PTS or Set Ratios as TB method? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

PTS or Set Ratios as TB method?

Labamba
11-10-2006, 07:36 AM
Which Tiebreak method would you prefer to be used in TT?

In PTS you have to predict the exact scoreline of a given match. You know how PTS works as we have been using it all season. Your match will only go to PTS if you and your opponent both tip the same amount of winners in the round.

In Set Ratios you have to predict sets won only (E.G. 2-1, 2-0, 3-2, etc). You get one point for predicting each match correct in a round. Your match will only go to Set Ratios if you and your opponent both tip the same amount of winners in the round.

Please vote, this is the first part of a poll that will determine how the game will use TB's and CB's next year. The second part will be posted after this one is finished. This poll will be open for 10 days.

Bjφrki
11-10-2006, 07:45 AM
I only voted for wta bec I never knew my TB score this year. :lol:

invu2day
11-10-2006, 08:31 AM
I only voted for wta bec I never knew my TB score this year. :lol: Luck is involved in both PTS and Set ratio but alot less luck and more tipping ablility is found with Set ratios therefore my vote goes for Set ratios's :)

A_Skywalker
11-10-2006, 08:41 AM
Luck is involved in both PTS and Set ratio but alot less luck and more tipping ablility is found with Set ratios therefore my vote goes for Set ratios's :)

exactly :yeah:

LK_22
11-10-2006, 08:50 AM
Have to go with set ratio, definitely seems fairer than the PTS system we've been using

Labamba
11-10-2006, 08:53 AM
Luck is involved in both PTS and Set ratio but alot less luck and more tipping ablility is found with Set ratios therefore my vote goes for Set ratios's :)

Here's the other side of the coin:

PTS is more fun and exciting system, it's not all up to luck as some people seem to believe and the TT players already know and master the system. :)

invu2day
11-10-2006, 09:11 AM
Here's the other side of the coin:

PTS is more fun and exciting system, it's not all up to luck as some people seem to believe and the TT players already know and master the system. :)I concede it is more fun but don't forget we are not playing PTS. I would prefer to get away from the PTS element of the game. Just because it is fun does not make it right for TT :p

Cristine
11-10-2006, 09:14 AM
But it's pretty hard to a new player understand how PTS works :p
Set Ratio is better, in my opinion :)

A_Skywalker
11-10-2006, 09:37 AM
9-4 , it will be like the other poll :)

invu2day
11-10-2006, 09:40 AM
9-4 , it will be like the other poll :)Set ratios will not win and people do not see the simplicity and fairness in this as yet. If they go to WTAworld and quiz TT players there, they will see they have a fairer game than us:sad:

Action Jackson
11-10-2006, 09:47 AM
Doesn't every system that has been discussed have elements of luck in them?

As long as players don't lose cause of ranking as that needs to stop.

Nadie
11-10-2006, 09:47 AM
Here's the other side of the coin:

PTS is more fun and exciting system, it's not all up to luck as some people seem to believe and the TT players already know and master the system. :)

I agree with Ville :wavey: set ratio system seems boring to me :ras:

invu2day
11-10-2006, 09:53 AM
Doesn't every system that has been discussed have elements of luck in them?

As long as players don't lose cause of ranking as that needs to stop.
You're right there every system does have elements of luck :) But with Set ratios less luck is involved than with PTS therefore you are rewarded more for your tipping skills. That's all I'm saying ;)

Action Jackson
11-10-2006, 10:02 AM
You're right there every system does have elements of luck :) But with Set ratios less luck is involved than with PTS therefore you are rewarded more for your tipping skills. That's all I'm saying ;)

I am not convinced.

savesthedizzle
11-10-2006, 10:07 AM
People are always going to vote to stay with the status quo, it seems :sad: Thanks to those who attempted to help save TT with me..

invu2day
11-10-2006, 10:13 AM
I am not convinced.If you was to play PTS at a bookmakers it would be a fools game :p How on earth are you expected to correctly predict set scores such as 6-2, 6-1?? However people do predict them correctly though this is extremely rare. However it is more plausible to predict a 2-1 or 2-0 win with better judgement.

Maybe this poll has come a year too early for MTF. It works well in WTA and maybe in a years time players will have different views.

Deathless Mortal
11-10-2006, 10:15 AM
I'm good in PTS so I voted for that one.

A_Skywalker
11-10-2006, 10:17 AM
I'm good in PTS so I voted for that one.

Thats not a reason

Action Jackson
11-10-2006, 10:19 AM
If you was to play PTS at a bookmakers it would be a fools game :p How on earth are you expected to correctly predict set scores such as 6-2, 6-1?? However people do predict them correctly though this is extremely rare. However it is more plausible to predict a 2-1 or 2-0 win with better judgement.

Maybe this poll has come a year too early for MTF. It works well in WTA and maybe in a years time players will have different views.

Are we dealing with bookmakers here? We aren't.

Next point there is spread betting and if someone was to get the correct score beforehand and yes bookies do offer that, then the odds are a lot higher and they should be a lot higher for obvious reasons.

In other words swapping one flawed system with another one, but you know my view on this. The main problem I have is players losing on ranking and if I win a match in 2007 cause of a higher ranking I will forfeit my next round match.

savesthedizzle
11-10-2006, 10:24 AM
Are we dealing with bookmakers here? We aren't.

Next point there is spread betting and if someone was to get the correct score beforehand and yes bookies do offer that, then the odds are a lot higher and they should be a lot higher for obvious reasons.

In other words swapping one flawed system with another one, but you know my view on this. The main problem I have is players losing on ranking and if I win a match in 2007 cause of a higher ranking I will forfeit my next round match.

What I am trying to do by proposing this system is make TT more about tipping skill and less about PTS skill. How much of predicting a good score depends on complete luck. When you pick a player to win a match to win a set 6-4, but they win in 6-3. You knew it would be one break but because of whether they won the coin toss and elected to serve or receieve, you won't win your match? I just thinks PTS is further removed and if they are both flawed systems as you say, wouldn't it at least be worth a shot to try something new rather than staying with a flawed status quo? People seem to be obsessed with having a PTS/TT hybrid I guess. :shrug: We would still be trying to eliminate players winning by ranking, but again, I haven't seen you propose a decent solution to the problem yet either.

Labamba
11-10-2006, 10:29 AM
If you was to play PTS at a bookmakers it would be a fools game :p How on earth are you expected to correctly predict set scores such as 6-2, 6-1?? However people do predict them correctly though this is extremely rare. However it is more plausible to predict a 2-1 or 2-0 win with better judgement.

Maybe this poll has come a year too early for MTF. It works well in WTA and maybe in a years time players will have different views.

Set ratio isn't a perfect system as isn't PTS. What if the set ratios are even (which is a realistic possibility) and there's no CB, you would still need to have the PTS TB's too. Isn't it confusing to have three different systems at the same time? :shrug:

savesthedizzle
11-10-2006, 10:33 AM
Set ratio isn't a perfect system as isn't PTS. What if the set ratios are even (which is a realistic possibility) and there's no CB, you would still need to have the PTS TB's too. Isn't it confusing to have three different systems at the same time? :shrug:

That's how they do it and it works. :shrug: It would only be 3 different systems in the first round. And in some cases set ratio would help decide finals in a better way than PTS. I think it involves more tipping skill to say Federer will beat Nadal in 5 sets and to win over an opponent to thinks Federer would win in 4. :shrug: Then again I am here for the tipping, not for the PTS. I play PTS for the PTS. And i'm not awful at PTS, I've won PTS titles (just so people don't think that is my motivation here...) I am just against the complete combination of the two games.

Action Jackson
11-10-2006, 10:34 AM
What I am trying to do by proposing this system is make TT more about tipping skill and less about PTS skill. How much of predicting a good score depends on complete luck. When you pick a player to win a match to win a set 6-4, but they win in 6-3. You knew it would be one break but because of whether they won the coin toss and elected to serve or receieve, you won't win your match? I just thinks PTS is further removed and if they are both flawed systems as you say, wouldn't it at least be worth a shot to try something new rather than staying with a flawed status quo? People seem to be obsessed with having a PTS/TT hybrid I guess. :shrug: We would still be trying to eliminate players winning by ranking, but again, I haven't seen you propose a decent solution to the problem yet either.

Considering there will be 5 TBs in whatever format that should reduce the chances of eliminating players losing by ranking. Try and convince me it's fair that a player should lose cause of their ranking?

Set ratio isn't perfect and neither is PTS, cause what happens if the set ratios are the same, then what is the fallback position?

Labamba
11-10-2006, 10:38 AM
That's how they do it and it works. :shrug:

The PTS TB works here.

Which is more complicated (and more work for the managers), to send set ratios for all the matches + scores for a TB match or to send 1 score (5 in the first round) for a TB match? :shrug:

savesthedizzle
11-10-2006, 10:39 AM
Considering there will be 5 TBs in whatever format that should reduce the chances of eliminating players losing by ranking. Try and convince me it's fair that a player should lose cause of their ranking?

Set ratio isn't perfect and neither is PTS, cause what happens if the set ratios are the same, then what is the fallback position?

People are making decisions without reading any of the debate that led to this poll. *sigh*

WHO IS SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT LETTING PEOPLE WIN BY RANKING? People have said time and time over that it's awful, we get it. Under no system should that happen anymore. Now let's move on.

Set ratio and then 2 tbs in the first round, in every other round CBs. As little PTS as possible. I am not pulling this system out of my ass. Other TT games use set ratio/score combination. If anything our game would be fairer than WTAW because they don't use PTS scoring all the time. Do you play PTS GWH? In many first rounds we have to pick 7 matches to predict. That's only 2 more matches than in TT. It's becoming a very similar game, the only difference is league table vs. knockout format.

savesthedizzle
11-10-2006, 10:41 AM
The PTS TB works here.

Which is more complicated (and more work for the managers), to send set ratios for all the matches + scores for a TB match or to send 1 score (5 in the first round) for a TB match? :shrug:

I'm not the only one who thinks turning this game into PTS is crap. :shrug: Set ratios are at least easy to understand and related to tipping more closely than PTS is. My only motivation is for keeping this a tipping game. If you want to be generous and let us test this out once just to see if it works, I volunteered for Delray Beach and would be more than happy to do allllll this extra work (which would only be for one round since other rounds would only be set ratio and I think calculating set ratio is still easier than the 3 extra PTS scores...) as a test.

savesthedizzle
11-10-2006, 10:43 AM
Anyway, you can't persuade people who are not open to the idea of being persuaded. I'm done with this, let the chips fall where they may.

Action Jackson
11-10-2006, 10:49 AM
People are making decisions without reading any of the debate that led to this poll. *sigh*

WHO IS SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT LETTING PEOPLE WIN BY RANKING? People have said time and time over that it's awful, we get it. Under no system should that happen anymore. Now let's move on.

Set ratio and then 2 tbs in the first round, in every other round CBs. As little PTS as possible. I am not pulling this system out of my ass. Other TT games use set ratio/score combination. If anything our game would be fairer than WTAW because they don't use PTS scoring all the time. Do you play PTS GWH? In many first rounds we have to pick 7 matches to predict. That's only 2 more matches than in TT. It's becoming a very similar game, the only difference is league table vs. knockout format.

I have played a few PTS tournaments and understand how it works. Do you think the managers will appreciate the extra workload? They aren't get paid to run these games.

What makes you think people haven't read the differing proposals? What cause they have chosen to vote a different way? Some have and others haven't, there is crossover between the games, this is not exactly surprising and it should be limited as much as possible.

There needs to be more than 2 tbs with set ratio.

Labamba
11-10-2006, 10:49 AM
I'm not the only one who thinks turning this game into PTS is crap. :shrug: Set ratios are at least easy to understand and related to tipping more closely than PTS is. My only motivation is for keeping this a tipping game. If you want to be generous and let us test this out once just to see if it works, I volunteered for Delray Beach and would be more than happy to do allllll this extra work (which would only be for one round since other rounds would only be set ratio and I think calculating set ratio is still easier than the 3 extra PTS scores...) as a test.

TT is so much more than PTS (much more players, knock-out format...) I don't get why some of you are so dead set against PTS being a part of TT (as TB method). It's not like PTS is going to grow into a bigger game than TT...

The poll will decide, we're not going to test things on ATP tournaments and have different system over the course of the year.

And this poll won't determine if TB's are used before CB's. There will be another poll about this next week.

savesthedizzle
11-10-2006, 10:59 AM
TT is so much more than PTS (much more players, knock-out format...) I don't get why some of you are so dead set against PTS being a part of TT (as TB method). It's not like PTS is going to grow into a bigger game than TT...

The poll will decide, we're not going to test things on ATP tournaments and have different system over the course of the year.

And this poll won't determine if TB's are used before CB's. There will be another poll about this next week.

More players doesn't make it a different game, it just makes it a more popular one. So all there is is knockout format vs league tabe. Tell me how much difference there is when my first round PTS picks look like this:

Federer 6-2 6-3
Rochus 7-6 6-4
Nadal 6-4 6-3
Berdych 6-4 7-6
Gonzalez 6-4 3-6 7-6
Acasuso 6-3 6-4
Djokovic 7-6 6-3

And my TT picks look like this:

Federer 6-2 6-3
Rochus
Nadal 6-4 6-3
Berdych 6-4 7-6
Gonzalez
Acasuso 6-3 6-4
Djokovic 7-6 6-3

savesthedizzle
11-10-2006, 11:00 AM
I have played a few PTS tournaments and understand how it works. Do you think the managers will appreciate the extra workload? They aren't get paid to run these games.

What makes you think people haven't read the differing proposals? What cause they have chosen to vote a different way? Some have and others haven't, there is crossover between the games, this is not exactly surprising and it should be limited as much as possible.

There needs to be more than 2 tbs with set ratio.


It's an extra workload for one round to make a fairer game. Calculating up to 5 TB scores for the first round is more work for managers too. Especially since many first time managers have problems understanding the PTS score calculations in the first place.

And what makes me think people haven't read the differing proposals are some of the questions being raised about them, not because of how people voted.

And how do you know there needs to be more than 2 tbs? It's never been tested and by the looks of it, never will.

Labamba
11-10-2006, 11:07 AM
More players doesn't make it a different game, it just makes it a more popular one. So all there is is knockout format vs league tabe. Tell me how much difference there is when my first round PTS picks look like this:

Federer 6-2 6-3
Rochus 7-6 6-4
Nadal 6-4 6-3
Berdych 6-4 7-6
Gonzalez 6-4 3-6 7-6
Acasuso 6-3 6-4
Djokovic 7-6 6-3

And my TT picks look like this:

Federer 6-2 6-3
Rochus
Nadal 6-4 6-3
Berdych 6-4 7-6
Gonzalez
Acasuso 6-3 6-4
Djokovic 7-6 6-3

The knockout format is a big difference and what if there wasn't a PTS game? Would you think different then, because to me it seems that you're more against mixing TT with PTS than having something against the PTS system itself. :shrug:

All I'm saying is let the players decide and I don't see how you're 'saving' TT with bringing one flawed system (set ratios) to replace another flawed system (PTS).

savesthedizzle
11-10-2006, 11:13 AM
The knockout format is a big difference and what if there wasn't a PTS game? Would you think different then, because to me it seems that you're more against mixing TT with PTS than having something against the PTS system itself. :shrug:

All I'm saying is let the players decide and I don't see how you're 'saving' TT with bringing one flawed system (set ratios) to replace another flawed system (PTS).

I think predicting scores is not as related to TIPPING as set ratios is and I have said that several times over. I am also strongly against the combination of the two games. Those are my two reasons, and they both contribute equally to why I am so against PTS becoming an even bigger part of this game. I think both of them mar what is otherwise a very good game. Predicting scores takes very little tennis knowledge... it is pure luck whether a set ends up 6-4 or 6-3 half the time, as I've said. Knowing whether it is likely a player will win in 2 sets or 3? That takes a little more tipping knowledge, and that is what is at the base of my proposal: keeping this about tipping and not about luck. Like I said before (somewhere...), PTS had a poll up about switching to knock out format... if PTS had done that, what would the difference be? Nothing. These are supposed to actually be different games, not just different formats.

Also what about situations in PTS where this happens:

Match: Mathieu def Coria 6-1 0-6 7-6

Player A: Mathieu 6-1 6-4 (10+0+1+6)=17
Player B: Mathieu def Coria 2-6 6-2 6-4 (10+5+1+0)=16

Player A wins while in my opinion Player B had a far better idea of how the match would go. :shrug: In my opinion here, player B is probably the better tipper and would deserve to go through, but instead they lose. Just to know show how unfair PTS can be sometimes as a TB method in a tipping game.

invu2day
11-10-2006, 12:18 PM
Tennis Tipping is a game of skill to predict the correct winner.

PTS and Set ratios both require luck but with PTS there is more luck involved.

Should TT not be more biased towards skill rather than luck??

Therefore the logical solution would be to go with Set ratios over PTS.

But some people here are voting for what is more exciting :confused: What has that got to do with the skill factor in TT when you are relying on more luck with PTS. It's like your playing a full game of skill. Then in extra time suddenly the game changing to being much more luck based. Obviously you need luck with Set ratios as well but not as much as with PTS.

Labamba
11-10-2006, 12:20 PM
I think predicting scores is not as related to TIPPING as set ratios is and I have said that several times over. I am also strongly against the combination of the two games. Those are my two reasons, and they both contribute equally to why I am so against PTS becoming an even bigger part of this game. I think both of them mar what is otherwise a very good game. Predicting scores takes very little tennis knowledge... it is pure luck whether a set ends up 6-4 or 6-3 half the time, as I've said. Knowing whether it is likely a player will win in 2 sets or 3? That takes a little more tipping knowledge, and that is what is at the base of my proposal: keeping this about tipping and not about luck. Like I said before (somewhere...), PTS had a poll up about switching to knock out format... if PTS had done that, what would the difference be? Nothing. These are supposed to actually be different games, not just different formats.

Also what about situations in PTS where this happens:

Match: Mathieu def Coria 6-1 0-6 7-6

Player A: Mathieu 6-1 6-4 (10+0+1+6)=17
Player B: Mathieu def Coria 2-6 6-2 6-4 (10+5+1+0)=16

Player A wins while in my opinion Player B had a far better idea of how the match would go. :shrug: In my opinion here, player B is probably the better tipper and would deserve to go through, but instead they lose. Just to know show how unfair PTS can be sometimes as a TB method in a tipping game.

That's just one example where the PTS system has a flaw, every system has them including the Set ratios. And why do you always bring out the PTS poll, we don't have to care what they do and you don't have to play both games if you feel like they are too similar (which they aren't).

Do you really think the current system doesn't reward good tipping in the long run? Are the current TMC players the luckiest ones or are they just the best PTS players?

invu2day
11-10-2006, 12:29 PM
Do you really think the current system doesn't reward good tipping in the long run? Are the current TMC players the luckiest ones or are they just the best PTS players?

Obviously a combination of both.

If an ATP player served first and made one break in the first set he would win 6-3. If the ATP player had served second he would have won 6-4.

So is it not pure luck that a TT player picking 6-3 would get more points than a TT player picking 6-4. With set ratio's it would be equal. So basically you are scoring some PTS points for winning a toss! Can you not see this?

Labamba
11-10-2006, 12:29 PM
Tennis Tipping is a game of skill to predict the correct winner.

PTS and Set ratios both require luck but with PTS there is more luck involved.

Should TT not be more biased towards skill rather than luck??

Therefore the logical solution would be to go with Set ratios over PTS.

But some people here are voting for what is more exciting :confused: What has that got to do with the skill factor in TT when you are relying on more luck with PTS. It's like your playing a full game of skill. Then in extra time suddenly the game changing to being much more luck based. Obviously you need luck with Set ratios as well but not as much as with PTS.

We still need the PTS even with the Set ratio system as it doesn't always decide the match. Why should we have two systems when one system (PTS) can do the trick? And if Set ratios are brought to TT, then the amount of CB's will increase a lot, which means it fights against the basic principle of TT (you start every match with a clean slate just like the real tennis does, old results don't count for nothing and you have to be better than your opponent every day).

Labamba
11-10-2006, 12:33 PM
Obviously a combination of both.

If an ATP player served first and made one break in the first set he would win 6-3. If the ATP player had served second he would have won 6-4.

So is it not pure luck that a TT player picking 6-3 would get more points than a TT player picking 6-4. With set ratio's it would be equal. So basically you are scoring some PTS points for winning a toss! Can you not see this?

That's not even true, if the player who serves first breaks at 5-4* the toss won't have a meaning.

If PTS is all about luck and luck will always run even in the long run, doesn't it mean that picking the winners will decide after all?

invu2day
11-10-2006, 12:38 PM
We still need the PTS even with the Set ratio system as it doesn't always decide the match. Why should we have two systems when one system (PTS) can do the trick? And if Set ratios are brought to TT, then the amount of CB's will increase a lot, which means it fights against the basic principle of TT (you start every match with a clean slate just like the real tennis does, old results don't count for nothing and you have to be better than your opponent every day). I would not use Set ratios the same way they do at WTAworld. I would play it out as a tiebreak shootout. I would require a set ratio for each match. If for example there were 6 matches they would be numbered TB1 to TB6. Then TB1 from one player is put up against TB1 from another player. As soon as one TT player goes ahead they have won. Plus if set ratios are used It would be fairer to use them first before all CBs which is another positive point. Is this not exciting enough? It's not as if it needs a trial as it is proved to work at WTAworld. So I don't see a problem.

alansk
11-10-2006, 12:41 PM
No offence to anyone but I think predicting exact tennis scores is ridiculous. This is TENNIS, people - games can hinge on such random factors.

It is the general trends and flows of matches that can be predicted and the closest thing that represents that is set ratios.

In a TB I just end up sending a bunch of 64s and 76s (unless I don't think it'll be a close match, but it invariably is) and whatever because they're the most common set scores. It's a farce.

Hope that helps!

I do concede, however, that knowing your match will go to TB and knowing both players TB predictions makes for an exciting couple of hours!

invu2day
11-10-2006, 12:42 PM
That's not even true, if the player who serves first breaks at 5-4* the toss won't have a meaning.

It is true if you lost your first service game ;)

invu2day
11-10-2006, 12:46 PM
No offence to anyone but I think predicting exact tennis scores is ridiculous. This is TENNIS, people - games can hinge on such random factors.

Didn't you know we are playing the National Lottery here :haha:

I do concede it is more exciting but that doesn't make it right.

Labamba
11-10-2006, 12:51 PM
I would not use Set ratios the same way they do at WTAworld. I would play it out as a tiebreak shootout. I would require a set ratio for each match. If for example there were 6 matches they would be numbered TB1 to TB6. Then TB1 from one player is put up against TB1 from another player. As soon as one TT player goes ahead they have won. Plus if set ratios are used It would be fairer to use them first before all CBs which is another positive point. Is this not exciting enough? It's not as if it needs a trial as it is proved to work at WTAworld. So I don't see a problem.

You're missing one key point here, the Set ratios are much more likely to end in a tie than TB's, if there's only a few matches to predict. In the final and SF there's only 3 or 4 to predict and it's very likely that most players will have the same set ratios. This will mean more CB's for sure.

I understand both views, but for me this is just a matter of two choices. Do you want to bring a new, more complicated system to replace the old system that works? And do you want to have more matches where you've lost even before the first match has started?

alansk
11-10-2006, 12:57 PM
I would be happier if we used a different scoring system to PTS where fewer points were awarded for exact set scores. But setting up a new scoring system is ridiculous too :lol: So set ratios fit the bill for me - as I just said. :lol:

But let's get things straight, I love TT and I aint going anywhere over this minor discussion. :D

invu2day
11-10-2006, 12:57 PM
You're missing one key point here, the Set ratios are much more likely to end in a tie than TB's, if there's only a few matches to predict. In the final and SF there's only 3 or 4 to predict and it's very likely that most players will have the same set ratios. This will mean more CB's for sure.

I understand both views, but for me this is just a matter of two choices. Do you want to bring a new, more complicated system to replace the old system that works? And do you want to have more matches where you've lost even before the first match has started?

Admit than CBs may be used but I would rather lose to a CB than an unlucky TB score. Here though I would use TBs over CB's which is what we don't do at the moment. The key point here is the better tipper will win with alot less luck.

Labamba
11-10-2006, 12:58 PM
I do concede it is more exciting but that doesn't make it right.

C'mon guys! This game should be fun, exciting, nerve-wrecking, everything that makes the game worth playing for. :lol:

It's not like we're playing for money or any prizes here. ;)

invu2day
11-10-2006, 12:59 PM
But let's get things straight, I love TT and I aint going anywhere over this minor discussion. :D

Same here :)

invu2day
11-10-2006, 01:01 PM
C'mon guys! This game should be fun, exciting, nerve-wrecking, everything that makes the game worth playing for. :lol:

It's not like we're playing for money or any prizes here. ;)I play to test my tipping ability :), not to lose out on an unlucky TB :sad:

Labamba
11-10-2006, 01:02 PM
Admit than CBs may be used but I would rather lose to a CB than an unlucky TB score. Here though I would use TBs over CB's which is what we don't do at the moment. The key point here is the better tipper will win with alot less luck.

yes, the best tipper will win more often because of the CB's, but this will mean that every match won't start from the same playing ground (if you have the CB adv, it's like you're already a set up against your opponent).

Labamba
11-10-2006, 01:03 PM
Same here :)

me too :)

Labamba
11-10-2006, 01:04 PM
I play to test my tipping ability :), not to lose out on an unlucky TB :sad:

Do you feel like that happens a lot to the same person? It would be fun to see the players TB records.

Sheva
11-10-2006, 01:36 PM
I also like the set-ratio system. Like some people allready pointed out: TBs don't serve the initial goal of the game. I rather lose to someone who predicted the set-ratio of the matches better than someone who beats me with something like 6-4 7-6 vs 6-3 7-6. If it's gonna be 6-4 or 6-3 is just a toincoss and has nothing to do with your tipping abbility.

I also rather lose against a player who performed well the last round then against somebody who sucked the round before and just has more luck with his TB score. I also don't agree with the argument that we have to stay as close to the ATP as possible everywhere. Ville pointed out that you have to start with a clean sheet every match (just like in ATP). I don't think this also goes for TT. You should be rewarded by your tipping abbility (CB) rather then your luck (TB).

Foosimoo
11-10-2006, 03:27 PM
Keep it the same, every match isn't going to a TB. :rolleyes:

A_Skywalker
11-10-2006, 03:34 PM
Is it sure that someone doesnt vote with 2 or 3 accounts ? , because everytime set ratio goes close to pts , after 5 minutes pts is leading again with 5 votes ?

Labamba
11-10-2006, 03:37 PM
^ :lol: You can check the voters by clicking on the numbers

Predict-the-Score system (the current system here)
<Lt*Alonso*Cl>, balloon, Deathless Mortal, fabolous, Foosimoo, Garlichead, GeorgeWHitler, GlennMirnyi, Grofica, KalleOnAir, Karim_Vlasic, Labamba, lavia, Marksman, Nadie, Nathaliia, Peta Bread, radjan, Ria, S.K, scythe19pro, silverwhite 22 56.41%

Set Ratio system (the current system in WTA TT)
$@M, adee-gee, Aguante_el_Gato, alansk, Alx, A_Skywalker, Berdych Fan, biliana, Björki, LK_22, Melvins, mikko, savestheday91, Sheva, yarkko, yemok, ZackBusner 17 43.59%

A_Skywalker
11-10-2006, 04:16 PM
yepp , I saw it , everything seems fair , I guess the minds of the people that voted are blind :)

keqtqiadv
11-10-2006, 05:30 PM
I also like the set-ratio system. Like some people allready pointed out: TBs don't serve the initial goal of the game. I rather lose to someone who predicted the set-ratio of the matches better than someone who beats me with something like 6-4 7-6 vs 6-3 7-6. If it's gonna be 6-4 or 6-3 is just a toincoss and has nothing to do with your tipping abbility.

I also rather lose against a player who performed well the last round then against somebody who sucked the round before and just has more luck with his TB score. I also don't agree with the argument that we have to stay as close to the ATP as possible everywhere. Ville pointed out that you have to start with a clean sheet every match (just like in ATP). I don't think this also goes for TT. You should be rewarded by your tipping abbility (CB) rather then your luck (TB).
It's what makes knockout format exciting, and it's what happens in ATP. Each match is decided in the round it's played. If players want to be rewarded by their old results, they should choose a game with league format. There the best tipper wins. In this system, the winner is the one who plays better than his opponent of each round, not necessarily who is the best.
TB is not only luck, and ties would happen oftenly with set ratios. Matches would be decided before they started cause of CB advantage. And in finals, matches could be decided before the final is played. Is it what players want? The game should let the players with nearly 50% of chances to win each match (CBs first could make it 65, depending on the OOP almost 100%), and predicting scores is the best choice for it to happen.

My vote goes for PTS TBs, and I hope the decision is well made. The game was successful this year, players had 45, 50% chances of winning any match. I don't want this to change.

savesthedizzle
11-10-2006, 08:30 PM
Okay, I am willing to stop being stubborn for one second to put forth a compromise that Ville will probably still disagree with ;) :p

How about THIS ladies and gents,

We come up with our OWN TT scoring system for scores rather than copying PTS.

In the TT scoring system instead of 5 points for correct sets you get 10, just as many as you get for selecting the right winner. That's the only change. This way, set ratio becomes MORE important than the points, but the points are still included. Since I'm probably going to lose this set ratio fight can I at least get people on THIS bandwagon?

I still disagree with using PTS tiebreaks for many many reasons. Mainly because let's say you're 7/8 for the day and so is your opponent, however, stupid you, your one pick wrong is the TB game. Basically you're screwed for the TB and end up getting double penalized for that wrong pick while your opponent who also had one wrong gets lucky because it wasn't the TB match.

But I put forth this compromise on the PTS scoring just so people here don't think I'm a crazy evil beast for wanting a fair game ;) People seem to like PTS (but why don't more of you play it? :scratch: )

savesthedizzle
11-10-2006, 08:31 PM
OMG the poll is tied. Whoever did that, what do you want for Christmas, I'll get you something nice. :lol:

Foosimoo
11-10-2006, 08:36 PM
I like Jess' idea. How about that for something new! :eek: :p

Labamba
11-10-2006, 08:37 PM
OMG the poll is tied. Whoever did that, what do you want for Christmas, I'll get you something nice. :lol:

'our' 5 point lead is gone :awww:

Jess, don't try to fish those votes with personal favours :lol: :p

Tomek.
11-10-2006, 08:38 PM
OMG the poll is tied. Whoever did that, what do you want for Christmas, I'll get you something nice. :lol:

after my vote 25-25 50%-50%

I don't like Christmas :(

ExcaliburII
11-10-2006, 08:38 PM
I ve voted for set ratios because I think PTS is all based on luck

savesthedizzle
11-10-2006, 08:40 PM
after my vote 25-25 50%-50%

I don't like Christmas :(

You win!! :aparty:

Also let me just mention as an addendum to my compromise plan, that mostly when people are comparing TBs on here they go "Ah I have Tipsarevic in 3" "Oh, I have him in 2" before they even get to how many points they have.. so it might be useful in our game to give that more weight than points :p

Bjφrki
11-10-2006, 08:42 PM
Set Ratio system (the current system in WTA TT)
$@M, adee-gee, Aguante_el_Gato, alansk, Alx, A_Skywalker, Berdych Fan, biliana, Bjφrki, LK_22, Melvins, mikko, savestheday91, Sheva, yarkko, yemok, ZackBusner 17 43.59%
:yeah:

keqtqiadv
11-10-2006, 08:42 PM
Okay, I am willing to stop being stubborn for one second to put forth a compromise that Ville will probably still disagree with ;) :p

How about THIS ladies and gents,

We come up with our OWN TT scoring system for scores rather than copying PTS.

In the TT scoring system instead of 5 points for correct sets you get 10, just as many as you get for selecting the right winner. That's the only change. This way, set ratio becomes MORE important than the points, but the points are still included. Since I'm probably going to lose this set ratio fight can I at least get people on THIS bandwagon?

I still disagree with using PTS tiebreaks for many many reasons. Mainly because let's say you're 7/8 for the day and so is your opponent, however, stupid you, your one pick wrong is the TB game. Basically you're screwed for the TB and end up getting double penalized for that wrong pick while your opponent who also had one wrong gets lucky because it wasn't the TB match.

But I put forth this compromise on the PTS scoring just so people here don't think I'm a crazy evil beast for wanting a fair game ;) People seem to like PTS (but why don't more of you play it? :scratch: )
TB is the most important game of a tennis match, and so is the TB match in TT :p

It's not that I like PTS or not, I just want 50-50 matches in all rounds. It's not a bad suggestion. But I'd give more points for correct order of sets, not for correct number of sets. :p

keqtqiadv
11-10-2006, 08:43 PM
We were leading :(

Labamba
11-10-2006, 08:43 PM
I would not use Set ratios the same way they do at WTAworld. I would play it out as a tiebreak shootout. I would require a set ratio for each match. If for example there were 6 matches they would be numbered TB1 to TB6. Then TB1 from one player is put up against TB1 from another player. As soon as one TT player goes ahead they have won.



I still disagree with using PTS tiebreaks for many many reasons. Mainly because let's say you're 7/8 for the day and so is your opponent, however, stupid you, your one pick wrong is the TB game. Basically you're screwed for the TB and end up getting double penalized for that wrong pick while your opponent who also had one wrong gets lucky because it wasn't the TB match.

It's very likely to happen with Set ratios too.

But I like your suggestion of modifying the PTS point system to give more value to the correct # of sets and less value to correct set scores. It's a great idea! :yeah:

savesthedizzle
11-10-2006, 08:44 PM
It's very likely to happen with Set ratios too. But I like your suggestion of modifying the PTS point system to give more value to the correct # of sets and less value to correct set scores. It's a great idea! :yeah:


Do my eyes deceive me or do we actually agree on something for the first time in TT history? :rolls: :rolls:

SloKid
11-10-2006, 08:47 PM
My vote puts set ratios in the lead.

But I would just like to point out one thing.

Set ratios are not a TB method on wtaw, they are always used, unless there's a bigger amount of matches on one day.
We still have a tb, where players predict the score, but we don't use the PTS method to score them, we check, which player had the correct set ratio in the tb first, then who got closer to the actual score. On wtaw it can't happen that a person, who got a wrong set ratio for the tb wins on tb over someone with a correct set ratio, like it can happen here with the scoring.

Tomek.
11-10-2006, 08:47 PM
You win!! :aparty:

Also let me just mention as an addendum to my compromise plan, that mostly when people are comparing TBs on here they go "Ah I have Tipsarevic in 3" "Oh, I have him in 2" before they even get to how many points they have.. so it might be useful in our game to give that more weight than points :p

I like your plan :D

maybe we should test one tournament with set-ratios and with your system

but I love set-ratios

and with TB's
It was a match that Gasquet won 6-2 7-5

I predicted 6-4 7-6 and my opponent 3-6 7-5 6-2

and of course I lost :o [Toronto SF]

Labamba
11-10-2006, 08:50 PM
Do my eyes deceive me or do we actually agree on something for the first time in TT history? :rolls: :rolls:

I guess so :rolls: oh wait, I see we agree on the doubles poll :)

SloKid
11-10-2006, 08:52 PM
and with TB's
It was a match that Gasquet won 6-2 7-5

I predicted 6-4 7-6 and my opponent 3-6 7-5 6-2

and of course I lost :o [Toronto SF]
Yeah, I think that is wrong and that couldn't happen on wtaw.

Tomek.
11-10-2006, 08:54 PM
Yeah, I think that is wrong and that couldn't happen on wtaw.

there I would have 2 points and my opponent 1 point :lol:

savesthedizzle
11-10-2006, 08:58 PM
My vote puts set ratios in the lead.

But I would just like to point out one thing.

Set ratios are not a TB method on wtaw, they are always used, unless there's a bigger amount of matches on one day.
We still have a tb, where players predict the score, but we don't use the PTS method to score them, we check, which player had the correct set ratio in the tb first, then who got closer to the actual score. On wtaw it can't happen that a person, who got a wrong set ratio for the tb wins on tb over someone with a correct set ratio, like it can happen here with the scoring.


Yeah I kind of changed set ratios a bit... to make it a TB method because I didn't think there was any way to sell it to this crowd as just part of the game to get rid of the importance of the points. You guys never have 5 tbs in a round that I've seen though either and from what I've seen it goes to TBs less often than here (but that could also just be because of how the women's game is compared to here..)

savesthedizzle
11-10-2006, 08:58 PM
I guess so :rolls: oh wait, I see we agree on the doubles poll :)

Twice in one day? Oh gosh, we better not get used to this. :eek:

SloKid
11-10-2006, 09:01 PM
Yeah I kind of changed set ratios a bit... to make it a TB method because I didn't think there was any way to sell it to this crowd as just part of the game to get rid of the importance of the points. You guys never have 5 tbs in a round that I've seen though either. .
Yeah, your idea is good.

And no, 2 was the most we had.

savesthedizzle
11-10-2006, 09:05 PM
Yeah, your idea is good.

And no, 2 was the most we had.

Gracias :)

scarecrows
11-10-2006, 09:43 PM
set ratios of course

Taz Warrior
11-10-2006, 09:52 PM
I like Jess's idea of modifying the tb scoring system - that would have been my solution too but I thought it would be too complicated to come up with a fair system which people would agree on but it probably just needs a couple of tweaks :)

keqtqiadv
11-10-2006, 10:07 PM
I think just giving more points to correct order/number of sets should be enough :)

savesthedizzle
11-11-2006, 12:17 AM
I think set ratios is still winning the poll however. So maybe a more substantial compromise of sorts should be considered.

Foosimoo
11-11-2006, 12:19 AM
I think this is going to be the hardest decision to make for next year. :bolt:

savesthedizzle
11-11-2006, 12:20 AM
I think some of the managers underestimated the thirst for change here. :shrug:

Labamba
11-11-2006, 08:06 AM
The poll is still nearly fifty-fifty, a compromise solution might be the best thing to keep everybody satisfied. Also 3 of the 4 board members support somekind of compromise.

keqtqiadv
11-11-2006, 09:50 AM
Set ratios first and PTS as a second TB, or modifying PTS points...

Labamba
11-11-2006, 11:29 AM
Here's one compromise suggestion :angel:

If the match goes to a TB, then the order of deciding the tie would be:

1. correct winner in TB match
2. correct set ratio in TB match
3. PTS with changes to the scoring system

Correct order of sets for:
1 set – 1 point
2 sets – 3 points -> 4 points
3 sets – 5 points -> 7 points
4 sets – 7 points -> 10 points
5 sets – 10 points -> 13 points

Correct scoreline for:
1 set – 4 points -> 3 points
2 sets – 8 points -> 6 points
3 sets – 12 points -> 9 points
4 sets – 16 points -> 12 points
5 sets – 20 points -> 15 points
*2 additional points per set if the scoreline is in the correct set (this would be removed)

This would take down the luck factor significantly and the dreaded 'bad beats' wouldn't be possible. Also we wouldn't have to bring a totally new system and we wouldn't have to send those set ratios for all the matches (less work for the managers). This would also reward the tipping more as there would be more CB's. Let me know what you think :)

SloKid
11-11-2006, 11:31 AM
I think this is a good suggestion. :)

A_Skywalker
11-11-2006, 12:53 PM
Here's one compromise suggestion :angel:

If the match goes to a TB, then the order of deciding the tie would be:

1. correct winner in TB match
2. correct set ratio in TB match
3. PTS with changes to the scoring system

Correct order of sets for:
1 set – 1 point
2 sets – 3 points -> 4 points
3 sets – 5 points -> 7 points
4 sets – 7 points -> 10 points
5 sets – 10 points -> 13 points

Correct scoreline for:
1 set – 4 points -> 3 points
2 sets – 8 points -> 6 points
3 sets – 12 points -> 9 points
4 sets – 16 points -> 12 points
5 sets – 20 points -> 15 points
*2 additional points per set if the scoreline is in the correct set (this would be removed)

This would take down the luck factor significantly and the dreaded 'bad beats' wouldn't be possible. Also we wouldn't have to bring a totally new system and we wouldn't have to send those set ratios for all the matches (less work for the managers). This would also reward the tipping more as there would be more CB's. Let me know what you think :)

Thats fair , I also didnt like the 2 points if the scoreline is in the correct set :wavey:

savesthedizzle
11-11-2006, 01:02 PM
Meh. Hold on I need to think of something because right now that compromise looks like making set ratio people compromise a lot more than the PTS people are. They basically get to keep everything done their way except with a new scoring system? :rolleyes: I just woke up... I'll respond shortly.

savesthedizzle
11-11-2006, 01:22 PM
Well I guess my first issue is that I support CB over TB because I believe in good tippers going through before people good at any additional TB method.

But that aside, since I assume this method is for the first round ;)

I really don't think it's fair that one match decides someone's fate twice. That, I thought, was one of the best things about my set ratio plan (and if it's so much work for managers, why can WTAW managers handle it.. where it's a mandatory part of the game, not just a TB).

From my experience, sometimes you guys (the managers) like to think it's funny to as the tiebreak pick the match with the most random, obscure players in the round. Lately in the challengers I noticed this, when there were players who most of us would know playing a match, the TB match was actually the most random match of the round. I just hate that you can lose a match because of what a manager selected. Just because one of the managers decides a match is more important suddenly makes it so? I think that sucks. I don't think people deserve to be penalized twice for one wrong match. When I proposed predicting set ratios for every match it was because then both players get their equal amount of wrong matches counted against them and whoever predicted the rest of the matches better would go through.

I think managers see differently on this because they are the ones who select the TB matches, so that match is important because YOU say it is. Not for any other factors except what you decide on a whim to make the TB match. In Bratislava on Tuesday our TB match was Stakhovsky v Cervenak on a day when Zverev, Starace and Becker were all playing. So, it was made the most random and most difficult match, when there were people we were actually much more familiar with playing... picking that match, you know no one knows who those guys are. Nothing against Gustavo of course because this game has made that the manager's prerogative.

You guys have set this up so that after the first tournament it's implemented you can say, "See set ratio accomplishes nothing" because there will be many many times that people predict ONE set ratio the same way and it still goes to PTS. You've set it up to fail.

Now that I have vented what I still hate about the compromise, let me think of a better solution.

Labamba
11-11-2006, 01:35 PM
Few comments here while waiting for the new solution from Jess.

First of all, one match doesn't usually decide your faith in TT and I don't agree with your comments on the selection of TB matches. Imo managers most of the times select the most interesting matches for TB's.

I'm also not sure if WTA TT has 128-player draws for tournaments, where the workload is huge and it doesn't need to be added.

Also there will be a poll, where the players can vote whether they like to have the CB before the TB.

savesthedizzle
11-11-2006, 01:42 PM
Few comments here while waiting for the new solution from Jess.

First of all, one match doesn't usually decide your faith in TT and I don't agree with your comments on the selection of TB matches. Imo managers most of the times select the most interesting matches for TB's.

I'm also not sure if WTA TT has 128-player draws for tournaments, where the workload is huge and it doesn't need to be added.

So Stakhovsky-Cervenak is a fair choice when most players have no clue who they are? That's fair that our match rides on that TB?

But you don't disagree that you have set up this change to fail?

One match DOES decide your fate. If your one wrong match is the TB match you are done. That has happened MANY times over the last year to people. Sometimes you pick the most interesting ones, sometimes you don't. The times you don't aren't exactly fair. I didn't say you were sadistic all the time but there are times when it happens.

And okay that's fair, their RG only had 64 places. But I'd rather set ratio be multiple matches. If in the first round you wanted to have 5 tb matches. Okay, have there be 5 tb matches, but those 5 tb matches you count the set ratios first and have 5 set ratios be counted before you do 5 tbs with points.

savesthedizzle
11-11-2006, 01:44 PM
Yeah okay that is my proposal.

The PTS people wanted 5 tbs in the first round.

I propose there are still 5 tbs in the first round. You predict score and set ratio for them. Set ratio is used first, whoever has the most set ratios right out of the 5. TB according to the new point system is done second, and that is in the order selected by the manager.

We both get what we want, no?

Labamba
11-11-2006, 01:47 PM
Yeah okay that is my proposal.

The PTS people wanted 5 tbs in the first round.

I propose there are still 5 tbs in the first round. You predict score and set ratio for them. Set ratio is used first, whoever has the most set ratios right out of the 5. TB according to the new point system is done second, and that is in the order selected by the manager.

We both get what we want, no?

That's not really a compromise, that's basically what the poll option of Set Ratios suggest. :shrug:

savesthedizzle
11-11-2006, 01:49 PM
That's not a compromise, that's basically what the poll option of Set Ratios suggest. :shrug:

Um no.

I am saying only set ratio 5 matches instead of all of them?

Your proposal didn't have the set ratio predictions that half of TT players wanted at all.

In the first round of a Grand Slam when you were concerned about all that extra workload, instead of so many matches, there are only 5. That greatly cuts down the amount of work it is and would avoid calculating many TB scores. Using set ratio once is hardly using anything from us.

ExcaliburII
11-11-2006, 01:49 PM
what about increasing even more the set ratio to the PTS, and do the tb only with PTS?

savesthedizzle
11-11-2006, 01:52 PM
what about increasing even more the set ratio to the PTS, and do the tb only with PTS?

I don't think I understand what you mean.. doing the TB only with PTS is what most voters want to avoid.

ExcaliburII
11-11-2006, 01:54 PM
I don't think I understand what you mean.. doing the TB only with PTS is what most voters want to avoid.

increasing the points of set ratio in the PTS.
Instead of 1-4-7, 3-6-9 for example.
And only do the Tb with PTS

Labamba
11-11-2006, 01:57 PM
Um no.

I am saying only set ratio 5 matches instead of all of them?

Your proposal didn't have the set ratio predictions that half of TT players wanted at all.

In the first round of a Grand Slam when you were concerned about all that extra workload, instead of so many matches, there are only 5. That greatly cuts down the amount of work it is and would avoid calculating many TB scores. Using set ratio once is hardly using anything from us.

Your suggestion still pretty much eliminates the use of PTS. And what about the further rounds, what would used for them as TB?

Some of the set-ratio supporters already said it was a good/fair suggestion as it doesn't involve so much luck anymore and the set ratio is the first TB criteria.

savesthedizzle
11-11-2006, 01:59 PM
increasing the points of set ratio in the PTS.
Instead of 1-4-7, 3-6-9 for example.
And only do the Tb with PTS

Well what I had originally suggested when we were losing the poll, was just to make the system this:

winner: 10 points
correct number of sets: 10 (up from 5)

and then the PTS system. This way it would be hard to have the winner and right number of sets and lose just because someoe got better numbers.

They have changed that to make set ORDER more important, which is what one of them suggested, not me. I think that's nice, but I don't think it solves things unless correct number of sets is increased in value as well.

Labamba
11-11-2006, 01:59 PM
increasing the points of set ratio in the PTS.
Instead of 1-4-7, 3-6-9 for example.
And only do the Tb with PTS

This coming from a Set ratio voter? :confused:

Labamba
11-11-2006, 02:01 PM
Well what I had originally suggested when we were losing the poll, was just to make the system this:

winner: 10 points
correct number of sets: 10 (up from 5)

and then the PTS system. This way it would be hard to have the winner and right number of sets and lose just because someoe got better numbers.

They have changed that to make set ORDER more important, which is what one of them suggested, not me. I think that's nice, but I don't think it solves things unless correct number of sets is increased in value as well.

Jess, you should look closer at my plan. It involves using the set ratio as the first decider. You don't have to increase its points as it wouldn't be part of the PTS anymore.

savesthedizzle
11-11-2006, 02:02 PM
Your suggestion still pretty much eliminates the use of PTS. And what about the further rounds, what would used for them as TB?

Some of the set-ratio supporters already said it was a good/fair suggestion as it doesn't involve so much luck anymore and the set ratio is the first TB criteria.

Some of them being 2. There are still 30 other supporters.

Further rounds? CB. Are you finally ready to discuss that? You've told me not to mention CB for the last two days. :p And I might not have my supporters support on that one, so I didn't want to get into it.

You're right, my suggestion uses PTS as a last resort, but your suggestion of hardly using set ratio was not that great. Considering the poll is essentially 50/50, you made set ratio so incredibly useless it might as well not be used at all.

ExcaliburII
11-11-2006, 02:03 PM
This coming from a Set ratio voter? :confused:

because i know the Set ratio will not be completely accepted. When a pact is made done both parts have to lose something.

Taz Warrior
11-11-2006, 02:03 PM
Here's one compromise suggestion :angel:

If the match goes to a TB, then the order of deciding the tie would be:

1. correct winner in TB match
2. correct set ratio in TB match
3. PTS with changes to the scoring system

Correct order of sets for:
1 set – 1 point
2 sets – 3 points -> 4 points
3 sets – 5 points -> 7 points
4 sets – 7 points -> 10 points
5 sets – 10 points -> 13 points

Correct scoreline for:
1 set – 4 points -> 3 points
2 sets – 8 points -> 6 points
3 sets – 12 points -> 9 points
4 sets – 16 points -> 12 points
5 sets – 20 points -> 15 points
*2 additional points per set if the scoreline is in the correct set (this would be removed)

This would take down the luck factor significantly and the dreaded 'bad beats' wouldn't be possible. Also we wouldn't have to bring a totally new system and we wouldn't have to send those set ratios for all the matches (less work for the managers). This would also reward the tipping more as there would be more CB's. Let me know what you think :)
That's a good solution - I'd like to increase the value of the correct no. of sets to 10 as well to make set ratios more important :)

savesthedizzle
11-11-2006, 02:04 PM
Jess, you should look closer at my plan. It involves using the set ratio as the first decider. You don't have to increase its points as it wouldn't be part of the PTS anymore.

Meh you're right. Hold on. I have a new suggestion that I think will be generous considering we're winning by a slim margin.

balloon
11-11-2006, 02:05 PM
because i know the Set ratio will not be completely accepted. When a pact is made done both parts have to lose something.


yes, when a pact is done, both parties have to lose n compromise, somebody jus doesnt understand that

excaliburII, u have my respect! :angel:

Tomek.
11-11-2006, 02:06 PM
I wonder when this discussion will end :p

balloon
11-11-2006, 02:06 PM
Labamba

Ur suggestion means that, we only choose Set Ratio (SR) for TB matches..
And if its a best of 3, we can have a SR of 2-0 and a PTS score of 6-4 4-6 6-4?

savesthedizzle
11-11-2006, 02:06 PM
Okay here is my last suggestion:

Player A and Player B are tied. OH NO ITS A TB WHAT SHOULD WE DO.

We calculate the TB1 using the new scoring system (with sets being upped to 10). Egads, it's tied still.

Now we see who had the most set ratios out of the 5 TBs.

Still tied?

TB2, TB3, TB4, TB5.

So the first option would be TB with the new system, then set ratios for the 5 TB matches, then TTPTS for the other 4.

For rounds further in, I favor CB over other methods, but that is not really what this poll is about, since that's not what people were voting on :)

Labamba
11-11-2006, 02:06 PM
That's a good solution - I'd like to increase the value of the correct no. of sets to 10 as well to make set ratios more important :)

It won't matter in this plan if you look at the point #2

Tomek.
11-11-2006, 02:06 PM
but I know one for sure - PTS TBs will stay :lol:

Labamba
11-11-2006, 02:08 PM
Labamba

Ur suggestion means that, we only choose Set Ratio (SR) for TB matches..
And if its a best of 3, we can have a SR of 2-0 and a PTS score of 6-4 4-6 6-4?

no, you only send one score (just like now)

It's just used in a different way

savesthedizzle
11-11-2006, 02:08 PM
yes, when a pact is done, both parties have to lose n compromise, somebody jus doesnt understand that

excaliburII, u have my respect! :angel:

Your side wasn't willing to lose very much in that first compromise I didn't think and expected us to lose almost everything. Look at my final suggestion.

Labamba
11-11-2006, 02:10 PM
Okay here is my last suggestion:

Player A and Player B are tied. OH NO ITS A TB WHAT SHOULD WE DO.

We calculate the TB1 using the new scoring system (with sets being upped to 10). Egads, it's tied still.

Now we see who had the most set ratios out of the 5 TBs.

Still tied?

TB2, TB3, TB4, TB5.

So the first option would be TB with the new system, then set ratios for the 5 TB matches, then TTPTS for the other 4.

For rounds further in, I favor CB over other methods, but that is not really what this poll is about, since that's not what people were voting on :)

Sounds fair to me :) :aparty:

SloKid
11-11-2006, 02:10 PM
Your side wasn't willing to lose very much in that first compromise I didn't think and expected us to lose almost everything.
And according to the poll results it should be the other way around.

Tomek.
11-11-2006, 02:10 PM
on WTA you can send SR 2-0 and the TB 46 64 64 :lol:

balloon
11-11-2006, 02:11 PM
no, you only send one score (just like now)

It's just used in a different way



meaning..

if the final score is 6-4 6-4

and A sent in 6-4 6-3 and B sent in 6-3 3-6 6-3

it means A will win 2-0 on SR instead of calculating TB points?

balloon
11-11-2006, 02:12 PM
on WTA you can send SR 2-0 and the TB 46 64 64 :lol:



yes i know, thats y i m curious how it works here

savesthedizzle
11-11-2006, 02:12 PM
Sounds fair to me :) :aparty:

*cues the choir* Hallelujah! :rolls:

Does anyone disagree with that method because gosh I sure hope not. :lol:

savesthedizzle
11-11-2006, 02:13 PM
And according to the poll results it should be the other way around.

It should ;) I like my new compromise, and so does Ville, so there might be peace. :lol:

Labamba
11-11-2006, 02:14 PM
meaning..

if the final score is 6-4 6-4

and A sent in 6-4 6-3 and B sent in 6-3 3-6 6-3

it means A will win 2-0 on SR instead of calculating TB points?

yes

Foosimoo
11-11-2006, 02:14 PM
I like the method, but I am going to have to write it down somewhere or I'll start using the old one. :rolls:

Tomek.
11-11-2006, 02:14 PM
what new method???

balloon
11-11-2006, 02:15 PM
so in conclusion, can some1 type out the new method again,

and give an example of how it works

Tomek.
11-11-2006, 02:16 PM
I don't like it :(

Labamba
11-11-2006, 02:19 PM
If the match goes to a PTS TB, then the order of deciding the tie would be:

1. Correct winner in TB match
2. The points for the following categories:

Correct order of sets for:

1 set – 1 point
2 sets – 4 points
3 sets – 7 points
4 sets – 10 points
5 sets – 13 points

Correct scoreline for:

1 set – 3 points
2 sets – 6 points
3 sets – 9 points
4 sets – 12 points
5 sets – 15 points

savesthedizzle
11-11-2006, 02:20 PM
New scoring method:

Winner = 10 (same as before)
# of sets = 10 (instead of 5)

Correct order of sets for:
1 set – 1 point
2 sets – 3 points -> 4 points
3 sets – 5 points -> 7 points
4 sets – 7 points -> 10 points
5 sets – 10 points -> 13 points

Correct scoreline for:
1 set – 4 points -> 3 points
2 sets – 8 points -> 6 points
3 sets – 12 points -> 9 points
4 sets – 16 points -> 12 points
5 sets – 20 points -> 15 points


This is just a bit different than the PTS system, making order of sets more important than the actual score in that set (since this game is not for predicting scores!)

Foosimoo
11-11-2006, 02:20 PM
When we send in the TB score do we just put for example, 6:4, 6:3 and or do we actually have to say SR:2-0?

Tomek.
11-11-2006, 02:21 PM
thanks God we don't have this on WTAW :tape:

correct winner = 1 point + correct set ratio = 1 point = = = 2 points :p

Labamba
11-11-2006, 02:22 PM
When we send in the TB score do we just put for example, 6:4, 6:3 and or do we actually have to say SR:2-0?

the score will be enough

savesthedizzle
11-11-2006, 02:22 PM
If the match goes to a TB, then the order of deciding the tie would be:

1. correct winner in TB1 match
2. correct set ratio in TB1 match
3. PTS with TB1 with changes to the scoring system
4. correct set ratios in all the TB matches (5 in the first round)
5. PTS with TB2 (only in the first round)
6. PTS with TB3...

Correct order of sets for:
1 set – 1 point
2 sets – 3 points -> 4 points
3 sets – 5 points -> 7 points
4 sets – 7 points -> 10 points
5 sets – 10 points -> 13 points

Correct scoreline for:
1 set – 4 points -> 3 points
2 sets – 8 points -> 6 points
3 sets – 12 points -> 9 points
4 sets – 16 points -> 12 points
5 sets – 20 points -> 15 points
*2 additional points per set if the scoreline is in the correct set (this would be removed)

There's no need to increase the points for the correct # of sets as it's not part of the new PTS anymore.


I disagree. I think it does still need to be upped. What about TB2, TB3, TB4? Correct set ratio should still be rewarded in those scores. :shrug: I think it does need to remain part of the scoring system. You still need to have points for having the right winner and sets in the TB match so that those are still included in the points for tbs in the first round.

Foosimoo
11-11-2006, 02:22 PM
the score will be enough

And there are 5 TB's? (just a little confused here) :p

savesthedizzle
11-11-2006, 02:23 PM
thanks God we don't have this on WTAW :tape:

correct winner = 1 point + correct set ratio = 1 point = = = 2 points :p

It is soooo much easier :p :lol: But this is MTF and we like to be difficult apparently. :p

Taz Warrior
11-11-2006, 02:23 PM
When we send in the TB score do we just put for example, 6:4, 6:3 and or do we actually have to say SR:2-0?
I think if a manager can't work out the SR from the score then we're in big trouble :p

fabolous
11-11-2006, 02:23 PM
so this method is only used for the first round? because i like the idea of putting CB's before TB's for further rounds. will there be an extra poll for this?


i like every solution as long as ranking doesn't decide any matches again :)

savesthedizzle
11-11-2006, 02:24 PM
And there are 5 TB's? (just a little confused here) :p

That's what the PTS people wanted :) They wanted 5 TBs in the first round, that part is to avoid winning on ranking except for a complete fluke happening where all 5 TBs are tied.

savesthedizzle
11-11-2006, 02:24 PM
so this method is only used for the first round? because i like the idea of putting CB's before TB's for further rounds. will there be an extra poll for this?


i like every solution as long as ranking doesn't decide any matches again :)


I believe so. Now that we seem to have this pretty much sorted, I feel there should probably be another poll. You and I will be on the same side in that one ;)

Labamba
11-11-2006, 02:27 PM
I disagree. I think it does still need to be upped. What about TB2, TB3, TB4? Correct set ratio should still be rewarded in those scores. :shrug: I think it does need to remain part of the scoring system. You still need to have points for having the right winner and sets in the TB match so that those are still included in the points for tbs in the first round.

If the set ratios are the same, it doesn't matter anymore. We always check the set ratios first in PTS (for example, if the match would go to TB2, again we would check if the set ratio will decide the match and only after that we'll count the points).

Tomek.
11-11-2006, 02:27 PM
It is soooo much easier :p :lol: But this is MTF and we like to be difficult apparently. :p

now I know :tape:

Wanna make life harder???

go on MTF :o

Taz Warrior
11-11-2006, 02:29 PM
I believe so. Now that we seem to have this pretty much sorted, I feel there should probably be another poll. You and I will be on the same side in that one ;)
I'm not sure it's sorted just yet :p I'm sure there's a lot more opinions from other players to come.
I'm happy to go along with this but it does seem a little overcomplicated :)

Labamba
11-11-2006, 02:30 PM
Yes, 5 TB's in the first round to avoid the winning on ranking situation.

And the new poll about CB vs TB might start sometime soon, if we can agree on this compromise solution for TB's. :)

savesthedizzle
11-11-2006, 02:30 PM
If the set ratios are the same, it doesn't matter anymore. We always check the set ratios first in PTS (for example, if the match would go to TB2, again we would check if the set ratio will decide the match and only after that we'll count the points).

The set ratios may be the same if they are both 4/5 and have a different match wrong. If you are going to check winner AND set ratio before doing the scoring for each TB, then you are right and it wouldn't need to be included.

I think we've sorted this :hug:

(You're a good debater... are you a lawyer by any chance? :rolls: Thanks for fighting over TT with me and not stooping to personal insults ;) )

invu2day
11-11-2006, 02:31 PM
Well, well, I don't agree with any idea put forward by either the PTS camp or the Set Ratio camp :devil:

Let's see what I can throw into the ring ;)

Foosimoo
11-11-2006, 02:31 PM
Lets all take a deep breath. :yawn:

:hug: to everyone. :rolls:

savesthedizzle
11-11-2006, 02:32 PM
I'm not sure it's sorted just yet :p I'm sure there's a lot more opinions from other players to come.
I'm happy to go along with this but it does seem a little overcomplicated :)

I think it's less complicated in practice than it is trying to describe it in writing :p

savesthedizzle
11-11-2006, 02:32 PM
Well, well, I don't agree with any idea put forward by either the PTS camp or the Set Ratio camp :devil:

Let's see what I can throw into the ring ;)



:ras:

Labamba
11-11-2006, 02:41 PM
The set ratios may be the same if they are both 4/5 and have a different match wrong. If you are going to check winner AND set ratio before doing the scoring for each TB, then you are right and it wouldn't need to be included.

I think we've sorted this :hug:

(You're a good debater... are you a lawyer by any chance? :rolls: Thanks for fighting over TT with me and not stooping to personal insults ;) )

Yes, that's what I meant. :hug:

(the same to you :lol: not a lawyer, I'm writing my masters thesis on how to lead a group of strong willed experts in the business world, it's a bit of the same in here :p and a year in the army gives you a lesson about patience ;) )

Labamba
11-11-2006, 02:42 PM
Well, well, I don't agree with any idea put forward by either the PTS camp or the Set Ratio camp :devil:

Let's see what I can throw into the ring ;)

noooooooooooooo :eek:

j/k, give it your best shot Josh :lol:

keqtqiadv
11-11-2006, 02:43 PM
The new scoring system looks good :) Players would still have nearly 50-50 of chance, and that's how it should be.

invu2day
11-11-2006, 03:00 PM
For Set ratios to work they need be over a series of matches otherwise they have only a small chance of being decisive.

For each round the manager should decide on 5 SR (set ratio) matches and these should be numbered like SR1 > SR5 with SR1 also being A PTS decider.
This should be for every round unless its the Finals or semis of TT in which case there would be only 3 or 4 matches for SR. These selected matches should be considered to be the most difficult to predict by the manager.

Playing out a scenario :-

Days play :-

Roddick v Ljubicic SR1 PTS
Federer v Kuerten
Agassi v Nadal SR4
Henman v Starace SR5
Berdych v Hernych
Hewitt v Gonzalez SR2
Murray v Ancic SR3

Tom's Tips

Roddick SR1 64 67 76
Federer
Nadal SR4 21
Henman SR5 20
Berdych
Gonzalez SR2 21
Ancic SR3 20

Peter's Tips

Roddick SR1 36 64 75
Federer
Nadal SR4 20
Henman SR5 21
Berdych
Gonzalez SR2 21
Ancic SR3 20

Actual Results of the day

Roddick beats Ljubicic 62 67 76
Federer beats Kuerten 2-0
Nadal beats Agassi 2-1
Henman beats Starace 2-1
Berdych beats Hernych 2-0
Gonzalez beats Hewitt 2-1
Ancic beats Murray 2-0

Tom and Peter both have 7/7 for the day. So the SRs are put up against each other in a sudden death shoot out. First player to go ahead wins.

Actual SRs 21,21,20,21,21
Toms SRs 21,21,20,21,20
Peters SRs 21,21,20,20,21

Peter is the first to fail so therefore only 4 SRs are used and Tom wins 4-3 in sudden death. Is that enough excitement for you guys and girls??

Should all SRs be the same then it would go to a PTS score as Labamba has detailed.

This way you get to use Set Ratios and PTS but your tipping skill is rewarded more so. :)

keqtqiadv
11-11-2006, 03:07 PM
What I want more than excitment is to see matches 50-50, and not decided before they start. So your suggestion is good :)

:secret: Why didn't Guga win his match? :( :p

savesthedizzle
11-11-2006, 03:10 PM
What I want more than excitment is to see matches 50-50, and not decided before they start. So your suggestion is good :)

:secret: Why didn't Guga win his match? :( :p

I don't understand how set ratios in general as a TB decides matches before they start. :scratch:

I don't really like this as much as my idea, but if people like this more...

I just think it's a bit less of a compromise than the other one is. :shrug:

Nice idea though Josh, I know you really wanted this sudden death set ratio thing. :lol:

invu2day
11-11-2006, 03:11 PM
:secret: Why didn't Guga win his match? :( :p
He got injured in the first set TB but didn't retire and carried on playing with an injury in the next set just for his fans ;)

Labamba
11-11-2006, 03:12 PM
This is what the poll suggested, it's not a compromise. :p It's a solid system, but giving the set ratio system interesting names (sudden death shoot-out), doesn't make it an exciting system by itself. And it still has the same flaws as the PTS system.

I like the other compromise better. ;)

savesthedizzle
11-11-2006, 03:14 PM
This is what the poll suggested, it's not a compromise. :p It's a solid system, but giving the set ratio system interesting names (sudden death shoot-out), doesn't make it an exciting system by itself. And it still has the same flaws as the PTS system.

I like the other compromise better. ;)

I agree. Since the vote was so split I think it would be unwise to go too far in either direction. This gives set ratios more importance than I think the vote would allow.

ExcaliburII
11-11-2006, 03:15 PM
He got injured in the first set TB but didn't retire and carried on playing with an injury in the next set just for his fans ;)

before the injury was he winning?:rolleyes:

Foosimoo
11-11-2006, 03:16 PM
I like Jess/Ville's idea better. :o

invu2day
11-11-2006, 03:19 PM
This is what the poll suggested, it's not a compromise. :p It's a solid system, but giving the set ratio system interesting names (sudden death shoot-out), doesn't make it an exciting system by itself. And it still has the same flaws as the PTS system.

I like the other compromise better. ;)
Set ratios does not involve predicting set scores so how does it have the same flaws??:confused:

As a manager of several events I know most TT players just send in more or less if not the same PTS scores every round no matter who is playing. There is no skill in this. Players just select an PTS score which in their opinion is the most likely outcome regardless of who is playing. To back this up you can look back at any of your score sheets and you will understand what I am saying.

keqtqiadv
11-11-2006, 03:19 PM
I don't understand how set ratios in general as a TB decides matches before they start. :scratch:
The chance of ties in set ratios is much higher. With CBa dvantage, matches would start 60-40, 70-30, mainly in OOPs with few matches. Finals would be oftenly decided before final day.

keqtqiadv
11-11-2006, 03:21 PM
He got injured in the first set TB but didn't retire and carried on playing with an injury in the next set just for his fans ;)
Lucky Fed :ras: :p

invu2day
11-11-2006, 03:28 PM
I agree. Since the vote was so split I think it would be unwise to go too far in either direction. This gives set ratios more importance than I think the vote would allow.If set ratios wins this vote even by 1 then by all means it should as that is the whole reason of a poll. Otherwise why have a poll? Predicting a Set ratio involves alot less luck than PTS but PTS is still used as a last solution before going to CB. I don't see the problem here as your tipping skills are being rewarded more. After all that is whats Tennis Tipping is about ;)

savesthedizzle
11-11-2006, 03:33 PM
If set ratios wins this vote even by 1 then by all means it should as that is the whole reason of a poll. Otherwise why have a poll? Predicting a Set ratio involves alot less luck than PTS but PTS is still used as a last solution before going to CB. I don't see the problem here as your tipping skills are being rewarded more. After all that is whats Tennis Tipping is about ;)

I just can't be that much of an absolutist :) I want to please everyone :p The poll was useful for seeing how much discontent there was with the current system and that we could not remain with the status quo.

Labamba
11-11-2006, 03:37 PM
Set ratios does not involve predicting set scores so how does it have the same flaws??:confused:

As a manager of several events I know most TT players just send in more or less if not the same PTS scores every round no matter who is playing. There is no skill in this. Players just select an PTS score which in their opinion is the most likely outcome regardless of who is playing. To back this up you can look back at any of your score sheets and you will understand what I am saying.

Luck has a lot to do with this system too, it depends on which order the manager puts the TB matches, which matches he picks for TB's, one match decides your faith, etc.

There is skill involved in picking the right set scores, especially if most of the players just randomly pick the scores no matter who's playing (as you suggested). For example, some ATP players are clearly better at tiebreaks than others and knowing which players they are, makes a difference when picking the scores. Also the playing surface influences the set scores to some extent (grass has the most TB's for example).

invu2day
11-11-2006, 03:38 PM
If the match goes to a TB, then the order of deciding the tie would be:

1. correct winner in TB1 match
2. correct set ratio in TB1 match
3. PTS with TB1 with changes to the scoring system
4. correct set ratios in all the TB matches (5 in the first round)
5. PTS with TB2 (only in the first round)
6. PTS with TB3...

Correct order of sets for:
1 set – 1 point
2 sets – 3 points -> 4 points
3 sets – 5 points -> 7 points
4 sets – 7 points -> 10 points
5 sets – 10 points -> 13 points

Correct scoreline for:
1 set – 4 points -> 3 points
2 sets – 8 points -> 6 points
3 sets – 12 points -> 9 points
4 sets – 16 points -> 12 points
5 sets – 20 points -> 15 points
*2 additional points per set if the scoreline is in the correct set (this would be removed)

There's no need to increase the points for the correct # of sets as it's not part of the new PTS anymore.

Points 1 and 2 are just the same as a Set Ratios result. The chances of points 1 and 2 being decisive are very low so therefore you are still deciding the TB with PTS more so which is not what the Poll indicates. What I suggested uses set ratios over 5 matches first which gives it a greater chance of it being decisive. Should it still not be decisive the PTS is used ahead of CB. So the set ratio camp get what they want. The PTS camp also still get to use PTS should it be required.

Labamba
11-11-2006, 03:40 PM
I just can't be that much of an absolutist :) I want to please everyone :p The poll was useful for seeing how much discontent there was with the current system and that we could not remain with the status quo.

I absolutely agree with you here. :cool: The poll was made to ask for the players opinions and find out in which direction the matter should be taken. It would be different if the poll was 70-30 for the other option.

Labamba
11-11-2006, 03:43 PM
Points 1 and 2 are just the same as a Set Ratios result. The chances of points 1 and 2 being decisive are very low so therefore you are still deciding the TB with PTS more so which is not what the Poll indicates. What I suggested uses set ratios over 5 matches first which gives it a greater chance of it being decisive. Should it still not be decisive the PTS is used ahead of CB. So the set ratio camp get what they want. The PTS camp also still get to use PTS should it be required.

Your practically trying to kill the PTS system from TT (this will most likely happen with 5 set ratios) and almost half of the players don't want that. Also 3 of the 4 board members don't want that.

savesthedizzle
11-11-2006, 03:50 PM
No wonder this was such a hard battle for me.. 3/4 board members wanted PTS to remain part of a game and I wanted it out as much as possible since this isn't a game for predicting scores. :)

This season we make a small victory, next year we make another small victory, and eventually we'll have it our way. :angel:

It's important to remember though that when we say we are using PTS, that it is the "new" PTS and not PTS in its old form. It has been revamped to suit TT and tipping with less emphasis on correct scores. That is HUGE I think :) A very important victory in that alone.

People who come along later tonight and may not read back the whole thread should just be reminded of that :) We need something to call the score system we are using since it's confusing and not accurate to call it PTS anymore. :p

Labamba
11-11-2006, 03:56 PM
Now there's people starting to vote in the poll (for Set Ratios) that have never played TT before :rolleyes:

keqtqiadv
11-11-2006, 03:56 PM
":p system" :rocker2:

invu2day
11-11-2006, 03:57 PM
I absolutely agree with you here. :cool: The poll was made to ask for the players opinions and find out in which direction the matter should be taken. It would be different if the poll was 70-30 for the other option.

I don't agree. The poll asks players whether they would like PTS or Set ratios as a TB. If PTS wins then PTS should be used. If Set ratio wins the Set ratio should be used.

But if the poll ended now then there would no PTS in TT. BUt as the Poll is close we are deciding on compromises with one given more leverage over the other as there is no way you could use both 50/50.

Your proposal uses Set ratios before PTS but only over one match. With this very few matches will be decided by Set ratios as Set ratios needs more than 1 match to be decisive. In essence PTS will be the deciding factor most of the time. If PTS wins the Poll by even 1 vote then I am happy to go with this as PTS has more leverage than Set ratios as the Poll would indicate.

My proposal gives a greater chance most matches will be decided by Set ratios before PTS is used. Note PTS will still be used ;). If Set Ratios wins the poll by even 1 vote my suggestion would give more leverage to Set Ratios than PTS as the Poll would indicate.

Does this seem fairer?

invu2day
11-11-2006, 04:08 PM
Your practically trying to kill the PTS system from TT (this will most likely happen with 5 set ratios) and almost half of the players don't want that. Also 3 of the 4 board members don't want that.

I'm not trying to kill anything :haha:

What I'd like is Tennis Tipping to be based more on skill than luck. Luck is required in both PTS and Set ratios. But it's plain to see less luck is involved in Set ratios than PTS as you do not have to predict set scores. Isn't it fair to say then it's most logical to use Set ratios before PTS??;)

That is unless you want luck to play a greater part in TBs??:p

Labamba
11-11-2006, 04:16 PM
I don't see things as black and white as you do. The poll doesn't reflect the current situation anymore as there have been two new 'compromise solutions' and some of the voters have NEVER played TT or only a few tournaments. Here's a new suggestion;

Let's test the systems in next weeks challengers and see what the feedback from the players will be.

Labamba
11-11-2006, 04:20 PM
I'm not trying to kill anything :haha:

What I'd like is Tennis Tipping to be based more on skill than luck. Luck is required in both PTS and Set ratios. But it's plain to see less luck is involved in Set ratios than PTS as you do not have to predict set scores. Isn't it fair to say then it's most logical to use Set ratios before PTS??;)

That is unless you want luck to play a greater part in TBs??:p

I want to see matches that start from the same playing field, not something where the other party has a clear advantage before the match. This is the key element of excitement. And measuring luck is difficult, it always has influence and the 'new' PTS is much more fair (less luck) than the old one.

Tomek.
11-11-2006, 04:27 PM
Set Ratio system (the current system in WTA TT)

In Set Ratios you have to predict sets won only (E.G. 2-1, 2-0, 3-2, etc). You get one point for predicting each match correct in a round. Your match will only go to Set Ratios if you and your opponent both tip the same amount of winners in the round.

so not like in WTA TT :o

so this poll is wrong :p

invu2day
11-11-2006, 05:09 PM
I don't see things as black and white as you do. The poll doesn't reflect the current situation anymore as there have been two new 'compromise solutions' and some of the voters have NEVER played TT or only a few tournaments. Here's a new suggestion;

Let's test the systems in next weeks challengers and then have a poll about the two of them. Let's say, your system in Asuncion and mine and Jess' in Dnepropetrovsk (Helsinki can use the old system).

Having another poll on this is prolonging the situation and rendering this poll almost redundant. This Poll will sort everything. If the first option wins then your suggestion is more suitable and I'd be happy with that as it is a step in the right direction. If the second option wins then my suggestion would be more suitable as it eliminates more of the luck factor.

Bjφrki
11-11-2006, 08:07 PM
Now there's people starting to vote in the poll (for Set Ratios) that have never played TT before :rolleyes:
:lol:

Labamba
11-11-2006, 08:56 PM
Having another poll on this is prolonging the situation and rendering this poll almost redundant. This Poll will sort everything. If the first option wins then your suggestion is more suitable and I'd be happy with that as it is a step in the right direction. If the second option wins then my suggestion would be more suitable as it eliminates more of the luck factor.

It's not your call to make, it's the boards decision. The new proposal got support from some of the set ratio supporters. I think we should test these systems before making the final decision.

invu2day
11-11-2006, 10:00 PM
It's not your call to make, it's the boards decision. The new proposal got support from some of the set ratio supporters. I think we should test these systems before making the final decision.
The whole point of this poll was to see of players want Set ratios or PTS as a TB. At the moment Set ratios lead and if it stays that way then that is what should be implemented. The compromise you came up with gives very little effect for set ratios to be decisive. The bias is still towards PTS. No leverage at all is given to Set ratios as it leads the poll. Given that fact it's you who is making the call by going against the poll as it stands :confused:

Labamba
11-11-2006, 10:16 PM
The whole point of this poll was to see of players want Set ratios or PTS as a TB. At the moment Set ratios lead and if it stays that way then that is what should be implemented. The compromise you came up with gives very little effect for set ratios to be decisive. The bias is still towards PTS. No leverage at all is given to Set ratios as it leads the poll. Given that fact it's you who is making the call by going against the poll as it stands :confused:

I haven't made any call. I was trying to find a better solution that wouldn't divide the TT players in half and I didn't see many players objecting to it.

Set ratios lead by one at the moment, as we can't accept the vote of 'stebs', who to my knowledge hasn't played TT ever before here in MTF.

invu2day
11-11-2006, 10:20 PM
Set ratios lead by one at the moment, as we can't accept the vote of 'stebs', who to my knowledge hasn't played TT ever before here in MTF.

Thats the right call to make :yeah:

balloon
11-12-2006, 02:32 AM
may the forum moderators spend some of their time checking out stebs's account.. and see if it matches with any of the IP add of the current member.. and maybe find out a idiot who is cheating

thanks!

yemok
11-12-2006, 05:08 PM
What I'd like is Tennis Tipping to be based more on skill than luck. Luck is required in both PTS and Set ratios. But it's plain to see less luck is involved in Set ratios than PTS as you do not have to predict set scores. Isn't it fair to say then it's most logical to use Set ratios before PTS??;)


yeah! when you play 8 matches (for example) it's a lot more logical the decider to be your general performance in the day (aka. 5 SR TB's :aplot: ) and not the lucky numbers in just one match. Although I'm a hardcore-fan of SR I agree with savestheday91, the suggested compromise will do the job for now and I'll be satisfied... and in the next off-seasons after re-discussing everything can come to the right place ;)

Tomek.
11-12-2006, 07:42 PM
so set ratios beat PTS system???

Labamba
11-12-2006, 07:57 PM
This poll will close on 11-20-2006 at 10:38 AM

Tomek.
11-20-2006, 06:52 PM
:aparty:

:p