[sdtoot]

In recent weeks, the new PAW Board have been debating potential rule changes for PAW which we believe will improve the game for both managers and players. The Board have agreed that the following rule changes which will come into force from the start of the 2013 season:-


Cancelling of PAW Tournaments

1. PAW tournaments which do not have a manager allocated will be cancelled 24 hours before the commitment deadline for that tournament and all players who have committed to that tournament will be moved to alternative tournament which does have a manager.


Wildcards

2. The maximum number of available wildcards to a player will remain at 2 per year.

3. The maximum number of wildcards which may be issued per tournament by the manager will now be unlimited, rather than the current maximum of 5. (providing that a player is eligible to receive a Wildcard)

4. The PAW Manager shall automatically allocate a Wildcard to any ‘non-committed’ player who post picks onto the tournament thread. (providing that a player is eligible to receive a Wildcard)

5. Two columns will be added into the monthly PAW Commitments thread to show the players their Wildcard usage status throughout the year.


Commitments

6. The current rule which states that PAW players must have a minimum of 2 months forum membership and 100 posts before they can join the game will be scrapped. All new players will be able to join the game.


Posting of Picks

7. The PAW Board requests that all players should use a standard format of PAW Picks to help managers who use the newer versions of Excel spreadsheet (e.g. PAW01 Player A over Player B). However, there will be no penalties given to players who post picks in the wrong format.


PAW Ranking Points

8. The PAW ranking points structure will be changed from 2013 to match up with the current WTA rankings structure (e.g. GS=2000, PM=1000 etc).

9. The PAW ranking points structure will also be changed to take account of the fewer numbers of players in the game. e.g. GS 128 players, PM 96 players, P5 80 players, P 64 players, INT 64 players (single), INT 48 players all others.


General

10. A new thread called ‘Ask the PAW Board’ will be created, so that managers or players can ask for clarification of rules and propose rule changes to the PAW Board.

sdtoot
On behalf of the PAW Board

[sdtoot]

Any other PAW Rule changes for the start of the 2013 season will be considered by the PAW Board, so please use this thread to propose and debate any rule changes for 2013.

[bbypk]

Agree to all of them. Thanks guys

[purtov]

About Scoring Points Calculation

Strategy of picks is consist of balance, on one side forecasts for average scoring points from 8 up to 12, on other side guessing of greater points (20, 30, even better 50).

The formula which we use, it is possible to record in the form of:

k1=10*((R2+c)/(R1+c))^p
k2=10*((R1+c)/(R2+c))^p
c=0; p=1/2

When forces of players are not equal, is tempting to guess the big point. The formula shifts balance on the second side. For restoration of balance I suggest to accept c=100; p=1/3.

Examples:

Azarenka(10595) vs Makarova(1841) 6-18 instead of 4-24
Sharapova(10045) vs Stevenson(62) 3-40 instead of 1-127
Shvedova(1565) vs Herzog(816) 8-12 instead of 7-14

I do not suggest to change the formula immediately. I only suggest to think of it throughout a year and to return to this subject matter in November 2013.

[jrm]

Originally Posted by sdtoot

4. The PAW Manager shall automatically allocate a Wildcard to any ‘non-committed’ player who post picks onto the tournament thread. (providing that a player is eligible to receive a Wildcard)

I don't think i like this one, player MUST state he requires WC before making picks! It's not that difficult to look if you have commit or not

[purtov]

Originally Posted by jrm

I don't think i like this one, player MUST state he requires WC before making picks! It's not that difficult to look if you have commit or not

Why MUST? The message "WC please" is empty. On the contrary, PAW01 testifies to the beginning of picks and desire to have WC for "not-committed".

[jrm]

because in the past i had an incident where a player posted picks and he didn't commit to play nor has he asked for WC, he asked for WC the next day and wanted that i count picks he made before asking for a WC; i declined

[purtov]

Now similar incidents will be impossible, because the manager will ignore "ask WC" (as in Suicide "IN").
The deadline for Brisbane on December, 30th, also will be much WC, it seems to me more than 10. The manager will not have problems - owing to a new rule.

[sdtoot]

Originally Posted by jrm

I don't think i like this one, player MUST state he requires WC before making picks! It's not that difficult to look if you have commit or not

Tina,

The number of players who post picks without a commitment seems to increase every year - particularly for tournaments in the first week of the month where players think that they have committed but in fact have not made any commitments for the new month.

Managing a PAW tournament in the first week of the month is gradually becoming a nightmare and you end up with lots of players posting picks and then coming back a day or so later to find that the picks were not eligible because they didn't ask for a WC. The new Wildcard rules are being introduced to simplify the workload for the managers. If players end up taking up their available WC's because they haven't committed to play at a tournament, then that is their problem and if they wish to play the game then they will just have to get their act together and post their commitments in time (as the majority of players do).

The new PAW Board have had long discussions about the issuing of Wildcards and the difficulties faced by managers of tournaments in the first week of the month. We are all unanimous that these new rules should be implemented from next year.

[coolfish1103]

With the 2 months/100 posts being lifted, it's highly probable that the number of commitments will go overboard when compared to the draws, are people who positioned outside the draw given 1 point or 0 points?

By adjusting the points of PAW to the existing WTA system, are the points corresponding to the position you hold? As in:

INTL

1     - 280
2     - 200
3-4   - 130
5-8   - 70
9-16  - 30
17-32 - 1
33+   - 0

or you are tweaking around points between 3 and 4 since 3 did score higher? or a complete different format except that the winner gets 280?

Also, how are you tweaking the points when the draw is much smaller? Does that make the players not wanting to play smaller tournaments?

[jrm]

Originally Posted by sdtoot

6. The current rule which states that PAW players must have a minimum of 2 months forum membership and 100 posts before they can join the game will be scrapped. All new players will be able to join the game.

no fear of double accounts being used?

[sdtoot]

Originally Posted by jrm

no fear of double accounts being used?

I think there is always a risk of double accounts in all games on the forum. Whether or not this rule stops double accounts is debateable but we have seen player numbers drop significantly in PAW over recent years and the 2 month/100 post rule doesn't help the situation. MTF PAW doesn't have this rule and I am not aware of issues with double accounts so it would be something that we just need to keep a close eye on and if there are any concerns about a particular player, then we just ask the admins to check them out.

[Håkon]

Originally Posted by purtov

About Scoring Points Calculation

Strategy of picks is consist of balance, on one side forecasts for average scoring points from 8 up to 12, on other side guessing of greater points (20, 30, even better 50).

The formula which we use, it is possible to record in the form of:

k1=10*((R2+c)/(R1+c))^p
k2=10*((R1+c)/(R2+c))^p
c=0; p=1/2

When forces of players are not equal, is tempting to guess the big point. The formula shifts balance on the second side. For restoration of balance I suggest to accept c=100; p=1/3.

Examples:

Azarenka(10595) vs Makarova(1841) 6-18 instead of 4-24
Sharapova(10045) vs Stevenson(62) 3-40 instead of 1-127
Shvedova(1565) vs Herzog(816) 8-12 instead of 7-14

I do not suggest to change the formula immediately. I only suggest to think of it throughout a year and to return to this subject matter in November 2013.

I disagree, I think this will only lead to more picking of favourites. We are aiming for something like betting odds (but without the bookmaker margin), so let me pick some real bookmaker odds close to your matches to illustrate.

Azarenka vs Goerges, Linz - 10595 v 1965, 6-17 instead of 4-23.
Betting average (from tennisexplorer.com): 1.06-9.59 - estimated probability of winning: Azarenka 90 %, Goerges 10 %. Expected points under old system: Azarenka 3.6, Goerges 2.3.

Hercog P v Pavlyuchenkova A, Beijing - 816 v 1430. 12-8 instead of 13-8.
Betting average: 3.57-1.28. Estimated probability: Hercog 27 %, Pavlyuchenkova 73 %. Expected points: Hercog 3.5, Pavlyuchenkova 5.8.

For your Sharapova-Stevenson example, this breaks down because bookmakers can't give odds less than 1 (and I haven't found any matches where the top players played so weak players), but Azarenka-Brianti at Roland Garros had odds of 1.01-50 on [censored site, but it is a betting exchange rather than a bookmaker], indicating 98 %-2 % probability, and the old system gave 3-37 (and the new system would give 4-23).

It is tempting to go for the big points, but in the long run it will not work.

[sdtoot]

Originally Posted by SamR03A

I disagree, I think this will only lead to more picking of favourites. We are aiming for something like betting odds (but without the bookmaker margin), so let me pick some real bookmaker odds close to your matches to illustrate.

Azarenka vs Goerges, Linz - 10595 v 1965, 6-17 instead of 4-23.
Betting average (from tennisexplorer.com): 1.06-9.59 - estimated probability of winning: Azarenka 90 %, Goerges 10 %. Expected points under old system: Azarenka 3.6, Goerges 2.3.

Hercog P v Pavlyuchenkova A, Beijing - 816 v 1430. 12-8 instead of 13-8.
Betting average: 3.57-1.28. Estimated probability: Hercog 27 %, Pavlyuchenkova 73 %. Expected points: Hercog 3.5, Pavlyuchenkova 5.8.

For your Sharapova-Stevenson example, this breaks down because bookmakers can't give odds less than 1 (and I haven't found any matches where the top players played so weak players), but Azarenka-Brianti at Roland Garros had odds of 1.01-50 on [censored site, but it is a betting exchange rather than a bookmaker], indicating 98 %-2 % probability, and the old system gave 3-37 (and the new system would give 4-23).

It is tempting to go for the big points, but in the long run it will not work.

Do the bookmakers pay out if there is a retirement? Of course in PAW, retirements are counted after 1 point has been played so there is always the worry that if you don't pick a 'big-pointer' then you could be effectively out of the tournament if the strong favourite retires.

[Håkon]

Originally Posted by sdtoot

Do the bookmakers pay out if there is a retirement? Of course in PAW, retirements are counted after 1 point has been played so there is always the worry that if you don't pick a 'big-pointer' then you could be effectively out of the tournament if the strong favourite retires.

That's true, but the chance of a retirement is still pretty small - maybe 1-2 % - and crucially you can estimate it - players who have injury problems are more likely to retire, players who have a big tournament next week are more likely to retire, etc. All probabilities, again.