# TGP Calculation

I’m hoping someone can help me with my TGP calculation. We ran a 7 round match play tournament with 4 player groups. There were 15 players, 4 of which moved on to the finals. The finals were a single elimination ladder format with the bottom player in the group getting eliminated. The TGP calculator I found says I should get 14 meaningful games (56% TGP) for the matchplay portion.

I found a guide on the IFPA website the ladder format should be 2 games towards TGP for 4 players, but it also says “Receives 2x bonus for 4-player games”

Do I add in the 2X bonus? We started with a 4 player group, which after the first round was a 3 player group and then a 2 player group.

The guide assumes the final game is just a 4p game. Your format you should compute the expected number of games for the winner, which is easy because the winner plays all games. So it is a 4p+3p+2p, so 2+1.5+1=4.5 for the final.

1 Like

The statement “receives 2x bonus…” means it’s already been accounted for.

This effect on meaningful games can be seen for example by comparing the game count for 2 player games versus 3 player games (1.5x multiplier) and 4 player games (2x multiplier).

So according to the IFPA TGP guide and what you stated you did, it seems like your event would receive 56% for the seven 4-player match games, (4%TGPx14) and 8% for the 4-player ladder portion (4%TGPx2).

64% TGP based on what you listed.

As I understand it I would think it is the following:
7 games qualifying (56%) +
Finals (18%)
4 player game (8%)
3 player game (6%)
2 player game (4%)

For a total of 74%

1 Like

As a newbie TD, I find the TGP calculator to be very confusing. Luckily, all of the tournaments I have run have been simple because they mirrored other tournaments, so I always have 100% TGP. If I were ever to deviate, I would be lost on how to compute TGP.

1 Like

This makes it easy to calculate: http://tgp.slapsave.com/

How do I go about adding finals? I can’t use Knockout since it was in essence a single strike and Ladder format isn’t even there as an option.

Calculate them separately and add together.

2 Likes

There were
8 x 4 player games (7 in qualifying - 1 in final)
1 x 3 player game
1 x 2 player game

That equates to (8 x 2) + (1 x 1.5) + (1 x 1) = 18.5 meaningful games

Which would give 18.5 / 25 * 100% = TGP 74%

However, when you come to submit you can’t submit half games (i.e. 18.5) They have always been rounded down when I have previously submitted, so 72% (or 76% if you round up)

2 Likes

Thank you. I went with 18 games.

I can certainly see how a ladder of 4 players, then 3 players, then 2 players could be calculated as “4.5” meaningful games.

However, I would say this listing on IFPAs site is confusing if a 4 player ladder is not 8%.

—————————

4 player groups, 1 player eliminated per round until final 4 players remain (assumes 1 game for final 4) (receives 2X bonus for 4-player games)

4 players –> 2 games towards TGP

It says “assume 1 game for final 4”, so I’m not sure on the confusion?

Why even list a 4 player match as a “ladder”, if there is only one game? Nobody was eliminated.

If they mean there is only one 4 player game because the next is 3 and the next is 2, (which seems how a ladder works) then that should be easy to list how many games count.

So yes, it is confusing to me.

Somewhat related to this for a ladder that is like the Amazing Race format where everyone who’s alive plays a machine - is that calculated similarly where if it’s eight players then in the first round, all eight players play the same machine and the lowest score gets eliminated. Would that equal 2-games TGP like a four player group match play would? And if so then that would apply until you got down to three players and the final two where those two rounds would be 1.5 and 1 game TGP respectively?

If the normal standards were used, it looks like you’d get 100% if you started with 10 players and eliminated one each round with values of 5, 4.5, 4, 3.5, 3, 2.5, 2, 1.5, 1. Not sure how just dropping one person per round affects it, though, vs. cutting off half of the field or more per round.

1 Like

Was wondering how amazing race formats got graded. Do they need a finals element as well?

Curious how an eliminate 1 per round for a small player base vs. 2 per round with a larger player turnout would rate as well.

Thanks.

I can’t imagine that you get a 5x multiplier for a 10 player game. If that were the case, then a tournament where 50 players each play one game of South Park would get max TGP and the winner would take home around 30 WPPRs. (Although there is no direct play component in this fake example).

It isn’t really much different from a limited Herb with 1 entry on a bank of one game. That’s only worth 4%…but you can’t eliminate only 10% of the field.

No idea how to grade this.

1 Like

I’ve been in a few events where there were playoff rounds with more than 4 players in a round / group and N/2 was the weight given to the games in that round. But in those cases, it was either taking just half the people for the next round or else it was the final round for position placement. It’s in a previous WPPR thread somewhere on the board.

Interesting. So a 40 person indirect game of South Park (N/2 = 20 TGP), with top four making a direct play finals match on one game of South Park (2 TGP), would be worth 88%? That seems like a serious loophole.

1 Like

Match Play Qualifying

• 1 game added to TGP per game played for Head-to-Head matches
• 1.5 games added to TGP per game played for 3-player style matches
• 2 games added to TGP per game played for 4-player style matches
• Please note this format does not require a finals component as the qualifying portion already consists of DIRECT play. This is often found in Swiss style formats where there is no separate distinct finals component.
• Please note the qualifying portion of the tournament can be added to the TGP calculation only if that qualifying portion reduces the field of participants by 50% or more

No mention of anything beyond 2 games for 4-player groups, so I would imagine that’s the maximum multiplier.

1 Like