PDA

View Full Version : Opening post thread - for tournament managers only!


ma re
Jun 7th, 2011, 02:37 PM
If you are running a tipping tournament, simply copy the following text into the first post of your tournament's thread and add some finishing touches like a title, last year's results, pick the colors, fonts etc. Just make sure you erase the point distributions to leave the one of the category of your event (if you're running a Premier event, you leave points for Premier etc.). I will update this post with every rule change that is agreed upon.

- - - - -

HOW TO PLAY

Playing Tipping is very easy. I will post the schedule and then you just tip who you think will win. Just type "in" to play (this will make my life easier but if you forgot to post "in" this is not the end of the world).

e.g If the schedule was...
Ivanovic vs Li
V. Williams vs Pironkova

This is how you would tip...
Ivanovic
Pironkova

It is only main draw singles matches.

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

Pick for each match should be posted before the start of that match.

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

Do NOT edit your post. If you want to change your picks do it in a new post. Edited posts will make all your picks invalid.

Also DO NOT make changes to your picks by quoting your previous post; this will make all of your changes invalid.


HOW TO SOLVE TIES

1. The player who guessed the winner.
2. The player who is closest in games guessed.
3. The player who posted the fastest post in the final. 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 AND ADDITIONAL POINTS

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

Extra points: 1 per correct tip, regardless of round; added to the sum of tournament points before bonus points.

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

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

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

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


THE RANKINGS

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

Frederik
Jan 8th, 2012, 02:41 AM
please update the thread/post ma re... ;)

ma re
Jan 8th, 2012, 07:35 AM
please update the thread/post ma re... ;)

Right...sorry about that:)

Frederik
Jan 8th, 2012, 02:58 PM
Right...sorry about that:)

thanks :)

Frederik
Jan 21st, 2012, 03:46 PM
I think I said that before, but the order of TB rule #3 and #4 makes no sense. ;)

It's impossible that rule #4 ever comes into play.

Option #1: Change rule #3 and #4
Option #2: remove ruloe #4

;)

ma re
Jan 22nd, 2012, 08:11 AM
I think I said that before, but the order of TB rule #3 and #4 makes no sense. ;)

It's impossible that rule #4 ever comes into play.

Option #1: Change rule #3 and #4
Option #2: remove ruloe #4

;)

This might've happened before you joined the game, but I remember a case where we had two players finishing inside bonus points despite neither of them playing the final day. In such ocassions (as rare as they are) you need rule #4.

Frederik
Jan 22nd, 2012, 11:51 AM
But rule # 3 also says: "If no one posted in the final go back to the semi final and so on". ;)

ma re
Jan 22nd, 2012, 03:04 PM
But rule # 3 also says: "If no one posted in the final go back to the semi final and so on". ;)

True. In a sense #3 should sound something like:
"If no one posted in the final, results from previous rounds are examined going backwards, until a clear advantage of one player is confirmed." - so that it can stand clearly for #3 and #4 without a risk of confusion.

P. S. These rules are quite old and not worded very skillfully hence the need for occasional improvements.

Frederik
Jan 29th, 2012, 08:40 PM
that sounds good ;)

I think you should rename the thread and add "+ Rules" (sth. like that) to the thread title. ;)

WhoAmI?
Jan 30th, 2012, 01:51 PM
In the How to play and rule thread: http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?t=400436

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.

So originally #3 and #4 were swapped. But I still don't like the fastest post idea, and I don't really have good ideas to solve it (maybe have it written not 19 games, but 06 60 61 instead).

ma re
Jan 30th, 2012, 02:21 PM
So originally #3 and #4 were swapped. But I still don't like the fastest post idea, and I don't really have good ideas to solve it (maybe have it written not 19 games, but 06 60 61 instead).

Yes, originally they were swapped, just like the first two and I think we made the right choices there.
But the question here is, are you OK with current #3 and #4 being substituted with one (instead of two) simple rule which would state that if no one of the two tied players posted in the final, we just count their points backwards until we reach a round where one of them was more successful. That's all we are discussing here.

WhoAmI?
Jan 30th, 2012, 02:30 PM
Okay. But as I understand, in the previous edition rule #4 was used when counting the points backwards gave the same result. If 2 players scored identical points in the previous rounds, you had to look who posted first for the final.

By your suggestion there could be a tied 1st place (if you want to only count backwards, not taking into consideration if someone posted sooner).

If there can be tied positions, it's all good:yeah:

ma re
Jan 30th, 2012, 05:53 PM
By your suggestion there could be a tied 1st place (if you want to only count backwards, not taking into consideration if someone posted sooner).

Here I'll simplify to the extreme; suggestion is to go from:

1. The player who guessed the winner.
2. The player who is closest in games guessed.
3. 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.
4. The player who got the most correct picks in the semi final. If the same, move backwards to quarterfinal and so on.

...to this:

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

WhoAmI?
Jan 30th, 2012, 06:19 PM
"If no one posted in the final, results from previous rounds are examined going backwards, until a clear advantage of one player is confirmed."


3. The player who posted the fastest post in the final. If no one posted in the final, points from previous rounds are examined going backwards, until a clear advantage of one player is confirmed.

Look at what you first suggested. One sentence in the beginning makes a difference.
:wavey:

ma re
Jan 30th, 2012, 06:33 PM
Look at what you first suggested. One sentence in the beginning makes a difference.
:wavey:

I know, I thought that was the word (results) that confused you. Sorry for not being clear enough, but this is what Frederik and I were suggesting and discussing.

;)

Frederik
Mar 13th, 2012, 11:12 PM
We need a new rule similar to the Suicide Tennis rule.

Don't delete your post or else you will be DISQUALIFIED!

Deleting a post is the easiest way of cheating in Tipping. Just make 2 posts with 2 different winners and delete the wrong one after the match is finished...

That means that we also need a moderator to monitor the thread.

ma re
Mar 14th, 2012, 10:40 AM
Deleting a post is the easiest way of cheating in Tipping. Just make 2 posts with 2 different winners and delete the wrong one after the match is finished...

That means that we also need a moderator to monitor the thread.

Honestly I've never deleted a post in this forum myself, not just in tipping but not in any thread, so I don't know if this cheating would actually work, but I'll take your word for it.

However, a player is suspicious only if (s)he posts two different posts, which happens very rarely. A simple solution to this would be if the moderator would just save pages of the forum (File -> Save as...) before the matches start and eventually afterwards if someone sends a late pick. Later on you just check if there are no missing posts in the actual forum pages and that's it.

Frederik
Mar 14th, 2012, 02:02 PM
Just take Cheda 16.17 as an example.

He posted his picks:

A
B
C
D

After that he quoted his own post and later deleted the original post. I'm pretty sure that 95% of the people wouldn't notice a difference if the picks in the quote said (a,e,c,d) instead of (a,b,c,d).

I know that he didn't cheat because I also read the quote before he deleted his original post.

ma re
Mar 14th, 2012, 03:58 PM
So what you're saying is...
...if I send post #1,
then quote it in post #2
and then delete post #1,
that post #1 will also disappear as quote from post #2
?!

Wow! I never thought you could do that. But having someone monitor the thread 24/7 is not even humanly possible, so I really believe that saving forum pages as websites on your hard drive would be the easiest method of control.

Frederik
Mar 14th, 2012, 04:04 PM
no, the quote doesn't disappear and if it did, it would make (this way of) cheating impossible :p what I mean is this:

original post was: A,B,C,D

A
B
C
E

I quoted the post but changed the picks. That basically gives me two different sets of picks...

I'm not saying that anybody is going to do this, but Cheda 16.17 pretty much proved that it is possible (even though he didn't cheat).

Håkon
Mar 14th, 2012, 04:05 PM
Wow! I never thought you could do that. But having someone monitor the thread 24/7 is not even humanly possible, so I really believe that saving forum pages as websites on your hard drive would be the easiest method of control.

Moderators can see if a post has been deleted, though. (Will appear something like 'deleted post by ma re')

Frederik
Mar 14th, 2012, 04:06 PM
Moderators can see if a post has been deleted, though. (Will appear something like 'deleted post by ma re')

that's what I thought, too.

ma re
Mar 14th, 2012, 05:06 PM
Fred, call me stupid but I'm really not following you.

Are you talking about editing post #1 after you've quoted it in post #2?

Frederik
Mar 14th, 2012, 05:46 PM
No. I'm talking about having different picks in the quote and in the quoted post.

ma re
Mar 14th, 2012, 06:04 PM
Are you talking about editing post #1 after you've quoted it in post #2?

No. I'm talking about having different picks in the quote and in the quoted post.

But isn't that the same thing? How can the quote and the quoted post have different picks if you don't edit the original at some point?

Frederik
Mar 14th, 2012, 06:11 PM
Ehdbdjenehed d

Just edit the quote before making the post...

Frederik
Mar 14th, 2012, 06:18 PM
Let me show you what I mean. This is my original post:

Victoria Azarenka
Kim Clijsters
Caroline Wozniacki
Na Li
Francesca Schiavone
Bojana Jovanovski
Jelena Jankovic
Agnieszka Radwanska
Anna Tatishvili
Daniela Hantuchova
Shuai Peng
Anastasiya Yakimova
Pauline Parmentier
Sofia Arvidsson
Monica Niculescu
Julia Goerges
Yanina Wickmayer
Eleni Daniilidou
Petra Cetkovska
Tsvetana Pironkova
Olga Govortsova
Elena Baltacha
Mona Barthel
Simona Halep
Flavia Pennetta
Iveta Benesova
Marina Erakovic
Anabel Medina Garrigues
Petra Martic
Lucie Safarova
Arantxa Rus
Alberta Brianti

Frederik
Mar 14th, 2012, 06:23 PM
and this is my 2nd post:

Victoria Azarenka
Kim Clijsters
Caroline Wozniacki
Na Li
Francesca Schiavone
Bojana Jovanovski
Jelena Jankovic
Agnieszka Radwanska
Anna Tatishvili
Daniela Hantuchova
Shuai Peng
Anastasiya Yakimova
Pauline Parmentier
Sofia Arvidsson
Monica Niculescu
Julia Goerges
Yanina Wickmayer
Eleni Daniilidou
Petra Cetkovska
Tsvetana Pironkova
Olga Govortsova
Elena Baltacha
Anne Keothavong
Simona Halep
Flavia Pennetta
Iveta Benesova
Marina Erakovic
Anabel Medina Garrigues
Petra Martic
Lucie Safarova
Arantxa Rus
Irina Falconi

I also changed Barthel to Keothavong without highlighting it. That gives me the chance to delete the first post if Keothavong wins the match.

ma re
Mar 14th, 2012, 06:45 PM
OK, that makes MUCH more sense! If you had only previously mentioned highlighting and delibaretely omitting highlighting, I would've understood sooner. Oh well...

Yes that might be a problem, but since I'm hearing about it for the first time and I've been playing tipping since 1753 BC (OK, it was 2008 AD) It's probably not so common.

There's no easy solution to this, I guess the moderator has to check and see if the quoted post actually exists whenever (s)he notices that someone posted a quote. I don't know about disqualifying, that may be a bit harsh, but if people think it's not than I'm fine with it (a 10 point deduction penalty would've been enough if you ask me).

Or another idea, that we make it mandatory for players to specify the number of post being quoted; in other words, if I want to quote (i.e. edit) I can only do it by first stating "editing post #273" and after that "change Cibulkova to Penneta" in the next line. That way the moderator could very simply check if post #273 is still there or not.

ronim1
Mar 14th, 2012, 07:22 PM
Another easier solution is to declare that a quoted post is not enough for posting.
We can accept quotations, but all the poster has to post all his picks again, in his new post, not via quoted.
I also think that a deleted post should show something to the moderator.

ma re
Apr 1st, 2012, 07:49 PM
When it comes to the quoting problem I'd say we make it official that quoting to change your picks is not allowed and that instead a player can only do it by sending a simple message like:

"Please change: X instead of Y." ("thanks" is optional)

People were doing it that way for a long time and now suddenly they're all quoting without any reason (or is there some...).

- - -

And I think we really need to change the tie-breaker rule as suggested in post #13 of this thread.

ronim1
Apr 4th, 2012, 11:36 AM
When it comes to the quoting problem I'd say we make it official that quoting to change your picks is not allowed and that instead a player can only do it by sending a simple message like:

"Please change: X instead of Y." ("thanks" is optional)

People were doing it that way for a long time and now suddenly they're all quoting without any reason (or is there some...).

- - -

And I think we really need to change the tie-breaker rule as suggested in post #13 of this thread.


No opposition here.

Although i would think to ask "please" and "thanks" for mandatory words in those posta. otherwise immediate disqualification.


:lol:

Frederik
Apr 21st, 2012, 05:03 PM
Any update on the rule changes? (tie-breaker & quoting) :wavey:

ma re
Apr 22nd, 2012, 10:37 AM
Any update on the rule changes? (tie-breaker & quoting) :wavey:

I'll edit the tie-breaker part today, but I will leave a bit more time for people to get used to the quoting rule and change that after RG. Not that people read rules anyway so it's no biggy (anyone who has ever managed an event can testify that people don't-read-the-written-rules:rolleyes:).

ma re
Apr 22nd, 2012, 11:14 AM
Done!

Frederik
Jun 22nd, 2012, 04:44 PM
Please add the quoting rule to the 1st page :wavey:

Thanks :)

ma re
Jun 22nd, 2012, 04:54 PM
Please add the quoting rule to the 1st page :wavey:

Thanks :)

I'll do so now, but for the time being I'll just state that posts containing quotes of earlier picks will make all the changes invalid. In the future we might consider some penalties, but I wouldn't rush with that, because we get new players very often in tipping, and in many cases they're not on level terms even with the standard rules, let alone with recently changed ones.

ma re
Jun 22nd, 2012, 05:00 PM
Done!

I also erased an extra word from "before the scheduled start of the that match", which is something we agreed upon quite some time ago. Now it's beyond clear by what time should the picks be sent.

Frederik
Jun 22nd, 2012, 05:01 PM
I think it would be enough to make the changes and the original picks invalid (as a penalty) ;)

ma re
Jun 22nd, 2012, 05:06 PM
I think it would be enough to make the changes and the original picks invalid (as a penalty) ;)

Maybe, but isn't this easier for the manager (not even making records of the changes if they are made by quoting)?

Frederik
Jun 22nd, 2012, 05:13 PM
I was just reacting to this

In the future we might consider some penalties

Not counting the original picks would be the easiest penalty (if we decide to penalize quoting)

ma re
Jun 22nd, 2012, 05:44 PM
Ah, yes, that makes more sense. Sure, it's an interesting idea if it comes to penalties, but for now let's leave that alone.

ma re
Jul 21st, 2012, 08:53 AM
I edited the opening post today to include the change to 16 best results from 15 that previously formed the rankings.

ma re
Dec 31st, 2012, 08:11 AM
Updated with a new bonus point distribution - sorry for a slight delay.