View Full Version : Tournament ??
I played a tournament a couple of nights ago, and I game away with a couple of questions. First, we were playing double elimination, race to 4 on the winners side and race to 3 on the losers side. When we got to the end where the person from the winners bracket faced the winner of the losers bracket, the TD says in the first match it is a race to 3 for the person from the winners bracket and a race to 4 for the person from the losers bracket. The last race if required would be a straight race to 3 because both players have a loss. Is this the usual way of playing the finals when the races are to a different number in the winners & losers brackets?
The second part of my question, their where 38 players, should the TD used a 64 player double elimination chart? The TD used a 38 player chart that gave byes in the losers bracket throughout, the result of which had 3 people waiting in line to play the winner of a game in progress. They were to go in order 1,2,3 to play the winner on this table. This seemed to me to drag the tournament out. I certainly don't want to complain to the TD, but if I can help them run a smoother tournament, it might stay around longer. 38 or 64 player chart? Thanks, Terry
04-12-2002, 09:10 AM
I think that tournament was messed up. I never played where the player who has not lost a match had to give any weight (except in a handicapped event). Most of the time I would exspect it to be a race to 4 in the finals, both matches if it goes all the way. I think this seems correct because it is still played on the righthand side of the tournament board and the when the player comes from the loser side he is said to have "faught his way back to the winners side".
Also I think a 64 player board should be used. Sometimes it seems like overkill to have so many byes(26 in your case). But I think it is worth it.
04-12-2002, 09:25 AM
When I run true double elimination events with shorter races on the one-loss side, I have three options.
1. Both sets in the finals would be the same race.
2. The first set of the finals would be the longer race the second set would be the shorter race. With your example, this option would have been a race to 4 and if a second set was necessary a race to 3.
3. One long race like to 5 or 7.
The way you explained this event, the person on the winner's side has to spot the person on the one-loss side. If this event was not handicapped to being with, why start now.
As for the chart, you are absolutely correct a 64-man chart should have been used. There is no such thing as a 38-man chart. The 64-man chart would ensure fairness with the allocation of the byes.
I would question the experience of the TD of this event.
Hi Poolfan, I guess I could have been more clear in in the way I wrote my post ( as I see I confused you and Chris ). The person that went through the winners bracket had the clear advantage because they only had to win 3 games to the losers 4 in the first set. The TD's reason was that the person coming from the winners bracket had not been beat yet, so he/she would have to be beat in a race to 4 in the first set. Their reasoning for the winner of the losers bracket having to lose 3 games in the first set was, they had already lost a match and now only had to get beat 3 times for their second lose. Terry
I don't see it as the winner giving a spot. Isn't he the one that has to go only to 3? All through the one loss side 3 losses and you're out. That seems to carry through to the first finals match. The winner's side had to be beaten 4 games so he gets the spot. Am I missing something here?
Ken in CT
04-12-2002, 09:54 AM
You're right, I misread that section. I still don't like that option for the finals though.
Actually there ARE single and double elimination tournament brackets for any number of players (I have them for 5-50 players). They just are not "standard" brackets, which run 8, 16, 32, 64 and 128 players. I do agree with you that the standard 64-man bracket is better to use!
First, it should have been a race to 4 for both players in match #1. If the guy on the "hot seat" lost that match, the next set would have been a race to 3. My pesonal preference is that the finals is a single match but a longer race, in this case a single race to 6 or 7.
Second, a 64 player chart most definitely should have been used.
04-12-2002, 05:49 PM
Terry, this only tells you that the TD didn't have a clue of what he was doing....he should have used the 64 chart. There is a 48 chart but it is mostly used for seeding players.
04-12-2002, 06:18 PM
IMO, the TD didn't have a clue in running the tournament. In my old bar league, we had someone that could "do up" a chart for the exact amount of players the tournament was held for, courtesy of some kind of algorithm she had programmed. Well, it turned out one time that the girl that lost the hot seat and should've at least gotten 3rd place ended up finishing fifth. Tell me how THAT happens. The TD needed to go to a 64-player chart and seed the byes in their proper place. There is a madness to the method of seeding byes. If anyone wants to know, I'll be glad to post it.
And as for the uneven race for the finals for each player, I can see where he wanted to make it fair to both, but in reality, it should be the same for each player. Like, maybe a race to 5 because the finals are usually the longest race of the matches.
Oh well, I hope the loser didn't b*tch too much.
Barbara~~~got a "Thank you, I love you" from Gina Lipsky on how we at NEWT run our tournies.... it made my day /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif
04-12-2002, 06:25 PM
32 player bracket can be used very easily.
The 6 extra spots are drawn at random. Brackets are penciled in, and also penciled in on the one loss side
Double elimination means just that.. Never understood why you can win all your matches and then the rules change in the finals.
Regardless.. if two matches are required, they should be (in this case) race to 4 1st match, race to 3 2nd match (if needed)
That's the way we do it in Cincinnati and have been for years.
Hi Barbara, The person running the tournaments kinda got slinged into it because at first a different player would run it each week and it did not run that smooth. The manager of the room decided she would run them, so I had taken some double elimination charts to work and had them upsized to about 30" x 58". I had given the charts to the TD and told her that I thought it was the way to go. After this thread had started yesterday I went to the hall to see the TD, I asked her if she wanted me to ask some people who run tournaments about the proper way to work a 38 player field and also how the final two matches should be played. She told me that she had already spoken to someone about the charts and she was told that her charts were old, the other person said that they could send the TD new charts for the 38 player field as well as other numbers. I told her that I thought the 64 field double elimination charts would have prevented 4 people waiting for the winner of one table. She told me the charts I gave her were too big, so I told her I would get whatever size she wanted to use made up for her. She is taking me up on my offer but said she is cutting off the field at 32 from now on ( I got a bad feeling about that ). The reason for stopping the field at 32 is because it takes up too many tables, not enough tables for her other clients.
She also told me that her decision on the way the finals were run was fair and that it was the way it was going to be. I got the feeling that she didn't need any more help, so I sujested that she post the setup before the tournament starts so she wouldn't get a hard time later on in the tournament.
Oh yeah, the fellow that came in second lost 3 straight and was happy with 2nd. He said he came in 4th, 3rd and now second in the last 3 tournaments. I quess he'll be the guy to watch out for next week.
I'd also like to thank everyone who took the time to share their thoughts on this thread. Terry
04-13-2002, 05:52 PM
You know Terry, running a tournament is not easy, especially when you run it in a different format than what everybody is used to. By posting her tournament rules and format, she's cut the inquiries in half by just pointing to them and saying, "There's the format and the rules, and they're not changing."
My funniest memory of someone trying to change a format with the room owner was when Rachael Abbink came down to play in Binghamton at Florence's room, the Pocket Billiard Lounge. Now mind you, Florence is turning 78 this year (God Bless her!! /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif!) and doesn't take shi*t from no one! Rachael was trying to convince her that we could end up the tournament by midnight and to keep shooting because of the low number of players. Florence just stood her ground and kept saying, "No.". I am laughing as I am remembering Florence's staid face and posture as she kept saying, "No." to this girl hopping around trying to convince her otherwise. Hey! Florence's room, Florence's rules. And she does.
Barbara~~~gotta get a card in the mail for that woman...
Barbara like you said she has decided and i'm old enough to know not to try and alter a determined women.LOL. The other night her girls had to stay 2 hrs. past closing, so she decided it won't happen again. I told her before, i'll play any format she see's fit but I won't go another year waiting for them to get their tournaments on the go after shutting them down ( this is what happened last year ). I told her I would start traveling down the road to play tournaments before I stop playing them again. She knows as does all the good shooters their, that I just LOVE to PLAY. Terry
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.