I’d like to make a plea to all TD’s out there that we do away with the mathematical formulas for breaking meaningful ties, or at min the ties that get a person in or out of finals. I understand the reason for it at events like Pinburg where you may have 10 people in a critical tie and time doesn’t allow for multiple game to be played but in events where you realistically will have less than 4 people on the bubble, please (I beg of you) please let us play a game.
This is in relation to a match play tie situation. Use 1st place finishes and then 2nd place finishes if needed because at least there is a meaningful difference but if the players are still tied at that point, I 100% don’t agree with the use of “earlier round performance” equations. It’s not fair to the player especially when those players didn’t play against each other nor on the same games or even against the same players. I’m going to give an example of what happened to me this weekend to elaborate why I feel this way.
I played in a fairly large event to where there were 52 people in a grouping (4 groups played for qualifying) where you could play in up to 2 groups. Total players were 123 and top 24 made finals. Only 6 rounds could be played for each group due to time so you played a very small pool of those players. I tied with another player at 14.5 points with both of us having 4 1st place finishes, 1 second and 1 third. Both of our 2nd place finishes were in 3 player pairings as well (some people didn’t show so we were short of the 52). Since we had identical scores and finishes the “earlier round performance” was used to break the tie.
Player A went - 1,3 (4 player group),1,1,2 (3 player group),1
Player B went - 1,2 (3 player group),1,1,3 (4 player group),1
Player B was awarded the last spot in qualifying for the tournament. I still don’t understand why doing better at the start and finishing weaker at the end is determined to be better than someone that started weaker and finished stronger. Seems like at worst, you would look at finishing position starting at round 6, then 5, then 4, etc but I know that’s not how it’s done. Since Player B had more points then Player A back in round 2 they go the win.
Here is why I feel using that is an injustice to all players that fall into this situation. Strength of schedule isn’t taken into account, head to head of players they both played isn’t taken into account nor is strength of players they lost to taken into account. In all 3 of these items Player A performed better.
Player A played stronger opponents - 3760 Average IFPA Ranking VS Player B’s 5335 average
Player A and B both played 5 of the same players. Player A beat all 5 of those like opponents where Player B went 4 and 1.
Player A losses were to players with an average IFPA ranking of 816 VS Player B’s 1879
Player A strongest 3 opponents were IFPA ranked 10,108, 273. Player B was 70, 324, 396.
The only possible way Player B would take the tie without a game played is because Player A took a 3rd in round 2 with Player B taking a second.
I know this is a bit of sour grapes right now with me, but my intentions and heart are always with making things as competitive and fair as possible. To me, it just doesn’t seem right to be breaking ties in this fashion thus the plea to allow for a competitive way to break the tie or at min look at the players paths. I still don’t like the paths as neither play chose whom they got to play against but at least it shows who had to play stronger.
Outside of time constraints what would be the reason why this way of breaking ties is even allowed/used?