Just seems weird to have your tournament worth LESS for MORE players
5 Likes
Also seems strange you need 51% which is inconsistent with other ifpa rules that use percentages:)
1 Like
I was surprised by the more than 50% too.
I disagree. All other things being equal (because we can’t control what games get assigned, and control whether longer-playing players get put into 3- or 4-player groups… the duration of rounds is governed by the longest-playing group. Which is a 4-player group. If you’ve got a 4-player group, it should play longer, and your 3-player groups will end up waiting. It’s not as significant on how many 4-player groups you have.
1 Like
The format under discussion here is a non-elimination Group Match Play format. Not a strikes format.
According to this new absolute-bonkers TGP rule, you don’t have to get fixated on multiples of 4… just avoid the # of players that results in not having a majority of groups as 4-player.
So avoid 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 21. Above 21 and you’re good no matter the number.
4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4
3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3
3 3 3 4 3
3
2 Likes
If I’m looking at the breakdown of numbers correctly, here are the 3/4 player group breakdowns given the number of players, and whether 4-player is the majority or not.
If I’m understanding correctly, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 17-player Match Play Tournaments are at 1.5x
What about 7, 14, and 21? I saw the term “majority”, but those are a 50% split between 3 and 4?
Anything else I’m presuming would be 2x.
The reason I’m specifically interested in this clarification is that for league night we’ll get anywhere from 10-20 players, and depending on what number we hit that will determine the TGP of any given league night.
1 Like
You can disagree, but we have always taken the most restrictive path in regards to anything to do with TGP.
So in the case of exactly the same number of 3 player and 4 players groups we are going to take the most restrictive path, that being 1.5x over 2x.
This seems strange but it makes sense. 21 players is 50% 3 player groups so you only get the 1.5x multiple but rounds will go faster with 21 players than it would with 20 players. So more people doesn’t always mean more time. The new (2019) TGP rules def. make more sense than the old ones. 100% TGP is generally going to require a minimum of 6-8hrs of play regardless of format. The old rules you get 100% in 3-4 hours with some formats but others required 8+ to get 100%. And yeah it will never be perfect but this is pretty darn close. I bet there were far fewer 3 strike tourneys in 2019 vs 2018. I bet 2019 had more variety as well due to the rule change, which I think is great.
1 Like
What are the exact changes in 2019?
Where in the ifpa TGP guide does it specify this new 51% rule for match play rounds being 4 players to count as 4 player groups? Has this ever been enforced? How is it enforced?
The charts for strikes tournaments are still accurate for TGP right? For example if the chart says * 15-21 players –> 9 games towards TGP then, ANY NUMBER between 15 and 21 will get you 9 games, right??? 17 doesn’t magically get you 8 games?
In the simulations that @keefer ran you could literally see this drop at random player counts.
In an attempt to minimize the tiers of TGP, I grouped things together as best I could to capture the most likely result.
I don’t understand, is that a yes or a no to my question? Can I rely on this guide or not
Everything in here is static:
https://www.ifpapinball.com/menu/tgpguide2019/
and if you run a format that matches what is in the guide you will get the exact TGP listed.
Okay so I don’t need to worry about weird number of players for strikes tournaments just for match play, and that’s only because of the “majority of games” clause
1 Like
correct
It really only applies to “small” tourneys, so not a big deal. But in principle, you’re correct: I disagree. You’re designing it so that a TD (who has advertised 100% TGP) would be incentivized to not accept a 13th or 14th player to their tourney, because they’d have to add 33% more rounds than originally planned to make up for only getting 1.5x instead of 2x.
Further, you’re asking all local-level TD’s to keep track of this nuance.
Just keep it simple, just like it’s written in the PAPA Style Finals TGP rules: if 4-player groups are used wherever possible, then 2x TGP. Also saves you from having to nitpick or check on such minutia.
My two cents.
3 Likes
Ok but does it go 25% faster with 21 than 20? Probably not. At that point a tournament with 20 players is worth more than one with 21 which makes 0 sense
1 Like
We’re reviewing Match Play results anyway. The idea of us actually blindly trusting the TGP values as submitted by the TD . . . 
Yeah I don’t look out for it at all. I just know that for under 21 people it could come into play.
Does the Order in which the 3-player groups are assigned matter for the multiplier?
Let’s take a scenario with 22 people or greater (since 22+ means you have a majority of 4-player matches).
Most MatchPlay.events Tournaments I have participated in are Swiss-paired, and the best players are in the top groups (four-player groups). The Top groups tend to take the longest, especially if the best players are four-player groups and the worst are three-player groups.
Let’s say you have an oddball number which necessitates some three-player groups. Could the best-placed players be placed in three-player groups for a given round and still have it count towards 2x?
3 Likes