[ma re]

Over in the Opening post thread, there is a suggestion made by Frederik to substitute current rules #3 and #4 on solving ties with a more simple one for practical reasons.
Read more about it over there and express your opinion. If you have a different view or a suggestion of some sort, of course we'd like to hear it (it starts with post #5).

[ma re]

One thing is bugging me for quite some time about tie-breakers.

Hypothetically (or whatever the heck it's spelled...):

- player A guesses the winner of a final will be Venus in 25 games
- players B, C, D, E and F send their final picks afterwards
- player A changes his/her mind and guesses Azarenka in 24 games, just like player D

Question: Did player A post before player D or is it the other way around? Player A was initially faster, but his final pick was posted later than that of player D.

This was never talked about. What are your opinions? I'd say we specify that only your *last* pick counts as valid.

[Frederik]

of course it's the last pick. I've always counted it like that.

And what about my suggestion? (16 best results)

[ma re]

Originally Posted by Frederik

of course it's the last pick. I've always counted it like that.

And what about my suggestion? (16 best results)

So then we'll specify this part about the last pick in the finals, just to avoid any confusion.

- - -

And about your suggestion, well I thought you'll bring it up somewhere (have you? maybe I just missed it). So, here it goes: Frederik would like to propose a slight change to the ranking system - that we count 16 best results in a year instead of 15.

Your thoughts?

I honestly don't have anything against this, but I also don't think how it would improve or noticably change anything, cause it's just 1 more result. I don't think the rankings would look that much different (if at all), and the only thing that we would acomplish would be that our system would look more like that of a WTA. See no real point. But that's just me.

[ronim1]

Originally Posted by ma re

So then we'll specify this part about the last pick in the finals, just to avoid any confusion.

- - -

And about your suggestion, well I thought you'll bring it up somewhere (have you? maybe I just missed it). So, here it goes: Frederik would like to propose a slight change to the ranking system - that we count 16 best results in a year instead of 15.

Your thoughts?

I honestly don't have anything against this, but I also don't think how it would improve or noticably change anything, cause it's just 1 more result. I don't think the rankings would look that much different (if at all), and the only thing that we would acomplish would be that our system would look more like that of a WTA. See no real point. But that's just me.

If this suggestion brings us closer to WTA, than why not. Otherwise there is nor real difference.

[Frederik]

Originally Posted by ronim1

If this suggestion brings us closer to WTA, than why not. Otherwise there is nor real difference.

That's why I suggested it.

[ma re]

Originally Posted by Frederik

any update on this?

Maybe you should open a poll about it, or something similar, cause I don't think many people read this thread and changing the system based on 1 or 2 positive responses might not be taken well by most players. Again, I'm indifferent about this, but I still think players should be introduced to a potential chance to the ranking system.

[Frederik]

I doubt that more than 10 people even know that there is a tipping sub-forum

[ma re]

Originally Posted by Frederik

I doubt that more than 10 people even know that there is a tipping sub-forum

You'd be surprised. I also tend to steer their attention towards a new poll or a discussion, by a brief post in the current tournament thread. That always helps.

[Frederik]

this is our new "rules-thread"

let me know if I forgot something in the 1st post.

[ma re]

Originally Posted by Frederik

this is our new "rules-thread"

let me know if I forgot something in the 1st post.

There is one mistake, but you probably just copied my mistake from another post - "made my editing" should say "made by editing". Of course it's no biggie, just a typo

[Frederik]

thanks

What about that rule?

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.

how many hours are "enough"?
This wasn't in the rules but it happened before that we didn't count a match because a manager forgot to include it in the OOP. It also happened that a match counted because somebody else noticed the missing match a couple of hours after the OOP was posted.

[ma re]

Originally Posted by Frederik

thanks

What about that rule?



how many hours are "enough"?
This wasn't in the rules but it happened before that we didn't count a match because a manager forgot to include it in the OOP. It also happened that a match counted because somebody else noticed the missing match a couple of hours after the OOP was posted.

It was never specified, but I remember suggesting something like 12 hours as the minimum. I also suggested that we accept this kind of change if a significant number of players (say 70%) can post their new picks on time. A lot was said about this, but never was anything concluded. Maybe this would deserve a separate discussion thread?

[Frederik]

yeah, maybe.

I think something like: "OOP has to be fixed within X hours... otherwise the match won't count" would be perfect

[longtin23]

I would also like to suggest a deadline for teams to be formed during the doubles event has started. Maybe two days after the event starts so players can know whether his.her partner will send or not...