PDA

View Full Version : Tie-breaker rule change poll


ma re
Jun 17th, 2011, 07:35 AM
Some players have expressed their opinion about the need for change of a rule regarding solving of ties, stating that comparing by time of the final post (who was quicker) is not the most fair way to solve close situations.

That is why I'm proposing this change and asking you to vote. Would you like this rule to remain the same, or should we change it in a way that we don't only post the number of games for the final match, but also for the two semifinals.

In case of a tie, we would compare the two players number of games for each of the semifinals and see; first, who's closer guess was better, and if they're still tied, who's weaker guess was better.

Example:

Player 1: Henin 20 games, V. Williams 28 games
Player 2: Henin 26 games, V. Williiams 24 games

Let's assume Henin wins in 22, and Venus in 27 games. Player one's closer guess was that for Venus' match, because he/she missed it by just one game. Player two's closer guess was also for Venus' match. So we compare who's closer guess was better, and we see that player one wins.
However if they'd be tied even after that, we'd compare who was better with the other guess, and see that player one would again win the tie-breaker, cause his weaker guess missed the result by two, and the other player's missed by 6 games.

This should be enough to solve ties, so please vote and tell me what do you think about this.

Sasja
Jun 17th, 2011, 08:17 AM
I think it is a good idea ma re :yeah:

I have voted to change that rule :)

Because of the time differences sometimes posters have to post their picks later because the OOP/results are out in the middle of the night for them.

So I think like to see it like this:
HOW TO SOLVE TIES
1. The player who guessed the winner.
2. The player who is closest in games guessed (F).
3. The player who got the most correct picks in the semi final.
4. The player who is closest in games guessed (SF).

If the same, move backwards to quarterfinal and so on.

ronim1
Jun 17th, 2011, 08:19 AM
What would be ruled, if there was a tie also here?
Let's imagine that for one player, the weaker guess would be Venus, but for the other, it would be Justine, all by the same margins?

Payam
Jun 17th, 2011, 11:47 AM
First of all I think this who-posted-earlier rule is ridiculous since we are in different time zones and for instance Australia/NZ have only 5 tourneys [including the AO], whereas if you are in Europe/Middle East/Africa you have more than 25 tourneys [excluding GSs].

On the other hand, although I think this one is better, but it might create further problems, because in addition to the problem that ronim1 has mentioned, there might some differences of opinion of whether a person who has predicted the exact number of one of the games correctly should not be chosen as the winner because his other prediction has been way too over the top.

These things might happen once in a blue moon, but it would be a good idea to anticipate all the loopholes and criticisms which the other might come up with.

ma re
Jun 17th, 2011, 11:52 AM
What would be ruled, if there was a tie also here?
Let's imagine that for one player, the weaker guess would be Venus, but for the other, it would be Justine, all by the same margins?

Well, true, that is possible. However I really don't see a better way to resolve this, at least not at the moment. With so many players (and there is ever more of them), it's getting more and more likely that we will see ties. The thing is, and I do realise a problem here, that the majority of the tournaments that we play are played in or close to Europe (Middle East etc.), and only a bit fewer of them is played in the Americas. But Australia and Asia indeed have quite a few tournaments less than these other "time regions", so I think that finding some sort of a solution would be fair. I know how I feel when tournaments are played in Australia or California so...

ma re
Jun 17th, 2011, 05:41 PM
With a more disperse scheduling across time zones, people would probably not have any issues with "who posted earlier" rule, right? That's now under serious consideration for 2012.

legionmx
Jun 18th, 2011, 10:44 PM
I somehow was attracted to vote to keep the rule as I do think it is a good last resource tie breaker. Myself, I would try posting early about the finals just to get an edge.

But the reality is that we are a bunch of people with different time zones and schedules. So I voted to change the rule. Adding to it, I think it would be better to rule on combined total of games, than min-maxing it. The number of games in the semis would be combined and the tie-breaker would be ruled in that combination. Just a suggestion to simplify the method.

Another idea I just had about a possible tie-breaker, would be to also tip about women's double final just for the tie-breaker. Winner and number of games. The difficult part would be the super tie-breaker in doubles ...

Ralph214
Jun 19th, 2011, 05:11 AM
Personally, I never imagined this to be an issue. What are the odds of:

a) Being tied in score with others before the final
b) Picking the same winner with the person(s) you're tied with
c) Picking the exact same number of games as them :eek:

If you really want to win, you should never forget to check the number of games that other people tipped (and it doesn't take an hour to do so).

Nonetheless, I would still vote for the new rule because it sounds more professional. Plus it's less controversial than the old rule that some people are not satisfied about. :yeah:

But the loophole would be: What if player A picked the closer number of games as player B in the semifinal and they are tied. Won't player A just copy player B's final pick to ensure victory? We want to avoid "determining the winner" between tied people BEFORE the final even starts. It takes away the suspense in the game. I think we should modify the rule to avoid early advantages like this. :)

ma re
Jun 19th, 2011, 08:10 AM
Adding to it, I think it would be better to rule on combined total of games, than min-maxing it. The number of games in the semis would be combined and the tie-breaker would be ruled in that combination. Just a suggestion to simplify the method.

Good one!

Personally, I never imagined this to be an issue. What are the odds of:

a) Being tied in score with others before the final
b) Picking the same winner with the person(s) you're tied with
c) Picking the exact same number of games as them :eek:

Greater than you think! It happened for the top spot at Roland Garros!

But the loophole would be: What if player A picked the closer number of games as player B in the semifinal and they are tied. Won't player A just copy player B's final pick to ensure victory? We want to avoid "determining the winner" between tied people BEFORE the final even starts. It takes away the suspense in the game. I think we should modify the rule to avoid early advantages like this. :)

Your last paragraph is interesting Ralph, as it points out some potential issues. It could take away the suspense, eventhough, on a positive note, it would somewhat diminish the importance of the final pick, which is something many people protested about. However, if someone would just copy to ensure the win in a tie, what could happen is that the first guy/gal would upon seeing that just change his/her pick, but then this other player could change his/her's again and just copy one more time. It could turn into a circus and a mess for the manager, with changes of picks going on until the last minute. It could become ridiculous, to say the least.
The more I think about this proposed rule, the less I like it.

ronim1
Jun 19th, 2011, 04:37 PM
Another idea I just had about a possible tie-breaker, would be to also tip about women's double final just for the tie-breaker. Winner and number of games. The difficult part would be the super tie-breaker in doubles ...

Great Idea