PAW RULES: co-winners or 1 winner - MensTennisForums.com
View Poll Results: choose one option
for 25 75.76%
against 8 24.24%
don't care 0 0%
Voters: 33. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 16 (permalink) Old 01-07-2006, 03:53 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
robuś's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,038
                     
PAW RULES: co-winners or 1 winner

According to the dillema of choosing the title winner among the players with the same score number here is the suggestion of rules by which the winner could be selected, so it is for you to decide whether the title winner should be chosen by those rules:

1. The number of correct picks decides on the winner. The one with more correct picks wins.
2. If the total correct picks are the same, then the winner is the player whose single correct pick is higher, if the highest picks of both players are the same then the second one in line wich is highest is compared, and so on.
example here
3. If still the same, player with lesser picks used throughout the tournament wins.

Just vote in the poll above. Voting closes Sunday January 8 at 24h00 CET.

Last edited by robuś; 01-07-2006 at 10:45 PM.
robuś is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 16 (permalink) Old 01-07-2006, 05:17 PM
Registered User
 
keep_er_lit!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 653
                     
Re: PAW RULES: co-winners or 1 winner

I'm for - those rules seem pretty fair
keep_er_lit! is offline  
post #3 of 16 (permalink) Old 01-07-2006, 05:35 PM
Registered User
 
Cervantes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Age: 37
Posts: 3,080
                     
Re: PAW RULES: co-winners or 1 winner

thanks robús

I think it's best to have just one winner for a tournament and these rules seem fair enough. It's also more convenient for me with the rankings to not have players sharing a position.

ROGER FEDERER

Berdych, Blake, J. Johansson, Ljubicic, Nalbandian and Tursunov


2005 PAW Year-end ranking: 1
2006 PAW Year-end ranking: 1
2007 PAW Year-end ranking: 6

Career titles (7): 2004 – Toronto AMS; 2005 – Monte Carlo AMS, Roland Garros, Kitzbühel; 2006 – Doha, Beijing; 2007 - Kitzbühel.
Finalist (3): 2005 – Miami AMS, Barcelona; 2006 – Bastad.

Last edited by Cervantes; 01-07-2006 at 05:44 PM.
Cervantes is offline  
post #4 of 16 (permalink) Old 01-07-2006, 07:49 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,680
                     
Re: PAW RULES: co-winners or 1 winner

robus
Will these rules, if accepted, be used to break all ties or just ties in 1st place?

PAW Results
Winner: 2006 - Acapulco, Portschach, 2005 - Marseille, Valencia, Bastad, Paris Bercy, 2004 - Kitzbuhel
Runner-up: 2005 - Doha, Estoril, 2004 - Indian Wells, Hamburg, Halle, Paris Bercy
Semifinal: 2004 - Houston, Casablanca, Nottingham, Stuttgart, Cincinnati
nitsansh is offline  
post #5 of 16 (permalink) Old 01-07-2006, 08:01 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
robuś's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,038
                     
Re: PAW RULES: co-winners or 1 winner

Sorry but we are talking about title winner (1st place), but if so we can also take into consideration other positions.
robuś is offline  
post #6 of 16 (permalink) Old 01-07-2006, 09:20 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,680
                     
Re: PAW RULES: co-winners or 1 winner

I suggest that this vote will be extended until next Saturday, and if accepted, will be effective from Australian Open. Many players might not be aware of it and not have the opportunity to vote if you allow just 30 hours or so for voting.

If I was conducting this vote, I would do it in 2 phases: First vote in principle if ties should be broken, and if that's approved, which method of tie-break should be used. There could be multiple suggestion for tie-break rules.

PAW Results
Winner: 2006 - Acapulco, Portschach, 2005 - Marseille, Valencia, Bastad, Paris Bercy, 2004 - Kitzbuhel
Runner-up: 2005 - Doha, Estoril, 2004 - Indian Wells, Hamburg, Halle, Paris Bercy
Semifinal: 2004 - Houston, Casablanca, Nottingham, Stuttgart, Cincinnati
nitsansh is offline  
post #7 of 16 (permalink) Old 01-07-2006, 09:33 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,680
                     
Re: PAW RULES: co-winners or 1 winner

Quote:
Originally Posted by keep_er_lit!
I'm for - those rules seem pretty fair
I don't think the first rule should be the 1st tie-break criterium. If a player fails to pick the allowed # of matches it is his/her fault or bad luck (this game is principally about luck, isn't it?). At least I would put it as 2nd rule after #2, which means a player with more wins will be allways ahead of that with less wins. Rule #1 as 1st tie-break could lead to a situation that if 2 players are tied before the final and one of them still has 1 pick left and the other one doesn't, the former will be guarantied to stay ahead and won't need to make his last pick.

PAW Results
Winner: 2006 - Acapulco, Portschach, 2005 - Marseille, Valencia, Bastad, Paris Bercy, 2004 - Kitzbuhel
Runner-up: 2005 - Doha, Estoril, 2004 - Indian Wells, Hamburg, Halle, Paris Bercy
Semifinal: 2004 - Houston, Casablanca, Nottingham, Stuttgart, Cincinnati
nitsansh is offline  
post #8 of 16 (permalink) Old 01-07-2006, 09:55 PM
Registered User
 
el güero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,368
                     
Re: PAW RULES: co-winners or 1 winner

Quote:
Originally Posted by nitsansh
I don't think the first rule should be the 1st tie-break criterium.
I agree. It's OK to choose the title winner, but the number of picks should not be decisive.
el güero is offline  
post #9 of 16 (permalink) Old 01-07-2006, 10:14 PM
Registered User
 
hallso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,674
                     
Re: PAW RULES: co-winners or 1 winner

I agree too. 2nd rule at 1st place.
hallso is offline  
post #10 of 16 (permalink) Old 01-07-2006, 10:37 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
robuś's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,038
                     
Re: PAW RULES: co-winners or 1 winner

Quote:
Originally Posted by nitsansh
Rule #1 as 1st tie-break could lead to a situation that if 2 players are tied before the final and one of them still has 1 pick left and the other one doesn't, the former will be guarantied to stay ahead and won't need to make his last pick.
You are right, #1 is moved on to the 3 place (so the #2 and #3 are moved upwards).
robuś is offline  
post #11 of 16 (permalink) Old 01-07-2006, 10:51 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,680
                     
Re: PAW RULES: co-winners or 1 winner

Now what should do people who want tie breaks in principle, but a different order of tie-break rules that originally suggested? vote for or against?
and if you change the tie-break rules, what about the votes allready placed?

PAW Results
Winner: 2006 - Acapulco, Portschach, 2005 - Marseille, Valencia, Bastad, Paris Bercy, 2004 - Kitzbuhel
Runner-up: 2005 - Doha, Estoril, 2004 - Indian Wells, Hamburg, Halle, Paris Bercy
Semifinal: 2004 - Houston, Casablanca, Nottingham, Stuttgart, Cincinnati
nitsansh is offline  
post #12 of 16 (permalink) Old 01-07-2006, 11:03 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,680
                     
Re: PAW RULES: co-winners or 1 winner

Actually, a situation that a player who has a pick left is guarantied to be the winner could occur with rule #2 or rule #3 as well, but it won't be in any case as it would be if rule #1 was the 1st tie break.
So I would suggest that the 1st tie break would be the last pick, followed by the last-but-one and so on...
I think that's a better rule than the # of wins or a single highest pick as suggested here.

PAW Results
Winner: 2006 - Acapulco, Portschach, 2005 - Marseille, Valencia, Bastad, Paris Bercy, 2004 - Kitzbuhel
Runner-up: 2005 - Doha, Estoril, 2004 - Indian Wells, Hamburg, Halle, Paris Bercy
Semifinal: 2004 - Houston, Casablanca, Nottingham, Stuttgart, Cincinnati
nitsansh is offline  
post #13 of 16 (permalink) Old 01-08-2006, 12:17 AM
Registered User
 
LaTenista's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: SW Ohio
Age: 37
Posts: 17,662
                     
Re: PAW RULES: co-winners or 1 winner

I voted for, as long as we are being fair and using these rules for everyone who ends up tied with anyone else (no matter for what place).

Otherwise, I think we ought to scrap this and continue having co-winners and co-placers.

Titles: 2005 - PAW Washington 2006 - PTS Marseille, TT Miami Doubles(w/coreyschucky), TT Tokyo Singles 2007 - TT Hamburg Doubles(w/SarettaFan) 2008 - TT Indianapolis Singles Finalist: 2005 - PAW Montreal & Bucharest 2006 - TT Acapulco Singles & Doubles(w/Iza), TT Houston Doubles(w/robrulz5), PTS Monte Carlo, TT Barcelona Doubles(w/Peta Pan), TT Newport Doubles(w/adee-gee), PAW Umag 2007 - TT Queen's Singles & Doubles(w/SarettaFan), TT Champaign Doubles(w/TommyB.) 2008 - TT Auckland Doubles(w/invu2day), TT Recanati Singles, TT Newport Doubles(w/sploush), TT Indianapolis Doubles(w/sploush)
Nadal Moyá Ferrer Verdasco Puerta Cañas Andreev Safin
Roddick Blake Salzenstein Delic DeHeart
Montcourt Gasquet Mathieu Serra Simon Santoro
LaTenista is offline  
post #14 of 16 (permalink) Old 01-09-2006, 05:57 AM
Registered User
 
SwissMister1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Virginia
Age: 17
Posts: 4,786
                     
Re: PAW RULES: co-winners or 1 winner

I am for. I don't like rule #3 too much, but I like the idea of breaking the ties.

______________________________

~♠ Gasquetaires ♠~

un pour tous, tous pour un
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾

PAW #1 5/22/06
Predict-the-SCORE US Open Champion
SwissMister1 is offline  
post #15 of 16 (permalink) Old 01-14-2006, 06:09 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,411
                     
Re: PAW RULES: co-winners or 1 winner

i agree

PAW Results 2010/2009/2008/2007/2006/2005:
Winner: / Stuttgart / Viña, Miami, Umag / Stuttgart / Viña / Davis Cup /
Final: / / Paris TMS / Sauipe, B.Aires, Monaco, Umag / Acapulco / Paris TMS / Tokyo
SF: / / Estoril, Shangai / / / / Stuttgart, Palermo
QF: Brisbane/ Umag, USOpen / / Australia, Nottingham, Olympics, Bangkok / Australia, Sauipe / / Kitzbuhel, Beijing

PAW Rank: 14

FITD Champ: Queens 2010 / Miami, Newport & Stuttgart 2009 / Hamburg & Kitzbuhel 2008
Suicide Champ: Johannesburg 2009
NyGeL is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome