No, three players at 2-1 and one at 0-3 is possible.
CSI 10 ball
- Thread starter ziggystardust
- Start date
No, three players at 2-1 and one at 0-3 is possible.
Not only is it possible to have 3 people win 2 sets and lose 1... but it is also possible that they could have the same amount of games won and lost too. Then what?
I agree with you in that I do not like this format. It is not the round robin aspect that I dislike as much as the fact that only one person (25%) is advancing from each first round group. I think it would be fine that way if the groups were six or eight people instead of only four (too many tie scores in a small group).
But I totally disagree with your assertion that the players you were referencing weren't masters of their own destiny and had to rely on luck on the other matches. It is just that since some matches finished before others it can give that illusion if you don't stop and really think about it. The fact is they all played the exact same matches against the exact same opponents. Whoever does best goes on, the rest don't. The were masters of their own destinies based on their own performances in the exact same match ups, it is just that some of them finished all their match ups before others and are still waiting to see how everyone else in their group finishes up.
This is akin to say a track event where they have to run several different heats because only so many runners fit on the track at one time, but only the single best time will move on out of say three heats. So could one of the guys from the first heat complain that he is not the master of his own destiny because he has to wait to see if the people from heats two or three will best his time? Of course not. They all ran the same distance and the best time will move on, even though it had to be broken up into several heats. Same here. They all played the same matches and the person that did best will move on, even though some finished all their matches before others did.
The fact is there is no other format for which the players are more in control of their own destiny than with a round robin. Every single player plays the exact same matches against the exact same opponents. Whoever does best wins their grouping, period. There is absolute total control of your own destiny since everybody has the exact same matches. Where players do actually lose some control of their destiny is in any other format other than round robin because then you are affected by the luck of who you draw, and when, and that is completely different for everybody.
It can be argued that this format did not make for the best viewing by the spectators (and I would somewhat agree), but it cannot be argued that the players did not have full control of their own destiny. You can't possibly have any more control of your own destiny than a round robin provides (full control is a good as it gets).
If Morra beat Ko, Morra would then be 2-1 and proceed since he beat Ko. This would still not be the decider if Efren beats Souqet. Then it would be:
Morra 2-1
Souquet 0-3
Efren 2-1
Ping Ko 2-1
So it would depend on games won.
Great point! Getting a bad draw in an elimination-type tournament is at least as bad as this situation where you have to count on the outcome of another match.
I occasionally play in round robin tourneys, and the one difference is that we play a set number of games, and then count up wins. What are your thoughts on this CSI format where matches are key and games only come into play possibly as a tiebreaker?
This format had the "luck" of the draw involved also. For instance SVB "drew" Warren, who he claims is his easiest opponent to play against, in his bracket.
I'm sure a lot of them don't like something ,,, but how he deals with these things is why he's not on the MC team and it won't take much for the Gestapo there to put him on the ban list
1
Only sort of true, but he was talking about what was happening within a single group in the first round, and everybody in your group has the exact same draw. Everybody played the exact same three matches. Whoever was best in that group with the best record moves on. More than in any other format you truly can say they were the best (at least for that time period) because it is truly an apples to apples comparison when you all played the same matches (nobody faced harder or easier opponents than anyone else). In any other format everybody has completely different matches starting from the first match with completely different opponents in a completely different order and no two players ever have the same draw/path to the finals (not even for a short period of time) and no two paths are ever the same difficulty.
Last edited:
Keep it classy, dechaine. Don't you change a thing for the world
, or your own benefit.
See my CSI Final brackets thread.
That has some truth to it however they are small groups one group can be much harder than another,, one loss does not put you out of Most tournaments however it can here ,,
So there is a element of both good and bad luck ,,
At the end of the day I don't think anyone will confuse this with a world class event
1
Thanks!......
I think saying you are sometimes "counting on the outcome of another match" is the wrong way to look at it. That almost makes it sound as if you didn't have any control over how you performed when it was your turn. I think the way to look at it is you are just waiting to see if they beat your record or not in the exact same three matches, just like you would be waiting to see if someone from another heat beat your time in the exact same 200 yard dash at the track meet. It's just that sometimes you have to wait until the other heats are run or the other matches are finished before you know if your time or your win record will hold up if you happened to go before they did. But how how fast you ran or whether or not you beat your opponents in your matches was up to you. You all ran the same race/played the same matches, but not everybody could go all at once and I see nothing unfair about having to wait to hear how your opponents did when it was their turn. It doesn't affect how you performed when it was your turn.
I think CSI has it right in that respect. When everybody is playing the exact same matches as they are within a round robin group, the winner should be the person with the best win/loss record. If you have a tie, then the overall winner should be the player who had the best win/loss record out of only the matches that involved the people you tied with (obviously if only two tied then there is only one match that involved both of those ties players and it was of course the one they played against each other). And if there is still tie, then the player with the highest overall games won percentage (from all matches within the grouping) should be overall winner. Games won percentage is essentially the same thing as what CSI is calling "the difference between how many games you won and how many you lost in all matches combined" and IMO CSI should just change it to "overall games won percentage in all matches combined" so it is easier to remember and easier for people to understand.
And if there is still a tie after that, I haven't heard what CSI is doing for their 4th tie breaker but I'm thinking a good one to use would be comparing all the tied player's lowest scoring matches, and whoever had the highest of the "worst losing scores" should be overall winner. And if they tied again, and it has to go to a 5th tie breaker, well I haven't thought that one out yet, but CSI certainly should have a couple more levels of tie breaker procedures because especially in round robin groups as small as only four people, it would be more common than you would think for there to still be ties after even four or five tie breaker categories.
They really should have seven or eight tie breakers in place so that it would have to be one in billion for them to still be tied after you ran out of tie breakers. The last thing you want is for them to have to play off because it might delay the whole tournament, and flipping coins to see who moves on would cause an outrage among spectators and players alike.
It is not like that at all because using your analogy two people would run the exact same time and only one would move ahead.
The player who moves on is going to be 2-1 and the player who does not move on is going to be 2-1 and the difference is going to be who beat who in what match.
In the match with SVB Ko beat SVB in the round robin. "IF" Kiamco had beaten Thorsten then it would have meant that SVB advanced to the final bracket regardless of the fact that Ko beat SVB in the round robin. The 3-way tie caused by one guy going 0-3 would have led to a mess of a system where the guy moving on would have the same match win/loss ratio as the guy not moving on and would have actually lost the match they played against the guy who was eliminated in the round robin.
These guys are not running heats, and tie breakers are not decided by the overall games won and lost with would correlate most closely to "timed runs". The "who beat who" thing has caused a mess of a result in most of the brackets.
True, but he was talking about what was happening within one single group, and so that is what I addressed. And the fact is, within any group it is exactly equal and everyone within that group is totally and solely a master of their own destiny.
What you are talking about is a totally different topic. But to address that totally different topic, yes, some groups are harder than others. But a pretty good argument can be made that if you couldn't even make it out of your group you probably weren't going to beat the whole field and win the event, or at least that you don't deserve the chance to. If you couldn't beat a field of four, then you don't deserve to get to go on to try to beat the field of sixteen so to speak.
Having multiple round robin groups isn't a perfect tournament format but it isn't bad and has some great benefits and pluses to it. What would truly be perfect is to have a round robin event where everyone in the event were all in the same grouping and everybody gets to play everybody else, but this just isn't feasible unless you have an extremely small field.
Last edited:
There is nothing wrong with this system whatsoever. Your personal preference is to see a system where there cannot be a tie in win loss records where you then have to go to the next category tie breaker. But that is just your personal preference. There is nothing wrong or unfair in the least about how CSI is determining who wins the grouping. It is all very logical and just and makes absolute sense. It just isn't the format of your personal preference.