PDA

View Full Version : Tipping doubles (2012) ideas, suggestions...?


ma re
Nov 27th, 2011, 10:57 AM
Many have expressed an interest for tipping doubles to be played as well.

I have no clear or definite concept of it, so I'll just give out some ideas about how it could be done easily and effectively.

For example:

People who have entered the singles tournament team up for doubles (if they want), but only singles matches are played regardless. Points of player A and player B (who've decided to team up for doubles) are summed up to form their doubles team points, which decide on 8 teams that qualify for the SEC as the season goes. So for instance,

player A gets 31 point
player B gets 23 points
=
team A/B gets 54 ranking points from that tournament

or

pl. A 86 points
pl. B 19 points
team A/B 105 points
etc.

Of course, people wouldn't have to play with the same partner in every event, but it would be best, cause top 8 teams would qualify for SEC. It would maybe be wise to limit the number of players with whom you can team up over the course of the season, to, let's say, three? This would prevent the rankings list from having 305843789103178493201 "different teams":lol:

This system wouldn't be complicated, wouldn't require additional managers etc., but it would still give some more fun to the game of tipping.

Any thoughts on this?

Kəv.
Nov 27th, 2011, 10:59 AM
Okay :shrug:

*Jean*
Nov 27th, 2011, 11:11 AM
just adding the points of the two team-mates is okay

longtin23
Nov 27th, 2011, 01:42 PM
I want ot play real doubles, I mean picking the doubles winner...

*Jean*
Nov 27th, 2011, 02:40 PM
^ yes, good idea.
we have DTT on MTF and that's quite exciting too.

ma re
Nov 27th, 2011, 03:10 PM
I want ot play real doubles, I mean picking the doubles winner...

I'm afraid it would be dificult to do, because we would need a lot of extra managers. Sure, the same manager could maybe run singles and doubles in some small event, but imagine a grand slam...:eek:

Ivanovic_fan
Nov 27th, 2011, 03:33 PM
^ yes, good idea.
we have DTT on MTF and that's quite exciting too.

I already sent PM to one of the biggest members in Tennis Tipping to offer this one, I propose to make rankings, but I didn't have any answer :help:

coolfish1103
Nov 27th, 2011, 04:07 PM
If it's just merely adding the two players points it doesn't really offer anything challenging.

I think tipping doubles would be great too, but that would require a lot of extra work.

MarkNL
Nov 27th, 2011, 04:14 PM
Are we also working with titles? :D Because that would be great fun. So team A/B wins the title in this tournament en team C/D is the runner-up in that tournament. :)

ma re
Nov 27th, 2011, 06:33 PM
Are we also working with titles? :D Because that would be great fun. So team A/B wins the title in this tournament en team C/D is the runner-up in that tournament. :)

I really don't understand what are you trying to say here. Could you try to explain?

*Jean*
Nov 27th, 2011, 08:30 PM
Are we also working with titles? :D Because that would be great fun. So team A/B wins the title in this tournament en team C/D is the runner-up in that tournament. :)

the point is that the player winning the singles title could be partnering someone who doesn't have such success on that very tournament.

MarkNL
Nov 28th, 2011, 06:20 AM
Only thing I mean is that you have a title count for the doubles, just like singles. :p

ma re
Nov 28th, 2011, 07:50 AM
Only thing I mean is that you have a title count for the doubles, just like singles. :p

Yes, of course there would be the title count, the rankings etc., most of what we have now in singles.

---

Another point to consider - and this is adressed to all - do we want the defence of doubles points every year, or just a race system for each season? Point defence would probably require individual doubles rankings to be counted as well (along with team rankings), so that we know how much someone has to defend on a particular week, and also so that people are not forced to play with the same partner as 12 months ago. This could, for example, be done by dividing the team points in two and giving each player his/her half (like, 43 to each player if the team made 86 combined).

And another thing; what about bonus points? I'd say the same as in singles but award them to half the number of players than in singles (in other words, top 4 teams on IS, top 6 on PS and top 8 in GS).

coolfish1103
Nov 28th, 2011, 11:19 AM
I think it's better to defend doubles points every year so it allows a player to change their partner.

Also, I think it's better that you tip singles match for singles title and doubles match for doubles title. Otherwise it makes no difference other than adding the singles points together to produce a doubles winner based on the fact that you got a good partner or a bad partner. TT actually produces different winning teams in various stages of elimination so it's not just a mere points adding.

It creates a scenario where your doubles ranking is somewhat dependent on your partner and not just yourself.

ma re
Nov 28th, 2011, 01:51 PM
How about this; we play doubles (with doubles matches), only on Premier tournaments whose singles draw doesn't exceed 32 players, Grand slams and an SEC. That wouldn't require too many extra managers, and since the TOC in Sofia doesn't have a doubles draw why bother even playing doubles on IS events. This would mean that we'd play doubles on the following tournaments.

Brisbane
Sydney
Australian Open
Paris
Doha
Stuttgart
Brussels
Roland Garros
Eastbourne
Wimbledon
Stanford
New Haven
US Open
Moscow
SEC Istanbul (this one could easily be managed by the same person as singles).

So this way we would need 14 extra managers - do you people think it could be done?

Håkon
Nov 29th, 2011, 01:46 PM
Isn't this essentially 2 different debates? Tipping on doubles matches (which is probably nice for those who are interested in the doubles circuit) and tipping in pairs on the singles matches?

ma re
Nov 29th, 2011, 03:14 PM
Isn't this essentially 2 different debates? Tipping on doubles matches (which is probably nice for those who are interested in the doubles circuit) and tipping in pairs on the singles matches?

Yes, I suggested tipping doubles on doubles because I sort of agree that just summing up the points in singles to create doubles rankings wouldn't bring much excitement. Tipping on doubles matches might be more interesting and would really be something new in this game.

Håkon
Nov 29th, 2011, 03:19 PM
Yes, I suggested tipping doubles on doubles because I sort of agree that just summing up the points in singles to create doubles rankings wouldn't bring much excitement. Tipping on doubles matches might be more interesting and would really be something new in this game.

Well...I don't really see how tipping on doubles should be done as a doubles competition, I'd just be annoyed at my partner for not sending. But I wouldn't play a game where you tip on doubles, so I guess my opinion there doesn't really matter.

I think there could be ways of making a doubles tipping on singles interesting, though...but not without very complicated rules, which I suppose tipping isn't really about. :)

ma re
Nov 29th, 2011, 04:35 PM
Well...I don't really see how tipping on doubles should be done as a doubles competition, I'd just be annoyed at my partner for not sending. But I wouldn't play a game where you tip on doubles, so I guess my opinion there doesn't really matter.

So you think tipping doubles should be played as a singles competition?! Well that's another idea - so now we have three:D But I really don't see why doubles wouldn't be played as a doubles competition, since we already have a team competition in Fed cup and people work things out when someone doesn't play as well as other team members.

I see it's unlikely we'll have a doubles circuit anyway. Some players say that tipping doubles should be done by playing on singles matches, and others say that doubles played that way wouldn't make sense and they'd prefer it only with doubles matches. And now we have your suggesion of an individual competition in doubles too. So if we don't see some solution to all this by the third week of December, we probably won't go with either of the ideas, at least not at the very beggining of the season.

ma re
Mar 7th, 2012, 07:28 PM
I started thinking about this thread again today for some reason. In fact, what got me thinking is the idea for a schedule. Okay, this season wouldn't be played completely because it already started, but we could still play quite a big part of it. I'd suggest playing all tournaments with more than 16 teams in the draw. By this year's WTA calendar that would mean:

- Australian Open*
- Doha*
- Indian Wells*
- Miami (March 20th)
- Madrid (May 5th)
- Rome (May 14th)
- French Open (May 27th)
- Wimbledon (June 25th)
- Olympics (July 28th)
- Montreal (August 7th)
- Cincinnati (August 13th)
- US Open (August 27th)
- Beijing (September 29th)
- SEC Istanbul (October 23rd)
* tournaments that have finished or already started

I think we should play in teams on doubles matches. As mentioned earlier, points of a team would be used for the doubles rankings but their individual points would be used for the purpose of keeping track of points to defend (each would defend his own points next year).

Bonus points would be given to 8 teams in slams and 4 teams in other events. Four best teams qualify for SEC.

We'd need 13 extra managers for a full season (SEC would be managed by the manager of singles competition), while this year we'd need just 10 if starting in Miami or 9 if starting in Madrid. Considering how many active players we have in tipping that shouldn't pose a problem.

Anyone interested in all this?

HawkAussie
Mar 8th, 2012, 04:37 AM
I am

come on lena
Mar 8th, 2012, 06:37 AM
why not??:p

ma re
Mar 8th, 2012, 08:51 AM
If anyone has good ideas, feel free to suggest.

I think that idea of having a maximum of 3 partners different during a season should be OK, cause if everyone teams up with 7 or 8 different players, imagine how the rankings would look:lol: Of course, that would mean that if only people with whom you have already teamed up so far have entered a tournament, you could not play that tournament (a little tricky but it's necessary).

I could run the rankings and keep track of teams. I could also run the first event in Miami (assuming everything is agreed upon until then) and 1 or 2 more during the year, but I'd maybe have to withdraw from managing something in singles cause I'm also running Fed cup.

Since there would be so few events (13+1) it wouldn't be necessary to limit the number of tournaments you're allowed to play in one season. Team rankings would count for just one year (race system) while individual points earned in doubles would form roll-over rankings.

Bonus points would be:
200/150/100/75 for slams and
160/120/80 for other events.

During a tournament, points of a team are a sum of points earned by the two players (e.g. 31+24=55 for a team). For a final match number of games is guessed and the average of the two numbers guessed by the team members is used to solve ties (23+27=50/2=25). If two teams have the same average, the team with the fastest poster wins.

Well, I think I covered most of the issues. If you see some potential problems speak up:)

ma re
Mar 8th, 2012, 04:08 PM
Ok, so in the following 2-3 days I'll make sure to open a tipping doubles thread for Miami. This tournament will be sort of an experiment and if everything goes smoothly and we generate enough interest, we'll continue with the doubles tournaments as the season moves on. So first up Miami, and if there are no major problems during that one, expect to see the next doubles tipping thread in Madrid.

:wavey:

Frederik
Apr 13th, 2012, 09:47 PM
I think we should include Tokyo, too. Just because it is a Premier 5.

ma re
Apr 14th, 2012, 07:40 AM
I think we should include Tokyo, too. Just because it is a Premier 5.

I know it is, but I was trying to find some scheduling model that won't result in too many tournaments while still including most of the important ones, and I couldn't come up with a better idea than >16 draws.
If we make one exception, someone will come with an idea and a reason for another one and soon you'll have more tournaments in the draw than you can find managers for.
Feel free to give ideas for some new ways to schedule doubles in 2013, but I really think that we should follow something logical, even if it means skipping one or two large tournaments.

Frederik
Jun 9th, 2012, 12:32 AM
Is it

200/150/100/100/75/75/75/75 (for the teams)

and the normal bonus points (like in singles tipping) for the individual ranking?

at a GS

ma re
Jun 9th, 2012, 09:12 AM
Is it

200/150/100/100/75/75/75/75 (for the teams)

and the normal bonus points (like in singles tipping) for the individual ranking?

at a GS

Yes.

In other words, it's 4 teams and 8 players for Premier events, and 8 teams and 16 players for the slams. Btw, sorry for a bit of a late reply.

ma re
Jun 9th, 2012, 09:55 AM
Btw guys, we never really discussed what happens if super tie-break is played in the finals - does STB count as one game, or does ever point in it count as a game. Luckily we didn't have this as an issue so far, cause finals were mostly straightforward or played with a normal tie-break, but what if...? I'd say we should count STB as one game. Do you think we need a poll about this? Next doubles event is Wimbledon so there is time to make this specific and add it to the rules.

Frederik
Jun 10th, 2012, 03:22 AM
I'm not sure about this.

Adding only 1 game doesn't really change anything but adding about 15-25 games is way too much imo.

Frederik
Jul 14th, 2012, 01:58 AM
Is it

200/150/100/100/75/75/75/75 (for the teams)

and the normal bonus points (like in singles tipping) for the individual ranking?

at a GS

It would probably be better to change it to Top 4 teams and top 8 players :)

ma re
Jul 14th, 2012, 06:52 AM
It would probably be better to change it to Top 4 teams and top 8 players :)

I'd say we leave it as is for this season and see how things will develop. If interest for the doubles game doesn't grow with time, we should consider awarding the same number of teams/players with bonus points, in both tournament categories, as of next year. Cause we've already played like half of the planned number of tournaments for 2012, and we are making rule changes quite often in tipping lately, so maybe some things should be saved for next season. Just a thought:)

ma re
Jul 29th, 2012, 07:12 PM
Maybe alongside tweaking the point distribution, for next season we could consider allowing signing-up further in advance. In real tennis, players commit to playing tournaments weeks, sometimes even months before they begin, so why not allow that for teams in tipping doubles as well (I don't see the point of it in singles). That way, people could schedule their whole season and would know who their partner is even before the event starts, while the manager wouldn't have to deal with all the teaming up in the first several days of the tournament. Could be practical.

longtin23
Jul 31st, 2012, 05:06 AM
I have opened the Olympics doubles thread two or three days before it actuallu statred, but no one committed in. Maybe we can either send PM to active players, or create combined threads for Tipping Singles and Doubles, so as to attract active singles players play doubles as well...

ma re
Jul 31st, 2012, 07:15 AM
I have opened the Olympics doubles thread two or three days before it actuallu statred, but no one committed in. Maybe we can either send PM to active players, or create combined threads for Tipping Singles and Doubles, so as to attract active singles players play doubles as well...

I'm not sure that joining singles and doubles into one thread would be a good idea, cause we'd probably need one manager for both. But even if we'd have two people working on it, one of them (the one who opened the thread) would still have to do most of the work. I know that people weren't signing in for the Olympics very early, but I believe part of the reason for that is the fact that this particular event started on a weekend, and that's not the norm.

ma re
Aug 13th, 2012, 05:40 PM
Btw guys, we never really discussed what happens if super tie-break is played in the finals - does STB count as one game, or does ever point in it count as a game. Luckily we didn't have this as an issue so far, cause finals were mostly straightforward or played with a normal tie-break, but what if...? I'd say we should count STB as one game. Do you think we need a poll about this? Next doubles event is Wimbledon so there is time to make this specific and add it to the rules.

Probably the best solution for this would be to count STB as 10 games, cause that's the smallest number of points required to win it. So if you think that a match will finish 6:2, 5:7, 13:11 you say 30 games (8+12+10). It would be pretty simple, so maybe we should give it a try in Cincy? And btw, just so we are sure, STB is not played at Slams and the Olympics, right (haven't checked the SEC and the TOC)?

ma re
Sep 28th, 2012, 08:46 AM
Here's an idea for next season - that we allow transfer of points. Let me explain with an example.

Currently if a player A teams up with player B and then player C and player D, he'll have four sets of points in the rankings.

But let's say that we allow players to each transfer 50% of points from the previous team into the next, then a player would always have just one set of points. With this, we could also allow an unlimited number of partners in a season.

Example:

- players A and B earned a total of 430 points before one of them had to skip a tournament for whatever reason and this, by today's rules, ruins their chances of qualifying for the YEC
- but if we allow each of them to take 215 points into their next team, each still has a chance, certainly a better one than if he/she is to start from scratch with a new partner
- so now player A could team up with player C and take his 215 points to be combined with those that player C earned thus far, and player B could do the same by teaming up with player D and taking his half of points
- if there's an odd number of points, we could make it a rule that one is deducted before splitting, so 721 becomes 360 for each
- team points would still lead to the YEC

Anybody else thinks this is a good idea?

Håkon
Oct 5th, 2012, 01:55 PM
How would this work with those who change partners a lot (in the early season when newcomers don't find a partner?) Would they then have to give up a 50 % again when they pick yet another partner for the next tournament, even when they took more points into the new partnership?

I'm not against the idea in principle, I just think it needs some more clarification...

ma re
Oct 5th, 2012, 02:32 PM
So here's roughly how it would work...

A and B partner at the start of the season, play some and earn 300 points, when something happens and they decide to part ways.

A teams up with AA and brings into this partnership 150 points. If AA is a newcomer with 0 points, they would have 150 of A's points to start with. They play some, the team falls apart for some reason and A takes half of their, let's say, 400 points into the new team. Teams up with AB who brings 180 points from his team (he hook up with B in the meantime:D), so they have 200 + 180 = 380. once they start to play together.

So this would work pretty much like divorce in California, each leaves the marriage with 50% of assets regardless of how much each one brought in. But as you say, maybe it would be even better if we'd make that 50% of assets accumulated during the course of the marriage, so to speak. Either way, it would be better than what we have now, when you have to work from scratch every time you change a partner and stand no chance of qualifying for the YEC once that happens.

Håkon
Oct 5th, 2012, 08:19 PM
So this would work pretty much like divorce in California, each leaves the marriage with 50% of assets regardless of how much each one brought in. But as you say, maybe it would be even better if we'd make that 50% of assets accumulated during the course of the marriage, so to speak.

Yeah, I think so. Particularly after a grand tournament, where 4-6 players could have a lot of points, and then lose them because they paired up with someone who doesn't want to continue the game next tournament.

Another alternative would be to have 1 or 2 YEC spots awarded on the singles ranking - and they could choose which partner they wanted to bring to the YEC.

longtin23
Oct 21st, 2012, 03:31 PM
Is it the YEC ranking points for doubles is the same as singles??

Frederik
Oct 21st, 2012, 03:35 PM
yes. but top 8 for singles and top 4 for doubles (obviously) ;)

ma re
Nov 14th, 2012, 09:42 AM
Ahead of the new season we need to establish some things in doubles and turn them into rules.

As discussed earlier, I propose that we disregard the rule of a three partner yearly maximum, and implement the point transfer rule. So if two players have decided not to play together anymore, each takes 50% of the points they've earned together (+ points which one brought into the partnership) and transfers them into another partnership. This would make partner lists obsolete, as you wouldn't need to pay attention anymore with whom you're about to team-up and if you're allowed to do so.

Since there is a proposition for a new bonus point distribution for singles, that would automatically affect doubles. Therefore, since singles would award 12 players only in majors and PM's, the same would apply for doubles (12 players and 6 teams), while in other tournament categories there would be no changes (8 players and 4 teams). For more info, see the poll in the Tipping section of the Games forum.

There was a suggestion of allowing players to sign up in advance, to solve the problem of teams forming after the tournament has already started. We could have this by managers openning threads days in advance (a week would probably do) or by sending your team applications via PM to the manager.

We never established any specific rules regarding a super tie-break. It is played in the finals of every tournament except a grand slam, which means that guessing the games the standard way might not be possible. But counting each point in the STB as a game in tipping wouldn't be practical either, because STB can go into considerable lenghts (say, 16-14; if first two sets went each to 6-4 that would require a guess of 50). However I'm not sure that counting STB as one point would be some great solution either. Maybe we should count STB as 1 point if you think it'll resolve by 10, two if you think it'll go after 10 but not beyond 20 and so on. So if you think the match will finish 6:3, 2:6 10:8 you'd guess 18 (9+8+1); but if you'd think the same STB would go to 16-14 you'd guess 19 (9+8+2), and one more if you'd think the STB would go beyond 30 points for the winner.

The final and tie breaker rule stay the same, as stated here: "During a tournament, points of a team are a sum of points earned by the two players (e.g. 31+24=55 for a team). For a final match number of games is guessed and the average of the two numbers guessed by the team members is used to solve ties (23+27=50/2=25). If two teams have the same average, the team with the fastest poster wins."

Another suggestion I have is to reduce points awarded at the doubles YEC and make them the same as those for a regular premier event, assuming we adopt the new bonus points distribution. It's just 4 teams competing in 3 matches, so giving so many points to the winner(s) is kind of ridiculous IMO.

I think this covers most of those unresolved (or not clarified) issues. If you have some other suggestions or ideas, feel free to speak up;)

ma re
Dec 1st, 2012, 09:06 AM
I hate to interrupt this heated discussion between me and myself, but here's another suggestion for STB; that we guess the number of points in STB separately. In other words, you'd send something "like 28 games + 17 STB", meaning that you're guessing the match will end in 28 games, and that if it goes into STB your guess is 17 points. This way we could have another helpful detail to resolve ties - who was closer in guessing the number of STB points.

Håkon
Dec 6th, 2012, 08:19 AM
Well I hope you wouldn't guess 28 games then because the maximum would be 26. :p

I think that may be the fairest and easiest solution to implement.

Idea: should 'one of the team members closer' be a tie-breaker before who posted first? IMO, if the match is 20 games, 19 & 21 is a better tip than 17 & 23. (Not entirely sure the 2nd one is a better tip when the match is 16 games, though...)

ma re
Dec 6th, 2012, 08:34 AM
Well I hope you wouldn't guess 28 games then because the maximum would be 26. :p

I think that may be the fairest and easiest solution to implement.

Idea: should 'one of the team members closer' be a tie-breaker before who posted first? IMO, if the match is 20 games, 19 & 21 is a better tip than 17 & 23. (Not entirely sure the 2nd one is a better tip when the match is 16 games, though...)

Smartass:lol:

As for the second part of your post, currently we break ties by looking at the guess of a player who is closer and compare it to the closer one of the other team. Example: if it 22 games and team A guesses 17 and 24, while team B guesses 19 and 26, cause 24 is closer than 19. Hope that's what you're referring to.

Håkon
Dec 6th, 2012, 08:40 AM
Um...that contradicts your post #43

"During a tournament, points of a team are a sum of points earned by the two players (e.g. 31+24=55 for a team). For a final match number of games is guessed and the average of the two numbers guessed by the team members is used to solve ties (23+27=50/2=25). If two teams have the same average, the team with the fastest poster wins."

The averages: team A 20.5, team B 22.5, so team B wins by the average method, while team A wins by the method you just described. :unsure:

I was talking about when the averages were just as far away (say, team A had guessed 19 & 24).

ma re
Dec 6th, 2012, 08:46 AM
Um...that contradicts your post #43

The averages: team A 20.5, team B 22.5, so team B wins by the average method, while team A wins by the method you just described. :unsure:

I was talking about when the averages were just as far away (say, team A had guessed 19 & 24).

Really don't know what I was thinking...actually I do, what I wrote in the last post was an idea I initially had, but then we went with the average. You're right about picking the closer instead of faster team member, that actually makes much more sense.

coolfish1103
Feb 17th, 2013, 01:51 PM
Tournaments with super tie break:

If the players believe there will be super tie break, they will guess

16 games and 17 points

If the players believe there will be no super tie break, simply guess

16 games

Sort by games first then points if games guessed are the same.

Håkon
Feb 17th, 2013, 06:15 PM
I don't really like that suggestion - between two closely matched pairs it's a bit of a lottery whether it goes a super tie-break or not. Also it's a bit complicated to learn.

ma re
Jul 2nd, 2013, 09:46 AM
So here we are at the second week of Wimbledon 2013 and still without solutions to some of the old problems of tipping doubles. Therefore just tell me if you are in favor of these suggestions to become rules:

- that when it comes to super tie-break, which is played in all tournaments except Grand slams, we play this "third set" separately; therefore if you think the STB will be played in this match you write "22 games + 16 points" - first one for the two sets and the second one for the super tie-break

- that we reduce the bonus points given at YEC to those of a Premier event - it's just 4 teams and 3 matches to play so no reason to reward tipping players with so many bonus points

Håkon
Jul 2nd, 2013, 09:59 AM
So here we are at the second week of Wimbledon 2013 and still without solutions to some of the old problems of tipping doubles. Therefore just tell me if you are in favor of these suggestions to become rules:

- that when it comes to super tie-break, which is played in all tournaments except Grand slams, we play this "third set" separately; therefore if you think the STB will be played in this match you write "22 games + 16 points" - first one for the two sets and the second one for the super tie-break

- that we reduce the bonus points given at YEC to those of a Premier event - it's just 4 teams and 3 matches to play so no reason to reward tipping players with so many bonus points

yes

yes

that wasnt so hard