PAW RULES: co-winners or 1 winner [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

PAW RULES: co-winners or 1 winner

robuś
01-07-2006, 02:53 PM
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 (http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=2887584&postcount=463)
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.

keep_er_lit!
01-07-2006, 04:17 PM
I'm for - those rules seem pretty fair

Cervantes
01-07-2006, 04:35 PM
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.

nitsansh
01-07-2006, 06:49 PM
robus
Will these rules, if accepted, be used to break all ties or just ties in 1st place?

robuś
01-07-2006, 07:01 PM
Sorry but we are talking about title winner (1st place), but if so we can also take into consideration other positions.

nitsansh
01-07-2006, 08:20 PM
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.

nitsansh
01-07-2006, 08:33 PM
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.

el güero
01-07-2006, 08:55 PM
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.

hallso
01-07-2006, 09:14 PM
I agree too. 2nd rule at 1st place.

robuś
01-07-2006, 09:37 PM
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).

nitsansh
01-07-2006, 09:51 PM
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?

nitsansh
01-07-2006, 10:03 PM
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.

LaTenista
01-07-2006, 11:17 PM
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.

SwissMister1
01-09-2006, 04:57 AM
I am for. I don't like rule #3 too much, but I like the idea of breaking the ties.

NyGeL
01-14-2006, 05:09 AM
i agree

416_Life
01-14-2006, 03:34 PM
I agree, that breaking ties would be a great idea, but to find that manner in which to break them is impossible without favouring one type of PAWer.

If we follow Rule #1 as the first decision in the tiebreak, the person whom plays safer throughout the tournament, failing to get the consistent 20 and 30 pointers, but being steady with a constant number of 10 pnters will be at an advantage. Those who are risky, will be punished with this rule being put forth.

It is impossible to find a fair way to break tiebreaks, without showing a favouring bias towards the strategies of certain PAWers. Leave the game the way it is, don't start playing with fire, if the game only needs a spark ;).