How is qualifying defined? The period of time before anyone has been eliminated?
The distinction of when a playerâs seed is âlocked inâ is what we look at, regardless if that qualifying portion is DIRECT or INDIRECT.
If a playerâs previous activity is never wiped clean, then there wouldnât be any distinction between qualifying and finals.
For example 10 group play rounds, and every round the lowest 4 players are eliminated. This is perfectly fine to all be considered âmeaningfulâ because thereâs no distinction between qualifying and finals.
For Pinburgh the seeds get locked in for finals once 40 players remain. At that moment all previous qualifying activity has no impact on where players move in the standing.
Thatâs the moment in time where we ask, did the tournament have more than 80 players? If the answer is yes then all of that qualifying activity is âfineâ. If the answer is no then itâs not.
@umbilico I would need more details on your format with respect to what the âstagesâ mean, specifically how those stages carry forward from one to the next in order to answer your question.
1 Like
Okay, I think I get the idea. Two questions about that:
-
If there are three stages, and the previous activity is wiped clean after each one (except for seeding the next stage), does this mean the 50% rule applies to all of them, and not just the first? Say, first stage some rounds of group play, then eliminate half. Second stage grouped round robin seeded by the first stage results, then eliminate half. Third stage single elimination, seeded by the second stage results. Does the rule apply to both the first and second stage then?
-
How âcleanâ does âwiped cleanâ have to be? E.g. first stage is 4 strike knockout, second stage is group play, but players take their remaining strikes as points into the match. Or first stage head to head matchplay, and the results are used to break ties in the second round. Both certainly have some sort of impact on where players move in the standing, but is it enough to not apply the 50% rule?
Btw, part of the confusion on my part is that that âlocking inâ of the seed isnât big around here. I know thereâs lots of US tournaments where thereâs an actual qualifying round, the results of which inform game and position choices throughout the rest of the tournament, but thatâs not a concept Iâve ever personally encountered in a tournament Iâve played in.
Our experience is mostly with tournaments that have a qualifying/finals distinction if you will, so itâs hard for me wrap my head around some of these hypotheticals.
Ultimately weâll have to just review the actual format youâre proposing when itâs submitted, and can provide feedback at that time.
Those âhypotheticalsâ were all actual large tournaments I participated in. I get that you prefer judging on a case by case basis, so let me give you some big picture info to help with that:
In all the tournaments Iâve ever played in, in several different countries, the only times anyone was ever allowed to choose a machine or position was when this was mandated by IFPA rules (e.g. ECS finals). This just isnât done, the concept of using the first stage results to determine a bus driver in later stages doesnât exist. Even when matchplay.events says that some player âchooses positionâ, everybody knows to ignore that and that the actual play order is the order in which the players are listed, thatâs so clear to every participant that it isnât even announced at tournament start.
Thatâs something to keep in mind when reviewing tournament formatsâit just doesnât make much sense to anyone in this part of the world that the first stage of a tournament wonât count because not enough people were eliminated, so it was just âseedingâ. Well, there wasnât any meaningful âseedingâ going on, either, so I guess we were just twiddling our thumbs then.
Let me give you an example, the last tournament I played in was this: First stage 96 players head to head Swiss, eliminate half, 48 players left. Second stage, 6 groups of 8 players round robin, eliminate half, 24 players left. Third stage, 3 rounds of best-of-3 single eliminmation, 3 players left. Fourth stage one 5-ball game. Nobody ever chooses a machine or position. Well, there werenât 96 players to begin with, so they had to cut down to 44 players and fill up the 4 empty spots with byes for the second stage. After that, it was no problem at all to cut down to 24 players to get back on track with the format, because for some reason the 50% rule was very important for the previous stage, but not at all for this one. I bet you all my WPPRs that none of the participants could tell you why that makes sense.
1 Like
You donât need to cut the field in half every time. If I understand correctly, you just need to be having players drop off at some point. Since each stage loses players in this format, I believe that every part of this event will feed the value for IFPA. Even if you didnât cut the field in half each time. Look at a ladder format. You only lose one player per game. That all counts. And each game can be seen as a stage.
In your scenario above, had stage one eliminated no one, it would be like the tournament hasnât even started yet, because that play has no bearing on the outcome of the event.
I could be wrong on all this btw. But as I type I totally see why the IFPA looks at these events on a case by case basis. Haha
It is my understanding that I donât need to cut the field in half in any stage except the first, but if I donât do it in the first, e.g. I cut the 89 players down to 48 to make the format work without having to give out byes, thatâs a whole tournament day of 16 rounds head to head matchplay that wonât count jack for the TGP.
1 Like
Yeah I was staying that you donât need to cut 50% in stage one either. Youâre losing players every stage, while having direct play the whole time. I think youâre good. Like ladder format. I think you can have different stages of a tournament without having qualifying be any of them.
Youâre tournament starts immediately. No qualifying to determine anything. It just starts. I see your tournament as being multistage finals. No qualifying. All counts towards TGP.
I agree with your interpretation, but this has not been the IFPAâs stance in the past. A few years ago, there actually was a tournament with pretty much the same format I described, planned for 64 players, but one of them didnât show up, so the whole first stage didnât count.
Well thatâs stupid. Haha
It seems like this is the first point in the tournament that you are âlocking in seedsâ?
Unless your single elimination bracket pairings are decided randomly or change each round?
Any prior stage seems âfineâ to me as there is no distinct separation to what would feel like a âfinalsâ.
I actually donât know how the single elimination bracket was seeded, but hereâs what Iâm thinking, please tell me if you agree: If the stage 3 single elimination is also seeded by stage 1 results, then clearly the seeds were locked in after stage 1 for the rest of the tournament, so the 50% rule should apply to stage 1. If itâs seeded by stage 2 results, then the seeds for the âfinalsâ clearly werenât locked in until after stage 2, so the 50% rule should apply to stages 1 + 2 combined. If itâs seeded randomly, or by current IFPA rank or whatever, then this obviously isnât one of those tournaments that lock in seeds for the finals at any point at all, so the 50% rule shouldnât apply to any of the stages. Am I close?
The thing is, people sometimes ask me about their formats and how they fit the current WPPR rules, and Iâd like to be able to give them some informed advice, because often thereâs a language barrier to clearing things up with you directly, and itâs just easier this way. It would be very helpful for me to know if I got the gist of the rule, so if I tell someone theyâre gonna be fine eliminating less than half, theyâre not in for a bad surprise.
You got it 
1 Like
Damn I thought I understood this and now Iâm just straight confused.
Is the summary that the 50% rule only matters when the stage that follows it has some sort of seeding attached to it?
We run into the following problem doing 5 rounds of 4 player group play, then cut to top 8 and do a multi match play finals. As long as your seeding 1-8 has zero significance if only 12 people show up could I be allowed to run the tournament this way? Since multi match play is still direct and you have no choice of game or order? But if I make it so number one seed gets to choose which âbankâ to use, then itâs no good?
You got it. If thereâs no value of performance besides simply âadvancingâ then itâs all âfinalsâ like a strikes tourney.
How would you base your pairings for the final 8?
Well normally I would do 1,4,5,8 2,3,6,7 but if I needed to when we have less than 16 players I could just randomly draw them? Interesting⌠keep this in my back pocket for sure!
I have a random, simple question. WPPRs depreciate yearly. Is that exactly on the anniversary of each event, or is it the end of the calendar year?
Anniversary of the event.
4 Likes
âSort ofâ on the anniversary. Iâve often seen them not decay until thereâs a new event posted after the anniversary date. Iâve also seen them decayed on the top 100 version and not the top 500 version, or on your personal table but not in the rankings list. They might have fixed either or both of those by now, donât know.
Probably the first site rebuild after the anniversary of the event?
1 Like