Triple Elimination Draw Method

[Colin Colenso]

I was pondering an alternative to the round robin format, so looked around for triple elimination drawsheets on the web. I couldn't find anything useable, so I decided to try to construct one myself.

It's based on 16 players...reducing them to 6. It could be altered a bit at the end as required. Also, it could be expanded for larger fields, or larger fields could be broken up into 16 player triple elimination sections.

You may notice that winning in round 4 is not a big advantage if you lose the next game, but there is an incentive to win it obviously to get an extra chance.

I'd like to get some feedback or suggestions from some you to see if this type of draw could be improved.

The big hassle with round robins is 1. Time and 2. Dumping. A triple, or even quadruple elimination system reduces these problems, and still makes sure better players come through and the wannabes at least get a few tries.

Colin

 

[stevelomako]

I was pondering an alternative to the round robin format, so looked around for triple elimination drawsheets on the web. I couldn't find anything useable, so I decided to try to construct one myself.

It's based on 16 players...reducing them to 6. It could be altered a bit at the end as required. Also, it could be expanded for larger fields, or larger fields could be broken up into 16 player triple elimination sections.

You may notice that winning in round 4 is not a big advantage if you lose the next game, but there is an incentive to win it obviously to get an extra chance.

I'd like to get some feedback or suggestions from some you to see if this type of draw could be improved.

The big hassle with round robins is 1. Time and 2. Dumping. A triple, or even quadruple elimination system reduces these problems, and still makes sure better players come through and the wannabes at least get a few tries.

Colin

Don't know about anyone else but I would be mad if I was in the finals as #3 or #4 and only got my 2nd loss and was out.....but....I'd be more mad if I was #1 or #2 in the finals and got knocked out with my 1st loss.

You could just use a regular double elimination chart for the first 2 losses then use just the losers side of another chart for the 3rd loss. You can mix up the players on the 3rd chart pretty easy.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Don't know about anyone else but I would be mad if I was in the finals as #3 or #4 and only got my 2nd loss and was out.....but....I'd be more mad if I was #1 or #2 in the finals and got knocked out with my 1st loss.

You could just use a regular double elimination chart for the first 2 losses then use just the losers side of another chart for the 3rd loss. You can mix up the players on the 3rd chart pretty easy.

Steve,
I know what you mean re players being disappointed if they go out in the later stage on just 1 or 2 losses, but it's structured to give them an advantage. At least in a seeding sense and less wins required.

I'll look at how the finals could be adjusted to better equalize this, though I like the idea of at least a standard semi and final format. Good for crowds and TV.

The WPBA does a similar thing with double elim to get the last 32. The winners side only gets the advantage of likely getting a lesser player.

As for using the loser's side of a standard double elimination chart, I don't think it works out....not without a bunch of complex tweaking anyway. Because new people keep coming into the draw on the losers side, and they need to be slotted somewhere when the lose.

Colin

 

[Colin Colenso]

Option B

Here's another Option which increases the advantage of those with fewer losses.

It's still not a perfect triple-elimination, but I think it's weighted pretty fairly.

 

[Colin Colenso]

3rd Option

The finals look a bit messy, but it's probably the fairest of all...very close to actual triple elimination for all players.

It also conveniently assesses players by 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th places as they are eliminated.

 

[DaveK]

I didn't look closely at the various systems posted, but how does it (do they?) scale ? Does the same system work well with 32 players ? How about 37 players ? In my mind these are a couple of the tests to see if the system is robust enough to be used.

BTW Colin, curling tournaments sometimes use triple elimination. You may be interested in the software from http://www.analyzersoftware.com/. You can download a trial version and may be able to look at how it structures a triple knockout tournament.

Dave

 

[Colin Colenso]

I didn't look closely at the various systems posted, but how does it (do they?) scale ? Does the same system work well with 32 players ? How about 37 players ? In my mind these are a couple of the tests to see if the system is robust enough to be used.

BTW Colin, curling tournaments sometimes use triple elimination. You may be interested in the software from http://www.analyzersoftware.com/. You can download a trial version and may be able to look at how it structures a triple knockout tournament.

Dave

Dave,
Thanks, I'll check out that software and see how their '3 game guaranteed' and 'Triple Elimination' rounds compare.

The format I used could be drawn up into a 32 or 64 player draw.

37 would work ok, but as with any draw, would lead to luck of the first round draw and a few gaps.

The only difference in the draws I showed was the finals layout. I guess it depends if you want the tourney to play into a 'rundown' single elimination format at the end. That's helpful for TV coverage finish...hence WPBA chose that kind of model.

Colin

 

[Eydie Romano]

This is excellent! When you get all the bugs out, I would love to use it. I have a triple elimination tournament at least once a month.

We use a cork board with names on push pins to move people around that way. It's a real pain in the assssssss! It would be a great help to have it on paper!

Please keep me posted!

 

[Bob Jewett]

I was pondering an alternative to the round robin format, so looked around for triple elimination drawsheets on the web. ...

With only 16 players it seems that you have a total of 10 rounds. That's no good. At all. Especially if Sammy Slowshot loses his first match and ends up winning the tournament. How about if you play round robin in groups of 4 with two advancing to an eight-player single elimination? Everyone gets at least 3 matches and you can finish in 6 rounds.

 

[Colin Colenso]

With only 16 players it seems that you have a total of 10 rounds. That's no good. At all. Especially if Sammy Slowshot loses his first match and ends up winning the tournament. How about if you play round robin in groups of 4 with two advancing to an eight-player single elimination? Everyone gets at least 3 matches and you can finish in 6 rounds.

That's not a bad way to do it Bob,
Would shorten things a bit, making 31 matches instead of 41-45 depending on which finals format of mine is used. The actual number of rounds is not so important as most the times matches from different rounds can be going on concurrently.

But a few points:

With round robin groups of 4 there can be some dumping in the last round. Which can ruin the atmosphere at a tourney.

Going down to just a single elimination for 8, will make the good players feel they are losing some of their advantage.

It an elimination event, a losing player has a better chance of running into players of his own ability after losses (I think....haven't done any deep math analysis). With groups of 4, there often seems to be some loaded groups. So with a triple elim, I think it's less likely that any player will draw 3 straight strong players.

As for Sammy Slowshot, yes, this kind of player can make one side of the draw drag behind in this type of draw. Perhaps such tournaments would necessitate a time clock on slow players.

On the pro side of your format. We tend to see more of the better players proportionately. Good for viewers.

But the good players are usually coming for the cash. Encouraging more of the lesser players by giving most of them a chance to play more matches in a tournament, tends to make both parties better off.

Colin

 

[Colin Colenso]

With only 16 players it seems that you have a total of 10 rounds. That's no good.

Just to clarify, obviously this is quite a long drawn out process just to reduce a 16 player field. It won't be very useful for most competitions as it would likely take a day to play out, even with several tables, if the matches were races to 4 or 5 or more.

I was thinking this type of format might be good as a kind of final playoff among 16 qualifiers. Let's say 2 players qualify each week, over 8 weeks, to fill a 16 player final field.

Then this triple elimination format is used for the final 16 over a full day.

Colin

 

[iapoolguy]

I have been doing triple elim. matchs every week all summer on thursday night's ..it's a true triple format...where as the winner of the third bracket must beat the loser of the first loss bracket twice and than must defeat the winners side bracket three sets to win ...it's a race to four nine ball winner breaks starts at 8 pm. limited to 16 players.... I add money to a full field each week...hears the shocker...its over 4 to 5 hours later...I hold it on 16 valley bar box's....made my own flo chart like Collin's but finished it out farther......
Terry
Ps.have some good players in it to...ya heard of the QC Mafia...lol