Jump to content

BBF challenge event #3

frank0

By frank0
in BBO Forum Events

 Share

Recommended Posts

diana_eva

diana_eva

Posted
Posted

LOL I assigned QF and R16 losers the same score..

 

And NO, the ones knocked out sooner do not get higher carry-forward, SOME do SOME do not.. I explained the rationale behind this tournament - it is NOT a different tournament & the primary players are the people who lost in the group stage. You may agree or not - you cannot call something I did "not rational or not fair" based on your logic without using anything as a base other than your personal opinion.

 

You really need to read what I was saying and learn how to look at the numbers.. You bring the same thing again and again in different ways showing that (a) you cannot process what I am saying (b) you do not read.. Sorry but this really really annoys me..

 

You get annoyed too easily. I'd suggest taking Gordon more seriously. And you owe him an apology, can't you carry a constructive conversation without getting all worked up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 281
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

antonylee
antonylee

I'm already ahead of you :-) http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/75135-bbf-challenge-event-3/page__view__findpost__p__900629 (1-3 against frank0)

olegru
olegru

Sorry for oftopic. When I just moved to New York from Russia and got my first job here I had to send email to several people about errors in script I found. Instead of word "erroneous" I typed "eroge

nige1
nige1

Well played, Olegru! Congratulations!   And Thank you, Frank0 and ovnclylmz

ovncylmz

ovncylmz

Posted
Posted

You get annoyed too easily. I'd suggest taking Gordon more seriously. And you owe him an apology, can't you carry a constructive conversation without getting all worked up?

 

Diana - Please read all the discussion (more than 6-7 posts, what he says and what I say "constructively" etc..) and see how much I tried to explain what the goal of this event was and how I did all calculations..

 

I think completely the opposite - I think that he owes me an apology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ovncylmz

ovncylmz

Posted
Posted

This is the first version of the tournament (but 3rd in total) we tried to put a good structure to make people play a good event competitive (and have a system for masterpoint awards, we call them CP etc for future seeding purposes) and also have fun even if they lose at some point. It worked quite nice so far - I may be biased since I organize but I think it goes well. Thanks to everybody!

 

The main event is the event which started with groups and continued with R16, QF - and now in SF and F stages. This is what competitive people care - think this as the World Championships.

 

There is a side event what I called Consolidation for a while then corrected to Consolation (thanks to barmar!) which is an event for mainly just for fun. Note that this event is not another top-level event such as World Open Pairs or something - it is clearly inferior, some people do not even have a chance to attend it/or have no benefit of attending it. It was just for keeping people who lost busy while waiting for the next event - so (1) it is easy to collect registrations for the next event easily since people will be around (2) this will hopefully keep them competitive in the group stage even they had no chance.

 

I chose to use carryover (1/2 of group VP) for the people who lost in the group stage for reason (2) above. Since we were late and the number of attendants was very low, we had to start little bit late, therefore some of R16 losers also had a chance to start at the beginning (original plan for them to add them after R2 of the Swiss). I then intentionally choose a low carryover for the R16 drop-ins: I placed them into the 4th, 5th, 6th places out of 8 players. Because these guys already played another match and lost (and got 1CP for seeding) and the target group for this tournament was/is "the people who lost in the group stage". In an ideal world, we could have waited and then after R2 of the Swiss added these R16 drop-ins with a fixed adjustment, but of course where to place them is completely arbitrary and this is not something serious, we don't need any detailed math or anything to figure out the best way. I did the same thing for QF drop-ins. Placed them 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th out of 12 players. Please note that I got the biggest damage here as the winner of my group, losing with a low margin etc. But again, the Consolation is a "bridge party" rather than the championship, so I don't care - there is no fair/unfair/rational/irrational, there is just my personal adjustment which I call a good way, you call a bad way - but it is my party so this is how I organized it.

 

So I am open to any discussions for the format of the main event or the consolation event - we even had a post before the tournament for these suggestions and did our best to use most of them in our structure (Thanks those who wrote there and helped us!), however I really do not appreciate (and get annoyed, yes get annoyed by) random comments without any real base (but fully personal opinions) and more random comments without reading what I am writing as the response (or not processing) for the Consolation tournament.

 

So I apologize you folks since I (and some others) make you read some irrelevant discussion here.

 

I also wish the best of luck to our Semi Finalists and Finalists in the Final-Four!

 

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
smerriman

smerriman

Posted
Posted

I have to agree with gordontd's main point. If you go further in the main event than someone, you should be ranked higher than them, regardless of what happens after that. Anything else does not make logical sense.

 

To me the simplest way to achieve this is to not mix losers from the group stage and losers from the knockouts. Just have the losers from each knockout stage continue on in their own knockout bracket.

 

So the losers from the semi play off for 3rd and 4th; the losers from quarters pair up - the two winners playing off for 5th and 6th, the two losers playing off for 7th and 8th, etc.

 

This means everyone who makes the knockout will end up playing exactly the same number of games, so keeps them interested, while the group stage can have their own separate competition to determine the lower rankings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ovncylmz

ovncylmz

Posted
Posted

I have to agree with gordontd's main point. If you go further in the main event than someone, you should be ranked higher than them, regardless of what happens after that. Anything else does not make logical sense.

 

To me the simplest way to achieve this is to not mix losers from the group stage and losers from the knockouts. Just have the losers from each knockout stage continue on in their own knockout bracket.

 

So the losers from the semi play off for 3rd and 4th; the losers from quarters pair up - the two winners playing off for 5th and 6th, the two losers playing off for 7th and 8th, etc.

 

This means everyone who makes the knockout will end up playing exactly the same number of games, so keeps them interested, while the group stage can have their own separate competition to determine the lower rankings.

 

Smerriman, I like your idea, however there are several points/problems that I should clarify:

 

1) The standings and seeding points are based only on the main event:

--1st place: 7CP

--2nd place: 5CP

--3rd/4th places: 3CP

--5th/8th places: 2CP

--9th/16th places: 1CP

Only addition is to give:

--Winner of consolation: 1CP

That is why this event is called "consolation", it does not rank anybody. For example, I lost in QF - I finish 5/8th. None of the group stage losers will be above me, our Consolation performance is irrelevant.

 

2) There are some people who lose in R16, QF who are not interested in playing more. I was not very interested for example, but just played it to make the field an even number. It is difficult to force somebody to play until the last day if they don't want, so this idea may not work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cherdano

cherdano

Posted
Posted

While we're waiting for the result of the last and the most important match, please leave your comment here if you have any feedback of this tournament or suggestion of the next one.

I'd love to have a MP challenge. (Though I may have to miss the next one anyway, depending on the schedule.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
antonylee

antonylee

Posted
Posted

I also think a BAM challenge would be nice. (I think the randomness of GIB would be slightly less of an issue.)

 

Despite the criticisms that were posted I think the organizers did a good job (and thank them for that), and liked the format (especially now that I won the Swiss :-)). I *still* think that later drop-ins should get a number of VPs based on their group stage score (say, capped to the current VP of the first placed player in the Swiss, to keep things reasonable), but don't feel strongly about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...