Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Moderator
Joined
·
9,928 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
How to Score a Match

1) correct picks

Code:
the player who has more correct picks is the winner
in the case of a tie in the number of correct picks the winner should be determined by this order:

2) set ratios

Code:
player A wins if he has more correct set ratios than player B.
in case there is a tie in the number of correct SRs, you should use the Set to Winner (incorrect 21 picks) method.

3) (incorrect 21 picks)

Code:
all incorrect picks will be compared, and the player with the most incorrect 2-1 picks will win.
(in Grand slam best of 5 , all incorrect 3-2 picks count as 2 points and all incorrect 3-1 picks count as 1 point towards Sets Given to Winner total)

---> if this fails to provide a winner, then the tie break method is used.


Next step

- 4 matches in the order of play will be labeled PTB (pick tie break) which will require players to pick the score for tie break purposes, such as 64 63 or 76 76 for example, these matches will be labeled PTB1 to PTB4, with PTB1 being the first used to settle the tie, if it can't be settled thru PTB1, we would move down the order to PTB2 , PTB3 and lastly PTB4.

4) tie breaks (based on PTB1 match first)

-in case Player A chose the correct winner for the PTB1 match while Player B didn´t => Player A wins
-in case Player A and player B chose the correct winner for the PTB1 match and only one has the correct set ratio for that match, then the Player with the correct set ratio wins
-in case player A and player B chose the incorrect winner for the PTB1 match and only one has the incorrect set ratio 21 (versus 20) for that match, then the player with the incorrect 21 set ratio wins (In Grand Slam best of 5 , 3-2 will win over 3-1 , and 3-1 wins over 3-0 , incorrect winner pick)
---> In case Player A and Player B chose the correct winner or both chose loser for the PTB1 match and both have the correct/incorrect Set Ratio for that match, winner should be determined by this next methods in PTB1 Match (Pick Tie Break) :

5) tie breaks (points)

a) correct order of sets (co)-> prediction of the correct winner of one or more sets.

Code:
o 1 set – 1 point
o 2 sets – 4 points
o 3 sets – 7 points
o 4 sets – 10 points
o 5 sets – 13 points
b) correct scorelines (cs) -> prediction of the exact score of a set won by a player:

Code:
o 1 set – 3 points
o 2 sets – 6 points
o 3 sets – 9 points
o 4 sets – 12 points
o 5 sets – 15 points
[COLOR=blue]o bonus of 2 points for each score line predicted in the correct set.
[/COLOR]
c) total of PTB points (PTB):

o PTB = CO + CS

Sample
player A chose : 6-4 6-3
player B chose : 7-6 6-4
actual match score 63 62

player A CO (4) + CS (3) = total 7
player B CO (4) + CS (0) = total 4
Player A wins
---> If you can't find a winner after all this, use the who's closer method: (WHEN BOTH PLAYERS PICK WINNER)

Sample / Both Players MUST have Winner

Player A chose : 6-4 6-3
Player B chose : 7-6 6-4
total number of games in actual match score 75 62 : 7+5+6+2 =20
total number of games in Player A pick: 6+4+6+3=19
total number of games in Player B pick: 7+6+6+4=23
player A: |19-20|=1
player B: |23-20|=3

player A wins as he is closer to the real score.
---> If instead both players picked the LOSER , use the TB method where the player who gave the winner the most games will win (WHEN BOTH PLAYERS PICK LOSER)

Sample /Both Players MUST have LOSER

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

total number of games in Player A pick: 4+3=7
total number of games in Player B pick: 6+4=10
Player A: 7
Player B: 10

Player B wins as gave more games to the actual winner in losing pick
---> After Exhausting PTB1 MATCH and still tied, try PTB2 thru full process , if still tied PTB3 thru full process , if still tied PTB4 is final Tiebreaking match.
If somehow still tied matches will be decided by predicting the results of another tournament. the players will then send for NEXT ROUND of their current tournament AND for the next day's OOP of whichever other tournament is selected.


QUICK SUMMARY
--->If all is tied with same score overall of WINNERS/SR/INCORRECT 21 PICKS , Matches are then settled using first match in OOP, by comparing that match , first comparing the WINNER, then comparing the SET RATIO, then comparing if 1 player has an incorrect 21 and the other does not, if all remains tied after all this, points scoring comes into play using the actual 64 63 for example, and using the formulas to determine the winner. everything is exhausted in the First match, but if remains tied moves to 2nd, then 3rd then 4th.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,067 Posts
I read it all and everything is crystal clear to me. Specially with the examples, hard to miss.

I really like the tie break method without ever having to go to CB.


About this:

3) (Incorrect 21 Picks)

Code:
All INCORRECT picks will be compared, and the player with the most incorrect 2-1 picks will win.
I imagine in Grand Slams will be the pkayer with the most incorrect 3-2 picks and then the most incorrect 3-1 picks, right?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
9,928 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I read it all and everything is crystal clear to me. Specially with the examples, hard to miss.

I really like the tie break method without ever having to go to CB.


About this:



I imagine in Grand Slams will be the pkayer with the most incorrect 3-2 picks and then the most incorrect 3-1 picks, right?

After running it thru the sheet, it gives 2 sets to the winner with incorrect 32 pick and 1 set to winner with incorrect 31 pick, so I will see if I can word it that way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
171 Posts
Looks great but may I have a few suggestions to make it even more fun ... As the goal of the game is to promote the risk to pick an underdog, there should be in the counting method a way to award picking underdogs ... I am thinking about following (but drawback is that it may be more complex to manage)

- 2 pts per correct pick of underdog (while 1 point per correct pick of favourite player) ==> That would encourage to pick even more than 1 underdog ;-)

and/or

- in case of tie with correct pick, the second criterion would be the one who has picked the most risky underdog. That would mean that OOP would sort the underdogs from most risky to less risky (according to judgment of manager). Another alternate would be that second criterion would be number of correct picks for underdogs.


- in case of set ratio tie, first criterion could be number of sets won by picked underdog(s) ==> The more underdog you pick, the more you have chances to have sets for picked underdog(s).
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
9,928 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Looks great but may I have a few suggestions to make it even more fun ... As the goal of the game is to promote the risk to pick an underdog, there should be in the counting method a way to award picking underdogs ... I am thinking about following (but drawback is that it may be more complex to manage)

- 2 pts per correct pick of underdog (while 1 point per correct pick of favourite player) ==> That would encourage to pick even more than 1 underdog ;-)

and/or

- in case of tie with correct pick, the second criterion would be the one who has picked the most risky underdog. That would mean that OOP would sort the underdogs from most risky to less risky (according to judgment of manager). Another alternate would be that second criterion would be number of correct picks for underdogs.


- in case of set ratio tie, first criterion could be number of sets won by picked underdog(s) ==> The more underdog you pick, the more you have chances to have sets for picked underdog(s).
we ran this experimentally for managers league all season(10 EVENTS, Masters and GS), and I found it was quite good with just the underdog required, as most times players took different underdogs.

In most masters events there was often 4 times the DIFFS, sometimes 10 times as many in a round.

1 of the big things to incorporate scoring, and big draws, it is hard to calculate if using a 2 point scoring system or rewards, this would be fine with small draws for some fun no doubt, I could see running a side event like that for sure!

I find there is a lot of strategy that can be played around picking 1 minimum underdog, so will depend how you want to play it.

The managers league example, it was a very close race thru 10 events, and RR Grand Slam was an awesome event. I think you will enjoy it with the underdog required.

I started with just required in RD1, then it was easy to see most retreated to favorites once they did not have to pick an underdog , then we added a round of QF required, great diffs, then SF same, most retreated to FAVORITES. My original thoughts was with small OOP at end of event best not to force FAV pick, but that ended up boring, so right now we are playing WTF with underdog required in all rounds, and I think it's best to stay that way, even if sometimes only 1 obvious underdog and everyone take them, still ahead of many rounds with all taking the same picks.

Thanks for your input, it is very welcome, discussion thread is still wide open to make adjustments as new get ready for a full season!
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top