Had this been double elimination through to the end, the final 2 from the winner’s bracket would have been guaranteed at least third and second, but by doing things this way they weren’t. Additionally, out of the 2 from the loser’s bracket, one would have finished 4th, but in this format they could go 1-2.
All of that said, the format was published ahead of time, and people knew what they were getting into.
I’m not arguing this. If I had been in Europe at the time, I would have still gladly played in it.
@Adam already restated/recaptured my argument.
@marble… if the issue was time, there was already plenty of time put into the double elimination bracket. So I would recommend sticking with the format through the end instead of switching to a 4-player finals.
Agreed.
Double elim formats, that dont have a “loser has to win twice” type finals always perplex me.
When this happens in double elim 2 out-of 3 head to head events, where the finals magically becomes single elim (sigh…) You can literally have 2nd place finish the event with a 3-2 win/loss ratio of games played versus the 1st place finisher at the end of the tournament. Insanity! 
Last year’s UK Pinball Party when it happened to you was the first time I’d heard of it. Didn’t make any sense to me. I was also baffled by the lack of a significant, or any, cash prize for winning.
To be fair, although still bizarre, the uk party was a bit different. it was “double” elimination, but the winner of the losers bracket never had a chance of making finals! lol! The winner of the losers bracket just got 3rd with no chance of better, and the top 2 from the winners got to play for 1/2. …
At least you didn’t have to play SM while a bunch of cars and trucks drove through the warehouse!
Yup! I was there and can vouch for the absurdity of the matter!
I really don’t see the problem. The winners of the winners’ bracket received the significant benefit of a shorter path to the final. Personally, I’m not a fan of the standard double-elimination “loser has to win twice” final; I think it gives far too much of an advantage to the winners’ bracket winner.
There’s no advantage for the winner of the winners’ bracket. By forcing the winner of the losers’ bracket to win twice everybody is treated equally: You are eliminated once you’ve lost twice.
If the winner of the losers’ bracket only had to win once you are saying that every player is eliminated once they’ve lost twice, except if you haven’t lost at all. In that case you are eliminated after a single loss. That’s not very fair.
It helps, if you think of it as intermediate elimination stages. Like qualify/playoffs stage 1/finals, and not qualify/finals.
To me, it is fair to short-cut a bracket system, or strikes system, and proceed to, say, a four player final-final. Though, I admit it is a bit odd for a double elimination (be aware not to compare players wins-stats in double elim).
Some might argue, that it makes for a more exiting final standoff. Some might argue, that you can conclude your tournament in shorter time.
Of other implementation I have seen, I remember a double elimination that changed course at the point of 2 remaining in main and 6 in elim. Two 3-player group matches in elim where only the winners advanced. Now paired up with the main players and proceed.
As long as the tournament is layed out in detail ahead of time. Giving people a chance to understand formats and throw a comment if they find some matters way off.
it is bizarre in my opinion too - as I know some of the UK people are doing Judo and in this sport they use a similar kind of bracket (you only get a chance to play for third place, if your opponent you lost to is advancing far in the bracket).
That’s interesting, i was wondering what the origin of that was
Judo, you be crazy!