That’s like saying you can replace an apple with an orange. Sure, they’re both fruits, but they taste completely different!
Both. I would encourage you to think through the different variations.
That’s like saying you can replace an apple with an orange. Sure, they’re both fruits, but they taste completely different!
Both. I would encourage you to think through the different variations.
I don’t know if this is possible, but as a player it would be nice to have your match bumped to the top of the matches pages. With the queue constantly changing I would sometimes check and not see that I had an active match until scrolling down a bit.
In the tournament I played in my last 2 games were with the same opponent with myself as player 1. If possible, maybe try to have player positions switch when/if opponents are matched up numerous times in the same tournament.
Taking a break from the lively Max MP discussion to share some new toys. WPPR estimates are now accessible with one click for all tournaments on Match Play! Open any tournament or series and click the “WPPR estimates” link and you’ll be able to see how many WPPRs are likely to be awarded to each finishing position and how many WPPRs each player in the tournament contributed to the total.
Just remember to set the TGP value to something realistic. Unfortunately the IFPA rules around TGP are too complex for Match Play to guess it for you.
You can also get WPPR estimates for tournament series. The link is at the very end of the series standings.
I have to give a huge thank you to James Todd (who built the WPPR estimator you’ve used in the past) for sparring on this feature and how to implement it. Give him some support by checking out his Pintrix app at: http://pinballmatrix.com/
ohhhh WPPRs mania!
For some reason, on my dashboard in the “Series registrations” area, I’m seeing 8 separate instances of the same series. Any thoughts on what might be causing that? I expected it to kind of go away but it’s been that way for a week or so.
@MET has answered this in another forum: it’s graded at the number of games that the player with the lowest amount of games has played.
In a way this doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, because, as you say, it’s not terribly consistent with how other H2H formats work, i.e. when pairings can’t be made, some players will play a round less than others, but it still counts.
On the other hand, I sort of get it, I think his argument is that this should never happen if the TO takes care to not let it happen, and I can get behind that. So, basically the TO pays a penalty of one or more meaningful games for doing it wrong. Would be nice if the software helped a bit in that regard, e.g. a very visible warning if any players have fallen behind too far.
There’s two things that define a Swiss tournament:
So, basically you’re saying Max Matchplay could easily replace Swiss, because the only differences are the two very things that make Swiss Swiss.
You’re in good company, though—what Matchplay has historically called “Swiss” isn’t Swiss either, and what you’re calling “balanced” here isn’t what Matchplay means when it says “balanced”. Maybe we should all together do a workshop on naming things.
no, the argument is in the rules:
“For any tournaments that have multiple paths of qualifying for the finals, we will take the SHORTEST of those paths when counting meaningful games played for that portion of the tournament.”
and yes, it’s not consistent how other h2h format works
Alright, going by the rules then, I like it. So, what if the whole tournament is only Max Matchplay, without a separate finals? Because the verbiage says “qualifying for the finals”, so that doesn’t apply then. And as a finals format itself, the TGP would be based on the expected number of games played by the winner, i.e. a single player having played a game or two less than the others would be ignored. (In the TGP Guide, MM is listed in both Approved Qualifying Formats and Approved Finals Formats.)
Sorry for going off topic, any mods please pull this out into its own thread if it escalates into a full-on WPPR nerd-off.
I don’t think you call your main with no finals as an finals format.
Also you can’t have an tie for 1st so even if no finals you may need an playoff / tiebreaker (that in that case can be seen as an finals)
For TGP purposes, a main with no finals has to be either a Qualifying Format or a Finals Format, because that’s the taxonomy the TGP Guide uses. And I know it’s not a Qualifying Format, because there’s nothing you qualify for.
I don’t see how ties should matter here. A lot of Finals Formats can have a tie for 1st—that doesn’t mean it was all just a dream and actually the whole thing wasn’t a finals at all but just the “qualifying for the tiebreaker”.
The cause is my inability to fetch the right data from a database. I’ll get it fixed soon – I got a little distracted with the WPPR estimations stuff
Even worse: Pingolf doesn’t involve golf balls at all!
Well, “that should be easy to code”!!! right? haha
Also, Ive been meaning to suggest that chunkout wppr estimator functionality. Great addition.
It would be great if the TD could set this percent as a default for anyone who goes to the WPPR estimator since most players have no idea how to come up with that percent, but the TD may have a better idea. Like it’s 8 rounds of group match play so we know it’s going to be 64%. It looks like it defaults to 100% any time that page is opened.
I like that it has “No IFPA data for:” at the bottom which may encourage TDs to enter an IFPA number for those players. What typically happens is a new player has no IFPA number until after their first tournament is submitted to IFPA, then the TD never enters the IFPA number for that player in their future tournaments. I try to point this out to local TDs and help them add the IFPA numbers for newer players.
I really like this feature, and I like the way you implemented the feature, however people I challenged couldn’t find their way to the page with the challenge, they didn’t know I had challenged them. However, this doesn’t account for the falloff in usage you describe.
This strategy doesn’t work if one is awarded -1 for a loss?
I’m not sure this is a good idea, lowering the number of matches mid way through. Players who are not in the lead will get upset because now they have less opportunity to catch up, it seems arbitrary and unfair to me. If the TD announces a tournament cut off time prior to tournament commencement and then manage the number of rounds accordingly then everyone knows what to expect.
On the subject of players leaving early, they are likely to be the ones who have lost. This means that other players wins are deleted, which won’t make them happy. I guess that is the downside of this format. but on the whole I really like it.
you are right with 1. but there should be no repeat pairings.
In my 3-days tournament which I organize soon, I will replace the Swiss-tournament with max matchplay.
Of coursse in swiss you play primary against others which have similar score, but if we are 42 players doing 38 rounds without duplicate pairings will be not a big difference to swiss but 20%-40% more games in same time period.
If you’re playing 38 rounds with 42 players, by all means, use MM and not Swiss.
Actual Swiss parings are dreadfully unsuited to such a high number of rounds. You could easily run into a situation where it’s impossible to avoid repeat pairings.
All I was saying is that MM doesn’t replace Swiss, they are actually quite different, as is reflected in the fact that MM is perfectly suitable for your situation, while Swiss doesn’t make a lot of sense there.