BBF challenge event 6 format poll

[frank0]

Let's start discussing event 6 (Alert again: this is not a registration page). Beside those votes you can make your comments here.

[Phil]

I think its time for a BAM.

 

A well played IMP match will have a lot of pushes, but if you outplay a weaker opponent (or someone having an off day) it probably does not matter what the format is.

 

Judging from my fourth quarter with SFI, you can get hosed badly when robots go wild. If this happens, I'd rather have it cost me one board than 15 IMPs.

[sfi]

I think its time for a BAM.

 

A well played IMP match will have a lot of pushes, but if you outplay a weaker opponent (or someone having an off day) it probably does not matter what the format is.

 

Judging from my fourth quarter with SFI, you can get hosed badly when robots go wild. If this happens, I'd rather have it cost me one board than 15 IMPs.

 

Agreed. I've had several sets determined largely by who is on the right side of the robot doing something ridiculous. That wasn't even the only double-digit swing the robot created in that match.

 

P.S. I really like the current group format. Everyone gets a reasonable number of games and one bad set doesn't knock you out.

[smerriman]

Might be better if the poll allowed you to select multiple options rather than have to pick only one of the 4 play formats.

 

Regarding IMP v BAM - over the 64 boards I played in pool play last event, about 40% ended in different contracts between the two tables. This isn't unusual; I virtually always try to make the 'correct' bid according to GIB, and am always very surprised when so many auctions turn out differently due to 'unusual' bids at the other table.

 

In IMPs, I can ignore the bidding at the other table, and try to play the hand optimally. At BAM, if 40% of the time we're going to be in different contracts, it seems like a large proportion of hands are going to end up completely random, since going for an 80% overtrick may well be the wrong strategy. In a daylong MP tourney, the play is much more clear.

 

Perhaps switching to BAM will change the way everyone else bids to be more 'normal'. If so, I'm fine with it. Otherwise, I don't have a clue how BAM could work.

[Stephen Tu]

Does everyone like the current group sizes or should we have fewer groups, more matches, longer group stage? I feel like seeding the KO based on the group results is a bit random with the current number of matches. But maybe randomness is fine.

[sfi]

Does everyone like the current group sizes or should we have fewer groups, more matches, longer group stage? I feel like seeding the KO based on the group results is a bit random with the current number of matches. But maybe randomness is fine.

 

There is certainly an element of randomness coming out of the group stages, but I suspect that's hard to avoid with 16 board matches. It feels long enough that if you play reasonably well you can reliably make it into the knockout stage, which is the most important criterion.

 

That being said, a longer group stage may work well. TBH, anything that avoids a Swiss-style format is a good thing, and the details mostly determine how many matches everyone plays before people start being eliminated.

[gordontd]

There is certainly an element of randomness coming out of the group stages, but I suspect that's hard to avoid with 16 board matches. It feels long enough that if you play reasonably well you can reliably make it into the knockout stage, which is the most important criterion.

 

That being said, a longer group stage may work well. TBH, anything that avoids a Swiss-style format is a good thing, and the details mostly determine how many matches everyone plays before people start being eliminated.

What about a league format, playing longer matches against everyone in your division, with promotion & relegation?

[barmar]

What do people think of using a daylong-style tournament for the qualifying round, rather than splitting into groups? We can increase the length of it to multiple days to be more accomodating of people's schedules.

[cherdano]

What about a league format, playing longer matches against everyone in your division, with promotion & relegation?

I anticipate dropping in for about every other BBF challenge. I wouldn't play in a league format.

It's also not welcoming to newcomers.

[Phil]

What do people think of using a daylong-style tournament for the qualifying round, rather than splitting into groups? We can increase the length of it to multiple days to be more accomodating of people's schedules.

 

Dont care for it. The attraction of challenges is playing whenever I want.

[smerriman]

What do people think of using a daylong-style tournament for the qualifying round, rather than splitting into groups? We can increase the length of it to multiple days to be more accomodating of people's schedules.

I think that's a great idea.

 

Phil - this seems to make it easier to play when you want, not the opposite. You can drop in and out of a daylong tournament just like a challenge.

[barmar]

Phil - this seems to make it easier to play when you want, not the opposite. You can drop in and out of a daylong tournament just like a challenge.

Right. And as I said, we can extend it to multiple days. So we could have a "weeklong" tourney, with something like 24 or 48 boards.

[Mkgnao]

What do people think of using a daylong-style tournament for the qualifying round, rather than splitting into groups? We can increase the length of it to multiple days to be more accomodating of people's schedules.

 

I like this, as long as we keep on rotating the original and new format(s) to keep things spicy, if we include the daylong-style tournament to include the entire field in ideally 1 group or perhaps the old multiple groups format. My idea (and perhaps it's exactly the same as you're intending, I'm not sure) is to let all contestants play the same 100 boards. The best 16 go on the next stage. This works like a charm for creating reasonable IMP and MP results and prevents the randomness of BAM smerriman was afraid of earlier in this thread.

 

On the IMPs/MPs discussion: I'm strongly in favor of giving MPs (BAM) a chance. I think the 5:1 challenge event ratio (IMPs:MPs) is a bit ludicrous and an example of the tyranny of the majority. (60-70% voted for IMPs in each poll, so IMPs won every time until this poll.) We all know GIB isn't able to bid intelligently. He's hardly able to signal at all, but at least we are all more or less able to count. That's why I support a format driven by skill in card play (MPs) than a format consisting of throwing random darts at a board aka bidding with GIB (IMPs).

[Phil]

I think that's a great idea.

 

Phil - this seems to make it easier to play when you want, not the opposite. You can drop in and out of a daylong tournament just like a challenge.

 

Sure I can, but I have to play on a chosen day. With challenges, I can play as frequently as I want over the course of a few days.

 

By the way, can we get BBO to allow us to play multiple quarters prior to our opponent completing a given segment? This would also move things along.

[smerriman]

Sure I can, but I have to play on a chosen day.

You missed the bit about extending it to run over a longer period :)

[Phil]

You missed the bit about extending it to run over a longer period :)

 

Yes, I took "daylong" literally.

[frank0]

Summary of discussion so far:

 

MP, non-best hand

 

Consider larger group if we're going to play the same format

 

Consider different format (suggested by gordontd or barmar)

 

 

 

My personal thought: I think if BBO can organize some challenge tournament of the format (suggested by gordontd or barmar), it will be much more efficient and can eventually replace BBF challenge event. Right now there are a few multi-day tournaments, but still quite short for a large field (still 800+ people last day).

[sfi]

Before looking to change the tournament format, it is probably worth identifying the problem you are trying to solve. The round-robin format has received extremely strong support in the past two polls in addition to this one, so it's not clear what its perceived deficiencies are.

[barmar]

Before looking to change the tournament format, it is probably worth identifying the problem you are trying to solve. The round-robin format has received extremely strong support in the past two polls in addition to this one, so it's not clear what its perceived deficiencies are.

I'm addressing two issues:

 

1. The players are split into groups, instead of everyone competing together for a place in the KO.

 

2. Waiting around for your opponents to accept and play the challenges.

[Phil]

I'm addressing two issues:

 

1. The players are split into groups, instead of everyone competing together for a place in the KO.

 

2. Waiting around for your opponents to accept and play the challenges.

 

#2 can be mitigated by a) BBO altering the (questionable?) rule that you cant start playing your own challenge or b) adding each other as a friend.

[barmar]

#2 can be mitigated by a) BBO altering the (questionable?) rule that you cant start playing your own challenge or b) adding each other as a friend.

True. In the first challenge I tried adding all my group members as friends. They didn't add me back, so no go.

 

I consider my first point more significant. Why artificially split into groups when we can compete all together? If we make it a weeklong we can have plenty of boards so the results should be pretty accurate.

[Phil]

True. In the first challenge I tried adding all my group members as friends. They didn't add me back, so no go.

 

I consider my first point more significant. Why artificially split into groups when we can compete all together? If we make it a weeklong we can have plenty of boards so the results should be pretty accurate.

 

Are you thinking some giant RR? Or Swiss? Or just randomly playing available opponents?

[barmar]

Are you thinking some giant RR? Or Swiss? Or just randomly playing available opponents?

They're just like robot duplicate, except you don't have to play at the same time as everyone else. You can drop in and out any time, like the challenges. At the end, all the players are ranked. We'd then take the top 16 and they'd advance to the KO stage.

 

Play in one to see what they're like. We run 3 free daylong tourneys every day: MP, IMP, Total Points.

[cherdano]

I like the weeklong tournament. Could even be 2-week long as far as I am concerned.

[barmar]

I like the weeklong tournament. Could even be 2-week long as far as I am concerned.

Maybe even scrap the whole KO stage, and just run a monthlong with hundreds of boards. :)

 

The problem with this is that we don't currently provide a way to see the running standings. I don't think players would like the idea of not knowing how they're doing for several weeks. We're planning on improvements to these tournament types. We've already run several multi-day survivor tourneys, where each day qualifies the top N% from the previous day. We're looking into adding carryover, like most multi-day F2F tournaments do.