How about Faux Frenzy?
1 Like
Max Matchplay
1 Like
“Net wins” variant already has that name locked up. #zealot
kinda a merger between FF and partial round robin, Robin Frenzy? 
1 Like
Pair Frenzy ?
In keeping with the punctuation-heavy original name of “Pinball! Pinball! Pinball!”, I suggest “Ready? Go!”
Pinball! Pinball! Ya Done!
1 Like
“Save Teolis”
3 Likes
haha you had to go there-
Perhaps others are thinking about this already, but are there certain scenarios or restrictions that would prevent a person from finishing the allotted number of games?
If I super oversimplify, let’s say you run a 3-player single game Max Matchplay. P1 and P2 play, and P3 can’t play their game.
Or 5-player 3 game. You’ll end up with one player only with two games.
- How would the IFPA handle this from a TGP perspective?
- How would event scoring work if you have a player with less rounds than everyone else? I’d love to use just straight-up wins but the person locked out would have a disadvantage. Or does that person get a 1/2 point to compensate?
Don’t they get an buy? / auto win?
Is it ok to add an AUTO LOSER fake player just to get to an even number of players if needed?
For those who may be interested, here’s a snapshot of how the top 100 rankings have changed over the past year. Some of the changes are due to differential access to “WPPR farms”; other changes are due to new players coming into their own as higher echelon players. I make no judgments about this, I’m just presenting the data for your review. Players listed as “#N/A” in the 8/12/21 column were outside the top 500 at that time. (I only capture the top 500 when I grab snapshots.)
| Player | 8/15/22 | 8/12/21 |
|---|---|---|
| Escher Lefkoff | 1 | 6 |
| Raymond Davidson | 2 | 2 |
| Cayle George | 3 | 9 |
| Jared August | 4 | 76 |
| Jason Zahler | 5 | 51 |
| Viggo Löwgren | 6 | 74 |
| Arvid Flygare | 7 | 129 |
| Neil Graf | 8 | 222 |
| Steven Bowden | 9 | 21 |
| Johannes Ostermeier | 10 | 3 |
| Carlos Delaserda | 11 | 130 |
| Colin MacAlpine | 12 | 22 |
| Eric Stone | 13 | 4 |
| John Delzoppo | 14 | 39 |
| Jason Werdrick | 15 | 38 |
| Flavio Baddaria | 16 | 47 |
| Paul Englert | 17 | 18 |
| Daniele Celestino Acciari | 18 | 17 |
| David Riel | 19 | 20 |
| Zach McCarthy | 20 | 138 |
| Travis Murie | 21 | 105 |
| Peter Andersen | 22 | 1 |
| Robert Sutter | 23 | 8 |
| David Daluga | 24 | 84 |
| Andy Rosa | 25 | 29 |
| Walt Wood | 26 | #N/A |
| Markus Stix | 27 | 36 |
| Derek Price | 28 | 27 |
| Andrew Foster | 29 | 33 |
| Tom Graf | 30 | 54 |
| Adam McKinnie | 31 | 88 |
| Keith Elwin | 32 | 12 |
| Trent Augenstein | 33 | 16 |
| Keri Wing | 34 | 354 |
| Germain Mariolle | 35 | 26 |
| Marcus Hugosson | 36 | 19 |
| Luke Nahorniak | 37 | 31 |
| Andy Bagwell | 38 | 451 |
| Robert Byers | 39 | 177 |
| Alberto Santana | 40 | 44 |
| Tobias Wagemann | 41 | 43 |
| Erik Thoren | 42 | 104 |
| Aleksander Kaczmarczyk | 43 | 10 |
| Emil ED Dreiborg | 44 | 11 |
| Josh Sharpe | 45 | 60 |
| Tim Sexton | 46 | 295 |
| Markus Virtanen | 47 | 90 |
| Jordan Semrow | 48 | 48 |
| Bob Matthews | 49 | 57 |
| Bill Mason | 50 | 146 |
| Dalton Ely | 51 | 268 |
| Colin Urban | 52 | 5 |
| Thomas Mästerman | 53 | 66 |
| Jim Belsito | 54 | 23 |
| Karl DeAngelo | 55 | 37 |
| Kassidy Milanowski | 56 | 294 |
| Jonas Valström | 57 | 32 |
| Johnny Modica | 58 | 67 |
| Mark Pearson | 59 | 56 |
| Jason Lambert | 60 | 42 |
| Paul Jongma | 61 | 45 |
| Erik Rentmeester | 62 | 135 |
| Bowen Kerins | 63 | 13 |
| Andrei Massenkoff | 64 | 62 |
| Stefan Herold | 65 | 61 |
| Julio Vicario Soriano | 66 | 7 |
| Joe Lemire | 67 | 24 |
| Phil Birnbaum | 68 | 34 |
| Nico Wicke | 69 | 65 |
| Brian O’Neill NH | 70 | #N/A |
| Benjamin Gräbeldinger | 71 | 80 |
| Bart Volman | 72 | 94 |
| Elliott Keith | 73 | 46 |
| John van der Wulp | 74 | 137 |
| David Dahl-Hansson | 75 | 83 |
| Brian Shepherd | 76 | 201 |
| Drew Geigel | 77 | #N/A |
| Eric Strangeway | 78 | 52 |
| Phil Grimaldi | 79 | 89 |
| Ben Moser | 80 | 141 |
| Jan Anders Nilsson | 81 | 86 |
| Johan Genberg | 82 | 41 |
| Chris Frame | 83 | 206 |
| Sean Davis | 84 | 256 |
| Zach Sharpe | 85 | 91 |
| Reidar Spets | 86 | 414 |
| Mads Kristensen | 87 | 101 |
| Ryan Spindler | 88 | 121 |
| Jeff Teolis | 89 | 40 |
| Will McKinney | 90 | 63 |
| Mario Kertels | 91 | 132 |
| John Shopple | 92 | 179 |
| Alex Harmon | 93 | 79 |
| Mika Marttinen | 94 | 166 |
| Roland Nadeau | 95 | 317 |
| Dave Stewart | 96 | 72 |
| Matt McCarty | 97 | 259 |
| Mike Weyenberg | 98 | #N/A |
| Olli-Mikko Ojamies | 99 | 14 |
| Lonnie Langford | 100 | 59 |
2 Likes
Lonnie smurfing down at 100. 
I’ve got a bunch of thoughts so I’ll break them up into a few posts, starting with a response to the questions from @coreyhulse.
How would event scoring work if you have a player with less rounds than everyone else?
I would expect this to work the same way as a head to head tournament that uses traditional match play rounds. In that kind of tournament with an odd number of players, one player gets a bye each round. Assuming the number of players is not evenly divisible by the number of rounds, you’ll end up with a few players being one game short of the rest of the field.
As far as I can tell, the IFPA doesn’t give any guidance on how to count those byes towards standings. Next.Matchplay.Events gives you options of 0, 0.5, or 1 for value of byes in a head to head match play tournament.
On your question about TGP, this is from the current WPPR guide:
The TGP will be based on the expected number of meaningful games that the winner of a tournament will play
and
For any tournaments that have multiple paths of qualifying for the finals, we will take the SHORTEST of those paths when counting meaningful games played for that portion of the tournament.
So I think the proper way to handle an uneven number of games played would be to use the “expected” number of games needed to become the winner. That’d be a little bit below the target game count, so in practice I think the number of meaningful games would be 1 less than the target game count.
Here’s a bit more on byes:
The “available players” frenzy format is a little different than head to head match play with an odd player count in terms of who ends up with a lower number of games. In head to head match play it’s random. In “available players” frenzy (if the available players waiting list is a FIFO queue) it’s likely that it’s going to be one of the players who have averaged the longest game times. This happens because the players who get to 20 games first had a big pool of available players for their last game. Eventually the pool of available players gets smaller until another pairing can’t be made. The length of that unlucky player’s last game is also a factor because other players who had slightly longer average game times may have gotten their last games in if the unlucky player is finishing a particularly long last game while their potential opponents finish up quick final games and drop out of the available players list.
Here are a few more thoughts on what this format could look like. These are largely a summary of what’s already been said, but with a few new ideas too.
Choices available in designing a frenzy format
Progression: Rotating (P1, P2, Wait); Loser stays and winner waits; Both players move back to the waiting list after every game
Player selection from the waiting list: FIFO, random, weighted (with various options for weighting formulas)
Game start timing: Frenzy (right away); Rounds (synchronized across all players); Waves (synchronized once the waiting list reaches a certain size)
Ending trigger: Clock time, all (maximal) players have reached target number of games; at least one player has reached target number of wins; at least one player has reached target number of games; all players have reached minimum required number of games
Final phase: complete all in progress games and don’t start any new games; continue starting new games with a smaller player pool until the top X players have satisfied the ending trigger; continue starting new games until all players have satisfied the ending trigger
Automatic tiebreaker: no tiebreaker; most wins; fewest losses; games till final win
Scoring: Wins minus losses; Wins; Wins divided by games played
Factors to consider when designing a frenzy format
- Opponent variety (avoid systems that use repeated pairings of the same two players except in the case of Swiss-style “similar record” pairing systems)
- Impacts of speed of play (in what situations are players incentivized to concede and/or play fast or slow and/or delay results reporting?)
- Tournament duration predictability (can we reliably know when the tournament will end assuming an average game time?)
- Tournament minimum game count predictability
- Tournament maximum game count predictability
- Meaningful games / TGP% predictability
- Consistency of wait time (when players are waiting are their wait times similar or do they sometimes end up waiting much longer/shorter between games; is the wait time predictable?)
- Tone of wait time (how much are players playing vs waiting, when waiting are they in a natural group for socializing or are they more isolated?)
- Can a player join late (e.g. in wins minus losses scoring it’s unfair to add a player late but in a target wins/points format you can add a player late since they start with a clear disadvantage by receiving 0 points for the rounds/games/time that they missed)
I think my favorite combination of those ideas would be to try out:
Progression: Rotating (P1, P2, Wait)
Player selection from the waiting list: FIFO
this gives a consistent cadence, but it does have problems of “queue watching”
Ending trigger: at least one player has reached target number of wins
because it encourages fast play but punishes losses (see final phase)
At that point in time, find the player with the highest number of games (including in progress games); that becomes the target for the final phase.
Final phase: continue starting new games until all players have played that target number of games (or until there is only 1 player who hasn’t played that many games)
because it gets to a place where all players have played the same number of games (with the possible exception of the player who could not be paired, effectively getting byes); this discourages players from taking quick losses to get back into the queue with easier opponents
Scoring: Number of wins
Automatic tiebreaker: TD choice of No tiebreaker or Games till final win (for example; if two players have a record of 3-2, the player who got WWLWL would be ranked higher than the player who got WWLLW
Rather than “available players”, I’d call this format: Target Games Frenzy
It’s a name similar to Target Match Play, but here the ending condition (“target”) is “as many players as possible have completed exactly X games with no player completing more than X games”. This also helps solidify “Frenzy” to mean, “new games are started as soon as possible rather than in synchronized rounds;” in contrast to “match play” meaning “all players/groups start their next game simultaneously in synchronized rounds.”
1 Like
I think there are probably some holes in this format idea. But hopefully someone else can build on it (probably by simplifying it; or just choosing a different combination of choices) to make it into something that makes for a more balanced approach to competition within the Frenzy style.
makes wins in an row better then over all wins? (starts at final phase?)
also does an buy spot count as win for that?
The bye spot would not count as a win.
I was thinking that once the target wins was reached, that no one else would be able to get to that same number of target wins. But that’s not right because some other player may have played fewer games and might still have the chance to catch or even pass that player who reached the target first. I think I went wrong by combining the idea of target wins and target games.
But it can end with the few slow playing having to play out maybe 2-3+? games at the end while 80%+ of the players are waiting?
and you may need to do something about say one player left has no hope of makeing the finales but others need to win out so that they can’t just give up / take an bribe Now some players may be like I can’t win and I don’t want the other player to win so they grind out an long game to play spoiler. and you don’t want the TD to just give auto wins to speed things up.
1 Like