PDA

View Full Version : Let's discuss a few improvements for the 2004 season


DoctorG
Sep 2nd, 2003, 11:53 AM
Hi guys! :wavey:

After the US Open, this game will celebrate its 4th anniversary: the very first Tennis Poker tournament started in September 1999. I hope youíve enjoyed it as much as I do, and I take this chance to thank all the posters whose kindness and constant support has made this possible. :)

Iíve started thinking about the next season, thereís always room for some improvements. New ideas are one of the secrets to make a game last as the initial enthusiasm inevitably fades. :)

First of all, let me remind you what weíve already talked about: everyone will have to sign up again for the 2004 season.. It will be very useful in order to get rid of retired tennis players, banned posters and all the people who are not interested in going on with the game. Sign up threads will be posted as soon as the 8th and last leg starts (around October 15th). An issue of the Tennis Poker newsletter will inform those of you who have chosen to receive it.

If you donít have any problem or interesting suggestion for a possible improvement, the singles tour will remain as it is. Everything is running smoothly, and I think the new rules about spare cards and jokers are working fine. :)

But Iím a little bit concerned about the doubles. In this season, in three occasions the singles winner has won the doubles too thanks to his own performance and with a limited help from his partner. Three out of five legs may not be that much, but in the other two legs the singles winner didnít compete in the doubles at all. So, it might ALWAYS happen with the current scoring system. :eek: I like the idea of a doubles tour and I would like to find a way to make teamwork more important. Iím working on a couple of possible proposals, Iíll be glad to hear your ideas about it. :)

IMO; Fed Cup as this yearís team event was quite successful. I havenít planned any major change, though it may be a good idea to let you decide the detailed roster for each match instead of a random draw; especially for those teams with posters whio have to play twice now and then. Let me know your opinions about the Fed Cup too. :)

Next year, I really would like to make a special event for the Tennis Poker Olympic Games. :D No limitations about Fed Cup showings and so on; Iíve never been very fond of the limit of three representatives for each country, but I wouldnít mind making some regional trials. ;)

Finally, Iíve been wondering about starting Tennis Poker for ATP on the other board. :)

Looking forward to hear what you think about it, thank you very much! :bounce:

Rocketta
Sep 2nd, 2003, 04:56 PM
those all sound great but a lot of work are you sure you don't need any help?

and I'll try to think of some improvements or new ideas for the game and your right changing the rules and stuff keeps the game exciting.

The Crow
Sep 3rd, 2003, 09:36 AM
those all sound great but a lot of work are you sure you don't need any help?


Indeed!

About the doubles, I agree. The team should be somewhat punished when the second player is really bad. Oh and also, for the doubles rankings: I think (so only my opinion ;)) that it should be more important which round your team got to, rather than how it is now, where the points both members earned in the singles event is the most important (correct me if I'm wrong Doc ;))

Btw i like the Fedcup format as it is now.

Anyway thanks for the efforts!

DoctorG
Sep 3rd, 2003, 09:45 AM
those all sound great but a lot of work are you sure you don't need any help?



Hi Rocketta! :wavey:

This game takes less time than it may seem. I've gained a lot of experience through the years, "cut and paste" and excel worksheets are a great help. :) Each leg lasts at least a month and it's not so difficult to find some spare time now and then, it doesn't require a daily or weekly presence. I'm going to shut down Tennis Pole Vault, so I guess it won't be a problem to start a new event here. Still wondering about the ATP, we'll see if it gets enough support. :)

DoctorG
Sep 3rd, 2003, 10:25 AM
The team should be somewhat punished when the second player is really bad. Oh and also, for the doubles rankings: I think (so only my opinion ;)) that it should be more important which round your team got to, rather than how it is now, where the points both members earned in the singles event is the most important (correct me if I'm wrong Doc ;))


Hi The Crow! :wavey:

About the doubles ranking, yes, probably the round points are not enough and we need to find a more proper balance.

Probably, the doubles tour should not be based on the singles points. It's very easy, and it doesn't require an extra effort for me; but, IMO, posting a separate set of picks, decided by both posters, may be the best solution. It will take a lot of time, but mostly things will be set during the off-season: only 3 posters and 1 pair have joined the game after the 1st leg of the 2003 season.

The Crow
Sep 3rd, 2003, 12:42 PM
Maybe the double team could exist of the following:

- the players both have in their team (so if both have e.g. Serena in their team, Serena would also be in their doubles team)
- from the other players in both teams, pick the ones which make the best possible combination.


Uhm, maybe this would be too much work and/or wouldn't solve the problem anyway? Well it was just an idea...

DoctorG
Sep 3rd, 2003, 03:44 PM
Maybe the double team could exist of the following:

- the players both have in their team (so if both have e.g. Serena in their team, Serena would also be in their doubles team)
- from the other players in both teams, pick the ones which make the best possible combination.


Uhm, maybe this would be too much work and/or wouldn't solve the problem anyway? Well it was just an idea...


It does sound as a good idea, I'll do a test run. :) No separate sets of picks for the double, and that's great, but I'm concerned about the fact two pairs may have the same "extended" picks.

For example:

Pair #1:
Player #1: Capriati / Clijsters / Henin-Hardenne / S.Williams / V.Williams
Player #2: Capriati / Davenport / Mauresmo / S.Williams / V.Williams

Pair #2:
Player #3: Capriati / Clijsters / Mauresmo / S.Williams / V.Williams
Player #4: Capriati / Davenport / Henin-Hardenne / S.Williams / V.Williams

That would lead to the very same combination. Considering most of the combinations include the top tennis players, it wouldn't be very rare.

DoctorG
Sep 3rd, 2003, 03:58 PM
BTW, thank you for your help guys! :wavey:

Rocketta
Sep 4th, 2003, 12:10 AM
yeah I'm still thinking! :unsure: :lol:

Doris Loeffel
Sep 4th, 2003, 11:51 AM
First I thought just to split the total amount of points in half for the doubles might help but it'll tourn out the same...

...sorry have no clue how the doubles could be made more interresting.

Would joining the two teams into one and eliminate the two best and two worst cards help?? I don't know

The Crow
Sep 4th, 2003, 12:35 PM
It does sound as a good idea, I'll do a test run. :) No separate sets of picks for the double, and that's great, but I'm concerned about the fact two pairs may have the same "extended" picks.

For example:

Pair #1:
Player #1: Capriati / Clijsters / Henin-Hardenne / S.Williams / V.Williams
Player #2: Capriati / Davenport / Mauresmo / S.Williams / V.Williams

Pair #2:
Player #3: Capriati / Clijsters / Mauresmo / S.Williams / V.Williams
Player #4: Capriati / Davenport / Henin-Hardenne / S.Williams / V.Williams

That would lead to the very same combination. Considering most of the combinations include the top tennis players, it wouldn't be very rare.

Right, didn't think about that :mad: ;)

What if the doubles team has to pick the players they have in common (which is no problem cause they probably belive in those players anyway ;)) and then decide together on the players to add to have a team of 5? Err well something like that ;)

Another note about the FEDcup: I think you randomly chosing the matches is fun. I wouldn't touch it.

DoctorG
Sep 4th, 2003, 02:47 PM
Another note about the FEDcup: I think you randomly chosing the matches is fun. I wouldn't touch it.

This shows how important this feed-back is. I was deeply convinced the random draw was not liked at all. :rolleyes: Well, if that's not the case, Fed Cup will stay exactly as it is now. :D

I should have remembred people use to whine about draws no matter what. ;)

DoctorG
Sep 4th, 2003, 03:04 PM
First I thought just to split the total amount of points in half for the doubles might help but it'll tourn out the same...

...sorry have no clue how the doubles could be made more interresting.

Would joining the two teams into one and eliminate the two best and two worst cards help?? I don't know

What if the doubles team has to pick the players they have in common (which is no problem cause they probably belive in those players anyway ) and then decide together on the players to add to have a team of 5? Err well something like that

Thank you for your help, any suggestion is deeply appreciated. :)

These proposals are really interesting. Though I'm not sure melting two sets of picks for the singles requires less effort than handling a second separate brand new set of combinations for the doubles.

Other suggestions I've been working on, keeping the basic idea of using the singles ranking points:

1 - using a more complex maths instead of plain addition.

The product of the two performances does favour a little bit the teams without big differences:
300+300=600, 300*300=90000
400+200=600, 400*200=80000
550+50=600, 550*50=27500

2 - a limit for the ratio of the two performances, for example one player cannot get more than 2 or 3 times the total points of his partner.

3 - introducing a correction factor which considers the difference between the two values.

A lot of tests, but, actually, I'm not convinced by any of these.

Rocketta
Sep 9th, 2003, 04:48 AM
ok I have a suggestion finally whewwww....:p

what if you make the point scale harder in the doubles, ie for an ace it requires 2 wins instead of one, a king requires a semi-final and 2 qtrs or 2 semi's, etc etc

Do you think that might change the results?

Hey I didn't say it was a great idea I just said I finally had one.....;)

DoctorG
Sep 9th, 2003, 11:19 AM
That's an interesting proposal, especially if we combine it with the idea of picking the best cards from the two combinations. :)

At this moment I'm busy with the 6th leg results, but it's surely something I'll think about. :)

Thank you! :wavey:

DoctorG
Oct 8th, 2003, 06:56 PM
A few random thoughts. :)

The sign up thread for the 2004 singles season will be posted next week as soon as the 8th leg is under way. :D

I'm involved in a new project on another board (an Italian one, whoch is not about tennis), so I've decided to postpone the ATP Tennis Poker debut. I'm not going to start it anytime soon, but I surely will, probably when the Tennis Poker Olympics are over. And BTW, my idea for Athens 2004 is going back to the older format: one round per leg, with the final next summer, around the time of the real Olympic Games. A couple of legs may be dedicated to trials or regional qualies, then the main draw. Singles and doubles, with the posters representing the country they play Tennis Poker Fed Cup for.

Anyway, we'll have plenty of time to set everything. :)

Still thinking about the doubles. In the 6th leg the singles winner did NOT win the doubles event, maybe I was too concerned about this problem. Though I like the idea of considering simply the product of the two singles scores instead of the sum (we call it "media geometrica", and it does favour a little bit the pairs with a small difference of points). That would probably solve the problem of the wrong balance between perforamance and round points.

Let me know what you think about that. :)

:wavey:

The Crow
Oct 14th, 2003, 12:22 PM
Doc, I have the idea that multiplying is a bit too drastic, no? (after-all Martina Hingis won doubles tournaments almost on her own too ;))

DoctorG
Oct 15th, 2003, 01:08 PM
It may seem, but as a matter of fact, I don't think so. :)

Look at the 5th leg scores as an example.

Position #1- Postition #2 / Score #1 - Score #2 / Pair
1 - 1 / 887 - 514 / CanIGetaWhat & ManuelanMaggieLover
2 - 4 / 715 - 373 / Valda Lake & Tim Wilson
3 - 2 / 447 - 435 / Sonic The Hedgehog & ARANTXA: simply the best
4 - 3 / 390 - 384 / RayRob & Jacs
5 - 5 / 367 - 366 / Carot & The Crow
6 - 6 / 324 - 304 / Arn & Josh
7 - 8 / 158 - 145 / Randy H & Polishprodigy
8 - 7 / 148 - 147 / Hurricane Lily & Sue
9 - 12 / 138 - 108 / Rocketta & Rightous
10 - 9 / 137 - 135 / Per4ever & Fleemke2
11 - 10 / 132 - 129 / AlexSydney & Tetetubby
12 - 11 / 130 - 129 / Doris & Brian
13 - 13 / 98 - 85 / Paul & KC
14 - 14 / 95 - 81 / Mary Cherry & Turt
15 - 15 / 61 - 52 / Gallofa & Tia Clara

There isn't any huge difference. :)

DoctorG
Oct 15th, 2003, 01:10 PM
BTW, it's:

System #1: Media Aritmetica. (Score + Score) / 2
System #2: Media Geometrica. Sqrt (Score*Score)

I'm open to any suggestion, anyway. :wavey:

The Crow
Oct 15th, 2003, 01:18 PM
Since we stay 5th I can live with that ;) Seriously, if it doesn't make that much difference, I think you should take the geometric mean.

DoctorG
Oct 20th, 2003, 06:09 PM
Thank you for your input, I'll make one more test with the 7th leg and we'll take a final decision. :)

DoctorG
Oct 25th, 2003, 10:09 AM
I've compiled the 7th leg results with the geometric mean. :)

DoctorG
Oct 25th, 2003, 10:09 AM
FIRST ROUND

CanIGetaWhat & ManuelanMaggieLover ( 1 )
304, 88 => 164
bye

Per4ever & Fleemke2 ( 8 )
102, 46 => 122
def
Gallofa & Tia Clara ( 13 )
34, 208 => 84

Carot & The Crow ( 3 )
91, 143 => 114
def
RayRob & Jacs ( 9 )
45, 102 => 68

Arn & Josh ( 6 )
141, 260 => 191
def
Randy H & Polishprodigy ( 11 )
182, 166 => 174

Doris Loeffel & Brian Stewart ( 5 )
195, 502 => 313
def
Paul & KC ( 14 )
41, 203 => 91

AlexSydney & Tetetubby ( 4 )
250, 208 => 228
def
Rocketta & Rightous ( 10 )
246, 184 => 213

Sonic The Hedgehog & ARANTXA: simply the best ( 7 )
44, 273 => 110
def
Mary Cherry & Turt ( 15 )
332, 36 => 109


Valda Lake & Tim Wilson ( 2 )
95, 138 => 114
def
Hurricane Lily & Sue ( 12 )
88, 36 => 56

DoctorG
Oct 25th, 2003, 10:10 AM
QUARTERFINALS

CanIGetaWhat & ManuelanMaggieLover ( 1 )
304, 88 => 164
def
Per4ever & Fleemke2 ( 8 )
102, 46 => 122

Arn & Josh ( 6 )
141, 260 => 191
def
Carot & The Crow ( 3 )
91, 143 => 114

Doris Loeffel & Brian Stewart ( 5 )
195, 502 => 313
def
AlexSydney & Tetetubby ( 4 )
250, 208 => 228
def

Valda Lake & Tim Wilson ( 2 )
95, 138 => 114
def
Sonic The Hedgehog & ARANTXA: simply the best ( 7 )
44, 273 => 110

DoctorG
Oct 25th, 2003, 10:10 AM
SEMIFINALS

Arn & Josh ( 6 )
141, 260 => 191
def
CanIGetaWhat & ManuelanMaggieLover ( 1 )
304, 88 => 164

Doris Loeffel & Brian Stewart ( 5 )
195, 502 => 313
def
Valda Lake & Tim Wilson ( 2 )
95, 138 => 114

DoctorG
Oct 25th, 2003, 10:11 AM
FINAL

Doris Loeffel & Brian Stewart ( 5 )
195, 502 => 313
def
Arn & Josh ( 6 )
141, 260 => 191

DoctorG
Oct 25th, 2003, 10:18 AM
The results in red are the ones who changes outcome switching the system.

In the first case, it was very close, even closer than the rounded result shows: the difference was actually 0.27, it could have gone either way, I don't think there's much to say about it.

The second case is more interesting, because it shows two pairs with different scores: Mary Cherry & Turt scored more points overall, but Valda Lake & Tim Wilson were more balanced and had a better teamwork. That's what we wanted to achieve. If you think that a pair with 138 and 95 should beat 273 and 44, the geometric mean will be OK.

DoctorG
Oct 25th, 2003, 10:25 AM
Sorry, of course in the second case we're talking about Sonic The Hedgehog and ARANTXA: simply the best, not Mary Cherry and Turt.

DoctorG
Nov 3rd, 2003, 11:22 AM
If I don't receive any other suggestion, I'll go with the geometric mean for the doubles and next week I'll post sign up threads for Olympics, Fed Cup and regular doubles tour. :)