Rules thread - 2013 - Page 6 - TennisForum.com
TennisForum.com   Wagerline.com MensTennisForums.com TennisUniverse.com
TennisForum.com is the premier Women's Tennis forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.Please Register - It's Free!
Reply

Old Aug 6th, 2012, 02:53 PM   #76
country flag longtin23
Senior Member
 
longtin23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 10,130
longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future
Re: Rules thread - 2012

I dont think it worth 1 point to be the manager. Manager's doesnt deserve points reward (and it;s too liitile even though).

Maybe if we have 2[WC] for Sofia for the two managers who managed the most events. Maybe it's worse
__________________
Serious Brain Injury Li Na Kvitova Wozniacki Pironkova

V.Williams Zheng Peng Zhang Pavlyuchenkova Cornet Larsson
Mladenovic Garcia Wickmayer
longtin23 is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 

Old Aug 6th, 2012, 05:31 PM   #77
country flag ma re
Senior Member
 
ma re's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 12,921
ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Rules thread - 2012

@SamR03A - I get what you're saying but it's not really so straightforward. The numbers you brought out take into account that we guess all the picks in two whole rounds of a grand slam, and that's just impossible. People at most guess about 75% correctly, which would bring your percentage for slams closer to 30.

I see that this is not ideal, but at this point I don't a good alternative. In real tennis you get points for one match per round, not for dozens of them like in tipping, so it's easy to have a system that rewards final stages with most points. In tipping that obviously wouldn't work (imagine that we give out 5 points for every match in R1, just like in real tennis, 100 for each R2 encounter and 2000 for the correct pick in the final).

So sure, there's time to discuss all this cause we won't change anything until Januray for sure, but I really don't see how we could do this in a better way.

---

As for rewarding managers, I agree that it's not the best idea I ever came up with, but we must think of something which will bring more people to managing, cause there's an awful lot of events in a season, and now that we also play doubles especially so.
ma re is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 7th, 2012, 03:30 AM   #78
country flag Frederik
Senior Member
 
Frederik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 20,407
Frederik has a reputation beyond repute Frederik has a reputation beyond repute Frederik has a reputation beyond repute Frederik has a reputation beyond repute Frederik has a reputation beyond repute Frederik has a reputation beyond repute Frederik has a reputation beyond repute Frederik has a reputation beyond repute Frederik has a reputation beyond repute Frederik has a reputation beyond repute Frederik has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Rules thread - 2012

I think we should change the "maximum doubles partners-rule" to 4 or 5.
Frederik is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 7th, 2012, 07:50 AM   #79
country flag ma re
Senior Member
 
ma re's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 12,921
ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Rules thread - 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederik View Post
I think we should change the "maximum doubles partners-rule" to 4 or 5.


I really think 3 is enough, cause we already have 50 different teams with points this year, eventhough there's only about 30 players and the number of partners limited to 3. Next year even more people could join the doubles circuit, and with (say...) 50 players we could easily reach 80 different teams without changing any rules.
ma re is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 7th, 2012, 10:25 AM   #80
country flag ma re
Senior Member
 
ma re's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 12,921
ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Rules thread - 2012

I was playing with the numbers a little this morning, and I guess we could change the points so that we start counting from 2 in both, Premiers and Slams. This would lessen the "effect of the first two rounds" brought out by Sam, but it wouldn't lessen the importance of those events that much. This way it would be:

- a maximum of 177 points at a 32-draw IS event
- a maximum of 343 points at a 64-draw Premier event
- a maximum of 594 point at a Grand slam

...with the maximum amount of points won in the first two rounds of a slam at about 39% of the total.

---

A different idea on attracting the managers; how about we make it a rule that only those people who have managed at least one tournament during the season can participate in the new rules discussion (sort of like the Council of managers). I think it would be fair and maybe even better than awarding them points, cause those who manage events really are the ones most interested in the game anyway, so why not.

Your thoughts?
ma re is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 7th, 2012, 03:45 PM   #81
country flag longtin23
Senior Member
 
longtin23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 10,130
longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future
Re: Rules thread - 2012

It seems to me that the incentive is too small, I mean they wont bother to discuss new rules...
__________________
Serious Brain Injury Li Na Kvitova Wozniacki Pironkova

V.Williams Zheng Peng Zhang Pavlyuchenkova Cornet Larsson
Mladenovic Garcia Wickmayer
longtin23 is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 7th, 2012, 04:33 PM   #82
country flag ma re
Senior Member
 
ma re's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 12,921
ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Rules thread - 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by longtin23 View Post
It seems to me that the incentive is too small, I mean they wont bother to discuss new rules...
At first this may be true, but they might become more interested once they see that only a handful of people are allowed to discuss potential new rules.
ma re is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 7th, 2012, 04:36 PM   #83
country flag longtin23
Senior Member
 
longtin23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 10,130
longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future
Re: Rules thread - 2012

Maybe yes... But I agree to your change (the most recent one), I really feel like in important tournaments, the R1 and R2 scores count too much towards the total score...
__________________
Serious Brain Injury Li Na Kvitova Wozniacki Pironkova

V.Williams Zheng Peng Zhang Pavlyuchenkova Cornet Larsson
Mladenovic Garcia Wickmayer
longtin23 is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15th, 2012, 01:53 PM   #84
country flag longtin23
Senior Member
 
longtin23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 10,130
longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future longtin23 has a brilliant future
Re: Rules thread - 2012

I just wonder would we set a deadline for committing doubles team
__________________
Serious Brain Injury Li Na Kvitova Wozniacki Pironkova

V.Williams Zheng Peng Zhang Pavlyuchenkova Cornet Larsson
Mladenovic Garcia Wickmayer
longtin23 is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15th, 2012, 05:05 PM   #85
country flag ma re
Senior Member
 
ma re's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 12,921
ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Rules thread - 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by ma re View Post
Good idea! Two days should be enough for players who are serious about participating to find a partner. But I also think that we should maintain a "partner list" for doubles throughout the year and the manager would copy it into the tournament thread so that players know how many different partners they've had during the year, but also in order for them to see who of the other players is available for that tournament and who isn't (because of already having 3 partners during the year).
Quote:
Originally Posted by longtin23 View Post
I just wonder would we set a deadline for committing doubles team
We already discussed this (if you look at the quote above that of your post), but never really turned it into a rule. Maybe we should allow 3 days for the first tournament where this is an actual rule and lower it if if proves like too much time. We could try it out at the USO.
ma re is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 13th, 2012, 01:26 PM   #86
country flag Håkon
Senior Member
 
Håkon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bonn, NRW
Posts: 19,620
Håkon has a reputation beyond repute Håkon has a reputation beyond repute Håkon has a reputation beyond repute Håkon has a reputation beyond repute Håkon has a reputation beyond repute Håkon has a reputation beyond repute Håkon has a reputation beyond repute Håkon has a reputation beyond repute Håkon has a reputation beyond repute Håkon has a reputation beyond repute Håkon has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Rules thread - 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by ma re View Post
I was playing with the numbers a little this morning, and I guess we could change the points so that we start counting from 2 in both, Premiers and Slams. This would lessen the "effect of the first two rounds" brought out by Sam, but it wouldn't lessen the importance of those events that much. This way it would be:

- a maximum of 177 points at a 32-draw IS event
- a maximum of 343 points at a 64-draw Premier event
- a maximum of 594 point at a Grand slam

...with the maximum amount of points won in the first two rounds of a slam at about 39% of the total.
I'd like to have another discussion on this. As I said earlier, the main thing in a ranking system really isn't how many points you can possibly score, but the difference between pickers.

For the Slams, for example, you get 10 times more points for simply remembering to submit, than finishing 17th and beating half the field. The scale ends up at something like 370 - 320 - 270 - 270 - etc.

In Internationals it's not quite that bad (and they don't really count as your top-16 unless you finish in the bonus points anyway), but it's still something like 5-6 times the number of points for remembering to submit.

I suggest that ranking points should instead be calculated as 'points-above-50 %'. For each tournament, you need to pick 50 % correct in order to get ranking points - bonus points would be included.

There would still be a reward for submitting, as we usually get somewhere between 65 and 70 % of picks correct, but I think this would be a fairer reflection of the difference between the picks, and also reward the larger draws more.

This could be combined with starting to count from 2 points in every tournament - getting an upset final correct would give you even more of a ranking boost under this system, so starting from 2 even in Internationals would help, and still give most weight to the larger tournaments.

The maximum points:

29 + bonus in Internationals
60 + bonus in Premiers (64-draw)
108 + bonus in 96-draws
124 + bonus in Grand Slams (128-draw)

If you start the count from 2 in each tournament:

44 + bonus in Internationals
92 + bonus in 64-draw Premiers
155 + bonus in 96-draw Premiers
187 + bonus in Grand Slams (128-draw)
__________________
i defeated the mountains
i severed the oceans
i was the stronger of us
yet the weakest one still



twitter
Håkon is online now View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 13th, 2012, 04:16 PM   #87
country flag ma re
Senior Member
 
ma re's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 12,921
ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Rules thread - 2012

Hy Sam,

thanks for your suggestion, which I've just read and analyzed (so prepare yourself).

An interesting proposition I have to admit, and there were suggestions of relying more on the number of picks then on how many points they give. But I see one main issue with your idea. When you say that only those who guessed more than half of the picks right in a single tournament should get the points from that tournament, that actually doesn't change much. I used last week's tournament in Beijing as example, the total number of picks (possible maximum) is 59 - 60 players in the draw, with 4 getting a bye. This would mean that we should only give ranking points to those who guess 30 or more correct picks in such a tournament. But the problem is - almost everybody finished Beijing with more than 50% correct picks (40 out of 43 players, to be exact).

How would that change the game, when these days - compared to 3 or 4 years ago - getting half of your picks right doesn't really get you anything. If this number would be raised to 60%, it would probably bring some change, but 50 really wouldn't IMO. Btw, the winner of Beijing got almost 73% right, which says enough about competitivness in tipping these days.

But if we go with something like this, we could also think about simplifying the bonus points, and also raise them to make up for the reduction in points compared to current system. Example:

IS
180
120
90
60

PS
320
240
160
120
80

GS
400
300
200
150
100

What do you think?
ma re is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 13th, 2012, 06:00 PM   #88
country flag Håkon
Senior Member
 
Håkon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bonn, NRW
Posts: 19,620
Håkon has a reputation beyond repute Håkon has a reputation beyond repute Håkon has a reputation beyond repute Håkon has a reputation beyond repute Håkon has a reputation beyond repute Håkon has a reputation beyond repute Håkon has a reputation beyond repute Håkon has a reputation beyond repute Håkon has a reputation beyond repute Håkon has a reputation beyond repute Håkon has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Rules thread - 2012

Thanks for your analysis ma re I see it doesn't really have the effect I wanted, I confused myself a little by the mathematics. The percentage changes I calculated aren't really relevant, because A scores 20 points more than B in 2 tournaments, B still needs to score 20 points more than A to catch her; whether that difference is 120-100 or 20-0 isn't that relevant.

The only real effects are to give a better chance to newcomers to improve their ranks fast, and to allow people to skip more tournaments. I'm not really sure these are desirable effects.

I think the percentages are relevant in one respect though, and that is to show how important each tournament is relative to the other. You wrote in August, based on maximum points:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ma re View Post
Currently, an average Premier is worth about 60% more than an International, while a GS is worth about 60% more than a typical Premier. In real tennis, a Slam is worth about 3 times as much as an average Premier and almost 7 times as much as an International.
But I don't think this is true, because of the 'free' points that everyone who submits picks manage to get. If you measure against a baseline of 50 % correct picks, suddenly a Slam is theoretically worth 6 times as much as an International (see my previous post). I don't know what the correct answer is, but I think the correct method is to consider the actual differences between players, and not the difference between maximum (which no one gets) and zero (which no one gets except those who don't enter).
__________________
i defeated the mountains
i severed the oceans
i was the stronger of us
yet the weakest one still



twitter

Last edited by Håkon : Oct 13th, 2012 at 06:17 PM.
Håkon is online now View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14th, 2012, 09:09 AM   #89
country flag ma re
Senior Member
 
ma re's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 12,921
ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute ma re has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Rules thread - 2012

I'm not sure I follow everything you say Sam, for example in...

I don't know what the correct answer is, but I think the correct method is to consider the actual differences between players, and not the difference between maximum (which no one gets) and zero (which no one gets except those who don't enter).

You say that with the refference to my hypothetical maximum points analysis, but you see, with those maximum points I was just refering to how many points you could possibly get in each tournament category, I'm not comparing maximum to zero.

But anyway, I have another idea how we could combine our ideas into something potentially good. What if we would count points only in those rounds where a player gets at least 50% right. For example in Beijing there were 28 R1 matches, so who ever got less than 14 points wouldn't get any points for that round. In that regard, for example, zigga and Buitenzorg ended up tied, but they wouldn't under this idea, because Buitenzorg guessed just 10 correct in R1, so he wouldn't get any points for that. For the same reason we wouldn't have ties between Payam and Хлоэ, while joeh37 and fallansky wouldn't finish the same as DiRenan, Fred and Igorche. We would apply the same for R2, R3 and so on. It might not be a bad idea.
ma re is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14th, 2012, 09:15 AM   #90
country flag Håkon
Senior Member
 
Håkon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bonn, NRW
Posts: 19,620
Håkon has a reputation beyond repute Håkon has a reputation beyond repute Håkon has a reputation beyond repute Håkon has a reputation beyond repute Håkon has a reputation beyond repute Håkon has a reputation beyond repute Håkon has a reputation beyond repute Håkon has a reputation beyond repute Håkon has a reputation beyond repute Håkon has a reputation beyond repute Håkon has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Rules thread - 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by ma re View Post
You say that with the refference to my hypothetical maximum points analysis, but you see, with those maximum points I was just refering to how many points you could possibly get in each tournament category, I'm not comparing maximum to zero.
Yeah it's hard to express this. What I meant was that you used this analysis to compare with real tennis where the Slam is 7 times more important than Internationals - but IMO it was an unrealistic comparison, because the rankings don't work like that. No one gets the maximum and most manage to get 60 % of points.

I kinda like the 50 % in each round idea actually. It means people are still in with a chance even if they forget one round (which happens to the best of us).

But anyway, finish off Linz and we can discuss this in more detail during the winter break
__________________
i defeated the mountains
i severed the oceans
i was the stronger of us
yet the weakest one still



twitter
Håkon is online now View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Copyright (C) Verticalscope Inc
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBCredits v1.4 Copyright ©2007, PixelFX Studios