PAW Rule Changes for 2013 - TennisForum.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!

 Oct 30th, 2012, 11:42 PM #2 sdtoot Senior Member     Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 6,404 Re: PAW Rule Changes for 2013 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.
 Oct 31st, 2012, 09:51 PM #3 bbypk Senior Member   Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 4,033 Re: PAW Rule Changes for 2013 Agree to all of them. Thanks guys __________________ ANYWAY, CONCHI RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 Nov 2nd, 2012, 01:52 AM #4 purtov Senior Member   Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 1,666 Re: PAW Rule Changes for 2013 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: Code: ```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: Code: ```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.
Nov 3rd, 2012, 03:19 AM   #5
jrm
Senior Member

Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Velenje
Posts: 32,473
Re: PAW Rule Changes for 2013

Quote:
 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
__________________
Äre 2007 Downhill and GS GOLD: Aksel LUND SVINDAL (NOR) WC overall champion for 2006/07 and 2008/09; winner of 2 crystal globes in GS and SC
Val d’Isère 2009 SC GOLD and Super-G BRONZE
Vancouver 2010: Super-G GOLD, downhill SILVER, GS bronze
Current crush: MARCO BOCCI and OLIVER JACKSON-COHEN
Simply the best: Ole Einar BJØRNDALEN and JANNE AHONEN

Nov 3rd, 2012, 06:08 AM   #6
purtov
Senior Member

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,666
Re: PAW Rule Changes for 2013

Quote:
 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".

 Nov 3rd, 2012, 02:45 PM #7 jrm Senior Member     Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Velenje Posts: 32,473 Re: PAW Rule Changes for 2013 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 __________________ Äre 2007 Downhill and GS GOLD: Aksel LUND SVINDAL (NOR) WC overall champion for 2006/07 and 2008/09; winner of 2 crystal globes in GS and SC Val d’Isère 2009 SC GOLD and Super-G BRONZE Vancouver 2010: Super-G GOLD, downhill SILVER, GS bronzeCurrent crush: MARCO BOCCI and OLIVER JACKSON-COHEN Simply the best: Ole Einar BJØRNDALEN and JANNE AHONEN
 Nov 3rd, 2012, 11:47 PM #8 purtov Senior Member   Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 1,666 Re: PAW Rule Changes for 2013 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.
Nov 4th, 2012, 01:31 AM   #9
sdtoot
Senior Member

Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,404
Re: PAW Rule Changes for 2013

Quote:
 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.

 Nov 4th, 2012, 03:27 AM #10 coolfish1103 Senior Member     Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 7,628 Re: PAW Rule Changes for 2013 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: Code: ```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? __________________ 2013 Roma/Wimby/Cincy/Guangzhou/Istanbul Doubles Champion Hsieh Su-Wei 謝淑薇 & Peng Shuai 彭帥 2013 Wimby: Marion Bartoli def. Sloane Stephens 6-4 7-5 Kaia Kanepi def. Laura Robson 7-6(6) 7-5 | Quiet Please!
Nov 4th, 2012, 03:47 PM   #11
jrm
Senior Member

Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Velenje
Posts: 32,473
Re: PAW Rule Changes for 2013

Quote:
 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?
__________________
Äre 2007 Downhill and GS GOLD: Aksel LUND SVINDAL (NOR) WC overall champion for 2006/07 and 2008/09; winner of 2 crystal globes in GS and SC
Val d’Isère 2009 SC GOLD and Super-G BRONZE
Vancouver 2010: Super-G GOLD, downhill SILVER, GS bronze
Current crush: MARCO BOCCI and OLIVER JACKSON-COHEN
Simply the best: Ole Einar BJØRNDALEN and JANNE AHONEN

Nov 6th, 2012, 10:09 AM   #12
sdtoot
Senior Member

Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,404
Re: PAW Rule Changes for 2013

Quote:
 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.

Nov 9th, 2012, 03:47 PM   #13
Håkon
Senior Member

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bonn, NRW
Posts: 17,060
Re: PAW Rule Changes for 2013

Quote:
 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: Code: ```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: Code: ```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.
__________________
My twitter | FWTT: Cornelia du Preez
game wins: FITD US Open '12, Guangzhou '10 (#1 since 8 July 2013), TT Indian Wells '11, TT doubles Moskva '11, Brussel '12, Pattaya '13, Stuttgart '13 (w/Andreas), PAW 4 titles, Suicide Olympic gold + 2 titles, Tipping 3 titles (#1 for 25 weeks, USO Series '12), Q-Ball 7 titles, Blackjack #1 2012, Pentathlon #1 2012 (5 titles)
Азарэнка | Павлюченкова | Arvidsson| Halep | Eikeri | Clijsters | Rus | Van Uytvanck | Watson | Bertens | Superboerin Hogenkamp | Schoofs

Last edited by Håkon : Nov 9th, 2012 at 03:55 PM.

Nov 9th, 2012, 06:56 PM   #14
sdtoot
Senior Member

Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,404
Re: PAW Rule Changes for 2013

Quote:
 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.

Nov 9th, 2012, 07:06 PM   #15
Håkon
Senior Member

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bonn, NRW
Posts: 17,060
Re: PAW Rule Changes for 2013

Quote:
 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.
__________________
My twitter | FWTT: Cornelia du Preez
game wins: FITD US Open '12, Guangzhou '10 (#1 since 8 July 2013), TT Indian Wells '11, TT doubles Moskva '11, Brussel '12, Pattaya '13, Stuttgart '13 (w/Andreas), PAW 4 titles, Suicide Olympic gold + 2 titles, Tipping 3 titles (#1 for 25 weeks, USO Series '12), Q-Ball 7 titles, Blackjack #1 2012, Pentathlon #1 2012 (5 titles)
Азарэнка | Павлюченкова | Arvidsson| Halep | Eikeri | Clijsters | Rus | Van Uytvanck | Watson | Bertens | Superboerin Hogenkamp | Schoofs