments popular and cause by excluding this rule they'd be of very little significance for the players in terms of rankings.

With 8 in Doha and 11 from International tournaments we already have 19 qualified people.

Yes, and as I said earlier, so far 35 people have become active players in 2010.

Letting people play in both Doha and Bali doesn't sound fair to those who don't qualify to either in my opinion.

In my opinion it makes the game harder for those who are not really good, but I wouldn't call it unfair - anyone can play as many tournaments necessary to qualify for any of those. And you also have to defend it all next year.

And why do you discuss this in this thread? Use the other one that has "ideas" in the topic title...

I thought it might be good to point some newcomers to the place where all the rules are mentioned...might have made a mistake

Over and out;)

WhoAmI?
Jun 4th, 2011, 06:22 PM
How to solve ties

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.

Maybe a suggestion for 2012.

I don't really like the #4 rule. I mean if someone is able to post their pick earlier than another, it doesn't mean their pick is better.

For example at RG there was the situation:
RANK/PLAYER____________R1___R2___R3___R4___QF___SF___F---TOTAL

1. KeisukeHonda........47...54...30...24...15...12---7-----189
2. longtin23...........47...54...30...24...15...12---7-----189
3. BlackPanther........49...56...36...20...15....6---7-----189

I think it's okay to have a shared 1st place in that case. Now KeishukeHonda is #1 only because he posted the pick earlier than longtin23, which actually doesn't make it better in any way. So I suggest if points 1, 2 and 3 doesn't solve the tie, to give out a shared position.
In this example the winner would be KeisukeHonda and longtin23, and #3 BlackPanther (he had less points in the semis than the other 2).

ma re
Jun 5th, 2011, 09:16 AM
Maybe a suggestion for 2012.

I don't really like the #4 rule. I mean if someone is able to post their pick earlier than another, it doesn't mean their pick is better.

For example at RG there was the situation:


I think it's okay to have a shared 1st place in that case. Now KeishukeHonda is #1 only because he posted the pick earlier than longtin23, which actually doesn't make it better in any way. So I suggest if points 1, 2 and 3 doesn't solve the tie, to give out a shared position.
In this example the winner would be KeisukeHonda and longtin23, and #3 BlackPanther (he had less points in the semis than the other 2).

That's a very interesting suggestion, but honestly, instead of excluding this part completely, I'd rather change it in a way that if two players are tied by points and by number of games, that we compare them by the next set of points (semifinal) and even further if necesarry (QF and so on) until we find who was better at the later stage of the tournament. I think that would be more fair than solving it like we do today, and it would still solve all ties.

Also, we might implement this rule even before the start of 2012 season if people agree on that (for example, starting with Wimbledon 2011, but I'll settle for what most people agrees on, of course).

P. S. This thread is really old and some of the rules stated here have long been changed. I'll try to create a new, updated version, in the following days.

WhoAmI?
Jun 5th, 2011, 09:42 AM
That's a very interesting suggestion, but honestly, instead of excluding this part completely, I'd rather change it in a way that if two players are tied by points and by number of games, that we compare them by the next set of points (semifinal) and even further if necesarry (QF and so on) until we find who was better at the later stage of the tournament. I think that would be more fair than solving it like we do today, and it would still solve all ties.

Also, we might implement this rule even before the start of 2012 season if people agree on that (for example, starting with Wimbledon 2011, but I'll settle for what most people agrees on, of course).

P. S. This thread is really old and some of the rules stated here have long been changed. I'll try to create a new, updated version, in the following days.

This suggestion of yours is already written to the rule;), see point 3:
How to solve ties

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.

I don't know if those rules to solve a tie are old:confused: because I checked the Birmingham thread, and there are the exact same rules for solving a tie.

So, in this RG case, you can see that both KeishukeHonda and longtin23 got exactly the same points in each round. It's rather unlikely to happen though, but can happen once in a blue moon.

Another thing I thought that could be used in this case (only if there's still a tie, like in RG case), is to re-look at their picks round by round and give a higher place to the one who picked the most unexpected winner. I'm not sure how to determine this, maybe look at how the bookies have evaluated the player's chances before the match (matchstat.com can be used for example).

ma re
Jun 5th, 2011, 10:50 AM
This suggestion of yours is already written to the rule;), see point 3:

I know it's already there, but we use this only if the two players are tied by points, number of games and if no one posted faster - then we look at previous rounds (it happened between Vaxey and volume3d in RG).

I don't know if those rules to solve a tie are old:confused: because I checked the Birmingham thread, and there are the exact same rules for solving a tie.

There are diferences - for examples, these rules state that getting closer by the number of games is more important than guessing the winner, and we've switched places of those two this year.

So, in this RG case, you can see that both KeishukeHonda and longtin23 got exactly the same points in each round. It's rather unlikely to happen though, but can happen once in a blue moon.

Another thing I thought that could be used in this case (only if there's still a tie, like in RG case), is to re-look at their picks round by round and give a higher place to the one who picked the most unexpected winner. I'm not sure how to determine this, maybe look at how the bookies have evaluated the player's chances before the match (matchstat.com can be used for example).

What you suggest in the last paragraph is interesting, but instead of looking through betting sites (which could further complicate the manager's job), I'd consider giving advantage to the player who was, for example, the sole winner of a certain round (like coolfish1103 was in the quarters of RG). For instance, if one player does that in one of the rounds, and the other one who is tied with him doesn't, the first one gets the higher spot.

WhoAmI?
Jun 5th, 2011, 11:19 AM
Well, I'm suggesting an option to solve a tie in case the players are still tied after the points 1, 2, and 3.

That means that they got the same amount of points for each round, thus neither can be the sole winner of the round, or they both are.

Like in this example:

RANK/PLAYER____________R1___R2___R3___R4___QF___SF___F---TOTAL

1. KeisukeHonda........47...54...30...24...15...12---7-----189
2. longtin23...........47...54...30...24...15...12---7-----189

They got the same amount of points for every round.

ronim1
Jun 6th, 2011, 01:44 PM
We need to keep in mind to keep tha game simple.

1)Looking for betting sites etc. is IMO not in the scope of this game.
2)Llooking for winners of rounds, who will decide if the winner of round 3, is more or less imortant than the winner of 4 or 2?

The whole idea of rule #4, is to avoid shared winners, as there may only be one winner in tennis.
Sometimes the tournaments are played in Europe, sometimes in Asia and others are players in Americas, so there is a fair distribution of Time lines.

Players who see themselves contenders should hurry and place their tip.

ma re
Jun 7th, 2011, 08:58 AM
We need to keep in mind to keep tha game simple.

1)Looking for betting sites etc. is IMO not in the scope of this game.
2)Llooking for winners of rounds, who will decide if the winner of round 3, is more or less imortant than the winner of 4 or 2?

The whole idea of rule #4, is to avoid shared winners, as there may only be one winner in tennis.
Sometimes the tournaments are played in Europe, sometimes in Asia and others are players in Americas, so there is a fair distribution of Time lines.

Players who see themselves contenders should hurry and place their tip.

There are some good points here roni, but it wouldn't be impossible to find a good solution I think. I was brainstorming a bit yesterday and figured out that we could, for example, ask people to guess the number of games for the two semis as well. It wouldn't complicate the game, and it wouldn't make the manager's job any more dificult, but it could solve ties in I'd say a more fair fashion than this comparing who posted earlier. So, in case of a tie in points, we'd compare who got the winner right and who was closer in games for the final, but in case there's still a tie we'd look at who was closer in games for the semis, and it's very unlikely that this wouldn't solve it. To even further reduce the chance of a tie there, we'd for example, compare by who had a closer "better guess" i.e. of your two guesses for the number of games in semis, only the closer one would be used to solve ties.

And as far as what you stated under 2) goes, my original idea included that F > SF > QF > (R4 > R3) R2 > R1. But as we saw in RG, that can't solve a tie every time; in fact, it can't solve them quite often cause people who are tied, frequently have identical results by rounds.

WhoAmI?
Jun 7th, 2011, 10:08 AM
I think the semifinal games idea is good:yeah:

Maybe this should apply in Wimbledon?:)

And to conclude, what's the case of solving the tie-break? I think you should maybe make the standard opening page (as a new thread), so everyone would get it correct. Otherwise people copy from earlier threads and as you said the rulces have been swapped, so it might not be totally correct always.

:)

ma re
Jun 7th, 2011, 10:17 AM
I think the semifinal games idea is good:yeah:

Maybe this should apply in Wimbledon?:)

And to conclude, what's the case of solving the tie-break? I think you should maybe make the standard opening page (as a new thread), so everyone would get it correct. Otherwise people copy from earlier threads and as you said the rulces have been swapped, so it might not be totally correct always.

:)

Don't know if we'll agree on some new rules by Wimbledon, but it's possible.

Your suggestion about making a standard opening post is a very good one, I'll look into making one as soon as possible;)

ronim1
Jun 8th, 2011, 07:25 AM
There are some good points here roni, but it wouldn't be impossible to find a good solution I think. I was brainstorming a bit yesterday and figured out that we could, for example, ask people to guess the number of games for the two semis as well. It wouldn't complicate the game, and it wouldn't make the manager's job any more dificult, but it could solve ties in I'd say a more fair fashion than this comparing who posted earlier. So, in case of a tie in points, we'd compare who got the winner right and who was closer in games for the final, but in case there's still a tie we'd look at who was closer in games for the semis, and it's very unlikely that this wouldn't solve it. To even further reduce the chance of a tie there, we'd for example, compare by who had a closer "better guess" i.e. of your two guesses for the number of games in semis, only the closer one would be used to solve ties.

And as far as what you stated under 2) goes, my original idea included that F > SF > QF > (R4 > R3) R2 > R1. But as we saw in RG, that can't solve a tie every time; in fact, it can't solve them quite often cause people who are tied, frequently have identical results by rounds.



I completely agree.

:worship:

Payam
Jun 8th, 2011, 10:07 PM
I have a question about scoring and I am not sure where is the best place to ask it. As far as the scoring section mentions every correct guess in the first round gets one point and the second round gets 2, third round 3, and ... .
Is that right?

ma re
Jun 9th, 2011, 06:47 AM
I have a question about scoring and I am not sure where is the best place to ask it. As far as the scoring section mentions every correct guess in the first round gets one point and the second round gets 2, third round 3, and ... .
Is that right?

Yup:)

Payam
Jun 10th, 2011, 05:20 AM
Thanks for the reply Ma Re.:wavey:

ma re
Oct 22nd, 2011, 10:51 AM
Not sure this is the place to post it, but I don't want to open yet another thread, so here it is - I have a suggestion of the addition to the point system.

More specifically, I suggest that for 2012 season we include bonus points for players ranked 9-12 in tournaments as well, giving them 20, 30 or 40 points for such results respectively, depending on the tournament category.

The reason is simply because now we have much more players in each and every tournament than a year or more ago, not to mention that up until the start of this season there were mostly between 50 and 60 players overall, while now we have more than a hundred. Up until this year, we barely ever had 30 players in any tournament other than a grand slam, but nowdays 45-50 seems to be the norm even for the smallest events.

Any thoughts on this?

longtin23
Oct 22nd, 2011, 01:46 PM
I agree, an I also think that we should have two tournaments in the same week...

ma re
Oct 22nd, 2011, 01:57 PM
I also think that we should have two tournaments in the same week...

This will be the case a few times next seasons, but not for every week. Depending on the WTA schedule for 2012 and because of the need to play more events in Asia and Oceania, we will play two events per week when an opportunity comes to include more tournaments from those regions. But this will (as it now seems) not be implemented throughout the season, cause we did have that in tipping a few years ago, and the players themselves asked for only one event per week. Even with just one we sometimes forget to post picks or are not able to play that week, and I think this is the primary reason why people complained. I appreciate the idea though. If more people show interest in your suggestion, we will definately discuss it and maybe even introduce, but for now, looks like most players wouldn't be interested.

ronim1
Oct 23rd, 2011, 05:22 PM
I agree with ma re's suggestion to enlarge point distribution.

I disagree with the idea of having more than one tourney per week.
In those cases, we will go back to having only 15-20 players per week.
Also we will need more managers, will need more calculations etc.
I really don't see what we will gain with this.

ma re
Oct 23rd, 2011, 06:40 PM
I disagree with the idea of having more than one tourney per week.
In those cases, we will go back to having only 15-20 players per week.
Also we will need more managers, will need more calculations etc.
I really don't see what we will gain with this.

While it is possible that the number of players per tournament goes down on those weeks in which we play two events at the same time, I don't really see a problem here, because as it now seems, that will only be the case a few times during the whole season. Additionally, I think we should maybe stick to just 8 players receiving bonus points during such weeks because of this very reason (probable drop in the number of players per event compared to what we see today).

Yes, we will need some more managers (maybe a few more), but considering all the interest that was seen this year for running events (the fact that all the tournaments were reserved well before the end of the season), that should not be a problem.

What we would get with that is satisfaction for all the players living in Asian countries, Australia and Oceania, and there is quite a few of them. They complain how, because most tournaments are played in Europe and the USA, they often forget to send their picks or are not able to do it in time, due to time zones. That's a fair argument, because I know what kind of a mess it's sometimes for me to play tournaments in China or Australia. So this (as it now stands) will only serve the purpose of implementing more Asian and Australian tournaments into the schedule, and I believe it will bring something new and interesting into the game.

ronim1
Oct 24th, 2011, 04:44 PM
I'm still not convinced of this necessity.
I have missed tipping a few times this year, but didn't complain.
But on the other hand, if you guys insist, it's OK by me.

Frederik
Oct 24th, 2011, 05:41 PM
same here (on the necessity part)

ma re
Oct 27th, 2011, 07:05 AM
We can do this - when the official 2012 WTA schedule comes out, I'll post two proposed 2012 tipping schedules; one using the same rules so far, and the other with the proposed new rules.

ma re
Jan 30th, 2012, 10:24 AM
Over in the Opening post thread, there is a suggestion made by Frederik to substitute current rules #3 and #4 on solving ties with a more simple one for practical reasons.
Read more about it over there and express your opinion. If you have a different view or a suggestion of some sort, of course we'd like to hear it (it starts with post #5).

:wavey:

ma re
Apr 1st, 2012, 06:38 PM
One thing is bugging me for quite some time about tie-breakers.

Hypothetically (or whatever the heck it's spelled...):

- player A guesses the winner of a final will be Venus in 25 games
- players B, C, D, E and F send their final picks afterwards
- player A changes his/her mind and guesses Azarenka in 24 games, just like player D

Question: Did player A post before player D or is it the other way around? Player A was initially faster, but his final pick was posted later than that of player D.

This was never talked about. What are your opinions? I'd say we specify that only your *last* pick counts as valid.

Frederik
Apr 1st, 2012, 10:43 PM
of course it's the last pick. ;) I've always counted it like that.

And what about my suggestion? (16 best results) :p

ma re
Apr 2nd, 2012, 06:48 AM
of course it's the last pick. ;) I've always counted it like that.

And what about my suggestion? (16 best results) :p

So then we'll specify this part about the last pick in the finals, just to avoid any confusion.

- - -

And about your suggestion, well I thought you'll bring it up somewhere (have you? maybe I just missed it). So, here it goes: Frederik would like to propose a slight change to the ranking system - that we count 16 best results in a year instead of 15.

Your thoughts?

I honestly don't have anything against this, but I also don't think how it would improve or noticably change anything, cause it's just 1 more result. I don't think the rankings would look that much different (if at all), and the only thing that we would acomplish would be that our system would look more like that of a WTA. See no real point. But that's just me.

ronim1
Apr 4th, 2012, 10:39 AM
So then we'll specify this part about the last pick in the finals, just to avoid any confusion.

- - -

And about your suggestion, well I thought you'll bring it up somewhere (have you? maybe I just missed it). So, here it goes: Frederik would like to propose a slight change to the ranking system - that we count 16 best results in a year instead of 15.

Your thoughts?

I honestly don't have anything against this, but I also don't think how it would improve or noticably change anything, cause it's just 1 more result. I don't think the rankings would look that much different (if at all), and the only thing that we would acomplish would be that our system would look more like that of a WTA. See no real point. But that's just me.


If this suggestion brings us closer to WTA, than why not. Otherwise there is nor real difference.

Frederik
Apr 4th, 2012, 11:44 AM
If this suggestion brings us closer to WTA, than why not. Otherwise there is nor real difference.

That's why I suggested it. ;)

ma re
Jun 22nd, 2012, 03:50 PM
any update on this?

Maybe you should open a poll about it, or something similar, cause I don't think many people read this thread and changing the system based on 1 or 2 positive responses might not be taken well by most players. Again, I'm indifferent about this, but I still think players should be introduced to a potential chance to the ranking system.

Frederik
Jun 22nd, 2012, 04:05 PM
I doubt that more than 10 people even know that there is a tipping sub-forum :hysteric:

ma re
Jun 22nd, 2012, 04:43 PM
I doubt that more than 10 people even know that there is a tipping sub-forum :hysteric:

You'd be surprised. I also tend to steer their attention towards a new poll or a discussion, by a brief post in the current tournament thread. That always helps.

Frederik
Jul 3rd, 2012, 12:49 PM
this is our new "rules-thread"

let me know if I forgot something in the 1st post. :wavey:

ma re
Jul 3rd, 2012, 01:37 PM
this is our new "rules-thread"

let me know if I forgot something in the 1st post. :wavey:

There is one mistake, but you probably just copied my mistake from another post - "made my editing" should say "made by editing". Of course it's no biggie, just a typo;)

Frederik
Jul 3rd, 2012, 01:43 PM
thanks :)

What about that rule?

If a WTA player is replaced by a LL AFTER the OOP has been posted this match will be cancelled, unless there is enough time (-- hours) for tipping players to replace their picks.

how many hours are "enough"?
This wasn't in the rules but it happened before that we didn't count a match because a manager forgot to include it in the OOP. It also happened that a match counted because somebody else noticed the missing match a couple of hours after the OOP was posted.

ma re
Jul 3rd, 2012, 02:07 PM
thanks :)

What about that rule?



how many hours are "enough"?
This wasn't in the rules but it happened before that we didn't count a match because a manager forgot to include it in the OOP. It also happened that a match counted because somebody else noticed the missing match a couple of hours after the OOP was posted.

It was never specified, but I remember suggesting something like 12 hours as the minimum. I also suggested that we accept this kind of change if a significant number of players (say 70%) can post their new picks on time. A lot was said about this, but never was anything concluded. Maybe this would deserve a separate discussion thread?

Frederik
Jul 7th, 2012, 04:32 PM
yeah, maybe.

I think something like: "OOP has to be fixed within X hours... otherwise the match won't count" would be perfect

longtin23
Jul 8th, 2012, 09:43 AM
I would also like to suggest a deadline for teams to be formed during the doubles event has started. Maybe two days after the event starts so players can know whether his.her partner will send or not...

ma re
Jul 8th, 2012, 10:55 AM
I would also like to suggest a deadline for teams to be formed during the doubles event has started. Maybe two days after the event starts so players can know whether his.her partner will send or not...

Good idea! Two days should be enough for players who are serious about participating to find a partner. But I also think that we should maintain a "partner list" for doubles throughout the year and the manager would copy it into the tournament thread so that players know how many different partners they've had during the year, but also in order for them to see who of the other players is available for that tournament and who isn't (because of already having 3 partners during the year).

longtin23
Jul 8th, 2012, 11:14 AM
Good idea! Two days should be enough for players who are serious about participating to find a partner. But I also think that we should maintain a "partner list" for doubles throughout the year and the manager would copy it into the tournament thread so that players know how many different partners they've had during the year, but also in order for them to see who of the other players is available for that tournament and who isn't (because of already having 3 partners during the year).

This is actually from Fredrik... Since I will be the next manager for doubles tournament, the Olympics... I will update and create the list later...

Btw, I will update the result in wimbledon in 3 hours...

Frederik
Jul 14th, 2012, 12:59 AM
working on that "partner list" right now ;)

longtin23
Jul 14th, 2012, 06:22 AM
working on that "partner list" right now ;)

Thanks :worship:

Frederik
Jul 17th, 2012, 12:36 PM
what are the bonus points for the Olympic Games? :scratch:

ma re
Jul 17th, 2012, 12:54 PM
what are the bonus points for the Olympic Games? :scratch:

The same as for other Premier events (with the winner being awarded a wild-card into YEC besides points).

Frederik
Jul 17th, 2012, 01:01 PM
ok... but maybe we should have different points for the 3rd and 4th ;)

ma re
Jul 17th, 2012, 02:43 PM
ok... but maybe we should have different points for the 3rd and 4th ;)

Don't you think it's a little late for those sorts of changes, with the Games so coming up so soon?

It might be cool to award 2nd and 3rd best with something as well, cause there are three medals given at the Olympics, but I don't know what, and I fear it's too late to be making stuff up so close to the start of the event.

longtin23
Jul 17th, 2012, 02:45 PM
No special rules for doubles, right!? And I will use the same ranking points as singles in doubles

Frederik
Jul 17th, 2012, 03:18 PM
Don't you think it's a little late for those sorts of changes, with the Games so coming up so soon?

It might be cool to award 2nd and 3rd best with something as well, cause there are three medals given at the Olympics, but I don't know what, and I fear it's too late to be making stuff up so close to the start of the event.

It's not really a change. We didn't have ranking points for the olympics yet.

And the 3rd should get more bonus points than the 4th imo. :)

ma re
Jul 17th, 2012, 03:43 PM
No special rules for doubles, right!? And I will use the same ranking points as singles in doubles

Yup, in doubles everything stays the same as it was in the previous events.

It's not really a change. We didn't have ranking points for the olympics yet.

And the 3rd should get more bonus points than the 4th imo. :)

Well, technically it's not a change so we might give the "bronze medalist" something like 100 bonus points instead of 80...and we might even give the runner-up 130 instead of 120 to make it half way between 1st and 3rd...? don't know about others, but I wouldn't mind.

ronim1
Jul 19th, 2012, 01:20 PM
Yup, in doubles everything stays the same as it was in the previous events.



Well, technically it's not a change so we might give the "bronze medalist" something like 100 bonus points instead of 80...and we might even give the runner-up 130 instead of 120 to make it half way between 1st and 3rd...? don't know about others, but I wouldn't mind.

Makes sense.
I think you should publish this.

ma re
Jul 19th, 2012, 03:42 PM
Makes sense.
I think you should publish this.

How about I just ask people next week in the Baku thread (which as it seems I'll be running) if anyone objects - although I really don't see why anyone would.

Håkon
Jul 20th, 2012, 08:49 AM
Yup, in doubles everything stays the same as it was in the previous events.



Well, technically it's not a change so we might give the "bronze medalist" something like 100 bonus points instead of 80...and we might even give the runner-up 130 instead of 120 to make it half way between 1st and 3rd...? don't know about others, but I wouldn't mind.

160 - 120 - 90 - 70, imo. So still same amount of points for 3rd/4th together, but different distribution.

ma re
Jul 20th, 2012, 09:13 AM
160 - 120 - 90 - 70, imo. So still same amount of points for 3rd/4th together, but different distribution.

I'm not crazy about this suggestion. First of all, does that leave out those who finish between 9th and 12th? If it doesn't, how much do they get - half of 90 or half of 70 (now they're getting 30)? And second of all, it would mean that the runner-up would be the only one who wouldn't benefit from the changes; the winner gets a wild-card into a YEC and all other bonus point winners get an increase.

Håkon
Jul 20th, 2012, 09:20 AM
I'm not crazy about this suggestion. First of all, does that leave out those who finish between 9th and 12th? If it doesn't, how much do they get - half of 90 or half of 70 (now they're getting 30)? And second of all, it would mean that the runner-up would be the only one who wouldn't benefit from the changes; the winner gets a wild-card into a YEC and all other bonus point winners get an increase.

What I meant was the 4th place gets a decrease - so it'd be

1st: 160
2nd: 120
3rd: 90
4th: 70
5th-8th: 60
9th-12th: 40

9th-12th get 40 because it's half of 80, which is still the average for 3rd-4th.

ma re
Jul 20th, 2012, 10:06 AM
What I meant was the 4th place gets a decrease - so it'd be

1st: 160
2nd: 120
3rd: 90
4th: 70
5th-8th: 60
9th-12th: 40

9th-12th get 40 because it's half of 80, which is still the average for 3rd-4th.

I get what you're saying, but don't you think it'd be kind of silly if finishing 4th in a tournament like Brisbane or New Haven would get you more points than doing the same at the Olympics:confused:

Håkon
Jul 20th, 2012, 10:19 AM
I get what you're saying, but don't you think it'd be kind of silly if finishing 4th in a tournament like Brisbane or New Haven would get you more points than doing the same at the Olympics:confused:

The thought process behind my suggestion was that giving 1st-3rd extra points (1st have chance through extra points through YEC, 2nd and 3rd in the actual rankings) relative to 4th-12th was wrong. I suppose I can see why given that those are the medal positions, but I'm not totally convinced...

ma re
Jul 31st, 2012, 06:43 PM
Since there was talk recently (in another thread) about maybe changing the point distribution for Premier events some time in the future, here's a crazy idea.

Instead of coming up with a way to award different points for different types of Premier events, maybe we should do something to improve the point distribution throughout all three categories of tournaments that we play now.

To explain... At the moment a player can win (bonus included):

- a maximum of 177 points at a 32-draw IS event
- a maximum of 280 points at a 64-draw Premier event
- a maximum of 447 points at a Grand slam.

If we would start counting points differently in some of those categories, we would not only make ties at the end of some tournaments less probable, fluke runs to bonus points by a "correct guess" of a surprise in the final less common, but also give more importance to bigger events.

What I'm proposing is that we keep everything exactly the same only in International series events. But changes would occur in Premiers and Slams. Individual correct picks in Premiers wouldn't start with 1 point (for every correct guess in R1), but with 2, which would make the correct pick in the final worth 7, 8 or 9 points, depending on the draw size. At Grand slams, we would start at 3, so a correct pick in the final would be worth 9 points.

The result would be that with this model a player could win (bonus included):

- a maximum of 177 points at a 32-draw IS event
- a maximum of 343 points at a 64-draw Premier event
- a maximum of 701 point at a Grand slam.

This way, a typical Premier would be worth about twice as much as an IS, while a Slam would be worth twice as much as an average Premier. Currently, an average Premier is worth about 60% more than an International, while a GS is worth about 60% more than a typical Premier. In real tennis, a Slam is worth about 3 times as much as an average Premier and almost 7 times as much as an International.

Of course, I'm not suggesting this for 2012, but starting with 2013.


Anyway, just a thought. I'd like to see your views on the subject;)

ronim1
Aug 1st, 2012, 01:26 PM
Since there was talk recently (in another thread) about maybe changing the point distribution for Premier events some time in the future, here's a crazy idea.

Instead of coming up with a way to award different points for different types of Premier events, maybe we should do something to improve the point distribution throughout all three categories of tournaments that we play now.

To explain... At the moment a player can win (bonus included):

- a maximum of 177 points at a 32-draw IS event
- a maximum of 280 points at a 64-draw Premier event
- a maximum of 447 points at a Grand slam.

If we would start counting points differently in some of those categories, we would not only make ties at the end of some tournaments less probable, fluke runs to bonus points by a "correct guess" of a surprise in the final less common, but also give more importance to bigger events.

What I'm proposing is that we keep everything exactly the same only in International series events. But changes would occur in Premiers and Slams. Individual correct picks in Premiers wouldn't start with 1 point (for every correct guess in R1), but with 2, which would make the correct pick in the final worth 7, 8 or 9 points, depending on the draw size. At Grand slams, we would start at 3, so a correct pick in the final would be worth 9 points.

The result would be that with this model a player could win (bonus included):

- a maximum of 177 points at a 32-draw IS event
- a maximum of 343 points at a 64-draw Premier event
- a maximum of 701 point at a Grand slam.

This way, a typical Premier would be worth about twice as much as an IS, while a Slam would be worth twice as much as an average Premier. Currently, an average Premier is worth about 60% more than an International, while a GS is worth about 60% more than a typical Premier. In real tennis, a Slam is worth about 3 times as much as an average Premier and almost 7 times as much as an International.

Of course, I'm not suggesting this for 2012, but starting with 2013.


Anyway, just a thought. I'd like to see your views on the subject;)



This sounds not bad.
Please explain again why you think a change is needed at all?

Frederik
Aug 1st, 2012, 01:54 PM
I agree with both suggestions ma re (this one and the one in the PM) :yeah:

ma re
Aug 1st, 2012, 02:09 PM
This sounds not bad.
Please explain again why you think a change is needed at all?

Well, there are several reasons.

The main one would be limiting a chance for "last minute succes" by making a desperate move of picking the underdog for the finals and hoping for a miracle. Such "miracles" sometimes happen (due to injuries, weather interruptions, or simply a bad day on the favorite's side) and people who played great all week end up behind those who didn't play so well but made a bold (or desperate) choice for the final match. By significantly increasing the total number of points a player can receive leading to the finals, you diminish a chance for such occurances.

As I said in the previous post, this could also lead to less ties at the end of tournaments, althought this is purely speculation on my part (I did calculate models for some of the previous tournaments and sometimes it really leads to less ties - could be just a coincidence, though).

And last but certainly not least, it would increase the difference in reward between different categories of tournaments. I really think that the current model is not very good in that regard, because it gives too much importance to small events (or not enough to big ones, how ever you want it). At the moment, a typical IS event gives you around 150 points (bonus included), while winning a slam usually around 400. I think Slams should be worth considerably more than that, considering how dificult it is to win one. This could also lead to less competitive IS tournaments, which could be good for new players, as they'd stand a better chance for a good result early on in their careers.

All in all, I think it would be an improvement, but of course, it won't happen overnight, if it happens at all.

ma re
Aug 1st, 2012, 06:55 PM
I agree with both suggestions ma re (this one and the one in the PM) :yeah:

Glad to hear it:)

For those of you who are not into what Fred and I are talking about...we we discussing possible bonus point changes suggested by Fred. His idea is that not all Premier events should get equal bonus points, cause there are Premiers, but also Premier 5 and Premier Mandatory events.

At first I was not happy about this idea, cause I thought it would probably complicate the (bonus) point distribution too much and that managers could have a hard time keeping up with it all. But then it hit me that we could do it the simple way - keeping current bonus (i.e. everything the same) for Premier 5, give standard Premiers 140/105/70/50/35 and go for 180/135/90/65*/45 in Premier Mandatories.

This would give us a total of 5 tournament categories with bonus for winners equalling 120, 140, 160, 180 and 200 points respectively. You can tell us what do you think about that too;)


* - or 70 to make it 50-60-70 for those who finish 5th-8th

Frederik
Aug 3rd, 2012, 02:32 PM
How many points do we get for the Bronze medal match? :scratch:

5?

ma re
Aug 3rd, 2012, 04:52 PM
How many points do we get for the Bronze medal match? :scratch:

5?

:lol: We were so concerned with the bonus for the winners that we forgot about that extra match! Yeah, I'd say 5 makes sense, although it's obviously late for some consensus or discussion about it. For doubles as well (the same points as for the correct picks in the semifinals);)

ronim1
Aug 4th, 2012, 04:50 AM
I'm in favor of ma re's suggestions.

Fred, what are you doing in Japan?

Frederik
Aug 5th, 2012, 11:33 PM
I'm in favor of ma re's suggestions.

Fred, what are you doing in Japan?

I just like Japan :p

ma re
Aug 6th, 2012, 09:09 AM
Another crazy idea.

How about we start (as of 2013) rewarding managers? We have very few managers and therefore those who do the job tend to be swamped with work, especially Fred and I (cause we step in whenever someone pulls out). I'm not talking any serious rewards, but only so much to draw people to apply for managing more often. For example, that a manager (in singles and in doubles) is after the tournament is over, awarded one addditional point. It's not much, but in some cases it could prove valuable.

What do you guys think?

Frederik
Aug 6th, 2012, 12:06 PM
I'm not sure. I think we shouldn't award bonus points for managers.

Håkon
Aug 6th, 2012, 01:16 PM
Not a good idea. Manager reward should be smiles and reps.

As for the new point system...I'm not sure I like it. Basically it becomes more important to pick early matches in grand slams than in other tournaments - going from these figures:

- a maximum of 177 points at a 32-draw IS event
- a maximum of 343 points at a 64-draw Premier event
- a maximum of 701 point at a Grand slam.

At IS you could get 32/177 points (~18 %) in the first two rounds. In 64-draws you then get 112/343 (~33 %) of points in the first two rounds, and in 128-draws you get 320/701 (~45 %) of points in the first two rounds.

Under today's system the percentages are

32/177 (~18 %)
64/280 (~23 %)
128/447 (~29 %)

All calculations assume no byes. (Of course what really matters is the differences caused by these points, not the absolute values, most of the time picks only differ by 10-15 % each round - but I still think there's something here that we need to take into account when creating the point system)

longtin23
Aug 6th, 2012, 01:53 PM
I dont think it worth 1 point to be the manager. Manager's doesnt deserve points reward (and it;s too liitile even though).

Maybe if we have 2[WC] for Sofia for the two managers who managed the most events. Maybe it's worse :p

ma re
Aug 6th, 2012, 04:31 PM
@SamR03A - I get what you're saying but it's not really so straightforward. The numbers you brought out take into account that we guess all the picks in two whole rounds of a grand slam, and that's just impossible. People at most guess about 75% correctly, which would bring your percentage for slams closer to 30.

I see that this is not ideal, but at this point I don't a good alternative. In real tennis you get points for one match per round, not for dozens of them like in tipping, so it's easy to have a system that rewards final stages with most points. In tipping that obviously wouldn't work (imagine that we give out 5 points for every match in R1, just like in real tennis, 100 for each R2 encounter and 2000 for the correct pick in the final:lol:).

So sure, there's time to discuss all this cause we won't change anything until Januray for sure, but I really don't see how we could do this in a better way.

---

As for rewarding managers, I agree that it's not the best idea I ever came up with, but we must think of something which will bring more people to managing, cause there's an awful lot of events in a season, and now that we also play doubles especially so.

Frederik
Aug 7th, 2012, 02:30 AM
I think we should change the "maximum doubles partners-rule" to 4 or 5. :scratch:

ma re
Aug 7th, 2012, 06:50 AM
I think we should change the "maximum doubles partners-rule" to 4 or 5. :scratch:

:eek:

I really think 3 is enough, cause we already have 50 different teams with points this year, eventhough there's only about 30 players and the number of partners limited to 3. Next year even more people could join the doubles circuit, and with (say...) 50 players we could easily reach 80 different teams without changing any rules.

ma re
Aug 7th, 2012, 09:25 AM
I was playing with the numbers a little this morning, and I guess we could change the points so that we start counting from 2 in both, Premiers and Slams. This would lessen the "effect of the first two rounds" brought out by Sam, but it wouldn't lessen the importance of those events that much. This way it would be:

- a maximum of 177 points at a 32-draw IS event
- a maximum of 343 points at a 64-draw Premier event
- a maximum of 594 point at a Grand slam

...with the maximum amount of points won in the first two rounds of a slam at about 39% of the total.

---

A different idea on attracting the managers; how about we make it a rule that only those people who have managed at least one tournament during the season can participate in the new rules discussion (sort of like the Council of managers:D). I think it would be fair and maybe even better than awarding them points, cause those who manage events really are the ones most interested in the game anyway, so why not.

Your thoughts?

longtin23
Aug 7th, 2012, 02:45 PM
It seems to me that the incentive is too small, I mean they wont bother to discuss new rules...

ma re
Aug 7th, 2012, 03:33 PM
It seems to me that the incentive is too small, I mean they wont bother to discuss new rules...

At first this may be true, but they might become more interested once they see that only a handful of people are allowed to discuss potential new rules.

longtin23
Aug 7th, 2012, 03:36 PM
:oh: Maybe yes... But I agree to your change (the most recent one), I really feel like in important tournaments, the R1 and R2 scores count too much towards the total score...

longtin23
Aug 15th, 2012, 12:53 PM
I just wonder would we set a deadline for committing doubles team

ma re
Aug 15th, 2012, 04:05 PM
Good idea! Two days should be enough for players who are serious about participating to find a partner. But I also think that we should maintain a "partner list" for doubles throughout the year and the manager would copy it into the tournament thread so that players know how many different partners they've had during the year, but also in order for them to see who of the other players is available for that tournament and who isn't (because of already having 3 partners during the year).

I just wonder would we set a deadline for committing doubles team

We already discussed this (if you look at the quote above that of your post), but never really turned it into a rule. Maybe we should allow 3 days for the first tournament where this is an actual rule and lower it if if proves like too much time. We could try it out at the USO.

Håkon
Oct 13th, 2012, 12:26 PM
I was playing with the numbers a little this morning, and I guess we could change the points so that we start counting from 2 in both, Premiers and Slams. This would lessen the "effect of the first two rounds" brought out by Sam, but it wouldn't lessen the importance of those events that much. This way it would be:

- a maximum of 177 points at a 32-draw IS event
- a maximum of 343 points at a 64-draw Premier event
- a maximum of 594 point at a Grand slam

...with the maximum amount of points won in the first two rounds of a slam at about 39% of the total.



I'd like to have another discussion on this. As I said earlier, the main thing in a ranking system really isn't how many points you can possibly score, but the difference between pickers.

For the Slams, for example, you get 10 times more points for simply remembering to submit, than finishing 17th and beating half the field. The scale ends up at something like 370 - 320 - 270 - 270 - etc.

In Internationals it's not quite that bad (and they don't really count as your top-16 unless you finish in the bonus points anyway), but it's still something like 5-6 times the number of points for remembering to submit.

I suggest that ranking points should instead be calculated as 'points-above-50 %'. For each tournament, you need to pick 50 % correct in order to get ranking points - bonus points would be included.

There would still be a reward for submitting, as we usually get somewhere between 65 and 70 % of picks correct, but I think this would be a fairer reflection of the difference between the picks, and also reward the larger draws more.

This could be combined with starting to count from 2 points in every tournament - getting an upset final correct would give you even more of a ranking boost under this system, so starting from 2 even in Internationals would help, and still give most weight to the larger tournaments.

The maximum points:

29 + bonus in Internationals
60 + bonus in Premiers (64-draw)
108 + bonus in 96-draws
124 + bonus in Grand Slams (128-draw)

If you start the count from 2 in each tournament:

44 + bonus in Internationals
92 + bonus in 64-draw Premiers
155 + bonus in 96-draw Premiers
187 + bonus in Grand Slams (128-draw)

ma re
Oct 13th, 2012, 03:16 PM
Hy Sam,

thanks for your suggestion, which I've just read and analyzed (so prepare yourself:D).

An interesting proposition I have to admit, and there were suggestions of relying more on the number of picks then on how many points they give. But I see one main issue with your idea. When you say that only those who guessed more than half of the picks right in a single tournament should get the points from that tournament, that actually doesn't change much. I used last week's tournament in Beijing as example, the total number of picks (possible maximum) is 59 - 60 players in the draw, with 4 getting a bye. This would mean that we should only give ranking points to those who guess 30 or more correct picks in such a tournament. But the problem is - almost everybody finished Beijing with more than 50% correct picks (40 out of 43 players, to be exact).

How would that change the game, when these days - compared to 3 or 4 years ago - getting half of your picks right doesn't really get you anything. If this number would be raised to 60%, it would probably bring some change, but 50 really wouldn't IMO. Btw, the winner of Beijing got almost 73% right, which says enough about competitivness in tipping these days.

But if we go with something like this, we could also think about simplifying the bonus points, and also raise them to make up for the reduction in points compared to current system. Example:

IS
180
120
90
60

PS
320
240
160
120
80

GS
400
300
200
150
100

What do you think?

Håkon
Oct 13th, 2012, 05:00 PM
Thanks for your analysis ma re :) I see it doesn't really have the effect I wanted, I confused myself a little by the mathematics. The percentage changes I calculated aren't really relevant, because A scores 20 points more than B in 2 tournaments, B still needs to score 20 points more than A to catch her; whether that difference is 120-100 or 20-0 isn't that relevant.

The only real effects are to give a better chance to newcomers to improve their ranks fast, and to allow people to skip more tournaments. I'm not really sure these are desirable effects.

I think the percentages are relevant in one respect though, and that is to show how important each tournament is relative to the other. You wrote in August, based on maximum points:

Currently, an average Premier is worth about 60% more than an International, while a GS is worth about 60% more than a typical Premier. In real tennis, a Slam is worth about 3 times as much as an average Premier and almost 7 times as much as an International.

But I don't think this is true, because of the 'free' points that everyone who submits picks manage to get. If you measure against a baseline of 50 % correct picks, suddenly a Slam is theoretically worth 6 times as much as an International (see my previous post). I don't know what the correct answer is, but I think the correct method is to consider the actual differences between players, and not the difference between maximum (which no one gets) and zero (which no one gets except those who don't enter).

ma re
Oct 14th, 2012, 08:09 AM
I'm not sure I follow everything you say Sam, for example in...

I don't know what the correct answer is, but I think the correct method is to consider the actual differences between players, and not the difference between maximum (which no one gets) and zero (which no one gets except those who don't enter).

You say that with the refference to my hypothetical maximum points analysis, but you see, with those maximum points I was just refering to how many points you could possibly get in each tournament category, I'm not comparing maximum to zero.

But anyway, I have another idea how we could combine our ideas into something potentially good. What if we would count points only in those rounds where a player gets at least 50% right. For example in Beijing there were 28 R1 matches, so who ever got less than 14 points wouldn't get any points for that round. In that regard, for example, zigga and Buitenzorg ended up tied, but they wouldn't under this idea, because Buitenzorg guessed just 10 correct in R1, so he wouldn't get any points for that. For the same reason we wouldn't have ties between Payam and Хлоэ, while joeh37 and fallansky wouldn't finish the same as DiRenan, Fred and Igorche. We would apply the same for R2, R3 and so on. It might not be a bad idea.

Håkon
Oct 14th, 2012, 08:15 AM
You say that with the refference to my hypothetical maximum points analysis, but you see, with those maximum points I was just refering to how many points you could possibly get in each tournament category, I'm not comparing maximum to zero.

Yeah it's hard to express this. What I meant was that you used this analysis to compare with real tennis where the Slam is 7 times more important than Internationals - but IMO it was an unrealistic comparison, because the rankings don't work like that. No one gets the maximum and most manage to get 60 % of points.

I kinda like the 50 % in each round idea actually. It means people are still in with a chance even if they forget one round (which happens to the best of us).

But anyway, finish off Linz and we can discuss this in more detail during the winter break :)

ma re
Oct 15th, 2012, 06:34 AM
I'm on the winter break already (skipping the last week) so here are some more observations:)

I see a problem in 50% per round idea in that the people who end up with 0 after round one (while others get 10, 12 or 14, for example) due to not reaching 50% will get disscouraged and give up right away, and I also think there might be quite a few people with 0 in some tournaments. Thus I would suggest that we make it 33% for R1 and 50% for all the other rounds. So in a typical IS you would need the following number of points per round: 5, 8, 6 4 5 (I added the finals even though it goes without saying that if you miss the final pick you don't get points anyway). This way, you would have to earn a minimum of 23 points before the final, out of 52 possible, which is not too demanding while still somewhat separating players - certainly more so than now.

longtin23
Oct 28th, 2012, 01:22 PM
I want to ask what's the point distribution for a RR match correct in Sofia, and for SF and F??

Also, do we need to still need to pick set ratio like in YEC??

Frederik
Oct 28th, 2012, 01:44 PM
I'd say 6,7,8 for RR, SF and F... + 1 point for the SR.

Let's see what ma re thinks. ;)

longtin23
Oct 28th, 2012, 01:48 PM
I'd say 6,7,8 for RR, SF and F... + 1 point for the SR.

Let's see what ma re thinks. ;)

Also, is there point for nothing correct. I mean both set ratio and winners. I remeber there is 2 point for each SR last year as well...

longtin23
Oct 28th, 2012, 01:51 PM
And did I miss something? Only 8 players qualify this year??

Frederik
Oct 28th, 2012, 01:52 PM
Also, is there point for nothing correct. I mean both set ratio and winners. I remeber there is 2 point for each SR last year as well...

I'd say no.

That rule was probably made because the tournament only had 7 matches and no RR stage like this year.

Frederik
Oct 28th, 2012, 01:52 PM
And did I miss something? Only 8 players qualify this year??

It's because we only played 8 International tournaments this year (compared to 10 last year). ;)

ma re
Oct 28th, 2012, 05:23 PM
To keep points as close as possible to those that could've been won in the same tournament last year I'd suggest

5 per correct pick in round robin (+1 for every correct set ratio)
6 per correct pick in the semis (also +1 for every SR)
7 for the correct final pick (also +1 for the set ratio).

Bonus points the same as last year: 140/100/70/50.

No points for wrong picks. Last year there were just 7 matches so we had that, no need for it this time (back then it was 10-7-5 / 12-10-7 / 15-12-10; depending on correct picks and set ratios).


Of course, it's really not that big of a deal even if we do it a little differently than what I suggested, the world will not fall apart:lol:

longtin23
Oct 29th, 2012, 09:43 AM
And again, I encountered serious problems in doubles YEC. All people picked the wrong winner and thus seven people get nine marks in SF, which is the same, how to determine a winner??

(Maybe it's my fault not to include set ratio since SF)

ma re
Oct 29th, 2012, 10:06 AM
And again, I encountered serious problems in doubles YEC. All people picked the wrong winner and thus seven people get nine marks in SF, which is the same, how to determine a winner??

(Maybe it's my fault not to include set ratio since SF)

You might want to check who got more points in the semis and earlier rounds. I don't see another way.

longtin23
Oct 29th, 2012, 10:07 AM
But they seven of the top players picked one match correct only in SF, resulting that they all have nine points in SF...

ma re
Oct 29th, 2012, 10:15 AM
But they seven of the top players picked one match correct only in SF, resulting that they all have nine points in SF...

Work backwards from the semifinals - who got more points in the round before the semis.

longtin23
Oct 29th, 2012, 10:18 AM
No, we just start in SF in doubles :hysteric:

Frederik
Oct 29th, 2012, 10:20 AM
Tie-breakers

1. The player who guessed the winner.
2. The player who is closest in games guessed.
3. The player who posted the fastest in the final.
4. If no one posted in the final, points from previous rounds are examined going backwards, until a clear advantage of one player is confirmed.

ma re
Oct 29th, 2012, 10:47 AM
No, we just start in SF in doubles :hysteric:

Right. Forgot about that.

Tie-breakers

1. The player who guessed the winner.
2. The player who is closest in games guessed.
3. The player who posted the fastest in the final.
4. If no one posted in the final, points from previous rounds are examined going backwards, until a clear advantage of one player is confirmed.

As Fred points out, if no one guessed the winner, you still count who was closer in games even if no one guessed the winner. If that doesn't settle it, then you check who was faster to send a pick.

Frederik
Oct 29th, 2012, 05:13 PM
we had 9 instead of 8 players at the YEC this year.

it wouldn't make sense not to give dukefan1210 any bonus points. My suggestion would be 50.

ma re
Oct 29th, 2012, 06:00 PM
we had 9 instead of 8 players at the YEC this year.

it wouldn't make sense not to give dukefan1210 any bonus points. My suggestion would be 50.

Sounds reasonable. After all, this year is an exception because of the Olympics, so we can count 9th position as some sort of special bonus points case. It would be ridiculous not to award any BP's for that.

ma re
Oct 30th, 2012, 07:41 AM
Fred and I were discussing bonus points these days and how we need to change something for 2013. Tournaments of the lowest category (Internationals) are too valuable in terms of bonus points and we also think that there should be 5 tournament categories, just like in real tennis, as opposed to three we had so far (those five would be grand slams, premier mandatory events, premier 5 events, regular premier events and internationals). We also think that the top 3 categories should award bonus points for top 12 players, while the remaining two should only award top 8.

So after several failed attempts we came up with what seems like a good bonus point system, so tell us what do you think about it.

GS: 1)400; 2)275; 3/4)200; 5-8)120; 9-12)60
PM: 1)250; 2)175; 3/4)125; 5-8)80; 9-12)40
P5: 1)225; 2)150; 3/4)100; 5-8)75; 9-12)35
PR: 1)150; 2)100; 3/4)75; 5-8)50
IS: 1)100; 2)75; 3/4)50; 5-8)30

longtin23
Nov 3rd, 2012, 02:13 PM
I want to ask if Arvidsson win 5-1 ret. Should I stilol count the point for set ratio?

ma re
Nov 3rd, 2012, 02:57 PM
I want to ask if Arvidsson win 5-1 ret. Should I stilol count the point for set ratio?

I would say no because the match was not completed. If it were a complete set we could maybe count as 1-0 to see who was closer if some said 2-0 and some 2-1, but in this case I think the best thing would be to not count the set ratio. Let's see if Fred agrees;)

Frederik
Nov 3rd, 2012, 03:02 PM
I agree ;)

ma re
Nov 11th, 2012, 05:26 PM
NEW

POLL

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

Frederik
Jan 5th, 2013, 06:03 AM
updated with the new bonus points system

Frederik
Jan 5th, 2013, 07:24 AM
You just need to change 15 into 16 tournaments ;)

I did that 16 minutes before your post :p