Second Singleton Ultimate Draft Matches by Round and Results
- Thread starter Ransac
- Start date
Spidey: Melkor should be listed higher than me, since he has a higher match winning %.
My idea of the order of ranking and tie-breaking was like this:
1. Match winning %
2. Game winning %
3. Head-to-head
These three scenarios should be enough to establish position without resulting in any ties (unless a draw occurs).
Ransac, cpa trash man
My idea of the order of ranking and tie-breaking was like this:
1. Match winning %
2. Game winning %
3. Head-to-head
These three scenarios should be enough to establish position without resulting in any ties (unless a draw occurs).
Ransac, cpa trash man
M
Modus Pwnens
Guest
Rankings are based primarily on match points (ie, you get 3 points if you win, 1 for a tie and 0 if you lose). If those points are the same for one or more people, tiebreakers come into play.
First we look at the Opponent Match Win % (close, but no cigar for Ransac
), which basically means that the person whose opponents have the most points, had the hardest time getting his points (because his opponents are better), thus stands higher in the ranking.
If this number is the same as well, we turn to Player Game Win %, which is the amount of games you've won, divided by the number of games you played in total.
Should this be the same, we take the average Opponent Game Win %, which is similar to the second tiebreaker, but is calculated over the games of your opponents.
In all cases, the higher the number, the higher your rank.
First we look at the Opponent Match Win % (close, but no cigar for Ransac
), which basically means that the person whose opponents have the most points, had the hardest time getting his points (because his opponents are better), thus stands higher in the ranking.If this number is the same as well, we turn to Player Game Win %, which is the amount of games you've won, divided by the number of games you played in total.
Should this be the same, we take the average Opponent Game Win %, which is similar to the second tiebreaker, but is calculated over the games of your opponents.
In all cases, the higher the number, the higher your rank.
I have intentionally dismissed Opp. Win % ever since the beginning. The issue is that we really can't use the Opponent winning percentages.... since each of us are facing the exact same opponents.
Match winning % will be essentially the same as number of wins when it's all said and done (the more matches you win, the higher your % will be anyway), but I like the idea of the winning percentage better since it takes care of the issue of potential ties (6-0-1 > 6-1-0). The likelihood of multiple players with the same record seems high, so the individual game winning record would be next (gives 2-0 match wins and 0-2 match losses more weight than 2-1 and 1-2). Should these still result in a tie in two players, the head-to-head matchup-up would be the end all be all.
Ransac, cpa trash man
Match winning % will be essentially the same as number of wins when it's all said and done (the more matches you win, the higher your % will be anyway), but I like the idea of the winning percentage better since it takes care of the issue of potential ties (6-0-1 > 6-1-0). The likelihood of multiple players with the same record seems high, so the individual game winning record would be next (gives 2-0 match wins and 0-2 match losses more weight than 2-1 and 1-2). Should these still result in a tie in two players, the head-to-head matchup-up would be the end all be all.
Ransac, cpa trash man
M
Modus Pwnens
Guest
I'm not sure if it's smart for me to agree on this, but I understand your reasoning
When we dismiss the similar results that would be gotten from OMW and OGW, we're stuck with player game wins, and I feel this should indeed weigh heavier than head-to-head matchup. Given the fact that no game can end in a tie because there is no time-limit, I'm willing to accept the head-to-head tiebreaker, yet only if PGW are exactly the same
All of this is assuming you mean that 2-0 is better than a 2-1 victory, and 1-2 is better than a 0-2 defeat, which is fairly obvious, yet not directly what you stated, so I'm just clearing it up =)
Looking at the current standings, the only way I see a tie coming up would be me winning from Melkor, and I'm far from sure that's a likely result, unless I lose to Mooseman, in which case PGW will be enough to break the tie between me and Turgy.
Oh well, let's just wait and see what happens eh
When we dismiss the similar results that would be gotten from OMW and OGW, we're stuck with player game wins, and I feel this should indeed weigh heavier than head-to-head matchup. Given the fact that no game can end in a tie because there is no time-limit, I'm willing to accept the head-to-head tiebreaker, yet only if PGW are exactly the same
All of this is assuming you mean that 2-0 is better than a 2-1 victory, and 1-2 is better than a 0-2 defeat, which is fairly obvious, yet not directly what you stated, so I'm just clearing it up =)
Looking at the current standings, the only way I see a tie coming up would be me winning from Melkor, and I'm far from sure that's a likely result, unless I lose to Mooseman, in which case PGW will be enough to break the tie between me and Turgy.
Oh well, let's just wait and see what happens eh
I have no idea what those abbreviations are, but we're not strictly doing match points the way Modus explained three posts ago, are we? We're just doing straight win-lose records. Based on that, I've always thought that a person with more wins is ranked higher, despite winning %'s.
If somehow we're translating the win-lose records into the match points, we'd need another chart to show the exact ranking based on that, so at least it'd be clearer to me.
If somehow we're translating the win-lose records into the match points, we'd need another chart to show the exact ranking based on that, so at least it'd be clearer to me.
We're not doing match points, Spidey. Take a breath.
Match winning % is just a better way than match wins since it also takes losses and ties into account.
MP: Technically, the games COULD end in a tie if anyone drafted something like Hurricane or Earthquake (I'm not sure if anything was). Yes. Your explanation of 2-0, 2-1, etc. is what I implied.
Match winning % ties can occur IF: Spidey beats Melkor (giving Spidey and BB 3-4). If that happens and MP beats MM, then I will be tied with the winner of MP and Melkor (6-1). Also, if MP happens to lose his final two matches, he and turgy22 will be tied at 4-3.
After the match winning percentages/records are determined, the game winning % will be factored in. After that, head-to-head match-up.
Ransac, cpa trash man
Match winning % is just a better way than match wins since it also takes losses and ties into account.
MP: Technically, the games COULD end in a tie if anyone drafted something like Hurricane or Earthquake (I'm not sure if anything was). Yes. Your explanation of 2-0, 2-1, etc. is what I implied.
Match winning % ties can occur IF: Spidey beats Melkor (giving Spidey and BB 3-4). If that happens and MP beats MM, then I will be tied with the winner of MP and Melkor (6-1). Also, if MP happens to lose his final two matches, he and turgy22 will be tied at 4-3.
After the match winning percentages/records are determined, the game winning % will be factored in. After that, head-to-head match-up.
Ransac, cpa trash man
M
Modus Pwnens
Guest
Guys, since everyone plays the same amount of matches, there is no difference between using a match point system and a win% ranking.
Ransac: Games can end in a tie, but matches can't, simply because the first person to win two games takes the match, any ties in between those games are ignored.
Spidey: Match points are simply the amount of won matches times 3, so they wouldn't influence the current standings. The mentioned abbreviations mean Opponent Match Wins (OMW) and Opponent Game Wins (OGW), which are used in normal tournaments. Come to think of it, they will be different for everyone, since you don't count yourself. This will result in anyone having more points having a lower OMW%, because their opponents will have won less matches. However, it will still be the same for people with the same amount of match points (or match % wins if you like). OGW however might be important, but if you like I'll calculate everything once we're done, and then see what difference they make.
Ransac: Games can end in a tie, but matches can't, simply because the first person to win two games takes the match, any ties in between those games are ignored.
Spidey: Match points are simply the amount of won matches times 3, so they wouldn't influence the current standings. The mentioned abbreviations mean Opponent Match Wins (OMW) and Opponent Game Wins (OGW), which are used in normal tournaments. Come to think of it, they will be different for everyone, since you don't count yourself. This will result in anyone having more points having a lower OMW%, because their opponents will have won less matches. However, it will still be the same for people with the same amount of match points (or match % wins if you like). OGW however might be important, but if you like I'll calculate everything once we're done, and then see what difference they make.
MP: Ah! 'tis so much simpler! The last time I had played in a WOTC tourney, matches were three games, end of story. If one ended in a tie, there was no fourth game to compensate. But, I like this idea better.
But, just to be a butt, you were still wrong.
I've never been a fan of the whole 3pt win system. It seems to me that a win should be 2 points, a tie 1 point, and a loss 0 points. 3 points seems to balloon the value of wins... though I not sure that it statistically matters.
Ransac, cpa trash man
But, just to be a butt, you were still wrong.
Though I'm sure you meant "match."Modus Pwnens said:
I've never been a fan of the whole 3pt win system. It seems to me that a win should be 2 points, a tie 1 point, and a loss 0 points. 3 points seems to balloon the value of wins... though I not sure that it statistically matters.
Ransac, cpa trash man
M
Modus Pwnens
Guest
I must have, game wouldn't have made any sense and would be totally silly
Games rarely end in a tie, especially in tournaments, yet it might have been that the third fourth game wouldn't be played due to time constraints.
I believe it's 3-points/win because of the way the swiss pairing-system works. In swiss, everyone with an X-1 record or better will make it into the top 8 (which is important for tournaments). If people with an X-0-2 record would have the same amount of points, I think it's possible that some of these people would not make top 8, thus violating the basic principle of the swiss pairing system. I've not calculated this through, yet I think it's very well possible that this is the main reason.
Games rarely end in a tie, especially in tournaments, yet it might have been that the third fourth game wouldn't be played due to time constraints.
I believe it's 3-points/win because of the way the swiss pairing-system works. In swiss, everyone with an X-1 record or better will make it into the top 8 (which is important for tournaments). If people with an X-0-2 record would have the same amount of points, I think it's possible that some of these people would not make top 8, thus violating the basic principle of the swiss pairing system. I've not calculated this through, yet I think it's very well possible that this is the main reason.
M
Modus Pwnens
Guest
My stance: I'm in favour of match win % / match points (which are the same) -> Player Games Won -> Opponent Games Won -> Head-to-Head.
M
Modus Pwnens
Guest
No, because each of us has a different set of opponents..
...How do we have a different set of opponent's if everyone plays everyone? The whole point of using an opponent's winning percentage as a tie-breaker is if you happen to play someone who ends up going 10-1 or so, it proves you had tougher competition. If everyone has the same opponents, it doesn't prove anything. Sure, you may beat someone that someone else didn't beat, but if you're using that as a tie-breaker then they'll have beaten someone that beat you. If it gets to that point of the tie-breaker (3rd spot, after Match % and Game %), head-to-head will prove better.
It serves no purpose if everyone plays everyone.
Ransac, cpa trash man
It serves no purpose if everyone plays everyone.
Ransac, cpa trash man