scoring in tournaments

Tournaments organization / Organisation des tournois
Post Reply
User avatar
CptPugwash
Posts: 6
Joined: 30 October 2018, 20:49

scoring in tournaments

Post by CptPugwash »

At the moment there is a big discrepancy in the scoring of tables with a different number of players.

For example I have just played a tournament with tables of 6 & 4.
The 6 scored 10,8,6,4,2,0 for an average of 5 and the 4 scored 10,8,6.4 for an average of 7. This is clearly NONSENSE, the average scores on tables should ALWAYS be the same.
It's even worse when players get kicked. The table of 6 scores 6,6,6,6,6,0 whilst the 4 scores 8,8,8,4 :roll:

Why on earth don't we have standardised scoring across all games, something like
Table of 2 24,0
Table of 3 24,12,0
Table of 4 24,16,8,0
Table of 5 24,18,12,6,0
Table of 6 24,19,14,10,5,0
Table of 7 24, 20, 16, 12, 8, 4, 0.

The score for winning a table is fixed (24) no matter how many seats, the average is fixed (12), & last is fixed (0).
User avatar
sprockitz
Posts: 664
Joined: 23 October 2014, 02:22

Re: scoring in tournaments

Post by sprockitz »

admins have some control over how they setup the scoring.

I agree your setup is more equitable but others may not.

The only reason a tournament round should have such variance in player count (a difference of more than 1) is if players don't show up...and as such these players are treated as coming in last, which is why those that do show up earn on average more points than in the other match where everyone showed up.
User avatar
CptPugwash
Posts: 6
Joined: 30 October 2018, 20:49

Re: scoring in tournaments

Post by CptPugwash »

sprockitz wrote: 28 April 2021, 17:33 admins have some control over how they setup the scoring.
They may have, but I can't remember ever playing a tournament where the scoring system didn't favour sitting at a short table.
sprockitz wrote: 28 April 2021, 17:33 I agree your setup is more equitable but others may not.
Anyone who doesn't think my suggested scoring system isn't more equitable, simply doesn't understand basic maths.
sprockitz wrote: 28 April 2021, 17:33 The only reason a tournament round should have such variance in player count (a difference of more than 1) is if players don't show up...and as such these players are treated as coming in last, which is why those that do show up earn on average more points than in the other match where everyone showed up.
I'm afraid you're wrong here on 2 counts.
Firstly, tournaments can be set up to have a variance of more than 1 player, though I don't really know why that is an option or why an admin would choose it.
Secondly, irrelevant of whether everyone turns up or not, a table with less than the maximum number of players will always score more points per player than a full table.
User avatar
sprockitz
Posts: 664
Joined: 23 October 2014, 02:22

Re: scoring in tournaments

Post by sprockitz »

CptPugwash wrote: 30 April 2021, 08:57
sprockitz wrote: 28 April 2021, 17:33 admins have some control over how they setup the scoring.
They may have, but I can't remember ever playing a tournament where the scoring system didn't favour sitting at a short table.
sprockitz wrote: 28 April 2021, 17:33 I agree your setup is more equitable but others may not.
Anyone who doesn't think my suggested scoring system isn't more equitable, simply doesn't understand basic maths.
sprockitz wrote: 28 April 2021, 17:33 The only reason a tournament round should have such variance in player count (a difference of more than 1) is if players don't show up...and as such these players are treated as coming in last, which is why those that do show up earn on average more points than in the other match where everyone showed up.
I'm afraid you're wrong here on 2 counts.
Firstly, tournaments can be set up to have a variance of more than 1 player, though I don't really know why that is an option or why an admin would choose it.
Secondly, irrelevant of whether everyone turns up or not, a table with less than the maximum number of players will always score more points per player than a full table.
Ahh the if you think differently than me you are wrong defense, classic. And claiming I'm wrong on two counts, when in fact I never said either of the two things you are claiming. Obviously you aren't going to change your mind but in case other people are reading...

Making each table equal average points not counting kicked players is not the only equitable solution, considering players who don't play last and giving the other player's a partial placement improvement (as they can't finish last) is standard in many tournaments and is perfectly acceptable.

I know tournaments can have a variance of more than 1 game, the min number of players can be anything the game allows, that doesn't mean the tournament algorithm should be choosing to have games that differ by more than 1 player count. The tournament algorithm should select all games to start with n or n-1 players...and having a variance of greater than 1 would allow a game to start with n-2 or even n-k if some players don't show up to the table. This may be a bug, or if intentional it should really be an option for the tournament organizer. Actually I'd go a step further and say the tournament organizer should be able to set prefered and secondary player counts (often games are best with n but then better with n+1 than n-1, right now there is no possibility to have the secondary choice as n+1).

There are two legitimate ways to treat a table with n-1, score it as a table with n where there is no 'last place' (which gives a higher average) or redistribute points as you suggested. Both options are nice, so saying that people don't understand basic math if they are okay with the first option is ludicrous. It would be nice to have both options available. You have a similar issue when a player doesn't even play in a round, should they receive the full points (it is kinda unfair if they aren't even given the opportunity to get the full points) or should they get the average points for the round? In any tournament for anything I've ever been apart of this is considered a bye and is treated as a win.
User avatar
CptPugwash
Posts: 6
Joined: 30 October 2018, 20:49

Re: scoring in tournaments

Post by CptPugwash »

@ Sprockitz.
You obviously know what you are talking about, and yes my last post was arrogant.
sprockitz wrote: 30 April 2021, 15:02 Ahh the if you think differently than me you are wrong defense, classic. And claiming I'm wrong on two counts, when in fact I never said either of the two things you are claiming. Obviously you aren't going to change your mind but in case other people are reading...

Making each table equal average points not counting kicked players is not the only equitable solution, considering players who don't play last and giving the other player's a partial placement improvement (as they can't finish last) is standard in many tournaments and is perfectly acceptable.
You are not getting my point.
A table with 5 players scores less on average per player than a table with 4 players IRRELEVANT of whether everyone turns up or not. It may well be standard in many tournaments but it is not equitable.
EQUITABLE - fair and equal distribution of resources.
In this case resources are points, the 5 player table has 20 points to distribute to 5 players, the 4 player table also has 20 points to distribute. This is not equitable under any definition.
sprockitz wrote: 30 April 2021, 15:02 I know tournaments can have a variance of more than 1 game, the min number of players can be anything the game allows, that doesn't mean the tournament algorithm should be choosing to have games that differ by more than 1 player count. The tournament algorithm should select all games to start with n or n-1 players...and having a variance of greater than 1 would allow a game to start with n-2 or even n-k if some players don't show up to the table. This may be a bug, or if intentional it should really be an option for the tournament organizer. Actually I'd go a step further and say the tournament organizer should be able to set prefered and secondary player counts (often games are best with n but then better with n+1 than n-1, right now there is no possibility to have the secondary choice as n+1).
2points.
First off your original post said there shouldn't be a variance of more than 1 player at a table. Lets take an example of 23 players at a 5player tables. Now depending on the option selected you can have 5,5,5,5,3 or 5,5,5,4,4. Why anyone would select the former, i don't know, but it happens.
Secondly I agree with your suggestion that it would be good to have an option to have the secondary option at n+1.
sprockitz wrote: 30 April 2021, 15:02 There are two legitimate ways to treat a table with n-1, score it as a table with n where there is no 'last place' (which gives a higher average) or redistribute points as you suggested. Both options are nice, so saying that people don't understand basic math if they are okay with the first option is ludicrous. It would be nice to have both options available.
OK I can accept that the current simpler scoring option could be an option, but an EQUITABLE scoring system should also be an option.
Anyone can prefer the current system, but I go back to the definition of equitable, and stand by my assertion that my suggested scoring system, or a variation on it would be more equitable, and that is just basic maths.
sprockitz wrote: 30 April 2021, 15:02 You have a similar issue when a player doesn't even play in a round, should they receive the full points (it is kinda unfair if they aren't even given the opportunity to get the full points) or should they get the average points for the round? In any tournament for anything I've ever been apart of this is considered a bye and is treated as a win.
I never said anything of the sort. I 100% agree a bye has to be counted as a win. Even with a win, they can often be disadvantaged on countback.
Post Reply

Return to “Tournaments / Les tournois”