Modified Finals Format for DE tournaments

[Paul Schofield]

With playoffs the top seeded team still has some sort of advantage. A bye in the first round of the playoffs, easier team to play, home field.

Not in pool though in a tournament.

I disagree. The winner of the winners bracket has to play fewer matches to get to finals. That is a huge advantage.

Puting fairness aside, I think that function takes precedent. A one match final brings an event to a timely climactic conclusion.

 

[justadub]

With the way it worked at TS can you blame a player for dogging a match sending them self to the b side? If you take a look at the bracket and see that you have a tough opponent if you win yet there are a couple weaker players on the b side and there is no advantage in the championship for being undefeated what is the smarter move?

What advantage do you gain by losing earlier? If the tough opponent is the one to send you to the losers bracket, so be it. And you'll be further along in the tournament, and still have just the one loss...

 

[BasementDweller]

This isn't a bad proposal but I would think the people running these sorts of events would like to know what the race is going to be ahead of time just for logistics purposes.

I don't really have that much of a problem with a single match final. It's not perfect but it's also not the end of the world, especially when you consider that the player that fights through the B side, typically has to play several more matches then the hotseat winner does.

I think another idea would be to just give an immediate bonus to the player that makes it through the winner's side. Throw them a few hundred, maybe even 500 for a big tournament and then play the final.

 

[Matt]

I think that an extended final is much better overall for the players and spectators so long as both 1st and 2nd place get paid and the difference between the payouts isn't very large relative to the total payout.

The way I see it, the primary goal of the double elimination format is to get the two players that play the best throughout the tournament playing in the finals. Assuming that the better player wins every match, that will be the case. Of course, it doesn't usually work that way since the sets are short and a player often falls victim to bad rolls or an uncharacteristically good game against a weaker player, but that's another argument.

Once you have the two best/luckiest/whatever players in the finals and they are both getting paid, why not just have them play one long match for the difference between first and second and bragging rights?

Going through either side of the bracket to the finals requires lots of good play and a bit of luck, so who cares who had the tougher road or played better on the way there? The winner's side finalist might have been the one to put the other player on the loser's side, but they might not. If the winner's side finalist really is the better player, shouldn't they be even more confident about winning a longer race? If they aren't, doesn't that mean that someone just got a lucky win along the way?

In any case, I say that once you're down to two players, let them go at it without giving one an advantage based on how they got there. If the race is longer, the better player is favored by even more, so that seems plenty fair to me.

 

[Matt]

I think another idea would be to just give an immediate bonus to the player that makes it through the winner's side. Throw them a few hundred, maybe even 500 for a big tournament and then play the final.

Good idea. I've never seen that done before, but if you made the bonus equal to the difference between first and second place, the worst they winner's side champion can do is get paid the same as the other finalist.

 

[gatorchad]

As long as the expectation is set prior to the start of the tournament, there isn't anything unfair about the longer single set race for the finals of the championship. Everyone knows there is 2 ways to get to the finals. Win the winner's bracket or win the loser's bracket. The advantage is built in by having to win fewer matches and always having that margin for error on your way to the championship match.

I do, however, like the idea of a bonus for making through the winner's bracket. It would be a good carrot for the players to chase. And the promoters could even sell the naming rights.

The <insert company name here> no loss bonus payout!

 

[jsp]

I disagree. The winner of the winners bracket has to play fewer matches to get to finals. That is a huge advantage.

Given the premise that you don't play as well the more matches you play, then it's reasonable to conclude that playing fewer matches is an advantage.

But I question that premise. Why not instead look at it in terms of momentum? The winners' side winner always has to wait for the losers' side match to conclude before the finals start. So the player from the losers' side has the momentum going into the final having just won a match, whereas the undefeated player is relatively cold because he had to wait.

Shaw had all the momentum going into the finals after dispatching Mika 9-1, and it carried over into the finals. It certainly didn't look like he was tired.

So given the premise of momentum, the undefeated player actually has a disadvantage going into the finals.

 

[AtLarge]

... That's why I think the solution presented in the OP (supposedly used on the Predator Tour, according to AtLarge) is superior. ...

jsp -- I checked the Predator Tour website. They call what you proposed their "extended format." It seems to be used in at least some of both their amateur events and their pro/open events.

 

[jsp]

jsp -- I checked the Predator Tour website. They call what you proposed their "extended format." It seems to be used in at least some of both their amateur events and their pro/open events.

Thanks AtLarge. Can you share the link? All I see can find is this where it says "Finals One Race to 9".

 

[Dockter]

Not sure I get this. Wouldn't you still be better off trying to stay on the winners side as long as possible?

Not always. I've seen it happen in bowling when it's head to head rather than a stepladder format.

You're a midlevel pro and you see if you win you face SVB, you take a look and realize if you were to lose to SVB you face the the winner of the Earl - Efren match but if you lose this game now you move to the top of the B side bracket and you won't face one of the better players for 3-4 rounds. Yes you do run the risk of being eliminated completely and it is a chickensht move but I've seen it happen on more than one occasion in bowling.

 

[EL'nino]

I think a 1 set finals is fair, the winner of the losers bracket had to win more matches than the winner of the winners bracket. At this point the loser has paid his dues.

 

[Dockter]

I think a 1 set finals is fair, the winner of the losers bracket had to win more matches than the winner of the winners bracket. At this point the loser has paid his dues.

In some cases he/she only won 1 more game. If you are running a de tournament the one without a loss so far should have an advantage. If not an advantage I love the idea of a bonus for going into the chip undefeated.

 

[mikepage]

[...]
Why not a modified finals format such as this? If the hot-seat winner makes it to x games first, then he wins. Otherwise, the race is to x + y games.[...]

This is an interesting idea.

But I think we should go back and question the premise.

If we want to think of the entire tournament as being a "double-elimination" format, then I see the motivation.

But if we instead view it as a double-elimination qualifier event whose purpose is to produce two contestants for the finals event, then all of the problems go away.

The only players who fail to qualify for the finals event are those who lost twice--that's fair to everybody.

Then there is no need to make the finals event the same length race as the double-elimination qualifier event. The finals could be a longer race (like at TS) or it could have a win-by-two requirement. Or it could be a best two of three sets, etc...

 

[Paul Schofield]

Most everyone is talking about this issue from the participants side. There are at least five more sides to this thing to consider: tournament operator, volunteers, sponsors, media, and spectators. A MAYBE finals does not work for them. It has to work for everybody.

 

[Matt]

Not always. I've seen it happen in bowling when it's head to head rather than a stepladder format.

You're a midlevel pro and you see if you win you face SVB, you take a look and realize if you were to lose to SVB you face the the winner of the Earl - Efren match but if you lose this game now you move to the top of the B side bracket and you won't face one of the better players for 3-4 rounds. Yes you do run the risk of being eliminated completely and it is a chickensht move but I've seen it happen on more than one occasion in bowling.

This is because double elimination (full DE, or with a single finals match) only really works correctly when you are just paying out first and second place. When there is incentive to place beyond the top two, finding an easy path through the bracket avoiding the top players may get you in the money. If only the top two are paid, you should take every opportunity possible to hand someone a loss.

 

[AtLarge]

Thanks AtLarge. Can you share the link? All I see can find is this where it says "Finals One Race to 9".

I found it in several of the post-event reports, such as: "The final match would be a race to seven between Davladze and Ortiz, and in the extended-race format, if Davladze reached seven first, the set would be pushed to nine game."

I know I have seen it on stream, also, for open/pro events.

An interesting (to me) related tid bit. I think the Predator Tour Finale at Raxx about 4 weeks ago was supposed to be that way (possible extension). But Jason Shaw was playing so great near the end of the tournament that after he got ahead of Frankie Hernandez (who was on the winners' side) 7-0 in 17 minutes (!!!!!), Hernandez just conceded the match. [I suppose it is possible that they had agreed to a single race to 7 in the finals instead of the planned 9/extended 11, but the commentators didn't seem to be aware of it if so.]

 

[Dockter]

This is because double elimination (full DE, or with a single finals match) only really works correctly when you are just paying out first and second place. When there is incentive to place beyond the top two, finding an easy path through the bracket avoiding the top players may get you in the money. If only the top two are paid, you should take every opportunity possible to hand someone a loss.

Yeah and I should have added that in my post. Most of the time I seen it happen it wasn't from someone that would probably even make it to the chip. It was someone interested in getting money so they figured out the easiest route to pass that money line and went that way.

A lot of this is a moot point anyway as most de tournaments I've been a part of or watched the 2 in the chip agree to only play one set for it anyway. BUT if they don't i don't see how it's fair for the undefeated to have no advantage or at least make a little extra off of it.

 

[AtLarge]

I think a 1 set finals is fair, the winner of the losers bracket had to win more matches than the winner of the winners bracket. At this point the loser has paid his dues.

In DE, if the hot-seat loser wins the semifinal match to get into the finals, both finalists will have won the same number of matches prior to the finals.

 

[Dockter]

In DE, if the hot-seat loser wins the semifinal match to get into the finals, both finalists will have won the same number of matches prior to the finals.

The person that lost the semi match would have to play one more person to get to the finals but I still agree that isn't much of an advantage imo.

 

[jsp]

If we want to think of the entire tournament as being a "double-elimination" format, then I see the motivation.

But if we instead view it as a double-elimination qualifier event whose purpose is to produce two contestants for the finals event, then all of the problems go away.

The only players who fail to qualify for the finals event are those who lost twice--that's fair to everybody.

Then there is no need to make the finals event the same length race as the double-elimination qualifier event. The finals could be a longer race (like at TS) or it could have a win-by-two requirement. Or it could be a best two of three sets, etc...

That's a pretty darn good point. I never thought of it that way.

But regardless, I still think it's reasonable to reward the undefeated player (or the person who performed better during the preliminary rounds) in the finals. Even during the two big IPT events, I think it would have been reasonable to reward the finalist with the better winning percentage. It could be as slight as getting the first to break or something out of the box as small cash bonus (as others have suggested), but I feel some reward should be given to the player that performed better in the preliminary rounds.

As much as I loved the round robin format in the two IPT events, I thought the single set race to 8 finals format was absolutely absurd.