2007 TT TB Method [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

2007 TT TB Method

invu2day
11-22-2006, 10:30 PM
2007 TT TB Method

MANAGER & PLAYER NOTES

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 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. However selection of matches chosen is at the Manager's discretion.

For every First Round of every draw all Players are to send PTS scores for all 5 SR matches. This will hopefully stop anyone winning or losing by ranking.

Example of listing Day's play by Manager :-

Henman v Kafelnikov
Coria v Kuerten SR1
Hewitt v Lendl
Nalbandian v Vilas SR3
Tursunov v Mecir SR5
Roddick v McEnroe
Blake v Conners SR2
Murray v Monfils SR4

Example of Tips sent by a player :-

(Winners name only plus PTS or SR)

Henman
Coria TB1 6-4, 7-5
Hewitt
Nalbandian SR3 2-0
Tursunov SR5 2-1
Roddick
Blake SR2 2-0
Murray SR4 2-1

SCORING NOTES

TB deciders will come into play in the event of both players tipping equal amount of winners in a round.

1. Player A SR1 v Player B SR1 > [Correct winner, Correct ratio](Correct ratio only used if both players have correct winner). If either player goes ahead they are declared the winner otherwise

2. Player A SR2 v Player B SR2 > [Correct winner, Correct ratio](Correct ratio only used if both players have correct winner). If either player goes ahead they are declared the winner otherwise

3. Player A SR3 v Player B SR3 > [Correct winner, Correct ratio](Correct ratio only used if both players have correct winner). If either player goes ahead they are declared the winner otherwise

4. Player A SR4 v Player B SR4 > [Correct winner, Correct ratio](Correct ratio only used if both players have correct winner). If either player goes ahead they are declared the winner otherwise

5. Player A SR5 v Player B SR5 > [Correct winner, Correct ratio](Correct ratio only used if both players have correct winner). If either player goes ahead they are declared the winner otherwise

6. New PTS Scores exclusive to TENNIS TIPPING

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

7. CB1, CB2, CB3 etc

8. TB1, TB2, TB3 etc

Any queries please ask in this thread only otherwise they may go unseen ;)

[Amendment 01/06/07]
[Amendment 11/30/06]

keqtqiadv
11-22-2006, 10:53 PM
Guga vs Coria :rocker2: :lol:

invu2day
11-22-2006, 10:55 PM
Guga vs Coria :rocker2: :lol:Coria is about the only person Guga could beat right now :p

keqtqiadv
11-22-2006, 10:56 PM
yes :rolls:

scarecrows
11-22-2006, 11:13 PM
Coria is about the only person Guga could beat right now :p

probably it's the same for Coria :lol:

yemok
11-22-2006, 11:56 PM
Coria vs Kuerten TB1

Question:

I predict Coria in 2, you predict Coria in 3, but Kuerten wins in 2

what we'll do?
you win or go to SR2?

thanks :wavey:

invu2day
11-23-2006, 12:05 AM
Question:

I predict Coria in 2, you predict Coria in 3, but Kuerten wins in 2

what we'll do?
you win or go to SR2?

thanks :wavey:go to SR2 :) You need to get the exact SR

Labamba
11-23-2006, 07:22 AM
Just to make sure,

I predict Coria in 3, you predict Kuerten in 3, Coria wins in 2

-> I win (because I had the right winner)?

Grofica
11-23-2006, 07:35 AM
thanks for the thread:)

Grofica
11-23-2006, 07:37 AM
do we gain some points for predicting right winner? ex. Coria wins in 2 I've picked Coria in 3, my opponet Kuerten in 2?

invu2day
11-23-2006, 08:34 AM
Just to make sure,

I predict Coria in 3, you predict Kuerten in 3, Coria wins in 2

-> I win (because I had the right winner)?Yeah :)

invu2day
11-23-2006, 08:35 AM
do we gain some points for predicting right winner? ex. Coria wins in 2 I've picked Coria in 3, my opponet Kuerten in 2?No extra points. SRs will only be used as tiebreakers. :)

alansk
11-23-2006, 10:31 AM
Just to make sure,

I predict Coria in 3, you predict Kuerten in 3, Coria wins in 2

-> I win (because I had the right winner)?

Yeah :)

That was a bit confusing, cos you just said "You need to get the exact SR", but in fact the case is this:

In order to win in SR<N> you must get the ratio correct, where your opponent does not OR get the winner correct where your opponent does not.

:)


I know this has all been decided now, which is fine, but can I table a suggestion for the future? Before we go to "shootout style" SR1->SR2->etc, could the first step of the TB be "who has the most correct set ratios" and if that is equal then we go to the system above? Or was that discussed and dismissed?

Blue Heart24
11-23-2006, 11:18 AM
For every First Round of a Main draw all Players are to send PTS scores for all 5 SR matches. This will hopefully stop anyone winning or losing by ranking.





Does this include challengers?

Labamba
11-23-2006, 12:24 PM
For every First Round of a Main draw all Players are to send PTS scores for all 5 SR matches. This will hopefully stop anyone winning or losing by ranking.





Does this include challengers?

yes

savesthedizzle
11-23-2006, 02:44 PM
I know this has all been decided now, which is fine, but can I table a suggestion for the future? Before we go to "shootout style" SR1->SR2->etc, could the first step of the TB be "who has the most correct set ratios" and if that is equal then we go to the system above? Or was that discussed and dismissed?

That's what I was really in favor of, but I guess the shoot out style was for "excitement."

I'd rather see who had the most set ratios right first out of the five and if that was tied then do shoot out. :shrug: But maybe that's too much.

savesthedizzle
11-25-2006, 03:26 PM
For every First Round of a Main draw all Players are to send PTS scores for all 5 SR matches. This will hopefully stop anyone winning or losing by ranking.




Is this really only for main draw matches? What about a first round of qualifying? Shouldn't this also apply there so that people aren't likely to lose there by ranking either? :) We came across this issue in Maui :p

Foosimoo
11-25-2006, 03:27 PM
No blaming me :ras:

savesthedizzle
11-25-2006, 03:28 PM
No blaming me :ras:

Of course not :hug: You managed how the rules told you to :)

We just should probably change the rules :p That's the whole point of testing something out anyway, finding little inconsistencies :p

Labamba
11-27-2006, 07:25 AM
Is this really only for main draw matches? What about a first round of qualifying? Shouldn't this also apply there so that people aren't likely to lose there by ranking either? :) We came across this issue in Maui :p

5 PTS TB's should have been used also for the quallies first round...

invu2day
11-29-2006, 11:52 PM
Amendment to TB Method 2007, 11/30/06

Labamba
01-06-2007, 09:06 AM
2007 TT TB Method

SCORING NOTES

TB deciders will come into play in the event of both players tipping equal amount of winners in a round.

1. Player A SR1 v Player B SR1 > [Correct winner, Correct ratio] If either player goes ahead they are declared the winner otherwise

2. Player A SR2 v Player B SR2 > [Correct winner, Correct ratio] If either player goes ahead they are declared the winner otherwise

3. Player A SR3 v Player B SR3 > [Correct winner, Correct ratio] If either player goes ahead they are declared the winner otherwise

4. Player A SR4 v Player B SR4 > [Correct winner, Correct ratio] If either player goes ahead they are declared the winner otherwise

5. Player A SR5 v Player B SR5 > [Correct winner, Correct ratio] If either player goes ahead they are declared the winner otherwise

[Amendment 11/30/06]

I hope every manager has got this part of the rules right:

first you look at the correct # winner(s) in SR1, and if still tied then you compare the set ratio(s) in SR1

and the same thing for SR2 and so on...

e: and if both players have the wrong winner, just skip to the next SR

invu2day
01-06-2007, 12:18 PM
[Amendment 01/06/07]

adee-gee
01-06-2007, 12:24 PM
Thanks for the amendment, makes things clearer :yeah:

balloon
01-12-2007, 07:45 AM
hmm can i ask something

for last season.. tt singles and doubles finals, the TB match is always the final match of the tournament..

but for this season with the new rule, does it mean that the SR1 match will never be the final of the tournament ?

thanks

Andre♥
01-12-2007, 07:57 AM
hmm can i ask something

for last season.. tt singles and doubles finals, the TB match is always the final match of the tournament..

but for this season with the new rule, does it mean that the SR1 match will never be the final of the tournament ?

thanks

Last season the TB match wasn't always the final match. There were some excepcions.

SR1 can be the final of the tournament. When I managed Adelaide, the final was the SR1.

Labamba
01-12-2007, 09:01 AM
SR1 should always be the final with no exceptions

tiptopdaisy
02-02-2007, 10:44 PM
Team1: 6-4 6-4 & 7-5 6-4 against Team2: 6-4 6-4 & 6-4 6-2

match result 7-6 6-4

which team is ahead or is this a tie ?

invu2day
02-02-2007, 10:47 PM
Team1: 6-4 6-4 & 7-5 6-4 against Team2: 6-4 6-4 & 6-4 6-2

match result 7-6 6-4

which team is ahead or is this a tie ?
Tie

Go to PTS2 if there is one or CB

tiptopdaisy
02-02-2007, 10:48 PM
Tie

Go to PTS2 if there is one or CB

so it doesn#t matter if someone has the scoreline in the correct set or not

invu2day
02-02-2007, 10:52 PM
so it doesn#t matter if someone has the scoreline in the correct set or not

It doesn't matter anymore ;)

Enjoy Incubus
02-24-2007, 02:54 AM
I just want to ask why did you (TT board) changed the TB method that is used for PTS:shrug:, and exclusively this change is what I cant understand:
*2 additional points per set if the scoreline is in the correct set
What´s wrong with that? Shouldnt a player receive those 2 points when it predicts the set score perfect? I think it should be discussed(in a poll maybe), it wouldnt be fair for a player to be out in CBs after predicting sets with the perfect score. Hope you to understand what am I seeing here.

GlennMirnyi
02-24-2007, 02:59 AM
I just want to ask why did you (TT board) changed the TB method that is used for PTS:shrug:, and exclusively this change is what I cant understand:
*2 additional points per set if the scoreline is in the correct set
What´s wrong with that? Shouldnt a player receive those 2 points when it predicts the set score perfect? I think it should be discussed(in a poll maybe), it wouldnt be fair for a player to be out in CBs after predicting sets with the perfect score. Hope you to understand what am I seeing here.


What I get from this rule is that like: a player wins 6/3 6/7 6/4. If you somehow predicted a 6/4 either in the first or second sets, you get 2 points. If you got that exactly in the third, then you get the 2 additional points.
Have I got what you mean, mate?


I just think the pts method shouldn't have been changed, as it's almost never used. Anyway, I think that's it.

Enjoy Incubus
02-24-2007, 03:24 AM
6. New PTS Scores exclusive to TENNIS TIPPING

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

Ex. Almagro wins 64 57 63. No differences if you predict Almagro 76 64 or 64 76, you get the same points. That´s what I mean, and I think you should get those 2 points for predicting the score in the correct set. Like... why do we use PTS if it doesnt matter the way it is predicted?. I know IT IS almost never used, but when it is used, I just think it should be used well.

GlennMirnyi
02-24-2007, 05:28 AM
6. New PTS Scores exclusive to TENNIS TIPPING

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

Ex. Almagro wins 64 57 63. No differences if you predict Almagro 76 64 or 64 76, you get the same points. That´s what I mean, and I think you should get those 2 points for predicting the score in the correct set. Like... why do we use PTS if it doesnt matter the way it is predicted?. I know IT IS almost never used, but when it is used, I just think it should be used well.

Then I agree with you. Spot on.

Labamba
02-26-2007, 01:13 PM
I just want to ask why did you (TT board) changed the TB method that is used for PTS:shrug:, and exclusively this change is what I cant understand:
*2 additional points per set if the scoreline is in the correct set
What´s wrong with that? Shouldnt a player receive those 2 points when it predicts the set score perfect? I think it should be discussed(in a poll maybe), it wouldnt be fair for a player to be out in CBs after predicting sets with the perfect score. Hope you to understand what am I seeing here.

It was discussed before, it's all luck if you predict the right score in the right set, because you can't even know who is serving first. People didn't want to give luck so much power over the PTS system, that's why it was removed.

I think the current system is fair and in my opinion it's more fair to win in CB than by luck with a correct set score in the correct set.

Labamba
02-26-2007, 01:31 PM
after what happened in the Acapulco qualies, I would like to bring a possible rule change into discussion...

In the current set ratio system, if a player retires in the match, the match is still counted but the set ratio is not. It feels a bit unfair if a player retires when he's for example 6-4 4-0 down, and in TT some player would have needed that match to be 2-0 to go through. Now it will go to the next SR and he might lose the match because of the retirement.

I know some bookmakers use the rule in set betting that if one set is completed and a player retires after that, he will be counted as losing all the remaining sets too. For example:

Rochus def. Lee 6-1 4-0 ret. -> Rochus 2-0 (or 3-0)
Rochus def. Lee 6-1 ret. -> Rochus 2-0 (or 3-0)
Rochus def. Lee 6-1 1-4 ret. -> Rochus 2-0 (or 3-0)
Rochus def. Lee 6-1 1-6 1-0 ret. -> Rochus 2-1 (or 3-1)

or even

Rochus def. Lee 1-6 1-2 ret. -> Rochus 2-1 (or 3-1)
Rochus def. Lee 1-6 1-6 1-2 ret. -> Rochus 3-2

What do you guys think? Is there a need to change the rules a bit or not? I'd say yes...

ExcaliburII
02-26-2007, 01:34 PM
100% agree with the change proposal :D

savesthedizzle
02-26-2007, 01:36 PM
after what happened in the Acapulco qualies, I would like to bring a possible rule change into discussion...

In the current set ratio system, if a player retires in the match, the match is still counted but the set ratio is not. It feels a bit unfair if a player retires when he's for example 6-4 4-0 down, and in TT some player would have needed that match to be 2-0 to go through. Now it will go to the next SR and he might lose the match because of the retirement.

I know some bookmakers use the rule in set betting that if one set is completed and a player retires after that, he will be counted as losing all the remaining sets too. For example:

Rochus def. Lee 6-1 4-0 ret. -> Rochus 2-0 (or 3-0)
Rochus def. Lee 6-1 ret. -> Rochus 2-0 (or 3-0)
Rochus def. Lee 6-1 1-4 ret. -> Rochus 2-0 (or 3-0)
Rochus def. Lee 6-1 1-6 1-0 ret. -> Rochus 2-1 (or 3-1)

or even

Rochus def. Lee 1-6 1-2 ret. -> Rochus 2-1 (or 3-1)
Rochus def. Lee 1-6 1-6 1-2 ret. -> Rochus 3-2

What do you guys think? Is there a need to change the rules a bit or not? I'd say yes...

I agree with that :D

Blue Heart24
02-26-2007, 01:38 PM
after what happened in the Acapulco qualies, I would like to bring a possible rule change into discussion...

In the current set ratio system, if a player retires in the match, the match is still counted but the set ratio is not. It feels a bit unfair if a player retires when he's for example 6-4 4-0 down, and in TT some player would have needed that match to be 2-0 to go through. Now it will go to the next SR and he might lose the match because of the retirement.

I know some bookmakers use the rule in set betting that if one set is completed and a player retires after that, he will be counted as losing all the remaining sets too. For example:

Rochus def. Lee 6-1 4-0 ret. -> Rochus 2-0 (or 3-0)
Rochus def. Lee 6-1 ret. -> Rochus 2-0 (or 3-0)
Rochus def. Lee 6-1 1-4 ret. -> Rochus 2-0 (or 3-0)
Rochus def. Lee 6-1 1-6 1-0 ret. -> Rochus 2-1 (or 3-1)

or even

Rochus def. Lee 1-6 1-2 ret. -> Rochus 2-1 (or 3-1)
Rochus def. Lee 1-6 1-6 1-2 ret. -> Rochus 3-2

What do you guys think? Is there a need to change the rules a bit or not? I'd say yes...

I agree :)

keqtqiadv
02-26-2007, 01:48 PM
well, players would probably lose any set they played because of injury/retirement reason, so it's not a bad idea :p

yemok
02-26-2007, 01:52 PM
What do you guys think? Is there a need to change the rules a bit or not? I'd say yes...

a 'yes' vote too

Alonsofz
02-26-2007, 02:00 PM
after what happened in the Acapulco qualies, I would like to bring a possible rule change into discussion...

In the current set ratio system, if a player retires in the match, the match is still counted but the set ratio is not. It feels a bit unfair if a player retires when he's for example 6-4 4-0 down, and in TT some player would have needed that match to be 2-0 to go through. Now it will go to the next SR and he might lose the match because of the retirement.

I know some bookmakers use the rule in set betting that if one set is completed and a player retires after that, he will be counted as losing all the remaining sets too. For example:

Rochus def. Lee 6-1 4-0 ret. -> Rochus 2-0 (or 3-0)
Rochus def. Lee 6-1 ret. -> Rochus 2-0 (or 3-0)
Rochus def. Lee 6-1 1-4 ret. -> Rochus 2-0 (or 3-0)
Rochus def. Lee 6-1 1-6 1-0 ret. -> Rochus 2-1 (or 3-1)

or even

Rochus def. Lee 1-6 1-2 ret. -> Rochus 2-1 (or 3-1)
Rochus def. Lee 1-6 1-6 1-2 ret. -> Rochus 3-2

What do you guys think? Is there a need to change the rules a bit or not? I'd say yes...

Well... I won that match against FiBeR because that rule doesn't exist, but I agree, because that win was very unfair :o

Sorry again FiBer!! :sad:

yemok
02-26-2007, 02:06 PM
digression: I think Ville's suggestion will be accepted, but FiBer lost his match yesterday, this will not change and now he is second on the lucky loser chain (as I understood).

can I propose to move him to first place in the LL waiting list (recompense)?
maybe the guys in charge will share their opinion on that in Acapulco's thread

:wavey:

keqtqiadv
02-26-2007, 02:09 PM
digression: I think Ville's suggestion will be accepted, but FiBer lost his match yesterday, this will not change and now he is second on the lucky loser chain (as I understood).

can I propose to move him to first place in the LL waiting list (recompense)?
maybe the guys in charge will share their opinion on that in Acapulco's thread

:wavey:
no :lol: rules were those when he lost this match, we can't do anything about it. edit: the LL part I had written, I'm not so sure of it :p

yemok
02-26-2007, 02:13 PM
no :lol: rules were those when he lost this match, we can't do anything about it. And LL1 (Jeff, I think :scratch: ) would still be LL1 if FiBeR had won.

I see... well, FiBer will be remembered as the sacrificial sheep of the new rule
:rolleyes:

edit: and maybe not :p

Labamba
02-26-2007, 02:15 PM
digression: I think Ville's suggestion will be accepted, but FiBer lost his match yesterday, this will not change and now he is second on the lucky loser chain (as I understood).

can I propose to move him to first place in the LL waiting list (recompense)?
maybe the guys in charge will share their opinion on that in Acapulco's thread

:wavey:

of course not, the rules are the same from the beginning of the tournament until the end

invu2day
02-26-2007, 04:51 PM
after what happened in the Acapulco qualies, I would like to bring a possible rule change into discussion...

In the current set ratio system, if a player retires in the match, the match is still counted but the set ratio is not. It feels a bit unfair if a player retires when he's for example 6-4 4-0 down, and in TT some player would have needed that match to be 2-0 to go through. Now it will go to the next SR and he might lose the match because of the retirement.

I know some bookmakers use the rule in set betting that if one set is completed and a player retires after that, he will be counted as losing all the remaining sets too. For example:

Rochus def. Lee 6-1 4-0 ret. -> Rochus 2-0 (or 3-0)
Rochus def. Lee 6-1 ret. -> Rochus 2-0 (or 3-0)
Rochus def. Lee 6-1 1-4 ret. -> Rochus 2-0 (or 3-0)
Rochus def. Lee 6-1 1-6 1-0 ret. -> Rochus 2-1 (or 3-1)

or even

Rochus def. Lee 1-6 1-2 ret. -> Rochus 2-1 (or 3-1)
Rochus def. Lee 1-6 1-6 1-2 ret. -> Rochus 3-2

What do you guys think? Is there a need to change the rules a bit or not? I'd say yes...

What has happened, has happened. Implement this change as suggested by Labamba as of Indian Wells. For the 3 current tournaments as they are in duration, carry on using the rule as before.

GustavoM_Fan
02-26-2007, 11:51 PM
I lost in Costa do Sauipe and today in Las Vegas because the SR1 is more important than 2 , than 3, than 4, than 5...

SR 2 Udomchoke v Kendrick.... I pick incorrectly Kendrick and my opponnent correctly Udomchoke...

SR3 is Lopez v Guccione. I pick correctly Lopez and my opponent incorrectly Guccione...

SR1,SR4 and SR5 are the same...

I lost because manager decision....and I feel is a little unfair.....

Enjoy Incubus
02-27-2007, 02:21 AM
I lost in Costa do Sauipe and today in Las Vegas because the SR1 is more important than 2 , than 3, than 4, than 5...

SR 2 Udomchoke v Kendrick.... I pick incorrectly Kendrick and my opponnent correctly Udomchoke...

SR3 is Lopez v Guccione. I pick correctly Lopez and my opponent incorrectly Guccione...

SR1,SR4 and SR5 are the same...

I lost because manager decision....and I feel is a little unfair.....
We´ll always found things that we dont like. And I´m sure that TB TT is using now isn't the best for it, it´s just what people who plays TT thought it would be the best, and we have to accept it. You can disagree in a lot of TT board decisions, but you should not say out loud each decision you disagree cause it would turn a completely mess. Get sure TT board decisions are taken after a consensus. Changes are made because majority agrees to make it, not because you disagree what you have right now.

Labamba
03-07-2007, 07:57 PM
What has happened, has happened. Implement this change as suggested by Labamba as of Indian Wells. For the 3 current tournaments as they are in duration, carry on using the rule as before.

note to managers:

this rule should now be used in all tournaments :wavey:

remember, one set must be completed for the SR's to count

alansk
03-07-2007, 08:53 PM
I always thought that the SR system should be...

Total SRs correct vs Total SRs correct

Not this SR1->SR2->SR3... shootout thingy :shrug:

:)



I lost in Costa do Sauipe and today in Las Vegas because the SR1 is more important than 2 , than 3, than 4, than 5...

SR 2 Udomchoke v Kendrick.... I pick incorrectly Kendrick and my opponnent correctly Udomchoke...

SR3 is Lopez v Guccione. I pick correctly Lopez and my opponent incorrectly Guccione...

SR1,SR4 and SR5 are the same...

I lost because manager decision....and I feel is a little unfair.....

ZackBusner
03-07-2007, 08:55 PM
I always thought that the SR system should be...

Total SRs correct vs Total SRs correct

Not this SR1->SR2->SR3... shootout thingy :shrug:

:)

At the beginning I though that, too. But now I really like that shootout. It's exciting!

Labamba
03-16-2007, 10:20 PM
Josh, you should add this to the first post :wavey:

In the current set ratio system, if a player retires in the match, the match is still counted but the set ratio is not. It feels a bit unfair if a player retires when he's for example 6-4 4-0 down, and in TT some player would have needed that match to be 2-0 to go through. Now it will go to the next SR and he might lose the match because of the retirement.

I know some bookmakers use the rule in set betting that if one set is completed and a player retires after that, he will be counted as losing all the remaining sets too. For example:

Rochus def. Lee 6-1 4-0 ret. -> Rochus 2-0 (or 3-0)
Rochus def. Lee 6-1 ret. -> Rochus 2-0 (or 3-0)
Rochus def. Lee 6-1 1-4 ret. -> Rochus 2-0 (or 3-0)
Rochus def. Lee 6-1 1-6 1-0 ret. -> Rochus 2-1 (or 3-1)

and even

Rochus def. Lee 1-6 1-2 ret. -> Rochus 2-1 (or 3-1)
Rochus def. Lee 1-6 1-6 1-2 ret. -> Rochus 3-2

el güero
05-05-2007, 10:10 AM
I always thought that the SR system should be...

Total SRs correct vs Total SRs correct

Not this SR1->SR2->SR3... shootout thingy :shrug:

:)

I agree, this needs to be changed for 2008. :)

GustavoM_Fan
05-24-2007, 02:02 PM
I agree, this needs to be changed for 2008. :)

If not bad the actual system... but sometimes is unfairy.....

Rik.
05-24-2007, 02:16 PM
I always thought that the SR system should be...

Total SRs correct vs Total SRs correct

Not this SR1->SR2->SR3... shootout thingy :shrug:

:)

I think this (SR1->SR2->SR3) is good.

Jimnik
06-05-2007, 09:38 PM
OK, I've got two players who picked the same players and had the same SRs for the winning players. Neither of them had a correct PTS1. Here's their PTS2:

Player A: Bastl 6-4 7-6
Player B: Bastl 6-3 6-4

Result: Bastl 6-4 6-3

Player B predicted 2 sets correctly but in the wrong order. Player A predicted the first set perfectly. Who wins?

scarecrows
06-05-2007, 09:45 PM
OK, I've got two players who picked the same players and had the same SRs for the winning players. Neither of them had a correct PTS1. Here's their PTS2:

Player A: Bastl 6-4 7-6
Player B: Bastl 6-3 6-4

Result: Bastl 6-4 6-3

Player B predicted 2 sets correctly but in the wrong order. Player A predicted the first set perfectly. Who wins?

Player B 10-7 I think

Forever-Delayed
06-05-2007, 09:47 PM
OK, I've got two players who picked the same players and had the same SRs for the winning players. Neither of them had a correct PTS1. Here's their PTS2:

Player A: Bastl 6-4 7-6
Player B: Bastl 6-3 6-4

Result: Bastl 6-4 6-3

Player B predicted 2 sets correctly but in the wrong order. Player A predicted the first set perfectly. Who wins?

I think Player B wins... Player B correctly predicted the score of 2 sets, while Player A only predicted the score of 1 set

I don't think it makes any difference as to whether they get the order correct, as there is nothing I can see in the rules that says you have to

(don't take this as being correct though, this is just the way that I interpret the rules)

Jimnik
06-05-2007, 09:48 PM
Player B 10-7 I think
Thanks. Indeed I thought player B had won.

This PTS system baffles me.

scarecrows
06-05-2007, 09:49 PM
looks like the TB rules are still unclear to us oldies
imagine those who play for first time :help:

Jimnik
06-05-2007, 09:50 PM
I think Player B wins... Player B correctly predicted the score of 2 sets, while Player A only predicted the score of 1 set

I don't think it makes any difference as to whether they get the order correct, as there is nothing I can see in the rules that says you have to

(don't take this as being correct though, this is just the way that I interpret the rules)
Thanks, I thought so.

Btw, player A is Bobby and player B is adee-gee.

Blue Heart24
06-06-2007, 09:00 AM
looks like the TB rules are still unclear to us oldies
imagine those who play for first time :help:

It's totaly clear for me :)

alansk
06-26-2007, 02:23 PM
Where did the points for "correct number of sets" go? And why?

invu2day
06-26-2007, 03:14 PM
Where did the points for "correct number of sets" go? And why?Don't need them as you would have same sets from SR score anyway.

alansk
06-26-2007, 03:40 PM
Don't need them as you would have same sets from SR score anyway.

SR1 PTS
alansk - Henman 3-2
hotzenplotz - Henman 3-1

All other SRs the same.

Let's say Moya won in 5. Goes to PTS. I don't get any points in PTS for correct number sets?

Or are the "correct number of sets" in real P-T-S dependant on having the correct winner? I seem to remember that...

Thanks anyway :D :wavey:

Baghdatis72
07-08-2007, 07:28 PM
looks like the TB rules are still unclear to us oldies
imagine those who play for first time :help:

You are right about that. I am reading various threads and posts concerning TT, trying to find out how to play :o

I understand that we don't need to sign up in a special thread for this game but all we need to do is commit in the appropriate thread before the deadline and if our ranking is good enough and not many players with higher ranking have committed, then we have a chance of entering the draws.

Then for every round we have to make choices for the winner of every match and also choose 5 matches which we think will be hard to predict and decisive to appoint as SR1,...,SR5. Along with that SR1,...,SR5 we send our prediction of the result of the match in sets (2-1 for example).

My questions are the following:

1) What is TB1, TB2, etc and CB1, CB2 etc and when do we use them?

2) If the two players have chosen completely different matches for SR's then how is the tie break decided?

3) Do we use the SR's with every pick/round or only once in the whole tournament?

4) When do we send our predictions for the exact score of the sets?

:help: Thanks in advance :)

P.S: This has to be the most complicated game in the forum.

GustavoM_Fan
07-08-2007, 07:32 PM
kindablue can help you... he is the Marcos Baghdatis of TT... :yeah:

Try to enter to ATP qualys....
because this month will be 3 tournaments per week (more chances to enter), and you get more points than challengers...

Countback1 is last round score...

imagine you are playing QFinals and you have exact scores than your opponnent....this match go to CB (last round score)

If in the 2nd round you have 6 points and your opponnent 5 points... You are winner by CB

savesthedizzle
07-08-2007, 07:35 PM
You are right about that. I am reading various threads and posts concerning TT, trying to find out how to play :o

I understand that we don't need to sign up in a special thread for this game but all we need to do is commit in the appropriate thread before the deadline and if our ranking is good enough and not many players with higher ranking have committed, then we have a chance of entering the draws.

Then for every round we have to make choices for the winner of every match and also choose 5 matches which we think will be hard to predict and decisive to appoint as SR1,...,SR5. Along with that SR1,...,SR5 we send our prediction of the result of the match in sets (2-1 for example).



Yes, just let me clarify here.. you don't choose SR1-SR5... the manager does... they are the same for every player, but so far it seems everything you've said is okay... now I'll try to answer some questions :)

My questions are the following:

1) What is TB1, TB2, etc and CB1, CB2 etc and when do we use them?

As a player, in the first round you must predict scores for the 5 matches the MANAGER chooses, if after the round is played, your scores are tied, then you go to SR1, SR2, SR3, SR4, SR5 etc, in the order that is listed in the beginning of the thread.

2) If the two players have chosen completely different matches for SR's then how is the tie break decided?

Players don't choose. The manager chooses.

3) Do we use the SR's with every pick/round or only once in the whole tournament?

:scratch: I'm not sure I understand this question. In every round there are 5 different SR matches.

4) When do we send our predictions for the exact score of the sets?

When you send in your tips for the day, so your tips can look like this:

Baghdatis 7-6 6-3
Djokovic 6-4 3-6 7-5
Nadal 6-2 6-2
Bjorkman
Murray
Moya 7-6 3-6 6-4
Ljubicic 6-4 6-3

There are scores for the tiebreak/set ratio matches and just picks for the others. But you send everything in at the same time :)


I hope that answered some of your questions... ;)

savesthedizzle
07-08-2007, 07:40 PM
SR1 PTS
alansk - Henman 3-2
hotzenplotz - Henman 3-1

All other SRs the same.

Let's say Moya won in 5. Goes to PTS. I don't get any points in PTS for correct number sets?

Or are the "correct number of sets" in real P-T-S dependant on having the correct winner? I seem to remember that...

Thanks anyway :D :wavey:



In real PTS correct number of sets is only counted if you also have the correct winner. :) So you remembered that correctly :p

Baghdatis72
07-08-2007, 07:48 PM
kindablue can help you... he is the Marcos Baghdatis of TT... :yeah:

Try to enter to ATP qualys....
because this month will be 3 tournaments per week (more chances to enter), and you get more points than challengers...

Countback1 is last round score...

imagine you are playing QFinals and you have exact scores than your opponnent....this match go to CB (last round score)

If in the 2nd round you have 6 points and your opponnent 5 points... You are winner by CB

Thanks I think I got it :yeah:

Yes, just let me clarify here.. you don't choose SR1-SR5... the manager does... they are the same for every player, but so far it seems everything you've said is okay... now I'll try to answer some questions :)



As a player, in the first round you must predict scores for the 5 matches the MANAGER chooses, if after the round is played, your scores are tied, then you go to SR1, SR2, SR3, SR4, SR5 etc, in the order that is listed in the beginning of the thread.



Players don't choose. The manager chooses.



:scratch: I'm not sure I understand this question. In every round there are 5 different SR matches.



When you send in your tips for the day, so your tips can look like this:

Baghdatis 7-6 6-3
Djokovic 6-4 3-6 7-5
Nadal 6-2 6-2
Bjorkman
Murray
Moya 7-6 3-6 6-4
Ljubicic 6-4 6-3

There are scores for the tiebreak/set ratio matches and just picks for the others. But you send everything in at the same time :)


I hope that answered some of your questions... ;)

Thank you very much savestheday :hug:

So the manager chooses 5 matches of every round that he/she thinks will be the decisive matches and names them SR1,...,SR5 according to difficulty. Now we have to send complete scores for those matches and only the winner for the rest. If the match is a draw between 2 TT players then the SR1 counts. If that is a draw too then the SR2 counts and so on until the SR5 is reached.

If a winner is not decided yet then... I am stuck here. Where do the TB's come and the CB's?

Alx
07-08-2007, 07:54 PM
Thanks I think I got it :yeah:



Thank you very much savestheday :hug:

So the manager chooses 5 matches of every round that he/she thinks will be the decisive matches and names them SR1,...,SR5 according to difficulty. Now we have to send complete scores for those matches and only the winner for the rest. If the match is a draw between 2 TT players then the SR1 counts. If that is a draw too then the SR2 counts and so on until the SR5 is reached.

If a winner is not decided yet then... I am stuck here. Where do the TB's come and the CB's?
no, no, you don't need to send scores for all the SRs matches, only the number of sets (for eg Federer 3-1). You only send scores for PTS matches (SR1 match or all the SRs matches in 1st round)
If the players are always tie after the 5 SRs, it goes to PTS (TB) and if they're still tie after the PTS, it goes to CB.

Baghdatis72
07-08-2007, 08:05 PM
no, no, you don't need to send scores for all the SRs matches, only the number of sets (for eg Federer 3-1). You only send scores for PTS matches (SR1 match or all the SRs matches in 1st round)
If the players are always tie after the 5 SRs, it goes to PTS (TB) and if they're still tie after the PTS, it goes to CB.

Aha so we only send the scores for all the SR matches in 1st round and SR1 matches for the rest of the rounds which are the PTS (predict the score I guess) matches.

Then SR1, SR2, SR3, SR4, SR5, PTS(TB) and then CB.

Many thanks Alx :D

savesthedizzle
07-08-2007, 09:24 PM
Aha so we only send the scores for all the SR matches in 1st round and SR1 matches for the rest of the rounds which are the PTS (predict the score I guess) matches.

Then SR1, SR2, SR3, SR4, SR5, PTS(TB) and then CB.

Many thanks Alx :D


Yes :D You've got it :D :yeah:

FiBeR
07-08-2007, 09:57 PM
ive got kind of a question

so.. after all..retired matches are not counted for SR's?

lets say I have nadal d. djoko 3-1 in sets
and my rival 3-2..

and nadal wins by ret trailing 46 61 41ret

we skip to next SR right?




EDIT: according to rules, i know we do.. that is a basic question..but im not awared of what happened after that poll on "counting ret matches" so it kind of sounds strange to me.. im not quire sure now
-

what about PTS.. if i had lets say Nadal d. Federer 61 76 67 26 64

(federer won 76 46 76 26 62) and my rival has lets say Nadal d. Federer 64 46 63 62

do we count pts even if they re both losers? right?

pts system has always confused me.. ive been avoiding it..

my real question behind that complex scoreboard (you dont have to actually tell me the points..it was an example) is..

when you nail a set score (lets say.. Nadal d. Federer 76) but from the rival.. (federer won 76) do you still get points in PTS for that?

thanks :wavey:

Baghdatis72
07-08-2007, 09:57 PM
Yes :D You've got it :D :yeah:

It was about time I guess :p

Thanks for the help :hug:

keqtqiadv
07-08-2007, 11:02 PM
ive got kind of a question

so.. after all..retired matches are not counted for SR's?

lets say I have nadal d. djoko 3-1 in sets
and my rival 3-2..

and nadal wins by ret trailing 46 61 41ret

we skip to next SR right?
correct :p
EDIT: according to rules, i know we do.. that is a basic question..but im not awared of what happened after that poll on "counting ret matches" so it kind of sounds strange to me.. im not quire sure now
-

what about PTS.. if i had lets say Nadal d. Federer 61 76 67 26 64

(federer won 76 46 76 26 62) and my rival has lets say Nadal d. Federer 64 46 63 62

do we count pts even if they re both losers? right?

pts system has always confused me.. ive been avoiding it..
yes, PTS is used even if both players picked the loser.

Nadal d. Federer 61 76 67 26 64

4 (correct order of two sets) + 9 (correct scores 76 Fed, 62 Fed, 64 Nadal) = 13

Nadal d. Federer 64 46 63 62

1 (correct order of one set) + 6 (correct scores Nadal 64, Nadal 62)
my real question behind that complex scoreboard (you dont have to actually tell me the points..it was an example) is..

when you nail a set score (lets say.. Nadal d. Federer 76) but from the rival.. (federer won 76) do you still get points in PTS for that?

thanks :wavey:
no points :p

savesthedizzle
07-08-2007, 11:06 PM
ive got kind of a question

so.. after all..retired matches are not counted for SR's?

lets say I have nadal d. djoko 3-1 in sets
and my rival 3-2..

and nadal wins by ret trailing 46 61 41ret

we skip to next SR right?




EDIT: according to rules, i know we do.. that is a basic question..but im not awared of what happened after that poll on "counting ret matches" so it kind of sounds strange to me.. im not quire sure now
-

what about PTS.. if i had lets say Nadal d. Federer 61 76 67 26 64

(federer won 76 46 76 26 62) and my rival has lets say Nadal d. Federer 64 46 63 62

do we count pts even if they re both losers? right?

pts system has always confused me.. ive been avoiding it..

my real question behind that complex scoreboard (you dont have to actually tell me the points..it was an example) is..

when you nail a set score (lets say.. Nadal d. Federer 76) but from the rival.. (federer won 76) do you still get points in PTS for that?

thanks :wavey:





If PTS is both losers yes you count it because you get points in PTS for correctly predicting order of sets and also your next point... you have to have the score going to the right winner! You only get points for the right score if you have the right person winning it... if that makes sense :) So let's say you pick the wrong winner, but you predicted the other player winning a set.. you can get points in PTS for that :)

savesthedizzle
07-08-2007, 11:07 PM
I'm too slow typing my response. I was going to do examples, but was confusing myself with how I was going to express them :lol:

FiBeR
07-09-2007, 06:48 PM
thanks guys :hug:

GustavoM_Fan
07-25-2007, 10:31 PM
I think actual TBreak system is not completely fair...

SR System need some changes......

1.IMO Winners are more important than SRatios

It should be

TB1 Winner
TB2 Winner
TB3 Winner
TB4 Winner
TB5 Winner

SR1 Set RATIO
SR1 Set RATIO
SR1 Set RATIO
SR1 Set RATIO
SR1 Set RATIO

CB (I think is fair PTS)

PTS

In my Kitzbuhel 1st round match (actual system):

SR1: I predict a wrong setratio ,my partner and my opponnents not (but all predict correct winner)
at SR2 we predict correct winners, only 1 opponnent did that....

We deserved to win....
because in TT IMO winners are more important that Set RATIOS....

2. PTS System is not fair in some cases....

I remember this match from Newport:

UDOMCHOKE D. BOGDANOVIC 6-3 3-6 6-0

A send BOGDANOVIC 6-3 6-4
B send BOGDANOVIC 7-6 4-6 6-3

All of them have Boggo 6-3, same points from scoreline but this not important in this case.....

with the actual PTS system A wins.. because he have 1 correct set order(Boggo winning the 2nd set)....
but B deserved to win because he predicted a tough match than A (3 set match)... he dont win because doesn`t predict any correct set order .....
But he should win because Udomchoke won a set.....


What do you thinK??? :)

invu2day
07-25-2007, 10:44 PM
I think actual TBreak system is not completely fair...

SR System need some changes......

1.IMO Winners are more important than SRatios

It should be

TB1 Winner
TB2 Winner
TB3 Winner
TB4 Winner
TB5 Winner

SR1 Set RATIO
SR1 Set RATIO
SR1 Set RATIO
SR1 Set RATIO
SR1 Set RATIO

CB (I think is fair PTS)

PTS

In my Kitzbuhel 1st round match (actual system):

SR1: I predict a wrong setratio ,my partner and my opponnents not (but all predict correct winner)
at SR2 we predict correct winners, only 1 opponnent did that....

We deserved to win....
because in TT IMO winners are more important that Set RATIOS....

2. PTS System is not fair in some cases....

I remember this match from Newport:

UDOMCHOKE D. BOGDANOVIC 6-3 3-6 6-0

A send BOGDANOVIC 6-3 6-4
B send BOGDANOVIC 7-6 4-6 6-3

All of them have Boggo 6-3, same points from scoreline but this not important in this case.....

with the actual PTS system A wins.. because he have 1 correct set order(Boggo winning the 2nd set)....
but B deserved to win because he predicted a tough match than A (3 set match)... he dont win because doesn`t predict any correct set order .....
But he should win because Udomchoke won a set.....


What do you thinK??? :)

Changes will be made to TB's after this season. There were radical changes from the previous year and any more would have been too much for one year. Keep suggesting though ;)

keqtqiadv
07-25-2007, 11:01 PM
I think actual TBreak system is not completely fair...

SR System need some changes......

1.IMO Winners are more important than SRatios

It should be

TB1 Winner
TB2 Winner
TB3 Winner
TB4 Winner
TB5 Winner

SR1 Set RATIO
SR1 Set RATIO
SR1 Set RATIO
SR1 Set RATIO
SR1 Set RATIO

CB (I think is fair PTS)

PTS

In my Kitzbuhel 1st round match (actual system):

SR1: I predict a wrong setratio ,my partner and my opponnents not (but all predict correct winner)
at SR2 we predict correct winners, only 1 opponnent did that....

We deserved to win....
because in TT IMO winners are more important that Set RATIOS....

2. PTS System is not fair in some cases....

I remember this match from Newport:

UDOMCHOKE D. BOGDANOVIC 6-3 3-6 6-0

A send BOGDANOVIC 6-3 6-4
B send BOGDANOVIC 7-6 4-6 6-3

All of them have Boggo 6-3, same points from scoreline but this not important in this case.....

with the actual PTS system A wins.. because he have 1 correct set order(Boggo winning the 2nd set)....
but B deserved to win because he predicted a tough match than A (3 set match)... he dont win because doesn`t predict any correct set order .....
But he should win because Udomchoke won a set.....


What do you thinK??? :)
PTS makes the matches almost 50-50 before they start. The scoring system can have some changes though :p

I think I've already told you I like your correct winners suggestion :)

Peta Pan
07-25-2007, 11:41 PM
YES definitely for the correct winners... I thought that's how it worked already, I was quite shocked when I saw that it wasn't.

GustavoM_Fan
07-25-2007, 11:51 PM
Changes will be made to TB's after this season. There were radical changes from the previous year and any more would have been too much for one year. Keep suggesting though ;)

Why wait to end of seasoN??? :rolleyes:
We should discuss next week and put or not the change at Montreal or Cincinatti....

PTS changes are very necessary.....
Do you think A deserved to beat B at the Udomchoke-Boggo match????

invu2day
07-26-2007, 12:01 AM
Why wait to end of seasoN??? :rolleyes:
We should discuss next week and put or not the change at Montreal or Cincinatti....

PTS changes are very necessary.....
Do you think A deserved to beat B at the Udomchoke-Boggo match????There are other areas within the TB system that need to be addressed. The more input we have, the better and more just TB system we can unvail for next season. There is also the issue of not just first correct winner from TB1 > TB5 but total winners from TB1 > TB5.

greatkingrat
07-26-2007, 07:47 AM
Why wait to end of seasoN??? :rolleyes:
We should discuss next week and put or not the change at Montreal or Cincinatti....

PTS changes are very necessary.....
Do you think A deserved to beat B at the Udomchoke-Boggo match????

Yes :devil:

Baghdatis72
07-26-2007, 12:46 PM
I believe that the TB method is complicated and unfair for no apparent reason, since the complexity doesn't help anyone.

It could be like this:

1) The manager can choose 5 matches according to his judgement of which matches are important and hard to predict, like now.
2) The matches are named M1-M5.
3) Players choose the winner for all the matches of the day and send complete scores for the first 5 matches.

4) The number of correct picks is counted and the one with the most correct picks wins.
5) If there is a tie then the one who has chosen the most correct picks from the M1-M5 will win the tie.
6) In the case of a draw in this case too, the sum of points gained from the prediction of the 5 scores for the first 5 matches is estimated and the one with the largest sum is the winner.
7) If there is a draw once again, then the player who got the most correct picks as a sum for the whole tournament wins the draw.
8) If there is a draw again then the player with the highest ranking wins the tie.


I know that I haven't played the game for too long but I have read the rules many times and I have seen what happens in tournaments from the beginning till the end.

With the changes I suggest above the following problems are resolved:

1) Players who have predicted more important matches (M1-M5) correctly and have faired equally to the opponent overall, will win the tie immediately and righteously.

2) Players who made accurate predictions for the last 4 important ties (M2-M5) but were slightly unfortunate in the 1st tie, won't lose anymore and they don't deserve to lose.

3) He/she who predicts the 5 important matches better as a whole will win and deserves to win as the general prediction power was better than the opponent.

4) Things are made simple, fair and those who truly deserve it will win this way.

Also the points system can slightly change to facilitate small deviations from the correct set score and give credit to those who were close to finding the correct set score.


Let's assume that the result of a match is:
6-4 5-7 7-6

Player A has predicted 6-3 6-7 7-5 and gets 7 points
Player B has predicted 6-1 5-7 6-1 and gets 10 points :o

I think that it's fairly obvious that Player A was much closer to the correct score than Player B who was lucky with the 2nd set correct score. With the current scoring system though Player B wins unfairly imo :o

What can be done is some credit to be given to those who are very close to predicting the complete correct score. The points for the correct order of sets can remain the same, the points for the correct score of sets can remain the same and an additional group of points can be added which can be named Close score. Close score can give points to predicted sets which were very close to the correct score to 1 game. So a prediction of 6-3 for a set which was 6-4 falls in this category and the points can be as follows:

Close score points (deviation of 1 game):

1 set - 1 point
2 sets - 2 points
3 sets - 4 points
4 sets - 7 points
5 sets - 11 points

Therefore in our previous example Player A would get 4 + 7 = 11 points and Player B would get 7 + 3 = 10 points.

Well hopefully such changes will make the game simpler, fair and more fun for the players and eliminate this confusion and dissapointment of players who made great predictions but lost because of the system.

Thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts :)

savesthedizzle
07-26-2007, 01:18 PM
That close score thing seems a bit complicated for the manager of a large tournament to have to go through and do :shrug:

An interesting idea though...

However I think once again it places way too much importance on PTS and this is not a game for predicting scores and I hate whenever any match is based on score prediction :) It places more importance on predicting scores than the current system does, which I think is a step in the wrong direction... but it could be a good idea which maybe could lead in some other directions :) At least that's my opinion of it.

Baghdatis72
07-26-2007, 01:26 PM
That close score thing seems a bit complicated for the manager of a large tournament to have to go through and do :shrug:

An interesting idea though...

However I think once again it places way too much importance on PTS and this is not a game for predicting scores and I hate whenever any match is based on score prediction :) It places more importance on predicting scores than the current system does, which I think is a step in the wrong direction... but it could be a good idea which maybe could lead in some other directions :) At least that's my opinion of it.

Well it could also work with Set ratios again for the 5 important matches and the person who gets more SRs correct for the 5 important matches can win the match, in the case of a draw.

Then the winner is decided like this:

1) Person with most correct picks overall.
2) Person with most correct M1-M5 picks.
3) Person with most correct M1-M5 SRs from the correct picks he/she had in the important matches (M1-M5).
4) Person with most points overall from the PTS in the matches chosen by the manager.
5) Person with most correct picks accumulated in the tournament until this point.
6) Highest ranked player.

savesthedizzle
07-26-2007, 01:29 PM
Well it could also work with Set ratios again for the 5 important matches and the person who gets more SRs correct for the 5 important matches can win the match, in the case of a draw.

Then the winner is decided like this:

1) Person with most correct picks overall.
2) Person with most correct M1-M5 picks.
3) Person with most correct M1-M5 SRs from the correct picks he/she had in the important matches (M1-M5).
4) Person with most points overall from the PTS in the matches chosen by the manager.
5) Person with most correct picks accumulated in the tournament until this point.
6) Highest ranked player.


That's very close to what I proposed last time changes were made but everyone seemed to prefer the SR shootout method ;) Although I would switch #4 and #5 in importance.

Baghdatis72
07-26-2007, 02:31 PM
That's very close to what I proposed last time changes were made but everyone seemed to prefer the SR shootout method ;) Although I would switch #4 and #5 in importance.

Well that's up to the people who started the game to decide I guess but it's not very important which one of them comes first.

The first 3 points are the most important because SR1 usually dominates the result now and that's not a good indication of overall performance.

GustavoM_Fan
07-27-2007, 08:05 PM
Baghdatis72 idea is great...... :D

hope to change to change TBreak method soon as possible.... :yeah:

I think it should be 1-2-3-5-4-6

savesthedizzle
07-27-2007, 08:22 PM
Baghdatis72 idea is great...... :D

hope to change to change TBreak method soon as possible.... :yeah:

I think it should be 2-3-1-5-4-6

#1 I think just refers to correct picks for that round ;) So that if I had 8 and you had 7, I would win. I think that should still stay first :lol: Because picks for the whole tournament is #5 :scratch:

So my personal one is, 1-2-3-5-4-6 :D

GustavoM_Fan
07-27-2007, 08:25 PM
#1 I think just refers to correct picks for that round ;) So that if I had 8 and you had 7, I would win. I think that should still stay first :lol: Because picks for the whole tournament is #5 :scratch:

So my personal one is, 1-2-3-5-4-6 :D

:haha: :haha: :haha: thats the problem is you dont understand english 100%..

I thought 1. refers about last round CBack....

I will edit the other message......

GustavoM_Fan
07-27-2007, 08:28 PM
1-2-3-5-4-6 is the best.. :D

I think that CB(5) should be most important than PTS maybe....


but What is 5 talking about???
Entire tournament Correct picks or last round round correct picks??? :scratch:

savesthedizzle
07-27-2007, 08:35 PM
1-2-3-5-4-6 is the best.. :D

I think that CB(5) should be most important than PTS maybe....


but What is 5 talking about???
Entire tournament Correct picks or last round round correct picks??? :scratch:

I think 5 is talking about the entire tournament... but if we feel that the last round is more important.. we could add something so that it's

1-2-3-5a (CB last round)-5b (total right picks from tournament up until that point) - 4 - 6

Baghdatis72
07-28-2007, 01:05 AM
I am slightly confused by what is posted so I will write things again more clearly :D

The winner can be decided like this:

1) Person with most correct picks for that Day's OOP.
2) Person with most correct M1-M5 picks for that Day's OOP.
3) Person with most correct M1-M5 SRs from the correct picks he/she had in the important matches (M1-M5) on that Day's OOP.
4) Person with most points overall from the PTS in the matches chosen by the manager on that Day's OOP only.
5) Person with most correct picks accumulated in the tournament until this day (added correct picks from 1st round OOP until that day's OOP inclusive).
6) Highest ranked player.

Imo 4 is more reasonable to be above 5 since it concerns the present day OOP which is the one that the players are trying to predict but either way 4 and 5 can be exchanged because 5 gives a better indication of overall tournament predicting power.

savesthedizzle
07-28-2007, 01:08 AM
I am slightly confused by what is posted so I will write things again more clearly :D

The winner can be decided like this:

1) Person with most correct picks for that Day's OOP.
2) Person with most correct M1-M5 picks for that Day's OOP.
3) Person with most correct M1-M5 SRs from the correct picks he/she had in the important matches (M1-M5) on that Day's OOP.
4) Person with most points overall from the PTS in the matches chosen by the manager on that Day's OOP only.
5) Person with most correct picks accumulated in the tournament until this day (added correct picks from 1st round OOP until that day's OOP inclusive).
6) Highest ranked player.

Imo 4 is more reasonable to be above 5 since it concerns the present day OOP which is the one that the players are trying to predict.


I think the reason some of us think 5 is more important that 4 is that it provides us a way to give PTS less importance since there is a separate game for PTS and there has been confusion since we don't score matches the same way they do ;) It keeps the focus on tipping more than score prediction :shrug: For this game, I don't think it should really matter what score someone wins by, as long as they win. The great PTS debate. :lol:

Baghdatis72
07-28-2007, 01:18 AM
I think the reason some of us think 5 is more important that 4 is that it provides us a way to give PTS less importance since there is a separate game for PTS and there has been confusion since we don't score matches the same way they do ;) It keeps the focus on tipping more than score prediction :shrug: For this game, I don't think it should really matter what score someone wins by, as long as they win. The great PTS debate. :lol:

Well then it could be 1, 2, 3, 5, 4, 6 :D

I doubt that we would need 4,5 and 6 too often though.

savesthedizzle
07-28-2007, 01:21 AM
Well then it could be 1, 2, 3, 5, 4, 6 :D

I doubt that we would need 4,5 and 6 too often though.

That's the order me and GustavoM_Fan like ;) :lol:

Hopefully we wouldn't :D

Baghdatis72
07-28-2007, 01:22 AM
I have no idea who is in charge of this game but we could start a new topic with a poll to make the discussion official.

Peta Pan
07-28-2007, 01:23 AM
Well I think we were originally at the end of last season trying to avoid people losing by count back and ranking, so the SR and TTPTS method was brought in to try to avoid that. So I think if 5 is before 4 it sends it backwards again.

I lost by count back this week, and although losing by PTS sucks too, there is nothing worse for me than losing by count back

savesthedizzle
07-28-2007, 01:26 AM
Well I think we were originally at the end of last season trying to avoid people losing by count back and ranking, so the SR and TTPTS method was brought in to try to avoid that. So I think if 5 is before 4 it sends it backwards again.

I lost by count back this week, and although losing by PTS sucks too, there is nothing worse for me than losing by count back

I'm much the opposite. I'd MUCH rather lose by countback than to PTS. I don't think we were trying to avoid countback as much as ranking and trying to eliminate losing by luck rather than skill.

Some managers who manage tournaments aren't really sure how the TTPTS works and get confused that it's different than PTS. :shrug: That's a problem too I think.

Baghdatis72
07-28-2007, 01:27 AM
Well I think we were originally at the end of last season trying to avoid people losing by count back and ranking, so the SR and TTPTS method was brought in to try to avoid that. So I think if 5 is before 4 it sends it backwards again.

I lost by count back this week, and although losing by PTS sucks too, there is nothing worse for me than losing by count back

That's why we need a poll :D ;)

savesthedizzle
07-28-2007, 01:28 AM
That's why we need a poll :D ;)

Nothing is going to change until the off season most likely as this is a pretty major change. I'm sure the TT Board will have another change/suggestion thread such as last year and this issue will be at the front of the debate yet again. :lol:

Baghdatis72
07-28-2007, 01:30 AM
Nothing is going to change until the off season most likely as this is a pretty major change. I'm sure the TT Board will have another change/suggestion thread such as last year and this issue will be at the front of the debate yet again. :lol:

So we'll wait until November in other words :o

Well by then I'll hopefully have a decent ranking for singles and doubles (top 100) and actually get affected more by the change :lol:

Peta Pan
07-28-2007, 01:30 AM
I'm much the opposite. I'd MUCH rather lose by countback than to PTS. I don't think we were trying to avoid countback as much as ranking and trying to eliminate losing by luck rather than skill.

Some managers who manage tournaments aren't really sure how the TTPTS works and get confused that it's different than PTS. :shrug: That's a problem too I think.

I just feel that once a round is finished, it should be finished with completely. I want to avoid returning to it unless it's a complete last resort.

savesthedizzle
07-28-2007, 01:33 AM
So we'll wait until November in other words :o

Well by then I'll hopefully have a decent ranking for singles and doubles (top 100) and actually get affected more by the change :lol:

You never know when you might have a good run :) Maybe you're the Darcis/Troicki of TT :D

Baghdatis72
07-28-2007, 01:38 AM
You never know when you might have a good run :) Maybe you're the Darcis/Troicki of TT :D

I already did that with FMTA and Suicide tennis during Wimbledon in my 1st week :lol:

I can't be lucky with every game everytime and that's why this week I was out early from FMTA singles and doubles, Suicide tennis and TT singles and doubles :o

savesthedizzle
07-28-2007, 01:41 AM
I already did that with FMTA and Suicide tennis during Wimbledon in my 1st week :lol:

I can't be lucky with every game everytime and that's why this week I was out early from FMTA singles and doubles, Suicide tennis and TT singles and doubles :o

I was contemplating retirement until I won Amersfoort :) That always seems to happen when I think about retirement :rolls: Just keep the faith :yeah:

Whenever you think things aren't going well is usually when they turn around :D

Baghdatis72
07-28-2007, 01:44 AM
I was contemplating retirement until I won Amersfoort :) That always seems to happen when I think about retirement :rolls: Just keep the faith :yeah:

Whenever you think things aren't going well is usually when they turn around :D

Yeah that's really strange. A conspiracy perhaps :lol: :scratch:

GustavoM_Fan
07-28-2007, 06:26 AM
That's why we need a poll :D ;)

I am agree with that too...

Why wait to end of season??? :scratch:

Labamba
07-28-2007, 04:59 PM
I am agree with that too...

Why wait to end of season??? :scratch:

Major changes to the game shouldn't be rushed, that's why the off-season is a good time to have the polls and make the decisions. And it's better to finish one season under the same set of rules, it's not like the game is unplayable or totally unfair at the moment.

Anyway, I think the suggestion has merit and deserves to be considered along with other possible ideas when the right time comes.

keqtqiadv
07-28-2007, 05:00 PM
I just feel that once a round is finished, it should be finished with completely. I want to avoid returning to it unless it's a complete last resort.
:worship:

GustavoM_Fan
08-21-2007, 04:00 AM
about PTS....

I think is more important quantity of sets than order of sets....

chech this situation

A pick Nadal 6-4 5-7 7-6
B pick Nadal 6-3 6-4

and the result is Blake 7-6 2-6 6-0

B won unfairly because pick 1 correct order of set....


I think a change about this can be done now.... :shrug:

meninosantos
08-21-2007, 02:38 PM
Please change this CB thing, really please.

GustavoM_Fan
08-23-2007, 06:45 AM
cri cri... :rolleyes:

GustavoM_Fan
08-29-2007, 04:32 AM
TBreak system make me lose unfairly again.....
having 43/48 and not advancing to 3rd rnd at UsOpen.. its ridiculous...

+ I play vs the manager and he pick the SRs :banghead:

SR shouldn`t have to be numbered....
we should count total SRs won....or another other system

I think is much fair....

he pick Clement in 5 (me in 4) and me Malisse in 4 (him in 3)
he won because that Clement match was SR1....
if you count total SRs.. = he scored 1 and me scored 1...= go to CB or PTS... I won..
+
I think that my doubles partner has to be ordered to send picks to the assistant manager, not to the main manager (my opponnent)...
because the official manager checking his picks can imagine my picks too.....

plz reply this...
;) :wavey:

Labamba
08-29-2007, 05:43 AM
TBreak system make me lose unfairly again.....
having 43/48 and not advancing to 3rd rnd at UsOpen.. its ridiculous...

+ I play vs the manager and he pick the SRs :banghead:

SR shouldn`t have to be numbered....
we should count total SRs won....or another other system

I think is much fair....

he pick Clement in 5 (me in 4) and me Malisse in 4 (him in 3)
he won because that Clement match was SR1....
if you count total SRs.. = he scored 1 and me scored 1...= go to CB or PTS... I won..
+
I think that my doubles partner has to be ordered to send picks to the assistant manager, not to the main manager (my opponnent)...
because the official manager checking his picks can imagine my picks too.....

plz reply this...
;) :wavey:

save this 'energy' for the off-season :lol:

it's the same rule for everybody, you're not the only person in this situation

Snowwy
08-29-2007, 09:52 AM
TBreak system make me lose unfairly again.....
having 43/48 and not advancing to 3rd rnd at UsOpen.. its ridiculous...


And if you had won on SR, it would be ridiculous he didnt advance, but I bet he wouldnt want to change the rules. ;)

GustavoM_Fan
08-29-2007, 03:23 PM
And if you had won on SR, it would be ridiculous he didnt advance, but I bet he wouldnt want to change the rules. ;)

If Clement had won in 4 sets (he was 2.0 break up) is not unfair my win because I pick Malisse in 4 and him in 3...
= I had 2 total SRs won and him 0...

yesterday we have a tie (1 right SR) = go to CB or PTS...

I have better CB and PTS score :shrug:

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=5830349&postcount=4

his only difference was his correct SR1 (Clement in 5) and he made the schedule....

I think I cant do nothing now...
but we should try to do the game more fair..... I was posting to made a change months ago and nobody listeded to me.....
and now I lost 1000 ranking points :haha: because I play vs the manager.......

qczi
08-29-2007, 03:31 PM
i have an advice for you GustavoM_Fan: take the loss as everybody else does and stop being such a sore loser :wavey:

GustavoM_Fan
08-29-2007, 03:41 PM
i have an advice for you GustavoM_Fan: take the loss as everybody else does and stop being such a sore loser :wavey:

sore loser :haha: ok ;)

it was a loss????

qczi
08-29-2007, 03:59 PM
sore loser :haha: ok ;)

A sore loser is someone who loses in a fair competition but whines about it on a constant basis, blaming everyone around them for their loss except themselves. Fun to taunt, but no fun to play with.

well, it looks like you to me :mad:



it was a loss????

yep, it was a loss, and this is coming from someone who has the most sr losses in this season :o

GustavoM_Fan
08-29-2007, 04:06 PM
A sore loser is someone who loses in a fair competition but whines about it on a constant basis, blaming everyone around them for their loss except themselves. Fun to taunt, but no fun to play with.

well, it looks like you to me :mad:



ask me this question plz.....

do you think actual TB Method is fair???

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=90831&page=7 and the other pages...

I was posting months ago to change this... and nobody listened to me :shrug:

alansk
08-29-2007, 04:10 PM
:lol:

GustavoM_Fan
08-29-2007, 04:37 PM
:lol:

you are :lol: because you dont lose at TB...

2006 UsOpen final wont be possible :fiery:

A_Skywalker
08-30-2007, 08:49 AM
Everyone is losing sometimes unfairly, the questions is would you whine if you won and he lost ? ;)

Blue Heart24
08-30-2007, 08:59 AM
Felipe,stop bitching.You do that everytime when you lose :lol:

You lost and that's it.Nothing unfair in that.You'll win next time anyway :lol:

:wavey:

GustavoM_Fan
10-04-2007, 09:16 PM
are you going to do something with the PTS problem ???
I posted about this months ago and nobody replied me

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=90831&page=8 (http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=90831&page=8)

GMirnyi lost unfairly at Tokio because of this no-sense rule...

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=110202&page=38 (http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=110202&page=38)
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=110202&page=39 (http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=110202&page=39)

this is not a big change to the game... so I dont see the problem to make a logical and fair change in this point.....

Tomek.
10-05-2007, 12:34 AM
what does unfair loss means?

I really don't know :lol:

GustavoM_Fan
10-10-2007, 12:08 AM
???? :shrug:

GustavoM_Fan
10-20-2007, 11:13 PM
tnnks for the replies :yeah: :wavey: :haha:

JeffCandoi
10-22-2007, 02:15 PM
i am with Marcaccio Fan, TT TB method sucks :mad:

M.C.
10-22-2007, 06:58 PM
I still don't understand this. What are TB and CB?

Spadea TT
10-22-2007, 07:23 PM
I still don't understand this. What are TB and CB?

CB is CountBack: when SetRatios and PredictTheScores are tied, who had more points in previous round wins.

TB is general word when there's need to break a tie.

M.C.
11-03-2007, 06:49 PM
TB is general word when there's need to break a tie.

Do you mean like ranking? Or something else?

GustavoM_Fan
11-03-2007, 06:54 PM
TB: method used to solve a tie

a new TB method will be used next year probably

M.C.
11-03-2007, 07:12 PM
TB: method used to solve a tie

a new TB method will be used next year probably

I know that, but what is the method? SR -> PTS -> CB -> ?

Spadea TT
11-03-2007, 08:36 PM
I know that, but what is the method? SR -> PTS -> CB -> ?

At the moment yes, but it's going to be changed...

Jimnik
12-03-2007, 04:41 PM
Prediction A:
6-4 7-6

Prediction B:
6-3 6-4

Actual score:
6-4 6-2

Who gets more points?

GustavoM_Fan
12-03-2007, 04:49 PM
4 + 3 = 7
4 + 3 = 7

tied

Jimnik
12-03-2007, 05:01 PM
My bad. :o

I thought the order of sets included the exact score, not just the winner of the set. So I gave player A a score of 4 and player B a score of 3 (because player A predicted the 1st set 6-4).

The winners of all the other sets were exactly the same for both players and neither got any of the other scores correct, so the match should have been decided by ranking.