Bracketology: Double Elimination Changing to Single Elimination w/ Final 16

[FeelDaShot]

There is a big problem with these brackets that change from double elimination to single elimination once down to the final 16. See the attached bracket (also in post below). I have simulated the bracket with all better seeded players winning (no upsets).

Here are the results:

First Place ---------------------- #1 Seed
Second Place ------------------ #9 Seed
Third Place --------------------- #2 Seed
Fourth Place ------------------- #10 Seed
Fifth/Sixth Place --------------- #3 & #4 Seeds
Seventh/Eighth Place -------- #11 & #12 Seeds
Ninth Thru Twelfth ------------- #5, #6, #7, #8 Seeds
Thirteenth Thru Sixteenth --- #13, #14, #15, #16 Seeds

This is not how brackets are supposed to work out. In order to do it correctly, they need to create a new bracket with the final 16 and reseed them all.

Also, there are several instances where it makes more sense for a player to intentionally lose early in order to go against a much easier field to make it to the finals.

(I discussed this in a different post but I thought it deserved a post of it's own)

 

[FeelDaShot]

Bracket here

 

[sjm]

Although the idea that form could hold through the entire qualifying round is probably less than a 1% chance, I see where you are coming from.

I prefer randomly drawing the eight with a loss into the eight knockout round matches already featuring an undefeated player. This approach was always used in Darren Appleton's World Pool Series events.

 

[Chili Palmer]

I never did understand that. They do it in APA also and call it Modified Single Elimination. Nothing like losing late in the tourney to someone who already lost but you get to go home.

 

[BRussell]

Interesting. If you did the same analysis with the US Open brackets, assuming there’s no re-draw, what are the predicted finishes?

 

[FeelDaShot]

Interesting. If you did the same analysis with the US Open brackets, assuming there’s no re-draw, what are the predicted finishes?

It will work out the same. Everything below 16 players will work out correctly. Once you switch to single elimination it gets all screwed up. You end up with the strongest players all on one side of the bracket (winners side) and weakest players all on the other side (losers side). When they meet in the middle you end up with a 1-9 matchup for 1st and 2nd.

UPDATE: pucksnpool & sjm just pointed out that they aren't doing it this way for the US Open. When it gets down to 8 on the winners side and 8 on the losers side they are going to randomly draw the 8 players on the losers side to each play one of the players on the winners side.

 

[trob]

Yep can’t stand it..

Also hate when they go from double elimination to just 1 longer race in the finals. That helps the guy in the losers bracket. You ask anyone from the 1 loss side would they rather beat a person twice or just have one long race and of course they will say 1 long Race . It makes no sense to me except to save time in long tournaments I guess.

I never did understand that. They do it in APA also and call it Modified Single Elimination. Nothing like losing late in the tourney to someone who already lost but you get to go home.

 

[BeiberLvr]

It makes no sense to me except to save time in long tournaments I guess.

That's probably the only reason they do it.


Single elimination from the start is the way to go. More pressure on the players. More drama for the fans. You can even increase the length of the races (within reason) and still finish sooner than a double elimination event.

Unfortunately, double elimination events are here to stay, as long as players are still required to pay an entry fee. Since they allow the players to "get their monies worth."

 

[Swighey]

This is not how brackets are supposed to work out. In order to do it correctly, they need to create a new bracket with the final 16 and reseed them all.

Whenever I’ve seen double elimination go to single elimination, I’ve never seen the double elimination bracket continue. It’s either a random redraw, a seeded redraw or a semi-seeded redraw. Why would you assume the double elimination bracket continues?

 

[Gunn_Slinger]

Just another example of 'get it over with quick' !! We have your money , now hurry up !
These 'promoters' only care about the money. No concern for the players that make
them all their money ! 256 players was supposed to 128. No change in time to
play ! Pitiful.
GREED !!

 

[Chili Palmer]

Yep can’t stand it..

Also hate when they go from double elimination to just 1 longer race in the finals. That helps the guy in the losers bracket. You ask anyone from the 1 loss side would they rather beat a person twice or just have one long race and of course they will say 1 long Race . It makes no sense to me except to save time in long tournaments I guess.

Agreed, if they are 9-9 races and it switches to a race to 15 the the A side player now has to win 15 games for the money and the B side player only has to win 15 instead of 18.

That's probably the only reason they do it.


Single elimination from the start is the way to go. More pressure on the players. More drama for the fans. You can even increase the length of the races (within reason) and still finish sooner than a double elimination event.

Unfortunately, double elimination events are here to stay, as long as players are still required to pay an entry fee. Since they allow the players to "get their monies worth."

I would prefer double all the way through, I just despise losing late and going home, and I've been on both sides of the coin and feel bad for the person I beat because they go home and don't get a second chance. I do agree with your thoughts on what a single elimination does though - more pressure, drama, they can (and should) extend the races. And yeah, they can be much shorter tourney's, especially if there is a shortage of tables.

 

[gxman]

International US Open, Little Ko beat JL Chang in the hotseat match.

Then Chang beat Sky on the b-side. Then Chang beat Ko 13-11 in the Finals.

 

[Swighey]

Not sure about the “saving time”argument. Then US Open is going to a single televised table when it hits single elimination. This is good not only for the promoters but also for the audience, the fans watching on TV and the players in terms of increased exposure. It’s also less rushed for the players who have have made it to the deep end of the tournament and therefore more in tune with other sports that treat their players, who qualify for the business end, as professionals.

 

[Swighey]

Essentially it’s a two stage tournament. Stage 1: Double elimination, Stage 2: Single elimination. Not totally diissimilar to a round robin followed by single elimination tournament - but probably fairer as there are no dead games.

 

[Rickhem]

My local APA league uses the "modified single elimination" format for our Tri-Cups, and it was the format for our alternating shot tournament too. After looking over the brackets, and how the matches progress, it seems to me that having the first two rounds be the double elimination portion insures that everyone gets to play two matches at a minimum. There's usually no-shows, or byes in the first round, so the opponent in those cases moves forward, but can still play in the losers bracket if they lose the next match. After the second round, it's lose and out.
In a format where the entrants are NOT seeded, I think it is a fair and equitable way of running the tournament. You're guaranteed to be able to play two matches no matter what.

 

[FeelDaShot]

My local APA league uses the "modified single elimination" format for our Tri-Cups, and it was the format for our alternating shot tournament too. After looking over the brackets, and how the matches progress, it seems to me that having the first two rounds be the double elimination portion insures that everyone gets to play two matches at a minimum. There's usually no-shows, or byes in the first round, so the opponent in those cases moves forward, but can still play in the losers bracket if they lose the next match. After the second round, it's lose and out.
In a format where the entrants are NOT seeded, I think it is a fair and equitable way of running the tournament. You're guaranteed to be able to play two matches no matter what.

Whether they are seeded or not, you run into the same problem. The better players all end on the the winners side of the bracket and the weaker players all end up on the losers side of the bracket. Now you have two unequal sets of players being whittled down to the finals.

 

[FeelDaShot]

Whenever I’ve seen double elimination go to single elimination, I’ve never seen the double elimination bracket continue. It’s either a random redraw, a seeded redraw or a semi-seeded redraw. Why would you assume the double elimination bracket continues?

This is how they did it recently at SBE and I mistakenly thought this was the norm. Apparently SBE is the only one doing it wrong.

 

[Chili Palmer]

Whether they are seeded or not, you run into the same problem. The better players all end on the the winners side of the bracket and the weaker players all end up on the losers side of the bracket. Now you have two unequal sets of players being whittled down to the finals.

Agreed, because as the better players advance on winners side at some point they go home and don't get a chance to come back, which means it's the initial losers that are advancing. The modified single does allow for lower skilled players to advance to the finals, which I suppose is a good thing, but they don't often win.

I've said it before, the fact that I get punished and have to leave because I won more matches early just pisses me off.

 

[Chili Palmer]

Whenever I’ve seen double elimination go to single elimination, I’ve never seen the double elimination bracket continue. It’s either a random redraw, a seeded redraw or a semi-seeded redraw. Why would you assume the double elimination bracket continues?

Our local APA tournaments are played on the same bracket, when you get to a certain round there is simply no more boxes that say "Loser to L35" or similar, they're just out.

 

[APA Operator]

There is a big problem with these brackets that change from double elimination to single elimination once down to the final 16. See the attached bracket (also in post below). I have simulated the bracket with all better seeded players winning (no upsets).

Here are the results:

First Place ---------------------- #1 Seed
Second Place ------------------ #9 Seed
Third Place --------------------- #2 Seed
Fourth Place ------------------- #10 Seed
Fifth/Sixth Place --------------- #3 & #4 Seeds
Seventh/Eighth Place -------- #11 & #12 Seeds
Ninth Thru Twelfth ------------- #5, #6, #7, #8 Seeds
Thirteenth Thru Sixteenth --- #13, #14, #15, #16 Seeds

This is not how brackets are supposed to work out. In order to do it correctly, they need to create a new bracket with the final 16 and reseed them all.

Also, there are several instances where it makes more sense for a player to intentionally lose early in order to go against a much easier field to make it to the finals.

(I discussed this in a different post but I thought it deserved a post of it's own)

Who would stack brackets like that and make them one bracket? If I ran that bracket, the finishing places would be:

First Place --------------- #1
Second Place ----------- #9
Third Place -------------- #2
Fourth Place ------------ #3 & #4
Sixth Place -------------- #5, #6, #7, #8
Tenth Place ------------- #10
Eleventh Place --------- #11 & #12
Thirteenth Place ------- #13, #14, #15, #16

In other words, anyone who gets knocked out in the one-loss side finishes lower than everyone who gets knocked out on the winner's side, and all payouts go to those knocked out on the winner's side.

APA uses modified single elimination brackets, meaning a single-elimination bracket modified so that there are no one-and-dones. That's so that people don't travel possibly hundreds or thousands of miles just to get knocked out in their first match. This is a modified double elimination bracket, meaning double elimination modified to shorten the tournament. Match-wise, they are equivalent, but terminology-wise they are not. In modified double, something has been taken away, while in modified single, something has been added.

Why use a modified single elimination bracket instead of a double elimination bracket? The only reason is that it's faster. In this case, three or four rounds faster, at an hour or more per round. In a team event, where each round could be five hours, the time difference is measured in DAYS.

One more thing - a redraw in the middle of a tournament increases the chances that opponents could meet for a second time earlier than they otherwise would. In this case, the #1 seed could beat #16 in match 25, then lose to them in the next round.