Tourney Day 2

badpazzword · Post by **badpazzword** » Sun Sep 26, 2010 7:10 pm

RT > XT
SysX > ACE
SF > *BS
GB > SRM

Results so far - Asterisk = Forfeit
Next week, SysX v PK, XT v SF, ACE v GB and 8th place decider SRM v BS

Gandalf2 · Post by **Gandalf2** » Mon Sep 27, 2010 2:00 am

By my reckoning, this means....

- BS and SRM play each other next week for 8th/9th position
- ACE play GB - the losers go to the 6th/7th place match, the winners will stay in the main competition.
- The drama llamas will be out for XT vs SF, for the right to play one of....
- SysX, PK or RT. SysX play PK next week whilst RT await the winners of that. A week off for the Thunder, which we probably need after the epic match we just had vs XT.

Kinda weird how the top 2 seeds (SysX & PK) meet each other next week, feels kinda early on. It feels like the competition has a strange setup though I have the feeling that if I analysed it long enough I would find it is fair.

Dorjan · Post by **Dorjan** » Mon Sep 27, 2010 8:15 am

Gandalf2 wrote:QUOTE (Gandalf2 @ Sep 27 2010, 03:00 AM) By my reckoning, this means....

- BS and SRM play each other next week for 8th/9th position
- ACE play GB - the losers go to the 6th/7th place match, the winners will stay in the main competition.
- The drama llamas will be out for XT vs SF, for the right to play one of....
- SysX, PK or RT. SysX play PK next week whilst RT await the winners of that. A week off for the Thunder, which we probably need after the epic match we just had vs XT.

Kinda weird how the top 2 seeds (SysX & PK) meet each other next week, feels kinda early on. It feels like the competition has a strange setup though I have the feeling that if I analysed it long enough I would find it is fair.

I think that is because XT was rated 2nd, not PK.

Gandalf2 · Post by **Gandalf2** » Mon Sep 27, 2010 11:26 am

Dorjan wrote:QUOTE (Dorjan @ Sep 27 2010, 09:15 AM) I think that is because XT was rated 2nd, not PK.

That's not what the official document says.
Though I agree that XT being ranked 2nd makes more sense than PK.

Post by **Raveen** » Mon Sep 27, 2010 11:59 am

The design of the tournament was pinched from http://www.tournamentdesign.org/

I think the reasoning behind SysX vs PK so early is to avoid the last three games being SysX vs PK, PK vs SysX, SysX vs PK or whatever.

Dorjan · Post by **Dorjan** » Mon Sep 27, 2010 12:19 pm

Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Sep 27 2010, 12:59 PM) The design of the tournament was pinched from http://www.tournamentdesign.org/

I think the reasoning behind SysX vs PK so early is to avoid the last three games being SysX vs PK, PK vs SysX, SysX vs PK or whatever.

ah so SysX, RT, XT, PK was the ranking order. Makes sense.

Post by **Raveen** » Mon Sep 27, 2010 12:59 pm

The ranking order was: SysX, PK, RT, XT, BS, ACE, SRM, GB, SF in descending order.

notjarvis · Post by **notjarvis** » Mon Sep 27, 2010 1:02 pm

I think the ranking becomes more understandable when you think that PK has Beat RT a number of times in Recent tournaments, while RT has beat XT.

Post by **Raveen** » Mon Sep 27, 2010 1:35 pm

Actually, as of last night, RT are 1 whole ELO point ahead of PK (assuming I didn't miss any games which I might well have done)

Gandalf2 · Post by **Gandalf2** » Mon Sep 27, 2010 7:05 pm

notjarvis wrote:QUOTE (notjarvis @ Sep 27 2010, 02:02 PM) I think the ranking becomes more understandable when you think that PK has Beat RT a number of times in Recent tournaments, while RT has beat XT.

Yeah, the last 2 years have told us that...

PK > RT
RT > XT
SysX > PK
SysX > XT & RT (mostly)

.... and they are not really a consistent set of rules to form a ranking beyond SysX at number 1. I suspect if you re-ordered a few of the matches you could easily get 2nd to 4th come out differently. For example if RT beat XT then lose to PK, that's good for PK and bad for RT, but if RT lost to PK (and thus lost ranking points) then beat XT, that would be better as the difference in ranks affects how much you ranking changes.

This happened in rugby recently actually, I think Wales would've gotten ahead of England in the rankings if the same set of results had happened in a slightly different order. Just shows there's no such thing as a perfect ranking system I guess (a similar accusation has been made of AllegSkill).