MensTennisForums.com - Reply to Topic

Thread: Grand Slam Tennis Draw Game on MTF Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



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

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

Password:


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

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

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



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
12-07-2012 04:28 AM
Pratik
Re: Grand Slam Tennis Draw Game on MTF

Quote:
Originally Posted by Featherer View Post
Okay, most of the work has been done now, I guess.
The Australian Open can come.



Thanks for all your input.
The final rules will have been decided as much(if not more) by you as me.
12-06-2012 05:05 PM
Featherer
Re: Grand Slam Tennis Draw Game on MTF

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pratik View Post
I think you misunderstood me there. The points I mentioned were for tennis score as opposed to PYW format. Not ad vs no-ad scoring.
I think we shall keep no-ad scoring.
I understood you very well, but my bad expression was the problem here.
By "these are arguments indeed" I tried to say: "these are indeed good points that I can't refute, but despite these good points the main argument in favor of the Tennis scoring for me still is...".
Try to read the context again with this info. Makes more sense then I think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pratik View Post
The final rules will just be a combination of this and the ones you posted in the first page.
Combination? Ah, you mean the part for the organizer, that I skipped with the new version. Well, it doesn't belong in post #1 anyway and we discussed it sufficiently already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pratik View Post
Why only the three of us? If the pack size is known, why not let anyone start the pack (within a round)? It would just be the next 8/4 matches in the sequence. For a round, we could keep this (i.e. only a few posters can start the new round)
I didn't intend to outright forbid others to start new packs.
Just wanted to keep things more tidy that way and give the thread starter more control.
Anyway, that part (of the rules) is not so very important and maybe it can be cancelled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pratik View Post
I haven't really been criticising your posts (Well, I don't see it like that). It was just presenting the other side to figure out which one could and would be better. And I don't see anything wrong in your English.
Stop, I didn't mean "criticising" in a negative way at all. You shall do that (without inhibitions), as you should really check my proposed rules before they become part of YOUR future thread. And for the same reason also feel free to change/rewrite expressions, language issues that you are not comfortable with.

Okay, most of the work has been done now, I guess.
The Australian Open can come.
12-06-2012 02:30 PM
Pratik
Re: Grand Slam Tennis Draw Game on MTF

Quote:
Originally Posted by Featherer View Post
These are arguments indeed.
...Still, the main argument in favor of the no-ad scoring (imo) could be the "15 - 30 - 40" Tennis-like scoring itself, which could be a success (but I'm not so sure).
I think you misunderstood me there. The points I mentioned were for tennis score as opposed to PYW format. Not ad vs no-ad scoring.

I think we shall keep no-ad scoring.

Quote:
Okay, Pratik and Slasher, it strikes me you guys are quite keen on this Tennis scoring (no-ad) format. So let's try it out. I see no real danger for the AO game with it.


Quote:
my revised suggestions for the rules:


In this voting game you can vote for your favorite players in every match to make them win the Australian Open.
From round one through the QF each vote = one game (also the tiebreak), for example: 6-5 or 6-6 or 7-6(set).
In the SF and in the final each vote = one point (15, 30, 40, game win), but the Doubles scoring / No-ad scoring is applied, so there is no two-points lead required (no "advantage")!
[That last sentence can later be bolded and the sentence there before un-bolded then.]

This game relies to an extent on the fairness and also on the awareness of it's participants!

1.) Please always quote the previous voting-post when you are voting!
[I would make this "rule" N°1 to get people used to it, as that would get this game rid of quite many problems in one go (if people complied).]

2.) You don't have to vote for all of the simultaneously proceded matches (of a "pack"),
but either way you are only allowed to vote once in one hour! (waiting-rule)

It's also much appreciated if you moreover would look out also for other people violating this one-hour waiting-rule.

3.) It can happen that while somebody is writing their voting-post somebody else votes in the interim.
Therefore, before you vote please always check the last ca. three voting-posts for a correct continous scoreline!
If for example somebody voted 6-4 (coming from 5-4) for player A and the one after them voted the same (6-4), then please regard it as being 6-4 1-0 for player A when posting your own votes. If the one after them voted 5-5 then you should understand that the correct score has to be 6-5 actually.

And again, after you posted your votes please look out for anybody who posted in the interim and if so please edit your own post to adjust it to the correct scoreline!

4.) Never ever delete your voting-posts!
People who do this will be disqualified / excluded from the game. (Sorry, but this is necessary.)

The matches of this game are conducted in "packs" of eight, four or two.
The schedule is published in post #1. It contains the exact sequence of the packs and in the later stages also the starting time of them.

The final rules will just be a combination of this and the ones you posted in the first page.

Quote:
Apart from the thread starter only the following MTF members (and the mods) should start new match packs (with due regard to the schedule):
Featherer, Slasher1985
[This list should be extended.]
Why only the three of us? If the pack size if known, why not let anyone start the pack(within a round)? It would just be the next 8/4 matches in the sequence. For a round, we could keep this(i.e. only a few posters can start the new round)

Quote:
...And Pratik, apart from contentual criticism, you could also have a brief look at possible language issues/weaknesses, since your English is better than mine.
I haven't really been criticising your posts(Well, I don't see it like that). It was just presenting the other side to figure out which one could and would be better.
And I don't see anything wrong in your English.
12-06-2012 01:19 PM
Featherer
Re: Grand Slam Tennis Draw Game on MTF

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pratik View Post
I have to disagree with you there. Strategies could make the game more interesting. People could let their favourite "tank" a set, so that their votes count more. [...] The same concept which you are using as a point against the tennis scoring, I believe is actually a point for it. The "every vote is not equal" factor makes it more interesting.
There are similar strategies (and also set tanking) possible with the "1vote=1game" format.
They are a little bit smaller, but imo that would be the right amount.
Hence also with the "1vote=1game" format not every vote is equal, yet a vote would have more "value" (at least psychologically) - plus the structure is more simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pratik View Post
It would be the only game in MTF (that I know of) which would involve legitimate strategies. Nothing too complex, nobody is going to have to think for even 5 minutes for the "strategy". It's simple. "Should I vote now or 20 minutes later".
That, again, more or less could be said for both formats, no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pratik View Post
This would be during the second week of a grand slam. Many users would be online on MTF for quite a long time. So, it [the somewhat more complex strategy] should not be an issue. [...]
As long as this is only for the F and SF, I believe this [no-ad scoring] would be a success. [...]
I have a little more faith in MTF then the PYW admins. After running one of the Seed Elimination games, I noticed that at any mistake, there would always be people there to correct it. I would think that this game would gather more interest, and score errors would be easier to notice, due to less scores going on at any one instant (Max 8 in R1, and only 1 in the final, as compared to upto 32 in the SE).
These are arguments indeed.
...Still, the main argument in favor of the no-ad scoring (imo) could be the "15 - 30 - 40" Tennis-like scoring itself, which could be a success (but I'm not so sure).

Okay, Pratik and Slasher, it strikes me you guys are quite keen on this Tennis scoring (no-ad) format. So let's try it out. I see no real danger for the AO game with it.


my revised suggestions for the rules:


In this voting game you can vote for your favorite players in every match to make them win the Australian Open.
From round one through the QF each vote = one game (also the tiebreak), for example: 6-5 or 6-6 or 7-6(set).
In the SF and in the final each vote = one point (15, 30, 40, game win), but the Doubles scoring / No-ad scoring is applied, so there is no two-points lead required (no "advantage")!
[That last sentence can later be bolded and the sentence there before un-bolded then.]

This game relies to an extent on the fairness and also on the awareness of it's participants!

1.) Please always quote the previous voting-post when you are voting!
[I would make this "rule" N°1 to get people used to it, as that would get this game rid of quite many problems in one go (if people complied).]

2.) You don't have to vote for all of the simultaneously proceded matches (of a "pack"),
but either way you are only allowed to vote once in one hour! (waiting-rule)

It's also much appreciated if you moreover would look out also for other people violating this one-hour waiting-rule.

3.) It can happen that while somebody is writing their voting-post somebody else votes in the interim.
Therefore, before you vote please always check the last ca. three voting-posts for a correct continous scoreline!
If for example somebody voted 6-4 (coming from 5-4) for player A and the one after them voted the same (6-4), then please regard it as being 6-4 1-0 for player A when posting your own votes. If the one after them voted 5-5 then you should understand that the correct score has to be 6-5 actually.

And again, after you posted your votes please look out for anybody who posted in the interim and if so please edit your own post to adjust it to the correct scoreline!

4.) Never ever delete your voting-posts!
People who do this will be disqualified / excluded from the game. (Sorry, but this is necessary.)

The matches of this game are conducted in "packs" of eight, four or two.
The schedule is published in post #1. It contains the exact sequence of the packs and in the later stages also the starting time of them.
Apart from the thread starter only the following MTF members (and the mods) should start new match packs (with due regard to the schedule):
Featherer, Slasher1985
[This list should be extended.]


...And Pratik, apart from contentual criticism, you could also have a brief look at possible language issues/weaknesses, since your English is better than mine.
12-06-2012 03:30 AM
Pratik
Re: Grand Slam Tennis Draw Game on MTF

Quote:
Originally Posted by Featherer View Post
...And if many people participate and if therefore problems with the livescores occur we can make it packs of four still during the first round.


Quote:
It would be a good thing and add to the quality, of course.
I just wanted to reassure you it's not necessary for you to get up at night and, as you initially said "update the OP as much as possible".
I am really into the whole idea of this game, but am not going to "get up at night just to update the OP"

Quote:
My opinion on that I gave in post #3. I edited it later, so maybe you overlooked the "latest" version.

With it I see the danger of several "casual" participants confusing it with the normal one and thus messing up the livescores.
But okay, if you add something like "[no-ad score!! / doubles-score!!]" to the thread title it could work.
Anyway, I'm afraid a no-ad scoring would be only a little bit more exciting than a best-of-uh-seven or -nine match with simple 1vote-1game counting, while causing more problems than the latter. (I may be wrong with that though.)
We could have no ad scoring then, could be interesting.

Quote:
Hmm, the participants being allowed to post livescores is the major (and important) distinguishing factor from PYW for me, but when we now use a more complex scoring format, precisely this could become our problem. The PYW admins didn't forbid/prevent livescoring for nothing, I guess.
That said, your second argument (SF warmup) is a good one in itself, imo.
...Let's see how the game goes in the early rounds and then decide on it.
The thing about that is that I have a little more faith in MTF then the PYW admins. After running one of the Seed Elimination games, I noticed that at any mistake, there would always be people there to correct it. I would think that this game would gather more interest, and score errors would be easier to notice, due to less scores going on at any one instant(Max 8 in R1, and only 1 in the final, as compared to upto 32 in the SE).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slasher1985 View Post
Not the same. Example:

11 users vote:

player 1 0-0 15-0
player 1 0-0 30-0
player 1 0-0 40-0
player 1 1-0
player 2 1-0 0-15
player 1 1-0 15-15
player 1 1-0 30-15
player 2 1-0 30-30
player 2 1-0 30-40
player 1 1-0 40-40
player 2 1-1

It's a draw game by tennis draw rules (1-1).
It's 6-4 1-0 in favor of player 1 by 1vote-1 game counting.

Matches are tighter, strategic voting can cause multiple consecutive votes in favor of a player gain him advantage, which cannot be broken back, unless the other side creates a strategy of their own.
I agree with this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Featherer View Post
I could give you a similar example for the "1vote=1game" scoring, only with sets instead of games. (With the "1vote=1game" scoring simply more sets would be played.)
True, only four votes are needed for a game win, whereas six for a set win.
That's why I said the "no ad" scoring may be a little bit more exciting.
But even on that I'm not so sure anymore...

...With the "no ad" scoring after a 3-0, at the latest after a 4-0 lead in a set things would become pretty boring for the next half an hour or so, as a whole eight votes were still needed to finally close the set, while the fans of the opponent won't be eager to vote anymore.
By contrast with the "1vote=1game" scoring after a 4-0 lead the affair is over with two votes already.
Moreover, a participant has the power to decide a whole game, not only a point. This may be a mere psychological aspect (the more with "best-of-nine"), but it will help making people vote, even in case the opponent has a 4:0 set lead already.
Participants can relate theirselves to one game of the final scoreline, can say "That was me." , while with the "no ad" scoring that - they - would be gone.

And the possibility of even more strategy I see rather as a drawback. People can vote only once in an hour. They won't collude anyway. As I see things, people click in the thread and they want to vote at once or at least quickly. They don't want to wait, to click in and out all the time as with the "no ad" scoring would often be the better strategy.

This game simply isn't good for more than rather primitive voting series with a modest strategy, I think.
I have to disagree with you there. Strategies could make the game more interesting. People could let their favourite "tank" a set, so that their votes count more. As long as this is only for the F and SF, I believe this would be a success.
The same concept which you are using as a point against the tennis scoring, I believe is actually a point for it. The "every vote is not equal" factor makes it more interesting. It would be the only game in MTF(that I know of) which would involve legitimate strategies. Nothing too complex, nobody is going to have to think for even 5 minutes for the "strategy". It's simple. "Should I vote now or 20 minutes later". This would be during the second week of a grand slam. Many users would be online on MTF for quite a long time. So, it should not be an issue.
12-05-2012 03:35 PM
Featherer
Re: Grand Slam Tennis Draw Game on MTF

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slasher1985 View Post
Not the same. Example:

11 users vote:

player 1 0-0 15-0
player 1 0-0 30-0
player 1 0-0 40-0
player 1 1-0
player 2 1-0 0-15
player 1 1-0 15-15
player 1 1-0 30-15
player 2 1-0 30-30
player 2 1-0 30-40
player 1 1-0 40-40
player 2 1-1

It's a draw game by tennis draw rules (1-1).
It's 6-4 1-0 in favor of player 1 by 1vote-1 game counting.
I could give you a similar example for the "1vote=1game" scoring, only with sets instead of games. (With the "1vote=1game" scoring simply more sets would be played.)
True, only four votes are needed for a game win, whereas six for a set win.
That's why I said the "no ad" scoring may be a little bit more exciting.
But even on that I'm not so sure anymore...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slasher1985 View Post
Matches are tighter, strategic voting can cause multiple consecutive votes in favor of a player gain him advantage, which cannot be broken back, unless the other side creates a strategy of their own.
...With the "no ad" scoring after a 3-0, at the latest after a 4-0 lead in a set things would become pretty boring for the next half an hour or so, as a whole eight votes were still needed to finally close the set, while the fans of the opponent won't be eager to vote anymore.
By contrast with the "1vote=1game" scoring after a 4-0 lead the affair is over with two votes already.
Moreover, a participant has the power to decide a whole game, not only a point. This may be a mere psychological aspect (the more with "best-of-nine"), but it will help making people vote, even in case the opponent has a 4:0 set lead already.
Participants can relate theirselves to one game of the final scoreline, can say "That was me." , while with the "no ad" scoring that - they - would be gone.

And the possibility of even more strategy I see rather as a drawback. People can vote only once in an hour. They won't collude anyway. As I see things, people click in the thread and they want to vote at once or at least quickly. They don't want to wait, to click in and out all the time as with the "no ad" scoring would often be the better strategy.

This game simply isn't good for more than rather primitive voting series with a modest strategy, I think.
12-05-2012 12:16 PM
Slasher1985
Re: Grand Slam Tennis Draw Game on MTF

Quote:
Originally Posted by Featherer View Post
Anyway, I'm afraid a no-ad scoring would be only a little bit more exciting than a best-of-uh-seven or -nine match with simple 1vote-1game counting, while causing more problems than the latter. (I may be wrong with that though.)
Not the same. Example:

11 users vote:

player 1 0-0 15-0
player 1 0-0 30-0
player 1 0-0 40-0
player 1 1-0
player 2 1-0 0-15
player 1 1-0 15-15
player 1 1-0 30-15
player 2 1-0 30-30
player 2 1-0 30-40
player 1 1-0 40-40
player 2 1-1

It's a draw game by tennis draw rules (1-1).
It's 6-4 1-0 in favor of player 1 by 1vote-1 game counting.

Matches are tighter, strategic voting can cause multiple consecutive votes in favor of a player gain him advantage, which cannot be broken back, unless the other side creates a strategy of their own.
12-05-2012 11:49 AM
Featherer
Re: Grand Slam Tennis Draw Game on MTF

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pratik View Post
If participation seems adequate, we can make it packs of 4 from R2 itself.
...And if many people participate and if therefore problems with the livescores occur we can make it packs of four still during the first round.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pratik View Post
It is not necessary, but it would certainly help. If not, it definitely won't do any harm.
It would be a good thing and add to the quality, of course.
I just wanted to reassure you it's not necessary for you to get up at night and, as you initially said "update the OP as much as possible".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pratik View Post
We could have normal ad scoring. No need for no ad scoring. Deuce-advantage..so on till someone wins the game. Don't see why that would be an issue. Would just make it longer, that's why I said we would make it a Bo3 final.
My opinion on that I gave in post #3. I edited it later, so maybe you overlooked the "latest" version.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slasher1985 View Post
Was thinking of trying the doubles rule, with decisive point, if it comes to 40-40.
With it I see the danger of several "casual" participants confusing it with the normal one and thus messing up the livescores.
But okay, if you add something like "[no-ad score!! / doubles-score!!]" to the thread title it could work.
Anyway, I'm afraid a no-ad scoring would be only a little bit more exciting than a best-of-uh-seven or -nine match with simple 1vote-1game counting, while causing more problems than the latter. (I may be wrong with that though.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pratik View Post
It [tennis score] would also be major distinguishing factor from a PYW game (not saying that such a factor is necessary). In fact, if there is adequate participation, I was thinking we could make a 1set SF with 1 vote=1 point, as a warmup to the final.
Hmm, the participants being allowed to post livescores is the major (and important) distinguishing factor from PYW for me, but when we now use a more complex scoring format, precisely this could become our problem. The PYW admins didn't forbid/prevent livescoring for nothing, I guess.
That said, your second argument (SF warmup) is a good one in itself, imo.
...Let's see how the game goes in the early rounds and then decide on it.
12-05-2012 07:21 AM
Slasher1985
Re: Grand Slam Tennis Draw Game on MTF

Quote:
Originally Posted by Featherer View Post
I've heard enough already, thanks.

...On a more serious note: Pratik and me, we figured some problems with the Tennis-score voting (advantage, deuce, advantage). You still want to try that?
Was thinking of trying the doubles rule, with decisive point, if it comes to 40-40.
12-05-2012 05:39 AM
Pratik
Re: Grand Slam Tennis Draw Game on MTF

Quote:
Originally Posted by Featherer View Post
It'd be 16 only, not 32.
My bad

Quote:
Anyway, even 16 packs is quite a lot, true, but with packs of eight matches it would take longer for the participants to write their posts. The danger of simultaneous voting is higher. Even more problematic is the much tougher task of observing the livescores, checking posts etc. I think you underestimate this problem. Even with packs of just four matches I see it as the main one.

True of course, but with the going on I think there will be "regulars" who vote for everything.
Okay, let's start with packs of eight matches as at the beginning there won't be so many participants yet, and you or we will be around at that time anyway.
Let's see how it goes. The small format (one-set matches) may also come to help here.
Agreed. If participation seems adequate, we can make it packs of 4 from R2 itself.

Quote:
I already agreed on (starting with) bigger packs, but is it really necessary to "update the OP as much as possible" and to "highlight the current pack"?
Everybody sees which pack is on simply from the latest post of the thread.
I earlier posted:
"-In post #1 the organizer publishes the schedule/sequence of packs"
Of course, if he's around he can update, but I actually think it's not necessary during a round (except for the very first packs of the 1st Rd maybe, and also for the late stages of the tournament when you will want to give exact starting dates).
It is not necessary, but it would certainly help. If not, it definitely won't do any harm.

Quote:
I earlier posted:
"8.) Read post #1 before starting new matches on your own!"
And I think after a few packs have been concluded there will be several posters ("regulars") already who are interested/willing + capable of "starting" new packs. It's not difficult at all. It's all in the schedule in the OP.

...I'll reply on that matter in a moment, via PM.
Hopefully.

Will reply there.

Quote:
I think at this first edition of the game (at AO) you should decide on the number of sets for the respective next round only after the previous round has been concluded.
I secretly hope Bo3 could be applied as early as round two, but let's first see how round one actually goes.
Agreed. We could keep what I mentioned in the last post as the tentative rules. Again, if participation is adequate, we will increase it from R2 itself.

Quote:
As for your idea on the final:
That would be a relatively big change right before the final. The format would be much different to that of the previous rounds. Moreover, it means "advantage" would be the same as "game win", which is different to the actual tennis scoring.
We could have normal ad scoring. No need for no ad scoring. Deuce-advantage..so on till someone wins the game. Don't see why that would be an issue. Would just make it longer, that's why I said we would make it a Bo3 final.

Quote:
I'm sceptical if the casual participants that doesn't even read the OP and maybe still think it's the same procedure like when they voted sometime earlier in that game, would comply.
Simply constantly increasing numbers of sets are most simple. I know, a best-of-seven let alone a best-of-nine format isn't really genius either, but as I explained earlier I'm afraid this game isn't good for more than rather simple voting.
They would read the last post for sure if they are participating. That would make it reasonably evident. For me, the final would be the main attraction of the tournament. Again depending a lot on participation in rounds before the final. It would also be major distinguishing factor from a PYW game(not saying that such a factor in necessary). In fact, if there is adequate participation, I was thinking we could make a 1set SF with 1 vote=1 point, as a warmup to the final.

Quote:
But let's wait how good the compliance will be during the earlier rounds and only then make a decision on the format of the final.
Agreed.
12-04-2012 03:49 PM
Featherer
Re: Grand Slam Tennis Draw Game on MTF

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pratik View Post
Packs of 4 may be too little for the early rounds (32 packs in R1). [...] How about packs of 8 for R1 and R2, and 4 R3 onwards? 8 matches still isn't too much.
It'd be 16 only, not 32.
Anyway, even 16 packs is quite a lot, true, but with packs of eight matches it would take longer for the participants to write their posts. The danger of simultaneous voting is higher. Even more problematic is the much tougher task of observing the livescores, checking posts etc. I think you underestimate this problem. Even with packs of just four matches I see it as the main one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pratik View Post
Moreover, 8 matches in R1 would ensure that most of the participants would have at least one player they want to vote for in each pack.
True of course, but with the going on I think there will be "regulars" who vote for everything.
Okay, let's start with packs of eight matches as at the beginning there won't be so many participants yet, and you or we will be around at that time anyway.
Let's see how it goes. The small format (one-set matches) may also come to help here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pratik View Post
It would be easier for the organizer(s) if there are lesser packs, so that the OP can be updated as much as possible. (The detailed rules could be in post#2, for those interested. OP would only contain the present round, with the current pack highlighted).
I already agreed on (starting with) bigger packs, but is it really necessary to "update the OP as much as possible" and to "highlight the current pack"?
Everybody sees which pack is on simply from the latest post of the thread.
I earlier posted:
"-In post #1 the organizer publishes the schedule/sequence of packs"
Of course, if he's around he can update, but I actually think it's not necessary during a round (except for the very first packs of the 1st Rd maybe, and also for the late stages of the tournament when you will want to give exact starting dates).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pratik View Post
Somebody would have to start a new pack. There would not be too many posters interested in doing so.
I earlier posted:
"8.) Read post #1 before starting new matches on your own!"
And I think after a few packs have been concluded there will be several posters ("regulars") already who are interested/willing + capable of "starting" new packs. It's not difficult at all. It's all in the schedule in the OP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pratik View Post
Quote:
7.) Incorrect votes further back then seven votes have to be regarded correct in any case.
It shall prevent the match scores from too many disturbing corrections or even disputes.
This can be kept as a tentative rule when the game is started. If posters want it changed/removed we could do so.
Quote:
Oh, how about that?:
9.) When voting always quote the respective previous voting-post!
My issue with this is that many posters may find it more convenient (easier/faster) to reply without quoting. If the participants can stick to editing their posts when they see that someone has posted in the interim, we should not have much of an issue with wrong scores. A lot is also based on the assumption that users would not post random scores to troll the game.
...I'll reply on that matter in a moment, via PM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pratik View Post
R1,R2,R3: 1 set. 1 vote=1 game.
R4,QF: Best-of-3sets. 1 vote=1 game.
SF: Best-of-5sets. 1vote=1game.
F(Mega Showdown):Best-of-3sets. 1 vote=1 point.
(All sets with TB, no difference of 2 required)
Thoughts?
I think at this first edition of the game (at AO) you should decide on the number of sets for the respective next round only after the previous round has been concluded.
I secretly hope Bo3 could be applied as early as round two, but let's first see how round one actually goes.
As for your idea on the final:
That would be a relatively big change right before the final. The format would be much different to that of the previous rounds. Moreover, it means "advantage" would be the same as "game win", which is different to the actual tennis scoring.
I'm sceptical if the casual participants that doesn't even read the OP and maybe still think it's the same procedure like when they voted sometime earlier in that game, would comply.
Simply constantly increasing numbers of sets are most simple. I know, a best-of-seven let alone a best-of-nine format isn't really genius either, but as I explained earlier I'm afraid this game isn't good for more than rather simple voting.
But let's wait how good the compliance will be during the earlier rounds and only then make a decision on the format of the final.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yolita View Post
Why don't you do a trial version for a smaller tournament, like Chennai or Brisbane? See how it goes...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pratik View Post
I would love to, but the PYW format for every tournament clearly doesn't work. Part of its charm would be having it only for the bigger tournaments. Here I was questioning the amount of participation we will get for this game for a GS. For 250 events, the participation would be close to none. Also, I don't want this format to become old before AO starts, that would be terrible.
Good points.
...In case this game turns out to be a hit at the AO, it could maybe be played at IndianWells too, but that's a long way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slasher1985 View Post
I am 100% with everything proposed here.
I am currently planning a game using the Tennis Draw rule that will consist of all Grand Slam winners of all time.
Won't say more for now.
I've heard enough already, thanks.

...On a more serious note: Pratik and me, we figured some problems with the Tennis-score voting (advantage, deuce, advantage). You still want to try that?
12-04-2012 07:59 AM
Slasher1985
Re: Grand Slam Tennis Draw Game on MTF

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pratik View Post
Please don't do it before AO, my game may go flop then

On a more serious note, if you want help organizing that, I am in.
Won't be before AO, cause I don't have much time now, and thanks for offering to help, I'll let you know.
12-04-2012 07:51 AM
Pratik
Re: Grand Slam Tennis Draw Game on MTF

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slasher1985 View Post
I am 100% with everything proposed here.

I am currently planning a game using the Tennis Draw rule that will consist of all Grand Slam winners of all time. Won't say more for now.
Please don't do it before AO, my game may go flop then

On a more serious note, if you want help organizing that, I am in.
12-04-2012 07:48 AM
Slasher1985
Re: Grand Slam Tennis Draw Game on MTF

I am 100% with everything proposed here.

I am currently planning a game using the Tennis Draw rule that will consist of all Grand Slam winners of all time. Won't say more for now.
12-04-2012 07:44 AM
Pratik
Re: Grand Slam Tennis Draw Game on MTF

Quote:
Originally Posted by Featherer View Post
With packs of just four simultaneous matches one thread may suffice.

Sure, two threads for then smaller packs would be neater ...or sticking to the four-match packs and having simply more of them simultaneously that way.
But I had more in mind with the one-thread idea:
You remember "Seed elimination" was started first in GM and tolerated there for quite a while by the mods.
In Off-topic, which fewer people follow, two threads may be better as not everybody is interested in every match-up,
whereas in GM more than one thread of that kind simply won't be tolerated,
and furthermore the philosophy of only four matches at the same time would help ending the matches quickly, I think.
Many people always have a favorite even in GrandSlam 1st round matches. And if there is a pack you can as well vote simply in every match of it. Moreover, several people will probably (hopefully) play this game regularly. They will vote anyway. And with just one thread they also would have to vote (even if not the biggest fans) to keep things going on.
Given it works this game is far superior to "Seed elimination" and could have a future in GM.
I see your point. One thread it is.

Packs of 4 may be too little for the early rounds(32 packs in R1). Somebody would have to start a new pack. There would not be too many posters interested in doing so. It would be easier for the organizer(s) if there are lesser packs, so that the OP can be updated as much as possible(The detailed rules could be in post#2, for those interested. OP would only contain the present round, with the current pack highlighted). How about packs of 8 for R1 and R2, and 4 R3 onwards? 8 matches still isn't too much. Moreover, 8 matches in R1 would ensure that most of the participants would have at least one player they want to vote for in each pack.

Quote:
7.) Incorrect votes further back then seven votes have to be regarded correct in any case.

It shall prevent the match scores from too many disturbing corrections or even disputes.
Better idea? ...The distance of "seven" is debatable of course, but imagine what could happen without this or a similar rule. Don't forget people can delete their voting-posts. (Why would they?)
This can be kept as a tentative rule when the game is started. If posters want it changed/removed we could do so.

Quote:
Edit:
Oh, how about that?:
9.) When voting always quote the respective previous voting-post!
...Well, like most of the other rules so this one shouldn't be applied so very strictly either, at least not at first.
My issue with this is that many posters may find it more convenient (easier/faster) to reply without quoting. If the participants can stick to editing their posts when they see that someone has posted in the interim, we should not have much of an issue with wrong scores. A lot is also based on the assumption that users would not post random scores to troll the game.

Quote:
Didn't know it was three there. It's tough to control; to check or to even keep in mind who voted three hours back.
One hour is simple, ...and if it turns out to be too short somehow, it can still be changed.

Let's keep that in mind for Off-topic, but in GM it won't be needed, I think.
Agree with both.

Quote:
Hm, the differences and also the higher complexity with this scoring format (the same with my earlier idea from the other thread) might be too complicated.
Often people don't even read the OP.
At PYW participants were not even allowed to post the simple livescores ("in order to best saveguard the integrity of PYW").
I would stick to the simple and continous "1 vote = 1 game" format - at least for the first edition of this GrandSlam game(!) - and only increase the number of sets with the tournament rounds.

Smaller than best-of-nine ? Sure?
Well, okay, if you insist on.

However, when we really start in GM we probably won't have to cut it too much,
but I agree, let's have just one-set matches in the 1st round, at least this time!
Depending on the number of upsets - and also of participants - after this 1st round you can decide on the 2nd round format. And so on.
Sadly, I have to agree with you on this. I really wanted to have a format with each round having longer matches than the previous. But, that would reduce participation a lot. We could have a PYW-like format till the SF. Something like this:
R1,R2,R3: 1 set. 1 vote=1 game.
R4,QF: Best-of-3sets. 1 vote=1 game.
SF: Best-of5 sets. 1vote=1game.
F(Mega Showdown):Best-of-3sets. 1 vote=1 point.
(All sets with TB, no difference of 2 required)
Thoughts?

Quote:
Yes, do it! I'm usually not so very active on MTF but I'll see what I can do. I'm definitely interested meanwhile.

And I hope after the first few packs of matches have been pushed through some other helpers will join.
Any participants who observe the voting process a little, would be helpful.
I'm guessing there should be good participation for the later rounds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yolita View Post
Why don't you do a trial version for a smaller tournament, like Chennai or Brisbane? See how it goes... I would play.
I would love to, but the PYW format for every tournament clearly doesn't work. Part of its charm would be having it only for the bigger tournaments. Here I was questioning the amount of participation we will get for this game for a GS. For 250 events, the participation would be close to none. Also, I don't want this format to become old before AO starts, that would be terrible.
However, do participate in the tournament for AO. If you have suggestions of how you would like the game to be, please give them.
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

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