An important issue [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

An important issue

Frooty_Bazooty
05-15-2007, 11:51 PM
Myself and A_Skywalker were talking about the situation regarding retirements in the PAw Hamburg thread. I think the current system, where you get points if you bet on someone and their opponent retires then you still get the points, is ridiculous.

Murray retired against Volandri while leading today. Not to say that Murray would definitely have won had the match continued, but when you PAW something, you are betting tht player A will defeat player B and that didnt happen. Volandri might have beat Murray had the match continued but the fact is the match wasnt finished. We can never know who actually would have won had a retirement not occured so the pick should not be valid. Also, id just like to point out i actually Pawed Volandri over murray so im not writing this because im bitter.

What would have happened if acasuso had played one point against Verkerk and then retired this week. The 5 or so people who Pawed verkerk would get 65 points and essentially the tournament would be ruined, despite the fact that Verkerk didnt actually win the match. I think it makes sense for us to change this rule instead of waiting for something like this to happen first.

I would give more arguments for getting rid of this rule, but to be honest I even cant think of any arguments for it, apart from the fact that it has just always been this way for some reason :shrug:

I think we should change this ASAP. what do you think?

Tom :wavey:

invu2day
05-16-2007, 12:39 AM
Any kind of retirement no matter what the score should result as null/void.

TankingTheSet
05-16-2007, 02:00 AM
I strongly disagree with your view. Predicting matches is not a matter of exact science, luck plays a big role. Luck can often play a role on big points etc and decide the match result. I think a player who retires has lost the match, it's as simple as that.

A freak occurence of injury such as in the Murray match is just another case of luck, albeit an extreme one. Cases where a player retires when leading and in control of the match are very rare though. I see no reason why there should be a special case here.

I noticed the vbetting has an awkard rule about voiding bets when a player is leading. I think this is uneducated nonsense.

Voiding all matches where a retirement occurs is also stupid because it causes much more unfairness: the majority of retirements occur when the worse player is losing and retires a few games before the end. It wouldn't be fair not to count this as a win for the better player.

A_Skywalker
05-16-2007, 06:47 AM
I think changes are needed. Like Frooty_Bazooty said someday someone will tip Hernandez over nadal and Nadal will retire and the tournament is ruined. It doesnt make sense to get points for match that didnt finish. Especially when the player is leading with so much. Like in Volandri- Murray case, probably this would have been a win for Murray and 0 points for those who picked Volandri, so I tihnk void is the best in situations like this.

alansk
05-16-2007, 08:30 AM
Yeah voiding the pick seems best :)

Frooty_Bazooty
05-16-2007, 08:59 AM
I strongly disagree with your view. Predicting matches is not a matter of exact science, luck plays a big role. Luck can often play a role on big points etc and decide the match result. I think a player who retires has lost the match, it's as simple as that.

A freak occurence of injury such as in the Murray match is just another case of luck, albeit an extreme one. Cases where a player retires when leading and in control of the match are very rare though. I see no reason why there should be a special case here.

I noticed the vbetting has an awkard rule about voiding bets when a player is leading. I think this is uneducated nonsense.

Voiding all matches where a retirement occurs is also stupid because it causes much more unfairness: the majority of retirements occur when the worse player is losing and retires a few games before the end. It wouldn't be fair not to count this as a win for the better player.

PAW shouldnt be about who is the luckiest in a tournament, it is about analysing factors, win streaks, form, tactics and head-2-head factors and balancing that against points offered to choose best opportunites. It SHOULDNT be about who can guess injuries the best. If you want a game like that, go start a game called IGGL - Injury Guessing Game of Luck.

Ill use an example. Lets say its QF of St Poelten and the QF is Davydenko v Verkerk. Davydenko withdraws before match to save energy for RG and Verkerk gets walkover. As it is Qf, there will be no LL replacing Davydenko. Why arent the 80 PAW points given for this??? if davydenko had played 1 point and then retired the points would be given! :confused:The tournament is essentially destroyed as anyone who hadnt picked that match cant make up 80 points. If we are giving points on predicting when players will be unable to finish matches, then why not include walkover matches :banghead:

TankingTheSet
05-16-2007, 02:14 PM
Retirements when a player is leading are rare.

Also, handicapping possible unfitness or injuries of heavy favourites IS ALL PART OF THE GAME, IT'S A SKILL.

If you have done your research and pick the outsider because you know the favourites his fitness is questionable you deserve the points you get for the win.

For this and other reasons voiding retirements would create more unfairness than it solves.

Hotzenplotz
05-16-2007, 04:33 PM
Retirements can be results from freak events, or just from a player lacking fitness, being injured prior to the match, which everyone can factor into making his picks. Of course, it can happen that some participants are lucky to profit from an unexpected retirement but this will cancel out during the year and those making picks such as Verkerk against decent players may win a tournament but won't get anywhere in the rankings, which is what it's all about.
A player progressing to the next round due to a retirement is the winner of the match, it's as simple as that. A playing progressing by a walkover clearly cannot be the winner of a match that's never happened.

robuś
05-16-2007, 09:45 PM
1. I wonder what would be the conversation like if the match Volandri vs Murray lasted 2 sets and with the score 6:1, 1:6 any of the players retired? It could have happened at that match.

2. If there wouldn't be a slightest chance, that such a player like e.g. Verkerk could win by the retirement of the oponent, nobody would bet the match even if it was for 300 points. Therefore if someone takes the risk, it's not fair to take away his points.

3. You can't compare Walkover with Retirement. The lack of the match can not be compared with the one that took place.

4. PAW it's a game of prediction and luck as well.

Frooty_Bazooty
05-16-2007, 10:11 PM
3. You can't compare Walkover with Retirement. The lack of the match can not be compared with the one that took place.




Ill use an example. Lets say its QF of St Poelten and the QF is Davydenko v Verkerk. Davydenko withdraws before match to save energy for RG and Verkerk gets walkover .... if davydenko had played 1 point and then retired the points would be given! :confused:

What is so special about that one point. why should you be rewarded for guessing injuries during a match but not one point earlier? Why is the line there?

scarecrows
05-16-2007, 10:16 PM
I noticed the vbetting has an awkard rule about voiding bets when a player is leading. I think this is uneducated nonsense.



:confused:
vBets are voided when 1 set is not finished. That's how most real bookies do as well

ExcaliburII
05-16-2007, 10:16 PM
I agree with Frooty_Bazootty 100% so nothng to aadd :yeah:

Frooty_Bazooty
05-16-2007, 11:44 PM
Retirements when a player is leading are rare.

Also, handicapping possible unfitness or injuries of heavy favourites IS ALL PART OF THE GAME, IT'S A SKILL.

If you have done your research and pick the outsider because you know the favourites his fitness is questionable you deserve the points you get for the win.

For this and other reasons voiding retirements would create more unfairness than it solves.

firstly, are you alias of another player? It not, you have only played 2 tournaments and are ranked 202 so you wouldnt really have too much experience of the game.

secondly, fair enough if a player is having injury problems - ie. when Nalbandian lost to Kohlschreiber in Monte Carlo cos of his back. But most injuries happen during the match and are completely random/unpredictable.

finally, i think betting on people getting injured is pretty fucked up

If we got rid of this aspect, it would mean the game would be about 100% skill instead of sometimes (90% luck/10% skill) in one tournament and then (90% skill/10% luck) in the next

I think this is something that just has to be done regardless of whether you like it or not. If people were given the choice of paying tax most wouldnt and then where would that country be?
There is no gambling site in the entire world that validates bets where a player has retired, why are we the only ones? :shrug:

njnetswill
05-17-2007, 12:28 AM
I think retirements should still count. You can't predict retirements so if you had the guts to pick an underdog to begin with you should be rewarded. :shrug:

The situation seems strange in Murray vs Volandri, but most of the time the losing player retires and isn't in a position to win anyway.

Hotzenplotz
05-17-2007, 12:05 PM
I think this is something that just has to be done regardless of whether you like it or not. If people were given the choice of paying tax most wouldnt and then where would that country be?
There is no gambling site in the entire world that validates bets where a player has retired, why are we the only ones? :shrug:

:confused: It has to be done because you like it regardless of whether others like it or not?

What kind of gambling sites are you referring to? Surely you're aware there are bookies with all kinds of different rules regarding retirements?

A_Skywalker
05-17-2007, 01:03 PM
1. I wonder what would be the conversation like if the match Volandri vs Murray lasted 2 sets and with the score 6:1, 1:6 any of the players retired? It could have happened at that match.

2. If there wouldn't be a slightest chance, that such a player like e.g. Verkerk could win by the retirement of the oponent, nobody would bet the match even if it was for 300 points. Therefore if someone takes the risk, it's not fair to take away his points.

3. You can't compare Walkover with Retirement. The lack of the match can not be compared with the one that took place.

4. PAW it's a game of prediction and luck as well.

yes, but we can cut the luck by just voiding the bet and let the players replace the pick with other. Its fairer for everyone.

Cervantes
05-17-2007, 07:57 PM
The situation described in this thread is so far fetched that I'm willing to take the chance of it not happening. And if someone picks Verkerk over Davydenko and wins St. Poelten with it, good luck to him. Over the course of a season these things should even out.

What if Volandri was leading Murray? Void?
What if it happened in the 2nd set? Void?

There's nothing more frustrating than betting on someone, only to see the opponent retire to void your bet. I remember Mauresmo beating Henin in Australia, but Henin retired with a couple of games to go. Frustrating.

Labamba
05-17-2007, 08:04 PM
Keep the rule as it is.

Retirements can be results from freak events, or just from a player lacking fitness, being injured prior to the match, which everyone can factor into making his picks. Of course, it can happen that some participants are lucky to profit from an unexpected retirement but this will cancel out during the year and those making picks such as Verkerk against decent players may win a tournament but won't get anywhere in the rankings, which is what it's all about.
A player progressing to the next round due to a retirement is the winner of the match, it's as simple as that. A playing progressing by a walkover clearly cannot be the winner of a match that's never happened.

well said :yeah:

Action Jackson
05-18-2007, 08:26 AM
I am happy with the rule as it stands now.