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.
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
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?
Is there an option currently available that would allow this method of assigning 3-player groups? Not only do 4-player groups with the best players take longer, I’ve heard quite a few complaints from demoralized players who keep on getting assigned to 3-player groups, which then prevents them from doing well enough to escape the 3-player group dungeon (i.e. 7-5-3-1 scoring becomes 7-4-1, so getting 2nd place in a 3-player group puts you at a disadvantage when you need to make up for a bad early round). I’m not super familiar with Matchplay’s offerings, so if it’s already out there, I’d like to try it out, and if it’s not something that’s readily available, I’d like to register my interest in it being a thing.
Sure, but I’d like to retain the part where people play people with similar records/of similar skill, just not guarantee the top of the standings 4-player groups.
I do not believe this is an option on MatchPlay. My familiarity with this as a potential format is that we have a local league which makes the top groups play as a three-player group when there are 3-player groups. They’ve kept track of things in Google Sheets for years, so they do things manually each week.
I have just added a new suggestion called “Add an Option in Swiss Formats to Draw Three-Player Games for Best Players” on MatchPlay’s UserVoice account.
Ohhh, that would be a super interesting data analysis question. How do tournaments with 0, 1, 2, and 3 3-player groups look from a distribution perspective of points on the low end of the tail, and is there less positional movement of those players who end up in the basement early on in a tournament with three three-player group vs a tournament with zero three-player groups? Additionally, if you switch it so Top players get the three-player groups, does that create more of a “king of the hill” type situation where there’s more fluidity within the top or do you extend the long tail if you have a player that is able to crush everyone in three-player groups?
Presumably a TD who felt that TGP was the most important thing could group this 21 player event as 4-4-4-4-3-2, thus keeping a majority of 4 player groups.
FSPA grouping scheme for leagues has always followed this policy. It’s never “perfect” of course, but all else being equal (e.g. not comparing an EM to LOTR), the duration of a game by three higher-skilled players will be similar to the duration of a game by four lesser-skilled players.
That’s just a perception thing. Could just as easily turn it around and say that the player in the three-person group had an advantage because they got 4 points instead of 3 for beating only one other person. The 7-5-3-1 / 7-4-1 / 7-1 scoring scheme is great because it’s balanced for all group sizes.
But then it’s not an accurate representation of what was actually played. Why should a TD who “attempts” to have 4 player groups but ends up with mostly 3 player groups get more TGP then a TD who runs a tournament with 3 player groups specifically?
As an example, One TD plays a 10 round matchplay with 9 people attempting 4 player groups and the other TD plays a 10 round with 12 players in groups of 3. Why should the TD with 9 people get 20 TGP because he “attempted” 4 player groups while the TD with 12 players gets 15?
That seems to be an extreme example. It makes sense that with 9 people and exclusively 3 player groups that you wouldn’t get the 2x multiplier but if you have 10 people for example then you have one 4 player group and you are attempting to have as many 4 player groups as possible, the tournament can only move as quickly as the slowest group, which would likely be the 4 player group so that tournament should get the 2x
I am one of those folks Zoe mentioned. In a recent four round qualifying, I lost the first match, which meant I ended up in three player matches for the next three rounds of the qualifying, even though I followed up with two seconds and a first. I ended up the same two points short of the qualifying tiebreaker that I lost by coming in second in those three player groups. If I had had the same finishes, but with my last place in a different round, I would likely have never ended up in a three player group, and had a chance at semis.
