Wait what is this thread even about

[Corpsecreate]

Hiyo, I've been working on a program to estimate the time a tournament will take given a number of entrants and number of tvs. As such, one number I need is missing and can be best obtained through real life tournaments although since the number will vary from one tourney to another, it would be best to have many of these numbers and then take an average.

As such, I request that someone with a stopwatch can time the length of a tournament (singles or doubles) starting from the moment the TO announces the first match to be played and ending at the moment the grand finals ends. The 'entrants' for doubles is to be considered as the number of teams, not the number of individual players.

If you could display your results in this fashion:

Tournament Type (Singles or Doubles) = <hours : minutes>
Entrants = <number of entrants>
TVs = <number of tvs>

Example:

Singles = 2:33
Entrants = 16
TVs = 5

The more results we get, the better the estimate will be ;D Thanks in advance!

 

[Zxv]

What's your degree? You seem to use Maths a lot.

Last Boost I was at... Roughly 7 TVs, 2-3 with Melee.

Tournament started at 11 or so, ended about 11. I'll get more accurate results from TII2, now that I know you're interested.

 

[Corpsecreate]

I was doing a Bachelor of Science (Applied Mathematics and Statistics) but have been interested in maths for as long as I can remember.

The time would preferably have only about a 5 minute error range. If a tourney went for 1hr 21 mins, saying it went for 1hr 30 wouldnt be accurate enough.

 

[Zxv]

Okay, I'll be as accurate as possible with the next tourney.

From first match -> End of Grand Finals, right.

 

[Rad]

I am pretty sure that this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

I'm sorry.

 

[Technodeath]

Kinda reminds me of Sydney, Rad.

 

[Rad]

So obviously my criticism of a horrible idea is actually a criticism of Perth. And you guys wonder why no one can take you seriously at the moment?

(not pete though)

 

[Corpsecreate]

I am pretty sure that this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry, whats so stupid about it? Now that I have looked into this it may very well change the formation of the Robocop bracket/pools. I dont see how this is stupid?

 

[Rad]

That's worrying.

 

[EverAlert]

I don't think this is stupid, but I do think you're wasting a lot of effort when we already know a ****ton about tournament metrics. Visit the Tournament Discussion board every once in a while, also AIB.

 

[Corpsecreate]

Will do. I'll do that now actually thanks for alerting me to it e_alert (see what i did there?). Also if my effort was in fact wasted, it wouldnt make a difference at this poiint, ive done most of it already and it is basically done.

 

[Technodeath]

So obviously my criticism of a horrible idea is actually a criticism of Perth. And you guys wonder why no one can take you seriously at the moment?

(not pete though)

Hah.

I was just being stupid, as obvious as it is.

I don't have any hate on the east. It's a wonder you took what I said seriously.

All good?

 

[swordsaint]

You're gonna presume something like what? Everyone always plays their matches as soon as possible? You can't do that. Sometimes people are stuck playing in doubles while a singles match is waiting for them and vice versa. There's always gonna be something that slows down matches etc.

I'm with most people, it's a wasted effort.

 

[Corpsecreate]

The whole point of getting the ACTUAL time for multiple tournaments and averaging them out is to average out the 'wasted' time without having to time what that wasted time is. Though a good point and something I should clarify on, if theres 2 tournaments running at the same time (doubles and singles) then the time you get wont count for anything since they will clash with eachother.

 

[undead_moose]

Assist this. (grabs crotch)

 

[Sirias]

SHAMONA!
HEEE HEEE~
AHHHHHHH!!!

Look, Corpse, it's nice to see you trying to help with the brackets, but whatever outcome you have it to be, it won't HELP anything.
It will all be an assumption, anyway, just lots of assumptions based on whatever program you're trying to use to formulate some sort of result based on past tournaments.
All tournaments run differently, though, an some TOs behave differently.
I think the only way to get any sort of accurate estimate is to only use major's as a source, not just any and every tournament.
And even then, it wouldn't matter, because having an estimate of the length of time it takes for the tournament to finish -> end doesn't mean anything because it WILL start and it WILL end.
The only mishaps that could possibly lead to the tournament NOT ending is if we, for some reason, don't play our matches at all.
And that's relatively UNLIKELY because you would just get DQ'd if you take too long to have your match.

So.
Again.
This is pointless.
Though, nonetheless, a nice effort.

 

[Technodeath]

I like you the more I see you post Sirias. or Kas I think it was. :D

I'm sure Cao knows what he's doing.

 

[Corpsecreate]

No, this is not at all useless. I understand bracket theory a lot more now than I used to and it is certainly not useless. CAO suggested that we have 12 pools and a 24 man bracket, I have concluded that this setup is worse in every way compared to a 32 man bracket and 16 pools REGARDLESS OF TIME ESTIMATIONS. So it definetely was not a wasted effort.

Not only that, but the purpose of having an estimate is to see how big you can make your bracket and still have it within your time frame.

 

[Sirias]

I don't mean to look down upon your theories or anything, but the fact of the matter is CAO has quite a lot of experience in creating, hyping, holding, maintaining and finishing tournaments, be they minor or major, in Australia and America (as I'm led to believe) and therefore knows what he is doing.

I'm sure we can devise estimates of the time it'll take for the brackets just based on averaging all major tournaments in Australia, we don't need a program to do anything for us.
Also, if I recall, CAO hasn't asked for any help, nor has needed any, in formulating an estimate of how long said tournament will take, or any before, and the only help he does need is just more TVs and consoles. Or maybe even more TOs or just helpers in that sense.

'Not only that, but the purpose... etc'
Yes, I know that, but if we are behind in schedule then all we have to do is just speed up matches and not be lenient.
I would imagine we have a schedule, as in... 8 AM start, 8:30/9 AM pools, 11/12 AM brackets etc.
We would just stick to that, and if we are ahead then we are fine, if we are behind then we can take measures to help with the process of the tournament keeping to the time constraints already in place.

Also, yes, ok, it's not useless, but all it is is a NICE THOUGHT to have, but it's not -necessary-.
Also, it's not hard to find past tournaments, so you can gather the information yourself if you really want to go through with this.
And, again, for the upcoming minor tournaments, the data won't be very significant, if accurate at all with making even a guess as to how the outcome of RC will be.

edit:

Oh, and...
<3 Techno. c:

 

[Rad]

Stop being polite with words like 'nice thought.' This is a complete and utter waste of time, and is in no way, shape, or form a good idea.

Corpse, if you truly think you 'understand bracket theory,' then I have to ask: are your parents siblings?

 

[C~Dog]

Rad, are you my new hero.

 

[Vyse]

This vein of tournament theory has been taken up once before.

I remember somebody coming up with something of a magic number a long time ago for Melee, so I'll try and dig up that info for you. But I think it needs to be adjusted for Brawl.

EDIT: Ah, nevermind. You found it already:
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=124132&page=2

@Rad/others: He's asking for help, not an opinion. Look at ZXV's post and try that or leave the thread alone.

 

[Corpsecreate]

@Kas

I know CAO is an excellent TO. I dont doubt this one bit. At the same time however, I also know that he hasnt looked into this bracket formation stuff as much as I have so when it comes to formatting brackets/pools I <should> know better in terms of time/fairness. And I cant use past tournament results because nowhere have I seen a <time for whole tournament to complete from start to end> that has been timed in the way that I mentioned in the original post.

@Rad

If you can tell me why making a large scale major australian tournament most optimal in terms of time and fairness is a waste of time then I will close this thread and be done with it. I cant see how its a waste of time at all.

@Vyse

Yeah, the number would be different for brawl, atm im looking at roughly 5.4 as the number.

 

[Sirias]

Well you're using exact times to make a rather broad estimate, so why not just use past tournaments?
They'd all start and end at the designated times anyway, give or take an hour.
All QLD tournaments start about 30 minutes later than they're supposed to start and usually end 30 minutes early or on time.

I don't think you need to analyse something so deeply to fully grasp it when it's not a complex idea (brackets/pools/tournament times).
You wouldn't be making anything optimal...
...
Actually, since I recall you being unable to accept that your way of thinking isn't always the most rational, I'm going to stop here.
If you believe it will be helpful, then by all means, go ahead, and if it just so happens that you do manage to do something useful, then I'll be happy to say I was wrong and you were right.

Also, Rad, being blunt with someone isn't always the best way to get your point across, especially when all you do is say one thing without any facts or reasons behind your statement/s.
That being said, sometimes it is best to be a total anal face to help them realize that they're being completely stubborn.
Still, tact is always a good thing, and besides, IRL I'm the most tactless person you'll ever meet, so I have to be civilized somewhere, lololo.

HYAKURETSUKYAKU~!

 

[Fuzz]

So obviously my criticism of a horrible idea is actually a criticism of Perth. And you guys wonder why no one can take you seriously at the moment?

(not pete though)

(not pete though)

(not pete though)

Thats worrying

Also I dont understand where the needless antagonism is coming from. It may not necesarrily be the most important feature of a program but adding an estimate for the finishing time of the tournament taking everything into account in the best possible way isnt a horrible idea. Its more like implementing a nice-- although not completely neccesarry-- feature.

Nothing wrong with trying to make things better. I dont see what the problem is

 

[Isorropia]

I also know that he hasnt looked into this bracket formation stuff as much as I have so when it comes to formatting brackets/pools I <should> know better in terms of time/fairness.

See here's the thing: after looking into bracket formation for a relatively short amount of time, you already think you've got a leg up on tournament organisers who've been doing it for a long time. In reality there are factors which you've undoubtedly not factored into/overstated/understated/realised the existence of, which frequent tournament organisers likely understand on an intuitive level due to experience.

As others have said, feel free to do as you will, if you want to plug some numbers into formulas go ahead, but please don't then start trumpeting those conclusions around as though you've discovered something mystical which everyone else is oblivious to.

What I'm referring to of course is this:

Now that I have looked into this it may very well change the formation of the Robocop bracket/pools.

Just kinda makes you seem arrogant, that's all.

 

[Corpsecreate]

See here's the thing: after looking into bracket formation for a relatively short amount of time, you already think you've got a leg up on tournament organisers who've been doing it for a long time.

please don't then start trumpeting those conclusions around as though you've discovered something mystical which everyone else is oblivious to.

I dont know where you get the idea that ive been looking at this for a short time.

Actually I have found something mystical, if I havent and if everything you know about bracket formation is the same as what I know then you would be able to answer these questions correctly.

Which of these takes the quickest?

1. 32 People with 16 TVs or 24 People with 12 TVs?
2. 24 People with 12 TV's or 24 People with 9 TV's?
3. 32 People with 12 TV's or 36 People with 16 TV's?
4. 12 Pools with 5 people in each pool or 6 pools with 10 people in each pool?
5. 12 Pools with 24 TV's or 16 Pools with 24 TV's?
5. 12 Pools with 6 people each and 36 TV's or 12 Pools with 6 people each and 48 TV's?
6. Does the order of who plays who in pools make a difference to the time it takes to complete?
7. Does the order of who plays who in a Bracket make a difference to the time it takes to complete?
8. If I have a 70 man DE bracket, how many TVs do I need to have the tournament finish the quickest?

If you can answer all of those correctly then you know as much as I do

And whoever said this wasnt complex definetely has not looked into it properly.

 

[Nova]

My head hurts.

 

[oldmanondorf_]

maybe corpse should just be posting this on.. mathboards

 

[Corpsecreate]

:D

If only they ran smash tournaments too huh?

 

[Pete278]

Wait, mathboards is real? **** this place, I'm going there.

 

[Sirias]

1. 32 People with 16 TVs or 24 People with 12 TVs?
Theoretically they should take the same amount of time. But since there are more TVs, consoles and people, there are obviously more factors to take into account, so realistically 24 with 12 is quicker.

2. 24 People with 12 TV's or 24 People with 9 TV's?
I don't know if this is just an insult to everyone's intellect, so lol.
Although, with 12 TVs there could be a possible explosion from too many TVs on too few power points. c:

3. 32 People with 12 TV's or 36 People with 16 TV's?
36 with 16, considering 32 to 12 is 11 to 4, as opposed to 9 to 4. GG bra. Common sense.

4. 12 Pools with 5 people in each pool or 6 pools with 10 people in each pool?
Assuming it's round robbing, then that would be...
5 x 2 (number of matches in pools (assuming round robin)) = 10 x 7 (number of minutes for matches + intervals) = 70 minutes
6 x 2 = 12 x 7 = 84. So theoretically 12 pools of 5 is faster.

5. 12 Pools with 24 TV's or 16 Pools with 24 TV's?
Wouldn't it not matter because you have to play everyone once in your pool anyway? So some people would end up having to wait anyway. Plus we don't know how many people are in each pool. Lack of data bra.

5. 12 Pools with 6 people each and 36 TV's or 12 Pools with 6 people each and 48 TV's?
Same as above.

6. Does the order of who plays who in pools make a difference to the time it takes to complete?
Yes, lol.
6 entrants = A, B, C, D, E, F all have to face each other, fastest way to get by it would be A v B, C v D, E v F and interchange to A v D, B v E, C v F etc...
As opposed to all on one, and going like that.

7. Does the order of who plays who in a Bracket make a difference to the time it takes to complete?
No.
You only have 1 opponent to face and then go up, as opposed to facing everyone else at the same time.

8. If I have a 70 man DE bracket, how many TVs do I need to have the tournament finish the quickest?
35.
That way everyone can face off in the first matches, then it doesn't matter afterwards because you only need a declining amount after the first matches.

Did I get it all right?

 

[Corpsecreate]

1. 32 People with 16 TVs or 24 People with 12 TVs?
2. 24 People with 12 TV's or 24 People with 9 TV's?
3. 32 People with 12 TV's or 36 People with 16 TV's?
4. 12 Pools with 5 people in each pool or 6 pools with 10 people in each pool?
5. 12 Pools with 24 TV's or 16 Pools with 24 TV's?
6. 12 Pools with 6 people each and 36 TV's or 12 Pools with 6 people each and 48 TV's?
7. Does the order of who plays who in pools make a difference to the time it takes to complete?
8. Does the order of who plays who in a Bracket make a difference to the time it takes to complete?
9. If I have a 70 man DE bracket, how many TVs do I need to have the tournament finish the quickest?

1. Same Length of Time.
2. Same Length of Time.
3. Same Length of Time.
4. 12 Pools with 5 People
5. 16 Pools with 24 TV's.
6. Same Length of Time.
7. Yes it makes a difference.
8. It makes a difference in DE, not SE.
9. 25 TV's or 30 TV's (this is the only one im not 100% sure on).

You didnt get them all right

 

[Isorropia]

Basically it boils down to a critical mass of tvs - if there are enough tvs to run all matches of the first round concurrently then no extra tvs will help the tournament run faster. And, since as a bracket progresses the results of previous matches must be waited for a tournament with more people but the same number of tvs can in theory run in the same amount of time.

With pools you want a lot of small ones, if you have 10 people in a pool theres uh...a lotta matches to play (10C2 and all that jazz). The order matters in pools (if you have multiple tvs) because you can end up with 1 person needing to play all of their matches, but they can only play one match at a time etc etc.

Similar for DE brackets you don't wanna stall it out until one person has consecutive matches to play. That's moreso an issue for when you tell people to play on the day than it is for theorising the brackets in the first place, but really factors on the day will play a larger factor in how long it takes.

As for 70, eh, like I said....enough tvs to run the first round concurrently should get the fastest outcome. Whether that's efficient or not is another story.

 

[Sirias]

That's ridiculous.

1 - Yer.
2 - No matter how it is, 12 TVs is faster. Even if it was SE in bracket, you would have all 24 people playing on the 12 TVs, if there are only 9 then you would have 3 pairs of people waiting.
3 - Ya, my bad.
4 - Ya.
5 - Ya, my bad.
6 - Ya.
7 - Ya.
8 - Um, no. Whether it's SE or DE you still have to play that person next, so there's no alternative. You must play your next partner. Having a loser's bracket won't change anything other than having a losers bracket. I.E - There are 8 entrants, 4 TVs. AvB. CvD, EvF, GvH, A C E G wins. AvC, EvG, (BvC, FvH) A E (B F) wins. AvE, (BvF), A (B) wins. (AvB, A wins) That's including losers bracket (in brackets). Even if I took them out, it wouldn't make a difference, other than B not having a chance.
Maybe in a much larger scale I could see the fault of what I'm seeing it as, but as that it looks totally wrong to say that it would make a difference in DE, or SE, they are the same thing, except DE just has a losers bracket, but in brackets you must only play 1 person before going onto the next person, there is nothing else you could do.
9 - Again, no, because in the first match in the bracket with 70 people you would need to have 35 TVs to get all the first matches underway, and the second matches as well, then it wouldn't matter.

 

[SummonerAU]

Sorry Kas, with the 70, you've going to have think about byes since you can only run brackets that have 2^n entries without byes.

EDIT: Pretty sure you've missed byes in a few places
EDIT2: TIO is saying 26 TVs for 70 players first round of a DE bracket

 

[Corpsecreate]

with 70 people you have to consider byes. There will not be 35 matches at once in the first round.

(bit busy right now, will be back soon)

 

[Sirias]

I don't know how it works.
So I give up. XD
But I see... so it would have to be...
2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128.
Like that, yeah?
Oh, well, in that case, byes it is, then.
My bad.

 

[Zxv]

Math prevails...!

 

[MTGod]

Trick questions are the reason I never liked Maths...

Re: question 8 - I think Sam's reasoning behind it making a difference in DE bracket is because the winner's bracket proceeds faster than the loser's bracket as the loser's bracket has twice as many rounds. I can't imagine it myself, but I guess to maximise efficiency it'd be best to do one Winner's round, then 2 loser's rounds before doing the next winner's round etc., to avoid creating a "bottleneck" where one match not being played prevents future matches which are waiting on that result. This sorta happened at the last tourney on Sunday, where only one match was able to be played at a time from round 2 onwards because there was one winner's bracket match that was holding everything up...

Still, this can happen if there's a tight match that goes for 30 mins, when every other match is going for 10-15 lol... Moreover I'm not sure if this actually affects anything anyway, but it's the only possible reason I see.

Stupid maths...