I'm more concerned about the arrogant pricks who ask you to scoop to them, w/o even knowing your record, and don't offer you anything.
It probably seems arrogant, but at higher-level play, this is very commonplace and people will ofter scoop to each other to achieve the maximum possible ROI.
:facepalm:Obviously they don't offer you anything, this is illegal and WILL get them disqualified. It is generally implied that your scoop will be rewarded, it just can't be talked about until after the tournament. I have probably seen somewhere in the range of 25+ people get scooped into Top8's of PTQs, and in 95% of the circumstances, the person who scooped (who often couldn't make top8 in the first place) walks away with somewhere between a half and full box of product.
They're not arrogant, they're just used to a system of play that you are not accustomed to.
Intentional Draws: These are in the game because of the inability for paper tournaments to have a reasonable way to break a tie in normal circumstances. Most players would say that a draw is better than a match determined by life totals at the end of time (the way it is done if the match is an elimination match with timed rounds), but the caveat of draws is that there is no way to prevent two players from simply playing with the understanding that they will play at a reasonable pace, but do nothing the entire time and eventually time will expire on game 3 with each player winning one game. It's solved on Magic Online by there being chess clocks on the players, but it's not an implementation that can be done effectively on paper magic.
(note - I'm indifferent on the 1-point vs. 0-point for a draw arguments)
On "drawing in" at end of events: Generally speaking, a player that goes 5-0 then 0-2 will have faced more difficult opponents than a player going 0-2 then 5-0, and this will be reflected in their tiebreakers. At the same time, though, a player has all the resources applicable to them in order for them to win; if the optimal strategy for both players is to draw at a certain point, then there should be no reason (within the rules) for them to not do it. This is caveat of the extensions that draws bring with them, but in the end are both a difficult issue to solve and one that cannot be enforced by penalties.
For what it's worth, Chess tournaments use a 1, 1/2, 0 system.
Slightly related, but the best example of collusion impacting a sport that I know of was uncovered in the book Freakonomics:
One example of the authors' use of economic theory involves demonstrating the existence of cheating among sumo wrestlers. In a sumo tournament, all wrestlers in the top division compete in 15 matches and face demotion if they do not win at least eight of them. The sumo community is very close-knit, and the wrestlers at the top levels tend to know each other well. The authors looked at the final match, and considered the case of a wrestler with seven wins, seven losses, and one fight to go, fighting against an 8-6 wrestler. Statistically, the 7-7 wrestler should have a slightly below even chance, since the 8-6 wrestler is slightly better. However, the 7-7 wrestler actually wins around 80% of the time. Levitt uses this statistic and other data gleaned from sumo wrestling matches, along with the effect that allegations of corruption have on match results, to conclude that those who already have 8 wins collude with those who are 7-7 and let them win, since they have already secured their position for the following tournament.
That's an inherent element of Swiss/cut to top 8 systems with tiebreakers based on opponent's records, *except* for the formats where losses give out negative points.
That's not true. They're rewarded for winning against stronger opponents. At DMF Austin (WoW minis) I 0-2'd then went on to 5-0 the rest of the event... and ended up 17th, missing even the additional cut to 16 for slightly better prizes. And justifiably. I only played against poor players for the last 5 rounds while the other 5-2s had to play against top players.
Losing early means you don't get the opportunity to play the strong opponents. But you're not really rewarded for winning early. You're punished by a tougher opposition. The tiebreakers serve to compensate for that penalty.
You're all just barking up the wrong tree. The reason why you're out of contention on 0-2 is that Swiss/cut to top 8 is more or less mathematically equivalent to a double elimination tournament, except that it is inferior in most ways (opportunities for bribery/collusion, accuracy of results) except for:
a) being able to allow all players to play max number of games (which is an idiotic move IMO, as it takes away from the pool of potential side-event players)
b) simplicity in setting up brackets for number of players that are not a power of 2
c) possibility of allowing draws
The DCI should just switch to double elimination and be done with it. IMO the complexity added in bracket formations is easily taken care of in software, and the complete elimination of incentives to collusion by eliminating 'the bubble' would be worth it. The only complication is the need for an end of match procedure that always gives out a clear winner, which I'm sure some Control players will find a way to complain about endlessly.
To clarify my point on the 5-0 thing: I completely agree with you about tiebreakers. In fact, my next paragraph of post says pretty much what you said! My point was that going 5-0 doesn't just provide you with better tiebreakers- it also lets you ID in.
Let's take a 32-player event as an example. Theoretically, after three rounds, there would be 4 players who are undefeated. After round 4, there're 2 undefeated players, and 8 players on 3-1. In a no-draw world, the fifth round leaves one player undefeated, 5 players on X-1, and 10 players on X-2. Depending on tiebreakers, two of the X-2s make the Top 8 cut.
However, in the real world, the four 3-0s all ID and only one X-2 can make it.
I'm not saying this is a bad thing- it's just a consequence of the current system.
On the subject of drops, by the way, many people (myself included) drop from tournaments at 0-2 because we realise that we can't necessarily make the cut/significant prizes, and therefore prefer to spend the rest of our day in 8-man drafts, where we get to play Magic and might still get some prizes too : )
A point that my housemate raised on the 300 system, by the way:
In this system, a draw or loss give you 0 points. Therefore, this kind of thing can occur: You lose game one after a close 25 minute effort. What is facing you now? If you manage to win game 2, you gain literally nothing unless you can also finish the third game within time (your opponent loses some points, but that doesn't help you very much). If there isn't time to finish two games, then the match is basically a one-gamer. Which increases the luck factor.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DCI L3 Judge; Regional Coordinator, British Isles & South Africa
I run a Tumblr for Magic-related statistics, graphs, and quizzes. Come check it out!
We need them, no question, if i play against a friend or something i have to have the option to draw it, or just not play if both players don't want to.
The rulez can't really force them, and it would be just a fact if they would be forced, they just draw cards and do nothing, so this forces the rulez again to make what the players want, so no question the intentional draw has to stay, and thats never in question.
The big point is if the rulez should give you a reward for using the Intentional Draw; thats the problem as it is.
And for the peops that might think i don't know what i am talking, i go with 2000+ rating in Limited, i often finish Top 8's and i am not a "bad" player that just screams about the system as he/she can't win.
Thats not the point of the discussion, its that in my view, and the 100 other peops i talked about the topic, allways had the conclusion that the current system is "not fair", and if its that easy as to take away the 1 point of a draw, why not change it?
Just some more examples:
A 7 rounds PTQ you are 5-0 and your enemie is 5-0 .
Obvisious you Intentional Draw two times to get a 5-0-2 record and get in the Top 8, if you think like a "Spike" you do that, you want to finish in the top 8 and nothing else.
The problem in this is "not" that the players that obvisious are leading the field with no defeat get in the Top 8, its just that they get into this situation too fast, as "fair" would mean 7 rounds, play 7 rounds, as a proof that you do a great job.
Exactly as peops stated, your enemies get stronger if you are winning after another, which means your 5-0 enemie will be "most the time" a stronger one, and you don't fight them.
This leads to the result that the "best" players don't play against each other in the Swiss Rounds, while the "medium" and "weak" players have to play against each other as theirs no other choice (no logical correct choice).
Another example:
As peops stated, you want to give prices for the number of points, which is clearly better than the rewards for your place.
As its extrem, the little "draw point" gives a problem here aswell.
Just assume from your 30 players at the PreRelease 20 allways intentional draw and never play, so they get points for doing "nothing" , and its actual worse for you to lose a game, so you have a disadvantage for actual playing.
It should not be an advantage if you "intentional draw", if you think you need it for what ever reason, you can, but than you get what you deserve, 0 points for showing absolute no play skill at all (as the game never happens).
Result:
°°°°°°
So the real point of the discussion should be if you think its a good idea to make players that "don't play" get a reward for doing that, you want that they play, you want "especially" the stronger players to fight each other, not a good player "farming" weaker players and allways Intentional Draw against the stronger.
And theirs no clear disadvantage that really counts.
If you think players will be "forced" to randomize and outcome, than you should first ask you if a game would get to a draw, if both players intention is to "win" and not to get the game in this draw situation in the first place.
Another point is that its really easy for a judge to simply "DQ" someone for randomizing an outcome, and in the end the advantage of randomizing your winning isnt really connected to the Draw point, as the Intentional Draw is just important for the High Area, not the low one (in which risking a DQ with a 0-2 stat is just plain stupid, nobody will do that if they are not drunk).
So the points of the 3-0-0 Swiss :
- Strong players actual play against each other, and not just farm the "weak" and sit it out to the Top 8 ; which in the end proofs that this strong players are "really" doing the right thing (as the goal of a tournament is to play, not sit it out).
- The players that "randomly" lose one of the first matches, still have a chance to reach the Top-8 (but 0-4 is the end, obvisious); while at the same time, the stronger players might get down again (which means a 5-0 that goes 5-1 will meet someone that might have lost the first match, something that would simply "Never" happen normally if they Intentional draw into the final, so the first match isnt the deadly strike).
- Judges actual see the Top players playing the game, another point thats not that unintresting, as this players are in the end the ones that need the most judge caution (the 0-3 are more or less irrelevant, they won't get in the money anyway, if the top player Intentional Draw, you lose some games of "controlling" your play, which again proofs more skill).
And yes, believe it or not, 2HG allready uses the system 3-0-0 , as you don't get a point for a Draw.
And its better this way, i "never" have seen Intentional Draws in 2HG and the games are played out for everyones good.
*And for the "self called Pros" out there.
If you think you are a strong player, you can go for the Undefeated record, if you intentional draw against the strong players to get in the top8 , you miss your chances to get even better, as you actual just play against weaker players, not proofing that you are in fact the strong player you might think you are.
You disprove yourself saying that you deserve the ability to draw against your friend, but you are arguing weakness of play skill if you make that very move.
Draws into Top 8 (or worse prizes) for 2 4-0 players at FNM seem kind of weak. I can argue that a 0 point draw is fair there, but if you're 7-0 somewhere with 2 rounds to go you've proved you have at least some skill or you are a serious lucky punk. You well know that in an event like that 7-1-1 is a gamble but 7-0-2 isnt as much of one as it would take an 8-x record to beat you.
Here would be a good compromise. If there is no top 8 and the prizes cannot be determined via match wins (like MTGO you get packs per win) then players should be forced to play it out or take a loss.
If there is a breakout event then there is no reason why ID shouldn't be allowed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
If this is already been posted i apoligize, but my isssue with this is if they change a draw to 0 points, then if you actually draw because of time, then your screwed either way
Additional TO tool for discouraging IDs under the current system: round draws down to a loss for the purposes of giving booster prizes, i.e. give 5-0-2 a berth for the top 8 but the same prizes as a 5-2.
Depending on the event this may encourage your players to consider playing more, because only actual match wins earn them prizes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DCI L3 Judge; Regional Coordinator, British Isles & South Africa
I run a Tumblr for Magic-related statistics, graphs, and quizzes. Come check it out!
No it doesn't, it uses 3-0-1 just like individual duels. Where did you get this impression from?
Talked about that and it might be that the Reporting Person made it "Double loss" for both, leading to the this result (which keeped till now, and was never questioned again).
So you pay money to play in an event, and I'm ignorant because you don't actually want to be at said event?
You basically told me all the problems I stated with 0-2 droppers.
1.) They don't really want to play magic.
2.) They don't want to play unless they're winning.
Maybe the reason you're thinking about where else you could be during a tournament is because you can't fathom playing a game for fun.
I wish wizards/Hasbro would enforce a rule that did not allow people to drop from Premier tournaments (without an emergency) if it is fine to drop for FNM and Store events because hey people may want to go out Friday night etc.
But when people commute to major events (GP+) and spends months preparing and drop after an 0-2 start it ruins the dynamic for everybody else in the tournament. I mean Round one mana screw and your day can be over! Many other "sports" frown upon a player withdrawing from a tournament and if it happens too often they would be banned from said future tournament.
I missed getting to T8 in states years ago going 5-1-1 because I had one guy who dropped due to emergency after going 3-1 and it hosed my tiebreakers and there was no way for me to easily assume a 3-1 would drop. So of course I had the 0-2 drop and it prevented me from top 8 my only loss was to Osyp who was playing a mono black deck with all Japanese cards and I believe he went on to win. So until wizards makes are ruling frowning on people dropping I will never play in a Premier Magic Tournament again it is just not worth all the preparation that goes into it when a random event can spoil all of your fun. This was almost ten years ago and I have stuck by that rule and many former "good" players feel the same way.
It probably seems arrogant, but at higher-level play, this is very commonplace and people will ofter scoop to each other to achieve the maximum possible ROI.
:facepalm:Obviously they don't offer you anything, this is illegal and WILL get them disqualified. It is generally implied that your scoop will be rewarded, it just can't be talked about until after the tournament. I have probably seen somewhere in the range of 25+ people get scooped into Top8's of PTQs, and in 95% of the circumstances, the person who scooped (who often couldn't make top8 in the first place) walks away with somewhere between a half and full box of product.
They're not arrogant, they're just used to a system of play that you are not accustomed to.
(note - I'm indifferent on the 1-point vs. 0-point for a draw arguments)
On "drawing in" at end of events: Generally speaking, a player that goes 5-0 then 0-2 will have faced more difficult opponents than a player going 0-2 then 5-0, and this will be reflected in their tiebreakers. At the same time, though, a player has all the resources applicable to them in order for them to win; if the optimal strategy for both players is to draw at a certain point, then there should be no reason (within the rules) for them to not do it. This is caveat of the extensions that draws bring with them, but in the end are both a difficult issue to solve and one that cannot be enforced by penalties.
静
Slightly related, but the best example of collusion impacting a sport that I know of was uncovered in the book Freakonomics:
To clarify my point on the 5-0 thing: I completely agree with you about tiebreakers. In fact, my next paragraph of post says pretty much what you said! My point was that going 5-0 doesn't just provide you with better tiebreakers- it also lets you ID in.
Let's take a 32-player event as an example. Theoretically, after three rounds, there would be 4 players who are undefeated. After round 4, there're 2 undefeated players, and 8 players on 3-1. In a no-draw world, the fifth round leaves one player undefeated, 5 players on X-1, and 10 players on X-2. Depending on tiebreakers, two of the X-2s make the Top 8 cut.
However, in the real world, the four 3-0s all ID and only one X-2 can make it.
I'm not saying this is a bad thing- it's just a consequence of the current system.
On the subject of drops, by the way, many people (myself included) drop from tournaments at 0-2 because we realise that we can't necessarily make the cut/significant prizes, and therefore prefer to spend the rest of our day in 8-man drafts, where we get to play Magic and might still get some prizes too : )
A point that my housemate raised on the 300 system, by the way:
In this system, a draw or loss give you 0 points. Therefore, this kind of thing can occur: You lose game one after a close 25 minute effort. What is facing you now? If you manage to win game 2, you gain literally nothing unless you can also finish the third game within time (your opponent loses some points, but that doesn't help you very much). If there isn't time to finish two games, then the match is basically a one-gamer. Which increases the luck factor.
I run a Tumblr for Magic-related statistics, graphs, and quizzes. Come check it out!
Intentional draws:
We need them, no question, if i play against a friend or something i have to have the option to draw it, or just not play if both players don't want to.
The rulez can't really force them, and it would be just a fact if they would be forced, they just draw cards and do nothing, so this forces the rulez again to make what the players want, so no question the intentional draw has to stay, and thats never in question.
The big point is if the rulez should give you a reward for using the Intentional Draw; thats the problem as it is.
And for the peops that might think i don't know what i am talking, i go with 2000+ rating in Limited, i often finish Top 8's and i am not a "bad" player that just screams about the system as he/she can't win.
Thats not the point of the discussion, its that in my view, and the 100 other peops i talked about the topic, allways had the conclusion that the current system is "not fair", and if its that easy as to take away the 1 point of a draw, why not change it?
Just some more examples:
A 7 rounds PTQ you are 5-0 and your enemie is 5-0 .
Obvisious you Intentional Draw two times to get a 5-0-2 record and get in the Top 8, if you think like a "Spike" you do that, you want to finish in the top 8 and nothing else.
The problem in this is "not" that the players that obvisious are leading the field with no defeat get in the Top 8, its just that they get into this situation too fast, as "fair" would mean 7 rounds, play 7 rounds, as a proof that you do a great job.
Exactly as peops stated, your enemies get stronger if you are winning after another, which means your 5-0 enemie will be "most the time" a stronger one, and you don't fight them.
This leads to the result that the "best" players don't play against each other in the Swiss Rounds, while the "medium" and "weak" players have to play against each other as theirs no other choice (no logical correct choice).
Another example:
As peops stated, you want to give prices for the number of points, which is clearly better than the rewards for your place.
As its extrem, the little "draw point" gives a problem here aswell.
Just assume from your 30 players at the PreRelease 20 allways intentional draw and never play, so they get points for doing "nothing" , and its actual worse for you to lose a game, so you have a disadvantage for actual playing.
It should not be an advantage if you "intentional draw", if you think you need it for what ever reason, you can, but than you get what you deserve, 0 points for showing absolute no play skill at all (as the game never happens).
Result:
°°°°°°
So the real point of the discussion should be if you think its a good idea to make players that "don't play" get a reward for doing that, you want that they play, you want "especially" the stronger players to fight each other, not a good player "farming" weaker players and allways Intentional Draw against the stronger.
And theirs no clear disadvantage that really counts.
If you think players will be "forced" to randomize and outcome, than you should first ask you if a game would get to a draw, if both players intention is to "win" and not to get the game in this draw situation in the first place.
Another point is that its really easy for a judge to simply "DQ" someone for randomizing an outcome, and in the end the advantage of randomizing your winning isnt really connected to the Draw point, as the Intentional Draw is just important for the High Area, not the low one (in which risking a DQ with a 0-2 stat is just plain stupid, nobody will do that if they are not drunk).
So the points of the 3-0-0 Swiss :
- Strong players actual play against each other, and not just farm the "weak" and sit it out to the Top 8 ; which in the end proofs that this strong players are "really" doing the right thing (as the goal of a tournament is to play, not sit it out).
- The players that "randomly" lose one of the first matches, still have a chance to reach the Top-8 (but 0-4 is the end, obvisious); while at the same time, the stronger players might get down again (which means a 5-0 that goes 5-1 will meet someone that might have lost the first match, something that would simply "Never" happen normally if they Intentional draw into the final, so the first match isnt the deadly strike).
- Judges actual see the Top players playing the game, another point thats not that unintresting, as this players are in the end the ones that need the most judge caution (the 0-3 are more or less irrelevant, they won't get in the money anyway, if the top player Intentional Draw, you lose some games of "controlling" your play, which again proofs more skill).
And yes, believe it or not, 2HG allready uses the system 3-0-0 , as you don't get a point for a Draw.
And its better this way, i "never" have seen Intentional Draws in 2HG and the games are played out for everyones good.
*And for the "self called Pros" out there.
If you think you are a strong player, you can go for the Undefeated record, if you intentional draw against the strong players to get in the top8 , you miss your chances to get even better, as you actual just play against weaker players, not proofing that you are in fact the strong player you might think you are.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
Draws into Top 8 (or worse prizes) for 2 4-0 players at FNM seem kind of weak. I can argue that a 0 point draw is fair there, but if you're 7-0 somewhere with 2 rounds to go you've proved you have at least some skill or you are a serious lucky punk. You well know that in an event like that 7-1-1 is a gamble but 7-0-2 isnt as much of one as it would take an 8-x record to beat you.
Here would be a good compromise. If there is no top 8 and the prizes cannot be determined via match wins (like MTGO you get packs per win) then players should be forced to play it out or take a loss.
If there is a breakout event then there is no reason why ID shouldn't be allowed.
:symu::symg::symr: Maelstrom Wanderer :symu::symg::symr:
:symg::symb::symw:Karador, Ghost Chieftain :symg::symb::symw:
Depending on the event this may encourage your players to consider playing more, because only actual match wins earn them prizes.
I run a Tumblr for Magic-related statistics, graphs, and quizzes. Come check it out!
Talked about that and it might be that the Reporting Person made it "Double loss" for both, leading to the this result (which keeped till now, and was never questioned again).
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
I wish wizards/Hasbro would enforce a rule that did not allow people to drop from Premier tournaments (without an emergency) if it is fine to drop for FNM and Store events because hey people may want to go out Friday night etc.
But when people commute to major events (GP+) and spends months preparing and drop after an 0-2 start it ruins the dynamic for everybody else in the tournament. I mean Round one mana screw and your day can be over! Many other "sports" frown upon a player withdrawing from a tournament and if it happens too often they would be banned from said future tournament.
I missed getting to T8 in states years ago going 5-1-1 because I had one guy who dropped due to emergency after going 3-1 and it hosed my tiebreakers and there was no way for me to easily assume a 3-1 would drop. So of course I had the 0-2 drop and it prevented me from top 8 my only loss was to Osyp who was playing a mono black deck with all Japanese cards and I believe he went on to win. So until wizards makes are ruling frowning on people dropping I will never play in a Premier Magic Tournament again it is just not worth all the preparation that goes into it when a random event can spoil all of your fun. This was almost ten years ago and I have stuck by that rule and many former "good" players feel the same way.
[GTC] Gatecrash Patch for MWS (249/249)