.
Yeah, but do all flight finish at the Exact same time. Not in my world. They may START the same. Am I missing something, which is very probable, probably..........
Ok, I don't see how this can be true. If you have a couple of slow players within a group, all the players who have yet to play those couple of slow players in that group could end up waiting for their chance to play those players -- except in the first round, and of course no one is waiting then
But if player 1 and 2 take 3 hours for their 3 games (just an example), and everyone else finishes their 3 games in under two hours, then for sure whoever is scheduled to play BOTH player 1 and player 2 next are waiting. Then if their next matches area also slow.... and they are supposed to play all 3-4-5-6 (or however are left in the group, depending on how big the group is) , then those next matches with player 1 and/or player 2 will also be waiting -- possibly even longer if player 1 or 2 follow their long first match with a long second match.
I don't think their is any question -- a RR does not entirely solve slow play issues. Whether you have a double elimination tournament or a RR, you still ought to have a plan in mind to deal with matches that are backed up.
Granted you can solve part of it by playing later Friday and Saturday in order to reach your tournament schedule goals, but that is true whether you have a RR or a double elimination.
Am I missing something??? #1 (I often do lol)
Ok, I don't see how this can be true. If you have a couple of slow players within a group, all the players who have yet to play those couple of slow players in that group could end up waiting for their chance to play those players -- except in the first round, and of course no one is waiting then
But if player 1 and 2 take 3 hours for their 3 games (just an example), and everyone else finishes their 3 games in under two hours, then for sure whoever is scheduled to play BOTH player 1 and player 2 next are waiting. Then if their next matches area also slow.... and they are supposed to play all 3-4-5-6 (or however are left in the group, depending on how big the group is) , then those next matches with player 1 and/or player 2 will also be waiting -- possibly even longer if player 1 or 2 follow their long first match with a long second match.
I don't think their is any question -- a RR does not entirely solve slow play issues. Whether you have a double elimination tournament or a RR, you still ought to have a plan in mind to deal with matches that are backed up.
Granted you can solve part of it by playing later Friday and Saturday in order to reach your tournament schedule goals, but that is true whether you have a RR or a double elimination.
Am I missing something??? (I often do lol)
Whitey,
3C and you continue to talk about "races to 3"," the 3/3 format", "preliminary rounds", and "semi-final rounds". I have asked 3c questions about this, but he refuses to answer, maybe you can enlighten us, please. Appreciate it.
What value does playing races have over just playing a set number of games?
What value does having a preliminary round of 32, then a semi final round of 16 (eliminating half of the field) have, over just letting all 32 players play both Friday and Saturday for the entire RR?
Here's an example for you:
Playing 7 opponents races to 3, you win the most races in your group. You qualify for the finals.
Playing 3 games each against 7 opponents you win the most games in your group. You qualify for the finals.
(Also note that races to 3 could last 3, 4, or 5 games which makes the time estimating more difficult.)
Whitey,
As I said a little earlier to Jeff and LSJ, I am ok with the RR being 14 games (2 games against 7 opponents over Friday and Saturday, and then a 4 or 8 man final elimination on Sunday. It does allow a bit more free time to do some other things, although personally I would vote for the 21 game version given the opportunity. We also need to consider how we would break ties, 21 could be easier than 14 games for this.
Allowing all 32 players to play the entire RR gives everybody either 14 or 21 games guaranteed. Playing a specific number of games rather than races removes a variable when trying to predict the length of matches, making our predictions more accurate.
I think you would need to make sure you had an opponent ready for the slower players, in anticipation of the slower player finishing their match finally, rather than players simply jumping on next available opponent.
Yeah, but doesn't this essentially guarantee that the slow will be even more so the slowest? Because everyone else will have by now already played everyone but the slowest players, if you simply automatically go to the next available player. In fact you might even cause one of the slower players to have to wait until the next available player is available -- even though the slow player has only played one or two matches, and the other players meanwhile are on their 4th. And what if one of the slower players takes a longer lunch break? I mean, you would expect them to be exhausted from just finishing a grueling match, right?
Of course, unlike you, I will be glad to answer your question(s).
You will recall I proposed 3 games per match, not 2. I said to Jeff and John that I could see some merit to 14 total games rather than 21 for more free time. If matches go long, same thing happens as in your race to 3, just far less likely to happen cause we would be playing a specific number of games and you would be playing 3 or 4 or 5 games.
I don't understand why the players would travel to Houston, when the MOT is gonna be in PHILLY. And I have no idea WTF you are talking about re losing 2 games at the opening of the tournament (are you drinking?):lol:lol
In the Beast, we had 5 players and played matches of 4 games each. And once again I have no idea WTF you are trying to say. (are taking drugs and drinking?):lol:lol
Yeah, but doesn't this essentially guarantee that the slow will be even more so the slowest? Because everyone else will have by now already played everyone but the slowest players, if you simply automatically go to the next available player. In fact you might even cause one of the slower players to have to wait until the next available player is available -- even though the slow player has only played one or two matches, and the other players meanwhile are on their 4th. And what if one of the slower players takes a longer lunch break? I mean, you would expect them to be exhausted from just finishing a grueling match, right?