I still don’t get this:
Why is a result of 15 W - 6 L considered better than 14 W - 5 L?
Both are +9.
The player with 15 has one more win, BUT also has one more loss. How does 1 extra win dominate over 1 fewer loss?
14/19 is better than 15/21 as a winning percentage (the flaw there strictly arguing percentage could be that it could be argued 1-0 is 100% , but the counter is that is only a +1 and only 1 win)
Is it because one player played more games overall ?
Thanks for reading and any insight.
If you are talking about a flipper frenzy, tiebreaker can be set by the TD to either most wins or fewest losses.
Yes, flip frenzy.
I’d still have the same question in the reverse direction.
This is common in Flip Frenzy events because part of the point of the event is to play as many games as possible.
I played in one last weekend and started out undefeated through the first eight games. If you go by winning percentage, then as soon as I’m the only undefeated player left, I’m incentivized to play as slowly as possible: arriving slowly at my match, taking time between balls, and even to chop wood endlessly to remain undefeated. It would even make sense to keep playing a game I’ve already won and try to time out the rest of the round. This is not in the spirit of the event, and would ruin it for my opponents.
This is why flip frenzy uses wins as a tiebreaker.
Just don’t lose to an delay of game rules
I use fewest loses. To prevent forfeits.
I am not sure how using losses rather than wins solves it either. It seems like the flip side of the tiebreak coin where one side is going to be favored depending on the amount of games played. 14-5 is better than 15-6 if losses decide the tiebreak, which is an option, right? Still not convinced that is better.
I guess what I am having trouble with is that the tiebreak is not really breaking a “tie” as the data sets are not uniform. In the above example, the only thing common is the net result.
Is it more fair to disable the tiebreak altogether and have an actual tiebreak game, particularly if it determines who advances to finals?
I think it’s fine to use the built-in tiebreaker for general seeding or final standings, but it’s always better to play an actual tiebreaker game on the bubble for qualifying or byes.
It’s just one of many choices you have as a TD to break a tie. I always disable tie breaks via software (unless it’s flip frenzy. I use fewest losses there) by at least playing a one ball playoff, but if it’s to advance in finals or win it all, full game.
But you can do whatever works best for you and your players.
Of course it is more fair to do a direct tiebreaker. But a Flip Frenzy is based on speed and timing, and introducing a round of tiebreakers of unknown length isn’t necessarily consistent with rest of the format.
I’ve not advanced to FF finals because I got stuck on long playing modern games more than my opponents did. That wasn’t “fair”, but I knew that about the format and could have chosen to skip out on the format because it isn’t fair enough, which many people do.
I was just trying to understand a compelling argument for why the extra win is ‘better’, particularly since it could just as easily be set as fewest losses are ‘better’. (chuckwurt said he does it this way)
I now understand that Flip Frenzy tiebreaks can be set for wins, losses or neither.
So I have my answer-it is just what the TD decides based on the software. It is not necessarily true that 14-5 is better or worse than 15-6.
Thanks for the replies. 
Just play a playoff game if it’s for life or death!!! If it’s for seeding, use the tie break rule.
Sure, I would have preferred that since I was the person tied to move on to final 4 at +9 with one fewer win 
All good.