1. #11
    Originally Posted by Psychobabble.au Go to original post
    Well, virtually of the time if you don't get second after losing in the last round, it means that the person who did get second also only lost to the winner. And that person happened to beat players that did better in that tournament too, indicating that they had an overall tougher matchup so it is fair, according to the (very real) constraints of swiss matchmaking in such a small tournament.

    These tourneys are swiss, not single elimination. You shouldn't have any a-priori expectation that losing only in the last round is any more meaningful than only losing once in one of the other rounds.
    exactly, if this was a structured bracketed tourney then yes of course the 2 persons in the final round will be 1st and 2nd. but swiss is different. and the break points are tabulated depending on who your opponents are. so say player 1 beat two 500-1001 players than lost to winner in final round and player 2 lost to winner in first round then beat two players with 1200+ elo the break points reflect this and player 2 will gain 2nd.

    this all holds up given someone doesnt quit out of the tourney altogether after the first round. this mucks things up as i understand.
    Share this post

  2. #12
    Originally Posted by Baduruu Go to original post
    exactly, if this was a structured bracketed tourney then yes of course the 2 persons in the final round will be 1st and 2nd. but swiss is different. and the break points are tabulated depending on who your opponents are. so say player 1 beat two 500-1001 players than lost to winner in final round and player 2 lost to winner in first round then beat two players with 1200+ elo the break points reflect this and player 2 will gain 2nd.
    Please note that ELO is utterly irrelevant in the break point calculation. The only thing which is taken into account is that player's performance in the particular swiss tourney (the actual number value of your break points is your opponents' combined win points - i'm not sure whether your opponents' opponents' points are also taken into account, they are in some swiss systems but I haven't checked here). So, one of the problems with trying to run a swiss tiebreaker system here is that you are pulling from such a small sample size of games to judge the player's strength.

    this all holds up given someone doesnt quit out of the tourney altogether after the first round. this mucks things up as i understand.
    Yes, this is the other big problem. Most swiss systems specify a minimum win percentage that player's can't fall below for the purpose of calculating strength of schedule, here there's no such minimum so players who drop cause the break points of their opponent's to be much lower than they should be.
    Share this post

  3. #13
    yyderf's Avatar Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    20
    Originally Posted by DontMashMeBro Go to original post
    I won my first 2 duels, then lost to the tournament winner in the final duel. I finished in fourth place =(
    How is this fair?
    it very much is. not sure how many of you are aware, but they didn't name it "swiss" tournament for any kind of creative reason, it is called swiss because of this breakpoint system. It is used in tournaments in many sports/games, most famously, chess. there are usually 7 or 9 rounds in big chess tournaments and at highest level, draw is much more probable than winning, so it is very improbable, anyone would win with even 6 points out of 7 matches (1 point per win, 0.5 per draw), so there has to be some way to determine winner.

    regarding tournament you mentioned, it happened yesterday in one i was - only i was overall winner, but it doesn't matter. by chance, it was pretty stronghold dominated tournament. in first round, i got by chance, rather good haven player, but managed to win. they gone on to win next two rounds. second match, again by chance, i played vs. crag hack player, level 66, 1300+ elo, i think clearly best in tournament, but he got unlucky with his starting hand and with kelthor and my starting hand it was pretty bad matchup for him. ofc, he won his first and last game pretty decisively. and last game i was playing against shaar or kat (not sure now) otk player, which faced less skilled players in first 2 rounds and obviously managed to win both, but couldn't find the empty row to strike through in 7 minutes (3 tainted orcs and zefira in front line will do that to you) and it was easy win for me. obviously, his 2 opponents didn't win many matches, so what exactly did the last player do that would warrant second place? he beaten "nobodies", while only lost game of players that finished on 2nd and 3rd place was to overall winner. breakpoints reported this exactly so i think it was very much fair for these players that played better in whole tournament to finish over one which won as many games as them, but only against weaker opponents.
    Share this post

  4. #14
    I see. Thank you for the replies. I suppose my gripe was that I was left out of the prize pool.
    Share this post