Rules thread - 2013
 

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.

Re: How to play and rule thread - 2010
 

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?

Re: How to play and rule thread - 2010
 

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:)

Re: How to play and rule thread - 2010
 

^^ 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.

Re: How to play and rule thread - 2010
 

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:)

Re: How to play and rule thread - 2010
 

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.

Re: How to play and rule thread - 2010
 

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.

Re: How to play and rule thread - 2010
 

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...

Re: How to play and rule thread - 2010
 

Over and out;)

Re: How to play and rule thread - 2010
 

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).

Re: How to play and rule thread - 2010
 

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.

Re: How to play and rule thread - 2010
 

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

Re: How to play and rule thread - 2010
 

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.

Re: How to play and rule thread - 2010
 

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.

Re: How to play and rule thread - 2010
 

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.