Match Play Events Open Thread


It was my stream you saw it on I believe

Mwelsh post



And when doing this if you wanted to switch groups, could you simply go to the window that has the links to the other groups, click the one you want, and what you see in OBS will update?


I just have a button on my stream deck that opens to the broadcast website on match play. I then copy and paste to my stream.


If you use a Browser Source instead of a Window source in OBS, you can right click the source and press Interact. This brings up the page in a separate window where you can click links, etc. This may or may not be easier than using Window Capture depending on your preference!


Does the broadcast view not work for flip frenzies?


Player Attendance on Series Statistics page seems to be displaying incorrectly. The Y-axis starts at the lowest count, rather than 0



That could very well be since flip frenzies do not have “rounds” and the broadcast view uses rounds as the mechanism for picking which game to highlight. :frowning:


Weird bug, event 33690 Bat city flip frenzy. Tony Chbeir keeps getting added onto two games at once. Does not appear to be in the tournament twice.


I’m sorry that happened :frowning:
It’s not possible for me to see much about this situation after the fact. Were two games created at once or was Tony in every list twice (acting as two separate players)?


Strict swiss player pairings
In head-to-head tournaments you can now choose “Strict swiss” as the player pairing option. What’s the difference between strict swiss and the existing swiss option, you ask?

The existing swiss pairing treats a player’s win-loss record as the only thing that matters. A simple attempt will be made to match a player against an opponent they haven’t faced before, but no matter what the player will be playing against an opponent with the same win-loss record. Even if that means facing the same opponent multiple times.

The strict swiss pairing places a much greater emphasis on pairing players against an opponent they haven’t faced before, even if this means playing against an opponent that does not have the same win-loss record. This is more in line with how swiss pairings are done in other sports (like chess tournaments). As usual, the pairing code is available for all to inspect.

Thanks go to @umbilico for writing the computer code to make this possible. There is no way I would’ve had time to implement this pairing algorithm and he not only took it upon himself to write code to my specifications, he also handled testing with German-speaking pinballers (where this kind of pairing is popular)!


So, Strict Swiss pairings is something between balanced and Swiss if I understand correctly? If so, which one is it closer to?


The main rule of balanced is “don’t repeat a pairing”, the main rule of swiss is “always pair players with the same win-loss record against each other”.

Strict swiss follows both of those rules, but if there’s a conflict between them, it will give priority to not repeating pairings, so in this way you could say it’s closer to balanced.

It also does some things that neither balanced nor swiss do, e.g. give byes only to the lowest ranked players.


One of my TD’s posted this bug under my account during the Bat City Open.
We think it was caused by running two instances of the score keeper on two different machines that caused this. I somehow did not turn on let players suggest results and the line for reporting scores was a bit of a nightmare at the beginning of the event so an additional machine was added to help.
Maybe @YeOldPinPlayer @spraynard or @Snailman could chime in with more details


That explains it. You should definitely never use more than a single device to record scores and announce matches during a Flip Frenzy. It’s a pretty safe thing to do for other tournament formats, but flip frenzies are special in that multiple devices can get things out of sync on the server. This is why you player’s can’t suggest scores and you can’t enable the “additional scorekeepers” option for flip frenzy tournaments.


It’s possible two games were created at once. We handled the initial rush of score inputs after game one by using two separate laptops. We abandoned that idea after about five minutes. Tony only appeared in the player list one time. I tried deactivating and reactivating, that didn’t fix it. Maybe if I had deactivated him, then marked him as not present at any games he was assigned to, then reactivated him.
Oh well, we worked around it. Added half a point for every time I marked him not present at a game and I think it turned out OK.


I’m glad you found a workaround at least. The two laptops would definitely cause trouble. Results have to be processed in strict order, so one laptop and force players to form a physical line to report results is the way to go


At the start of the tournament right after the first set of matches finished, there were 50+ people all attempting to access one laptop, and the interface requires a ton of scrolling to find names. The experience could definitely be improved.


This’s happens to us at Titletown during a flipper frenzy tournament as well. We were also using 2 laptops.


I’m happy for any concrete suggestions. There are currently three different ways to enter results in a flip frenzy:

  • Click the “Pick winner” button and get a list of players. This is often the fastest way to enter a result
  • Click the “Scan winner” button and you can scan the QR code from a person’s player card. If player’s have their phones open to their player card or you print player cards ahead of time this will be the fastest.
  • Scroll the main list of active games and find the right game

Either way, when you have 50 players fighting over one laptop I strongly recommend using a dedicated scorekeeper for your tournament to avoid a brawl breaking out.


Rather than improving the TD view, I’d prefer a system where players can report from their phone and the submissions are timestamped with a reasonable delay (like 20 seconds) to allow slow connections to have a chance to be processed in the correct order. I realize that there are technical reasons for why you implemented what you did, but getting rid of the bottleneck would be my preference.