Talk Fantasy Football

remy wrote:

Topper wrote:

But the official result is #1 A, #2 B, #3 C and #4 D. I guess the referee rather use (TD+casualties) for tie-breaking, but I think that the mutual information must have the priority.

What do you mean here? The tie-breaker system at this EB was mutual meeting over TD+Cas. Not sure what "mutual information is"

If the tie-breaker was mutual meeting, thus I do not understand why the ranking is not (These points and TD+Cas can be calculated because all the games between these players have been played):
#1 C 4 points and +8 TD+Cas
#2 D 4 points and -4 TD+Cas
#3 B 2 points and 0 TD+Cas
#4 A 2 points and -4 TD+Cas

I believe it was - but if it wasn´t on the screen it would be because the software couldn´t implement it - (But I haven´t heard I believe that it didn´t work)

remy wrote:

Topper wrote:

- use a correct method pairing, not #1 vs #2, #3 vs #4, #5 vs #6 ...

As Tripleskull asks what is the correct way to do it? Isn´t that exactly what swiss-draw means? (i.e. 1 vs 2, 3 vs 4 etc)

The correct way to do is to group the players by score, divide the group in two parts and pair the first player of group A against the first player of group B etc. So If you have 6 players with 2 wins at he second round of a tournament, the pairing should be:
#1 vs #4
#2 vs #5
#3 vs #6

Well then it´s not Swissdraw is it

Topper wrote: Well then it´s not Swissdraw is it

One is swissdraw-which-is-quite-robust-to-statistical-effects, the other is swissdraw-which-can-be-easily-biased-by-statistical-effects

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss-system_tournament

remy wrote:

Topper wrote: Well then it´s not Swissdraw is it

One is swissdraw-which-is-quite-robust-to-statistical-effects, the other is swissdraw-which-can-be-easily-biased-by-statistical-effects

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss-system_tournament

Okay I see your point now. It´s the tiebreaker that should be based on ones NAF ranking - correct?
I still don´t see that helps much here in a EB tournament - and the NAF rankings are not fool proof.
Say Fischerking with his 240 something WEs decide to play Undead he would then be given a flat 150 and that would just be plain wrong - wouldn´t it

Hmm someone should add bloodbowl as an application of swiss to that wiki page ...

Topper wrote:

remy wrote:

Topper wrote: Well then it´s not Swissdraw is it

One is swissdraw-which-is-quite-robust-to-statistical-effects, the other is swissdraw-which-can-be-easily-biased-by-statistical-effects

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss-system_tournament

Okay I see your point now. It´s the tiebreaker that should be based on ones NAF ranking - correct?
I still don´t see that helps much here in a EB tournament - and the NAF rankings are not fool proof.
Say Fischerking with his 240 something WEs decide to play Undead he would then be given a flat 150 and that would just be plain wrong - wouldn´t it

I am sorry if I am not clear. Tie-breaking is complex during chess tournaments because there is no large or small wins. You win or not, that's all. Fortunately, it is not the case for blood bowl thanks to touchdown and/or casualties.

I link this article of wikipedia only to show that, since 110 years, the original (and correct) swiss draw system is to pair the top half of each score group with the bottom half of the same group. I understand that it can be easier to use other pairing methods (the organization of a tournament is enough difficult without these discussions) but sometimes they can produce "strange" results.

@ Remy

I find your point very interesting. And the chess community is enough authority for me to roll over.

Also I find indication that Swiss draw preferably should be used with in combination with 1 point for a win ½ for a draw although there are a few exceptions.

Hehe
Took me some time to understand just what you meant - because I thought we did use the correct Swiss draw system
Now I get what you said and will use some time to see at the (many) different methods of Swiss draw to see if any one seems better suited to our special case.

I have tried to use this method on the EurOpen results. Thanks to Plasmoïd and the Naf, we have all the individual results of played matches. You can thus replay the tournament with different rules. You have to guess the result of matches which have not been played but is is feasible. It is an interesting case because one of the top player at the end of the tournament (Lord-Bojo) started the tournament with a loss.

I don't know if it is interesting or not but, for chess tournament, the rules of pairing also calculate the number of games with each color. At the end of the tournament, each player played half of his matches with White and half with Black. Following the same rules in Blood Bowl, it will be possible to designate at the beginning of each round, which players can choose to kick or receive. Is it going too much against the randomness nature of Blood Bowl ?

I think the event it self was fantastic, I agree the voice system was hard to understand at times. But this is minor.

The 7th game was maybe one to many, it left a lot shattered after long travel and drinking Friday night, then 4 long games against great opposition ment for many to rest a little to soon

The seeding thing, one thing not pointed out was from the point of view of the lesser side.

We split the 14 nations in to 2 groups the strong 6 and the not so strong 8

Wales played and won our first and were top of the table after beating the Swiss. A grat feeling too I might add, but it ment next up was one if the big guns and Denmark, followed by the Germans, and the French.

So the draw gave us a good start but this then ment we was playing in a park we was not ready for, with a random start, then yes it could happen, it may also mean we started with one of the big sides, but games 2 and on would be more appropriate for our team strength.

Don't get me wrong it was good to play 4 of the big 6, so we look forward to Italy and England next year.

I think one thing is sure how ever it seeds or is drawn it will favour one more and hurt another more. Could be denying the championship or just deliver a battering after battering, could be the 'submarine effect'. But one thing I'm sure off. 7 games is to many for a 14 team tournament.

All in all fantastic.