Tennis Forum banner

141 - 159 of 159 Posts

·
Team WTAworld, Senior Member
Joined
·
35,653 Posts
I know but we need to set up rules or something.

Six is one thing, but two? The manager HAS the responsibility to cancel the tournament at the time and tell the players. What, both players will have the top 2 points? Anybody that decides to pick in this tourney today gets third?

All the crazy managing mess of the past few weeks is one thing, but this is even more ridiculous. NOT the best way to show that you are willing to be the best possible manager.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47,793 Posts
I know but we need to set up rules or something.

Six is one thing, but two? The manager HAS the responsibility to cancel the tournament at the time and tell the players. What, both players will have the top 2 points? Anybody that decides to pick in this tourney today gets third?

All the crazy managing mess of the past few weeks is one thing, but this is even more ridiculous. NOT the best way to show that you are willing to be the best possible manager.
Indeed, PAW is getting messy and messier lately
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,659 Posts
I know but we need to set up rules or something.

Six is one thing, but two? The manager HAS the responsibility to cancel the tournament at the time and tell the players. What, both players will have the top 2 points? Anybody that decides to pick in this tourney today gets third?

All the crazy managing mess of the past few weeks is one thing, but this is even more ridiculous. NOT the best way to show that you are willing to be the best possible manager.
I believe the rule managers are using is that the tournament will be cancelled if there are less than 5 players committing. I've once suggested that we could set a time limit which is 12 hrs before MD starts due to a confusion happened earlier this year when it comes to cancelling a tournament, and kondrashov agreed. Guangzhou had 6 so it's not cancelled. Seoul should have been cancelled, but for obvious reasons it wasn't :tape:

I'm lazy to check but I'm pretty sure there were quite a lot tournaments that had less than 12 participants. 12 is a just high bar considering the amount of active players the game currently has.

The ranking system is indeed pretty inclined towards those who could actually rank really high in the tournament. I knew that when it's been implemented last year and it's one of the tactics I sometimes still use. Play the less competitive ones, and sometimes playing MMs will probably be 'safer' and more rewardable than a Premier.

Another thing is that I think people just have to vote on those commitment threads. Less people are actually voting those now and it's hard for the managers to guess whether there will be enough players to go on, especially if we increase the bar from 5 to like 8 or 10. For example, during the week of Bastad & Nanchang, one got 7 and the other got 6 votes. Turned out Bastad had 20 players and Nanchang had 10. It's sometimes just unpredictable. We also have examples like Bucharest was cancelled and that 28 of us were all competing for 280 points in Gstaad. It's pretty unnecessary but apparently there were less than 5 commitments for Bucharest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,420 Posts
I agree that voting is a bit of guesswork. I feel as though we should go back to just posting which tournaments we're going to play. It was much easier back then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,420 Posts
I know but we need to set up rules or something.

Six is one thing, but two? The manager HAS the responsibility to cancel the tournament at the time and tell the players. What, both players will have the top 2 points? Anybody that decides to pick in this tourney today gets third?

All the crazy managing mess of the past few weeks is one thing, but this is even more ridiculous. NOT the best way to show that you are willing to be the best possible manager.
The other player in Seoul posted picks despite knowing there was only two players involved.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,420 Posts
And? It is your duty as manager to tell them that the tourney is cancelled and to join another tourney.
Noted for future reference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,004 Posts
And? It is your duty as manager to tell them that the tourney is cancelled and to join another tourney.
This.

Personally, I think Seoul should be canceled, and the two participants should join another tournament right now. Yes, the week is almost over, but they should never be awarded ranking points for a tournament with only 2 participants.

Just my opinion as a non-board member, but I say that the two participants are told right now- either join Guangzhou/Tokyo, or receive 0 points.
@Buitenzorg @Power Shot @Sander. @kondrashov

I see now that PS has posted that the event is "canceled." Its unfortunate for Sander but he'll have go do his best to earn points in either Guangzhou or Tokyo this late in the week.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,004 Posts
The rule for 2018 should be this:

1) Primary events are given first priority. If there is only one manager, smaller events will not be held.
2) If there are enough managers, smaller tournament threads will be opened.
3) Players do not need to commit prior to playing, but most either post picks or say "in" BEFORE round one is completed.
4) If, after the completion of round one, there are not at least eight (8) players, it is the responsibility of the manager to cancel the tournament.
5) Players who posted in a canceled thread will be allowed to change tournaments IF (and only if) a tournament is canceled due to too few players.


This puts the responsibility on the manager to cancel if not enough people join (and to cancel ASAP), but it also puts some responsibility on the players. You can CHOOSE to play a smaller tournament, but you run the risk of the tournament being canceled and having to join another tournament late.


Re: commitments-- these always caused too much of a headache in the past and weren't worth it. People will either not commit/not play, which we can't afford right now with so few active players.

I say it makes sense to use round 1 as the cut off. As a manager, I'll finalize my entry list after round 1, then award "Wild Cards" (i.e. Late joiners) as needed.
 

·
Team WTAworld, Senior Member
Joined
·
35,653 Posts
I also think that in the odd week where there are 3 events, we should just open two threads.

I also think that in cases where the tournament has the potential to be cancelled (like this week), the manager should tell the players early, so they can post back-up picks in the tournament that is happening. For example, someone could have posted Day 01 picks in Tokyo with the mention (If Guangzhou is cancelled only).

And I don't get the idea of WCs really. If someone wants to join a tournament in the middle of the week, then good for them. They'll just miss a lot of the points in the early rounds.

Or we do it like FITD? Weeks of two tournaments, players can decide to play both events, but only the highest score is kept for the ranking. This can make it fun, because a lot of people stop playing after a few days if they have a bad start. But that adds more work to managers (full events all the time) and for ranking purposes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,004 Posts
I also think that in the odd week where there are 3 events, we should just open two threads.

I also think that in cases where the tournament has the potential to be cancelled (like this week), the manager should tell the players early, so they can post back-up picks in the tournament that is happening. For example, someone could have posted Day 01 picks in Tokyo with the mention (If Guangzhou is cancelled only).

And I don't get the idea of WCs really. If someone wants to join a tournament in the middle of the week, then good for them. They'll just miss a lot of the points in the early rounds.

Or we do it like FITD? Weeks of two tournaments, players can decide to play both events, but only the highest score is kept for the ranking. This can make it fun, because a lot of people stop playing after a few days if they have a bad start. But that adds more work to managers (full events all the time) and for ranking purposes.
Personally, I only do "wild cards" because of my Picks Summary.

When you alphabetize the Entry List, it automatically puts all the players into the Picks Summary. So if people join once you've started entering picks into the Summary, you can't add the new people in alphabetically or it screws everything up.

So, anyone who enters after the first update is put in as a "wild card" which means nothing except that they will be at the end of the Summary-- instead of being in it alphabetically.

Otherwise, wild cards mean nothing since we stopped doing commitments
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,420 Posts
Bringing back commitments and the wild card and such will be discussed in the offseason. Thank you for your input.

@CharlDa, we have enough players to play three tournaments. There are also very few weeks with three tournaments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,004 Posts
Bringing back commitments and the wild card and such will be discussed in the offseason. Thank you for your input.

@CharlDa, we have enough players to play three tournaments. There are also very few weeks with three tournaments.
So then what's the call for Seoul? You admitted that you knew it was wrong but you were "running it like normal to prove a point to someone" :confused:

Totally unfair to Sander., but you certainly don't deserve finalist or winner points for a tournament with two people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,420 Posts
So then what's the call for Seoul? You admitted that you knew it was wrong but you were "running it like normal to prove a point to someone" :confused:

Totally unfair to Sander., but you certainly don't deserve finalist or winner points for a tournament with two people.
I would send you a PM, but you haven't responded lately. In any case, I will adhere to the rules regarding points.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,320 Posts
Seoul should be canceled because the current table for rating points does not provide for the scoring of points if the number of players is less than 5. The purtov's formula is valid only for the number of participants in the tournament> = 5.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,320 Posts
The rule for 2018 should be this:

1) Primary events are given first priority. If there is only one manager, smaller events will not be held.
2) If there are enough managers, smaller tournament threads will be opened.
3) Players do not need to commit prior to playing, but most either post picks or say "in" BEFORE round one is completed.
4) If, after the completion of round one, there are not at least eight (8) players, it is the responsibility of the manager to cancel the tournament.
5) Players who posted in a canceled thread will be allowed to change tournaments IF (and only if) a tournament is canceled due to too few players.


This puts the responsibility on the manager to cancel if not enough people join (and to cancel ASAP), but it also puts some responsibility on the players. You can CHOOSE to play a smaller tournament, but you run the risk of the tournament being canceled and having to join another tournament late.


Re: commitments-- these always caused too much of a headache in the past and weren't worth it. People will either not commit/not play, which we can't afford right now with so few active players.

I say it makes sense to use round 1 as the cut off. As a manager, I'll finalize my entry list after round 1, then award "Wild Cards" (i.e. Late joiners) as needed.
i like this project. I like this project. Weighted, logical and realistic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,320 Posts
But even at 5 or 6, it is crazy that 4 players out of 6 will get over 100 points!
it seems true, we can decide to raise this threshold from the next tournament оr from October (by voting). or reconcile with this until the end of the year, and approve the new regulations from 2018
 

·
Team WTAworld, Senior Member
Joined
·
35,653 Posts
I just think that the points spread should be reconsidered for smaller tournaments. The top 4 remains the same in all the columns, and I don't think that's fair. Winner should stay the same, but the rest should be more evenly spread.

This could be discussed for 2018.
 
141 - 159 of 159 Posts
Top