MensTennisForums.com

MensTennisForums.com (http://www.menstennisforums.com/index.php)
-   General Messages (http://www.menstennisforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Grand Slam Tennis Draw Game on MTF (http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=213529)

Pratik 11-29-2012 05:11 PM

Grand Slam Tennis Draw Game on MTF
 
Instead of having the boring Seed Elimination game which we had the past few grand slams, I was wondering if we could have a slightly more interesting game this AO onwards.

I have made this thread to see if people would be interested in such a game and for suggestions for its format.

As of now I thought it could be something similar to what Slasher had in mind for the Favourite top 100 final(since it is not going to happen over there):

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slasher1985 (Post 12582009)
Tennis draw: This is the format I was thinking of. The 8 players are put inside a Final Draw (this first phase being called Draw Phase). During the Draw Phase, the players are pitted against each other in 4 "matches", in which users vote the winner of each "match". Each match is the style of a tennis match, so each vote is a "tennis point" 0-15, 0-30. The matches are played 3/5 sets. Two seeds are selected from the 8 players. In the next phase, the Final 4 Phase, two matches are played between the remaining 4 players. Finally, we have the Final Duel, between the two most voted for players, 4/7 sets.

For us, each match could just be according to the actual draw, with 128 players instead of just 8.
This would very tough for the first few rounds, so we could simplify it a little by having only one set or doing something like this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Featherer (Post 12585371)
^^With 128 players it's tough indeed.
It would require some awareness from the entrants, the more since you can't start a thread for every single match of the early rounds.
Everybody would have to take care of simultaneous voting and wrong counting.

For reducing the amount of everything my idea would be to use less extensive counting systems in the early rounds.
For example:
1st Rd: 1 vote = 1 game (also in tiebreak) ...so a player needs at least 3x6 = 18 votes for victory
2nd Rd: 1 vote = 2 points (4 points in tiebreak), counting would be: "30-0", "game", or "30-30" (tiebreak: 4-0 , set , 4-4) ...hence at least 36 votes are needed for victory
3rd Rd: 1 vote = 1 point, but all games are started from Deuce (in tiebreak from "6-6"), so a player needs a 2 points lead ...that can already take a bit longer

If the participation is too low, the Rd 1 counting system could be applied for Rd 2 too, the Rd 2 system for Rd 3 etc. or reversely if many people take part.
It has to be tested out.
But even with the shorter counting systems lots of threads would be needed after all.
For the 1st Rd 8 threads 8 matches is the minimum to avoid problems with simultaneous voting and wrong counting, I think.
Not impossible but definitely tougher than "Seed elimination", but also more fun (given it works).

We could also have a hybrid tournament with something easier in the early rounds, like :

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slasher1985 (Post 12582009)
Elimination: In this format, people give points for the 8 players (Eurovision style). Their favorite gets 15 points, second 11, third 8, fourth 6, fifth 4, sixth 2, seventh 1 and last 0. Every few hours the last place is eliminated, until only one remains.

Alternatively(if you think this is too lengthy), we could have the tournament only for the seeds, and start off with 32 players itself(like the Seed Elimination game).

So, would you be interested in participating in such a game? If so, please vote in the poll and specify which of the formats specified you would like. Alternatively, you could propose changes in the format, or an entirely new one.

(In case it was not clear, if participation seems likely, I volunteer to organize the tournament. I see no point in doing it if posters here think it would be too long/boring and are not going to participate. Hence, this thread)

The Prince 11-29-2012 05:27 PM

Re: Grand Slam Tennis Draw Game on MTF
 
If you do 128 players, make the first two rounds just tie-breaks (first to seven). Third and fourth round should be one-set. Quarters and semis should be best-of-three, and the final would be best-of-five. That would take quite long, still, but it would certainly be fun.

Key is, make the early matches very short.

Featherer 11-29-2012 06:22 PM

Re: Grand Slam Tennis Draw Game on MTF
 
If it could be managed to accommodate all 128 players, that would be great indeed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bulldog (Post 12585481)
If you do 128 players, make the first two rounds just tie-breaks (first to seven). Third and fourth round should be one-set. Quarters and semis should be best-of-three, and the final would be best-of-five.

Yes, that sounds better than what I had in mind initially, at least for the rounds two and three.
With most of it and also the separation I would agree.
Only, a single tiebreak (7 votes to victory) is maybe a bit short, even for 1st and 2nd Rd matches.
Imagine the blockbuster Federer-Nalbandian here on MTF.
Bo3 tiebreaks (14 votes to victory) may be more appropriate.

However, there are other problems, that might make a Tennis-score counting format too impractical in general:
Already "Seed elimination" relies to some extent on the fairness and awareness of the voters, with giving the correct score, sticking to the time-rule of voting again and watching out for others who violate rules.
Anyway, if somebody breaks these rules (and it's detected) the score can be corrected relatively easily there.
But with this game and the planned "uncontinuous score" (deuce, advantage, deuce) a score correction would be much more difficult (even with only a few simultaneous matches or with just one).
Probably the counting format needs to be more simple; continuous, and therefore less Tennis-score-like but more like a normal voting.

Pratik 12-02-2012 03:29 PM

Re: Grand Slam Tennis Draw Game on MTF
 
MTF, you disappoint me.
I really expected a better response.

:drink:

orangehat 12-02-2012 03:35 PM

Re: Grand Slam Tennis Draw Game on MTF
 
I'm pretty sure this is the same as PYW (which died after awhile with not enough people participating)

GOATsol 12-02-2012 03:35 PM

Re: Grand Slam Tennis Draw Game on MTF
 
too tired to read that sorry

samanosuke 12-02-2012 04:35 PM

Re: Grand Slam Tennis Draw Game on MTF
 
no nerves to read the rules but i am applying myself for predicting nadal's draw

R1 bye
R2 retirement
R3 WO
R4 Q
1/4 retirement
1/2 WO
F LL

GOATsol 12-02-2012 04:41 PM

Re: Grand Slam Tennis Draw Game on MTF
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by samanosuke (Post 12590069)
no nerves to read the rules but i am applying myself for predicting nadal's draw

R1 bye
R2 retirement
R3 WO
R4 Q
1/4 retirement
1/2 WO
F LL

as usual

dull's draws:o:rolleyes:

Featherer 12-02-2012 11:43 PM

Re: Grand Slam Tennis Draw Game on MTF
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by orangehat (Post 12589941)
I'm pretty sure this is the same as PYW (which died after awhile with not enough people participating)

Very similar, yes.
But PYW was located in the games section (of MTF) despite being rather a voting or just a diversion.
It would better be resident in Non-Tennis (or Off-topic).
It would need just one thread per tournament there and being held only occasionally (during the GrandSlams for instance).
Furthermore, with PYW voters were not allowed to post the ongoing scores (livescores), which made it quite boring, I think.

After learning a bit about PYW and on the basis of my assessments in the other post I think a game with like the following set of rules would be worth giving a try at least:
(It's just a blueprint!)


1.) each vote = one game (also the tiebreak); for example: 6-5 or 6-6 or 7-6(set)

This voting game relies to an extent on the fairness and also on the awareness of it's participants.
2.) You don't have to vote for all of the simultaneously held matches,
but either way you are only allowed to vote once in 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 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 realize the correct score being 6:5 actually.
4.) And look out for people violating the one-hour-waiting rule!
5.) And after you posted your votes please look out for somebody who posted in the interim and if so please edit your own post to adjust it to the correct scoreline.
6.) But never ever delete your voting-posts!!
...I'm afraid this possibility is the biggest problem, albeit rather unlikely maybe. If it happens the organzier could disqualify posters and issue a "black list".
7.) Incorrect votes further back then seven votes have to be regarded correct in any case.
8.) Read post #1 before starting new matches on your own!

...Yes, that were some lines of text to read for new participants and not all of them will do so. On the other hand there hopefully (for the matter) will be people who play this game more often and who correct the mistakes of the others. This mix may work.

for the organizer(s):
-Only a single thread is needed per tournament.
-organizer = post #1 (co-organizer = post #2 ...if possible)
-In post #1 the organizer publishes the schedule/sequence of "packs" of simultaneous matches (or points to post #2).
-A new pack of matches starts automatically as soon as one has completely ended, unless the organizer sais otherwise / gives a starting time in post #1 (or #2) !
-packs of simultaneous matches:
. -four matches during the first three rounds
. -two matches in round four
. -only a single match from the QF onwards
-Scoring format:
. -round one and two: best-of-three (= 12 votes to victory at minimum)
. -round three and four: best-of-five (= 18 votes)
. -QF and SF: best-of-seven (= 24 votes)
. -Final: best-of-nine (= 30 votes)
. ->The scoring format for the ongoing round should be displayed in the thread title as well, as a reminder for everybody.

...Depending on the participation (has to be tested out) the scoring format can be adjusted.

MIMIC 12-03-2012 12:07 AM

Re: Grand Slam Tennis Draw Game on MTF
 
EDIT: n/m

Pratik 12-03-2012 04:33 PM

Re: Grand Slam Tennis Draw Game on MTF
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Featherer (Post 12590700)
Very similar, yes.
But PYW was located in the games section (of MTF) despite being rather a voting or just a diversion.
It would better be resident in Non-Tennis (or Off-topic).
It would need just one thread per tournament there and being held only occasionally (during the GrandSlams for instance).
Furthermore, with PYW voters were not allowed to post the ongoing scores (livescores), which made it quite boring, I think.

Completely agree, except the one thread per tournament part. That may become a bit too much.

Quote:

After learning a bit about PYW and on the basis of my assessments in the other post I think a game with like the following set of rules would be worth giving a try at least:
(It's just a blueprint!)


1.) each vote = one game (also the tiebreak); for example: 6-5 or 6-6 or 7-6(set)

This voting game relies to an extent on the fairness and also on the awareness of it's participants.
2.) You don't have to vote for all of the simultaneously held matches,
but either way you are only allowed to vote once in 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 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 realize the correct score being 6:5 actually.
4.) And look out for people violating the one-hour-waiting rule!
5.) And after you posted your votes please look out for somebody who posted in the interim and if so please edit your own post to adjust it to the correct scoreline.
6.) But never ever delete your voting-posts!!
...I'm afraid this possibility is the biggest problem, albeit rather unlikely maybe. If it happens the organzier could disqualify posters and issue a "black list".
7.) Incorrect votes further back then seven votes have to be regarded correct in any case.
8.) Read post #1 before starting new matches on your own!

...Yes, that were some lines of text to read for new participants and not all of them will do so. On the other hand there hopefully (for the matter) will be people who play this game more often and who correct the mistakes of the others. This mix may work.

for the organizer(s):
-Only a single thread is needed per tournament.
-organizer = post #1 (co-organizer = post #2 ...if possible)
-In post #1 the organizer publishes the schedule/sequence of "packs" of simultaneous matches (or points to post #2).
-A new pack of matches starts automatically as soon as one has completely ended, unless the organizer sais otherwise / gives a starting time in post #1 (or #2) !
-packs of simultaneous matches:
. -four matches during the first three rounds
. -two matches in round four
. -only a single match from the QF onwards
-Scoring format:
. -round one and two: best-of-three (= 12 votes to victory at minimum)
. -round three and four: best-of-five (= 18 votes)
. -QF and SF: best-of-seven (= 24 votes)
. -Final: best-of-nine (= 30 votes)
. ->The scoring format for the ongoing round should be displayed in the thread title as well, as a reminder for everybody.

...Depending on the participation (has to be tested out) the scoring format can be adjusted.
I think I am going to organize this for AO. Any helpers are welcome.
Hopefully, we will get adequate participation. If not, it can be called off mid-way.
Based on the 16(:sad:) votes we got, having the game for all 128 players would probably be the best.

Featherer, I agree with all your points except 7. Not so sure about that.
A one hour voting gap would be enough. Most people found the 3 hour gap in the seed elimination too long.
Allowing all posters to post live scores is very important, even essential. It reduces the work on the organizer a lot, and it will be more fun for the participants.

There should be a fixed max. time duration for each of the early rounds/packs. At the end for unfinished matches, whoever is ahead wins. The winner of a tie in this situation is the player who reached the tied situation first.

Quote:

. -round one and two: best-of-three (= 12 votes to victory at minimum)
. -round three and four: best-of-five (= 18 votes)
. -QF and SF: best-of-seven (= 24 votes)
. -Final: best-of-nine (= 30 votes)
We could make it a little smaller, for better participation.
I had something like this in mind(wanted each round to be bigger than the previous):
First round: One set. TB set:First to 6/7 wins. 1 vote=1 game.
Second round: One set. Non TB set:First to 6 with a difference of 2 wins. 1 vote=1 game.
Third round: One super set(like super TB in doubles). First to 10 with a difference to 2 wins. 1 vote=1 game.
Fourth round: Best of 3 sets. First to 6/7 wins a set. 1 vote=1 game
QF: Best of 5 sets. TB sets. 1 vote=1 game.
SF: Best of 5 sets. Non TB sets. 1 vote=1 game
F(Save the best for last): Best of 3 sets. TB sets. 1 vote=1 point. Gives a long drawn out final.

The smaller initial round gives the possibilities of early upsets, and thus, makes the game more interesting.

Thoughts?
As of now, my major issue with this is that different rules for each round may make many posters not participate.

Featherer 12-04-2012 12:13 AM

Re: Grand Slam Tennis Draw Game on MTF
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pratik (Post 12591472)
the one thread per tournament part. That may become a bit too much.

With packs of just four simultaneous matches one thread may suffice. :shrug:

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.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pratik (Post 12591472)
16(:sad:) votes we got [...] Hopefully, we will get adequate participation.

It's Off-season and on top this thread is about rules. I don't care how many people vote. How many will play this game in January is a different story for me.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pratik (Post 12591472)
Based on the 16 votes we got, having the game for all 128 players would probably be the best.

Not necessarily for the poll, but I think anything but 128 would be a flop (half-assed).
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pratik (Post 12591472)
I agree with all your points except 7. Not so sure about that.

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?)

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.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pratik (Post 12591472)
A one hour voting gap would be enough. Most people found the 3 hour gap in the seed elimination too long.

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.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pratik (Post 12591472)
There should be a fixed max. time duration for each of the early rounds/packs. At the end for unfinished matches, whoever is ahead wins. The winner of a tie in this situation is the player who reached the tied situation first.

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

Originally Posted by Pratik (Post 12591472)
First round: One set. TB set:First to 6/7 wins. 1 vote=1 game.
Second round: One set. Non TB set:First to 6 with a difference of 2 wins. 1 vote=1 game.
Third round: One super set(like super TB in doubles). First to 10 with a difference to 2 wins. 1 vote=1 game.
Fourth round: Best of 3 sets. First to 6/7 wins a set. 1 vote=1 game
QF: Best of 5 sets. TB sets. 1 vote=1 game.
SF: Best of 5 sets. Non TB sets. 1 vote=1 game
F(Save the best for last): Best of 3 sets. TB sets. 1 vote=1 point. Gives a long drawn out final. [...]
As of now, my major issue with this is that different rules for each round may make many posters not participate.

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.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pratik (Post 12591472)
We could make it [the format] a little smaller, for better participation. [...]
The smaller initial round gives the possibilities of early upsets, and thus, makes the game more interesting.

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

Originally Posted by Featherer (Post 12590700)
-Scoring format:
. -round one and two: best-of-three (= 12 votes to victory at minimum)
. -round three and four: best-of-five (= 18 votes)
. -QF and SF: best-of-seven (= 24 votes)
. -Final: best-of-nine (= 30 votes)
[...]
...Depending on the participation (has to be tested out) the scoring format can be adjusted.

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.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pratik (Post 12591472)
I think I am going to organize this for AO. Any helpers are welcome.

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.

Yolita 12-04-2012 12:19 AM

Re: Grand Slam Tennis Draw Game on MTF
 
Why don't you do a trial version for a smaller tournament, like Chennai or Brisbane? See how it goes... I would play. :)

Pratik 12-04-2012 07:44 AM

Re: Grand Slam Tennis Draw Game on MTF
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Featherer (Post 12592345)
With packs of just four simultaneous matches one thread may suffice. :shrug:

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. :yeah:

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.:yeah:

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? :drink:
Well, okay, if you insist on. :rolleyes:

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 (Post 12592352)
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.

Slasher1985 12-04-2012 07:48 AM

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.:p


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.