Pools

[Alex Strife]

For Apex I decided tiebreakers for pools by Set Wins then Total Wins/Loss then Head to Head. I wanted your thoughts on this.

Here was my logic.

In all sports the Total Wins-Losses outweight the Head to Head because the team with the better record always makes it to the playoffs. Why should I reward someone for beating another if that other person is a better overall player. I felt bad about doing that to many but in teh long run I had to be strong to keep my word.

Also here is another way to look at it.

Sets are tied

Player X = 9-7
Player Y = 8-8

Player X loses to Player Z 2-1
Player y loses to Player Z 2-0

Is it not fair to say that Player X did better because he had one win where Player Y does not?


Also, I am curious, am I the only one who does pools this way?


Thanks for the input

 

[Skler]

I always thought that's how pools are done. NE does it that way. Head to head is the last resort.

 

[Alex Strife]

I was told by Plank that it is not how he does it?

Tope was , sadly cause I feel bad I like love that got, upset over how I decided he did not make it out of pools.


Should we post how pools are decided so that people will not complain more?

 

[pockyD]

My input is that 'games' would be more like 'points' in sports, whereas the 'SETs' are what really matter... I'm pretty sure we all recognize how insignificant "took a game off" is

and consequently, in almost any sport, h2h is used as a tiebreaker before points are for 2-way ties

and yes, the TO should ALWAYS post any relevant rules

 

[Alex Strife]

Ok.

If this is how we decide we need to put that in the MBR ruleset. I think may people use different ways to decide and we really need to push that.

 

[Slhoka]

In your exemple, I think that player Y should be ranked under player X because overall, he wasn't as good. Player X not only won one more game, but he also lost one less, so overall, I'd say he's better.

I think that the TO is free to do whatever he thinks is right as long as he clearly explains how he will proceed before the tournament.

What I usually do :

1. Won/Lost sets ratio
2. Won/Lost games ratio
3. Won games total
4. Head to Head results

Overall results are what matter the most to me.

 

[Alex Strife]

I understand but our MBR ruleset is something that we suggest others use. Should it not have a place for pools?

 

[SwiftBass]

I was told by Plank that it is not how he does it?

Tope was , sadly cause I feel bad I like love that got, upset over how I decided he did not make it out of pools.


Should we post how pools are decided so that people will not complain more?

tope, MDZ and nintendude all had the some crazy 3 way tie for 2nd and got "shafted". I believe hygua did something like beat the 2 best ppl(the 1 and 2 seed) in his pool and still didnt make it out because inui had a better record or something. I would love for hygua to explain that fully cuz I feel like the story I heard isnt accurate enough.

I felt like I was doing so much calculating and worrying as opposed to just playing. Why would a player have to worry about records and stuff in such a short sequence(UNLIKE A FULL SEASON OF BASKETBALL/BASEBALL ETC).





I may come off as bias since I believe I got one of the rawest deals seeding wise at apex but its over now.

 

[pockyD]

nobody ever has to 'worry' about anything while they're playing

always try to win!

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

tope, MDZ and nintendude all had the some crazy 3 way tie for 2nd and got "shafted". I believe hygua did something like beat the 2 best ppl(the 1 and 2 seed) in his pool and still didnt make it out because inui had a better record or something. I would love for hygua to explain that fully cuz I feel like the story I heard isnt accurate enough.

Technically, I believe the Apex tiebreak was posted as Sets, wins, losses, h2h; there was no w/l ratio tiebreak. I don't know whether this was actually applies or whether w/l ratio was ultimately used.

My pool was me, Hax, Inui, Voodoo, Brawlguy 1, and Brawlguy 2.

I beat Hax and Inui both 2-1, lost to Voodoo 1-2, Brawlguy 1 0-2 (lol), beat Brawlguy 2 2-0.
Inui 2-0'd everyone except me and Hax, whom he lost to both 2-1
Voodoo lost to Inui 0-2, Hax 1-2, beat me 2-1, beat Brawlguy 1 2-1, and Brawguy 2 2-0

All 3 of us were 3-2 in sets.
Inui's game record was 8-4
My game record was 7-6
Voodoo's game record was also 7-6
Inui got the first tiebreak by W/L, and Voodoo got the 2nd by H2H. So I ended up beating the 1 and 2 seeds, but losing to the eventual 3 and 5 seeds, so I ended up getting 4th. Shit happens.

There is a tiebreak system where I would have gotten the 2nd tiebreak (and actually the 2nd seed overall), which is in the case of a 3-way tie, to first run the tiebreaker procedure to sets/games/h2h within the 3 people. In which case, in game W/L, Inui and I would both have been 3-3, and Voodoo 2-3. I don't necessarily advocate this tiebreak system, but I think if one's first tiebreak is h2h instead of game W/L, the analog of that in a 3-way tie is to run the tiebreaks within the tied people first.

And yeah, what Pocky said. There's no reason to worry about anything, just play2win!

 

[Slhoka]

Technically, I believe the Apex tiebreak was posted as Sets, wins, losses, h2h; there was no w/l ratio tiebreak. I don't know whether this was actually applies or whether w/l ratio was ultimately used.

My pool was me, Hax, Inui, Voodoo, Brawlguy 1, and Brawlguy 2.

I beat Hax and Inui both 2-1, lost to Voodoo 1-2, Brawlguy 1 0-2 (lol), beat Brawlguy 2 2-0.
Inui 2-0'd everyone except me and Hax, whom he lost to both 2-1
Voodoo lost to Inui 0-2, Hax 1-2, beat me 2-1, beat Brawlguy 1 2-1, and Brawguy 2 2-0

All 3 of us were 3-2 in sets.
Inui's game record was 8-4
My game record was 7-6
Voodoo's game record was also 7-6
Inui got the first tiebreak by W/L, and Voodoo got the 2nd by H2H. So I ended up beating the 1 and 2 seeds, but losing to the eventual 3 and 5 seeds, so I ended up getting 4th. Shit happens.

This was a pretty peculiar situation. Yet, while it's true that you won two sets against the supposedly best players of your pool, you also lost twice while you were expected to win. You were not as consistant as Voodoo, for instance.

And yeah, what Pocky said. There's no reason to worry about anything, just play2win!

This.

 

[SwiftBass]

so voodoo made it out because he won where he "should have" won and lost where he "should have" lost?

and hygua didnt make it out because he lost sets that he "shouldn't" have lost even when winning sets that he "should not have won"?

voodoo was 3rd seeded in his pool 1 right?


I can't form an argument yet but I know I disagree with this ruleset. /salt

bbl work time

 

[Armada]

I wanna say like this.

If you win the set you get X points and if you lost 0 points.

And if 2 people have 4X then you have to see what happend when they played and then how many matches they lost (matches not set).

In many tournaments i think 2-1 is too good for the person how actuallt lost SPECIALLY when we have so many gay stages.

If you lost with 2-1 in fotball the winner still gets 3p and the loser 0p.

 

[Tero.]

For Apex I decided tiebreakers for pools by Set Wins then Total Wins/Loss then Head to Head. I wanted your thoughts on this.

Here was my logic.

In all sports the Total Wins-Losses outweight the Head to Head because the team with the better record always makes it to the playoffs. Why should I reward someone for beating another if that other person is a better overall player. I felt bad about doing that to many but in teh long run I had to be strong to keep my word.

Also here is another way to look at it.

Sets are tied

Player X = 9-7
Player Y = 8-8

Player X loses to Player Z 2-1
Player y loses to Player Z 2-0

Is it not fair to say that Player X did better because he had one win where Player Y does not?


Also, I am curious, am I the only one who does pools this way?


Thanks for the input

I do it exactly the same way, everything seems fine.

In your exemple, I think that player Y should be ranked under player X because overall, he wasn't as good. Player X not only won one more game, but he also lost one less, so overall, I'd say he's better.

I think that the TO is free to do whatever he thinks is right as long as he clearly explains how he will proceed before the tournament.

What I usually do :

1. Won/Lost sets ratio
2. Won/Lost games ratio
3. Won games total
4. Head to Head results

Overall results are what matter the most to me.

I agree with #1 and #2 but I'd probably go h2h at #3.
Like if player A has a 6-6 record and player B has a 7-7, I'd probably place the winner of A and B first.

Technically, I believe the Apex tiebreak was posted as Sets, wins, losses, h2h; there was no w/l ratio tiebreak. I don't know whether this was actually applies or whether w/l ratio was ultimately used.

My pool was me, Hax, Inui, Voodoo, Brawlguy 1, and Brawlguy 2.

I beat Hax and Inui both 2-1, lost to Voodoo 1-2, Brawlguy 1 0-2 (lol), beat Brawlguy 2 2-0.
Inui 2-0'd everyone except me and Hax, whom he lost to both 2-1
Voodoo lost to Inui 0-2, Hax 1-2, beat me 2-1, beat Brawlguy 1 2-1, and Brawguy 2 2-0

All 3 of us were 3-2 in sets.
Inui's game record was 8-4
My game record was 7-6
Voodoo's game record was also 7-6
Inui got the first tiebreak by W/L, and Voodoo got the 2nd by H2H. So I ended up beating the 1 and 2 seeds, but losing to the eventual 3 and 5 seeds, so I ended up getting 4th. Shit happens.

There is a tiebreak system where I would have gotten the 2nd tiebreak (and actually the 2nd seed overall), which is in the case of a 3-way tie, to first run the tiebreaker procedure to sets/games/h2h within the 3 people. In which case, in game W/L, Inui and I would both have been 3-3, and Voodoo 2-3. I don't necessarily advocate this tiebreak system, but I think if one's first tiebreak is h2h instead of game W/L, the analog of that in a 3-way tie is to run the tiebreaks within the tied people first.

And yeah, what Pocky said. There's no reason to worry about anything, just play2win!

To me, it is clear that Inui should get the 1st tiebreak and Voodoo get the 2nd one, because he had the same record and won against you.

so voodoo made it out because he won where he "should have" won and lost where he "should have" lost?

No.
Voodoo made it out because he had the same record plus he won h2h.

I don't know, for me everything seems pretty obvious...

 

[KishPrime]

Here's one part of the solution - NEVER ADVANCE ONLY 2 FROM POOLS.

Sorry, I'm capitalizing because I've learned this lesson myself. It's one thing to lose because you're tied for 3rd or 4th in set wins, it's completely different when people get eliminated after a three-way tie for first. Advance 3 minimum from all pools, always. Even into brackets. The only time I think it's partially acceptable is if you have highly-seeded pools where someone is basically guaranteed to get first outright in every pool, like in the MW Circuit days, but even that's dangerous.

Hyuga, I would've advanced you first in your situation if you beat 1/2 head-to-head. I broke three-way ties if one person beat the other two because head-to-head is my primary rule, but that's a rare situation.

Whatever people do, you have to stick to the order whether it's a two, three, or four way tie.

Our rules:
1. Head to head
2. W/L Ratio
3. Total Game Wins
4. Playoff or all advance, whichever works better

I don't understand why some people don't want head-to-head to be the first tiebreaker. Why are we playing the matches? There no correct value judgment on whether or not it's "better" to lose to someone lower or someone higher, so let's be competitive and make the matches matter.

 

[Plairnkk]

A set is a SET. Matches won and lost in a set shouldn't matter, IMO. If you beat someone 2-0 or if you beat someone 2-1 shouldn't matter. Anybody can lose a single match at any point, whether it's from a stupid suicide or being counterpicked to a very disadvantageous counterpick, that is why we play sets. Not taking head to head into account first is basically taking the thing we all strive to achieve (a set win) and placing it behind single matches that could be greatly influenced by our counterpicking system.

I am a huge advocate of

1. Set W/L Ratio
2. Head to Head
3. W/L Ratio of individual games (in event of a 3 way tie where head to head can't solve)

This is simply the most fair way to do it for smash. The number of individual games you win doesn't matter. Losing a set 1-2 is no better than losing a set 0-2. You lost the set. Winning a set 2-0 is no better than winning a set 2-1. You still won the set.

 

[Dogysamich]

ya know the easiest way to do pools.

3 games, period. Not bo3. 3 games.

So there are no tiebreakers

 

[Cactuar]

Plank's way is how I thought it was supposed to be done and makes the most sense.

SET wins/losses
If there is a 2 way tie, head to head.
If there is a 3 way tie, use the individual match count. In the event of a tied count on individual matches, tiebreak matches must be played.

 

[Skler]

I guess I did forget the "******** CP" deal. Maybe games aren't that important since all it takes is an incredibly powerful CP combo to win a single game in a set.

I now third the Planktuar pool method.

 

[Slhoka]

A set is a SET. Matches won and lost in a set shouldn't matter, IMO. If you beat someone 2-0 or if you beat someone 2-1 shouldn't matter. Anybody can lose a single match at any point, whether it's from a stupid suicide or being counterpicked to a very disadvantageous counterpick, that is why we play sets. Not taking head to head into account first is basically taking the thing we all strive to achieve (a set win) and placing it behind single matches that could be greatly influenced by our counterpicking system.

I am a huge advocate of

1. Set W/L Ratio
2. Head to Head
3. W/L Ratio of individual games (in event of a 3 way tie where head to head can't solve)

This is simply the most fair way to do it for smash. The number of individual games you win doesn't matter. Losing a set 1-2 is no better than losing a set 0-2. You lost the set. Winning a set 2-0 is no better than winning a set 2-1. You still won the set.

I disagree, at least if the ruleset doesn't include stages which can give a very significant advantage (ie. anything but BF, DL64, FD, FoD, PS, YS). If the game you won isn't for the most part the result of a counterpick, then you have played better than your opponent during this game, and you should get credit for that, even in the final ranking. Also, you mention "stupid suicides", but that is part of the game : you make a mistake, you get punished for that by losing a game.

After some thoughts, I'd tend to agree with Tero's solution :

1. Won/Lost sets ratio
2. Won/Lost games ratio
3. Head to Head results

I still consider that Won/lost game ratio matters more than head-to-head difference because taking into account the individuals isn't my first criteria. When I make a pool, my idea is to see which player will have the most points after playing every game. If you're in a pool with X other people, then the games against all those X people should be given the same credit. Then, if these results are not enough to break ties, focusing on the individuals (and therefore the head-to-head results) is necessary.

I don't understand why some people don't want head-to-head to be the first tiebreaker. Why are we playing the matches? There no correct value judgment on whether or not it's "better" to lose to someone lower or someone higher, so let's be competitive and make the matches matter.

Then let's make the matches matter, let's give some importance to every game you won or lost.

While I disagree with most people who prefer to give more importance to the head-to-head results, I can understand their choice. I don't think there is a good solution for this, but rather more than one acceptable way to solve this issue.
Also, if the ruleset allows stages which cannot be considered neutrals starters, I agree with you guys on the fact that head to head may be more important. However, I don't think that this "******** CP" scenario should even happen in the first place, and with this perspective, I maintain that the game difference should matter more than head-to-head.

If you lost with 2-1 in football the winner still gets 3p and the loser 0p.

True, but when there is a tie in the ranking, the total amount of goal matters more than head-to-head goals (see the World Cup's group rules, for instance).

 

[Plairnkk]

See this debate is where it always comes back to. Which is why it is up to the TO. I will never put single matches above head to head, ever.

 

[Alex Strife]

There is nothing wrong with a debate Jon. Yes it should be up to the TO but the main thing is putting it out there for debate.

The question I have right now about the pools and the "stupid CP" is if we are going to discredit CPs why have them in the game in the first place. They are there to give those players a way to help win and should not the players be rewarded for that? I do not see why not and just disregarding them in the first place. Also, it brings up the idea of what is a "stupid CP" would it be going to FD to cg with marth and be very "gay" or is it RC where you can camp? There are different ways to interpret this and I just feel it should not be done any other way.

Also, the main thing I wanted to get out there is that the Major events should try to be uniform in the Pool decisions because it can help resolve issues of people saying " well at this event I made it out but this one i dont cause of xyz" We want to give players a great experience and the more uniform we are on this stance the better.

 

[Plairnkk]

There is nothing wrong with a debate Jon. Yes it should be up to the TO but the main thing is putting it out there for debate.

The question I have right now about the pools and the "stupid CP" is if we are going to discredit CPs why have them in the game in the first place. They are there to give those players a way to help win and should not the players be rewarded for that? I do not see why not and just disregarding them in the first place. Also, it brings up the idea of what is a "stupid CP" would it be going to FD to cg with marth and be very "gay" or is it RC where you can camp? There are different ways to interpret this and I just feel it should not be done any other way.

Also, the main thing I wanted to get out there is that the Major events should try to be uniform in the Pool decisions because it can help resolve issues of people saying " well at this event I made it out but this one i dont cause of xyz" We want to give players a great experience and the more uniform we are on this stance the better.

No, there is not, but the debate has been had before.

I discredit CP's as an immediate way of deciding who makes it out of pools. Sure they are there to give players a way to help win, but if you don't win the set, then you didn't win ANYTHING. Competitive play is measured in sets, not in individual matches. Sure the player should be rewarded for winning matches, which they may (because 3 way ties are so common) but in the event of a 2 way tie it is LEAGUES more important who won head to head than who took matches off of players.

The two players won the same amount of sets and so whoever won the head to head set moves on. Taking individual GAMES before a head to head SET is undermining the entire concept of tournament play (we play in SETS). So tell me then why in this individual situation are matches more important than sets?




Another point on my end that I haven't even mentioned yet is that using matches before head to head can very often lead to players giving each other matches, especially in more important rounds of pools when it's impossible to get a pool of players who are completely impartial towards one another and the pool has a chance to be really close.

 

[KishPrime]

Plank's way is the same as my way, from what I understand. And he's dead-on.

Game wins should be made as irrelevant as possible, because they are irrelevant in brackets. Sets should be all that matter. In an imperfect world, tiebreakers must be done, and games are the only way to do it in 3-way ties. However, head-to-head is 100X more meaningful because it is a set win, and for crying out loud, one player clearly beat the other. Even if that player lost to a "lower-seeded" player, why the heck would you advance the person that lost to him? Let's just advance the lower-seeded player.

MLG Nationals 2005. I played against 4 people in my pool (there were only 9 people there that year). I won a game against everyone (because I'm awesome), but lost every set. Because they chose to seed according to game ratio, I actually got a 7 seed overall out of nine, which means that I was actually seeded above someone who beat me in a set. You think this makes sense?

 

[AlphaZealot]

1. Set W/L Ratio
2. Head to Head
3. W/L Ratio of individual games (in event of a 3 way tie where head to head can't solve)

This is what I use at my tournaments to.

Sets. If sets are tied with 2 people then go to head to head.
If sets are tied with 3 people then check head to head, if its an A > B > C > A scenario THEN I do wins minus loses as the last check. If its still tied then play RR beween the tied people.

 

[KishPrime]

I use win % over subtraction. There's really no right answer as to whether 6-5 is better than 7-6, so I just pretend like there is.

 

[Alex Strife]

I see it from more a sports perspective where Win/Loss means more than Head to Head. If you have a better record I always felt you should be rewarded with the progression into the next round.

As far as throwing sets we cannot control that and that does cause an issue. It is my nativity that makes me believe everyone is playing to win and not to just make it out.

I think based on that information from this point forward I would adopt more of your mindset plank. My worry is that I do not want to **** people over in anyway. Its stupid to admit but I like to please everyone and I made this and other threads to really make more ppl happy with events I run.

 

[KishPrime]

If it was like sports, than baseball teams could choose what stadium they wanted to play in after each loss.

Counterpicking does not provide a straight win-loss system, it is an inherently biased system. Counting individual wins/losses is simply not the same when the loser receives an advantage in some rounds.

 

[pockyD]

I see it from more a sports perspective where Win/Loss means more than Head to Head. If you have a better record I always felt you should be rewarded with the progression into the next round.

As far as throwing sets we cannot control that and that does cause an issue. It is my nativity that makes me believe everyone is playing to win and not to just make it out.

I think based on that information from this point forward I would adopt more of your mindset plank. My worry is that I do not want to **** people over in anyway. Its stupid to admit but I like to please everyone and I made this and other threads to really make more ppl happy with events I run.

most sports go to h2h results (and often a multitude of other factors) before going to point differential (which is what game count/ratio really is)

nobody gets ****ed over; you can't get in a tie unless you lost a set! you can always avoid tiebreakers by winning

 

[Alex Strife]

Thanks alot for the input guys. It really opened my eyes to a lot. Despite my original feelings I have learned why Plank does it the way he does and I can now agree with him and many others. I will be doing Sets | Head to Head | win loss ratio/points from here on out.

 

[SwiftBass]

so I tried to think of an argument as to why h2h is better than overall records but I feel its all subjective in the big picture. Also this thread's "ruling" seems to be in my favor so.....


=)