Originally posted by Justin Miyashiro:

This has largely been met positively in the area, and it's even led to situations where a player drops from being first seed b/c they only wanted their pack prizes but don't care about the invite. This ensures all 8 of the playoff players actually want the byes/invite. It also leads to amusing scenarios where lower seed players still get to participate. Our last GPT almost had a 1-3 player in the top 4 b/c no one else wanted the byes. A PPTQ a while ago had the 22nd seed playing in the top 8 b/c everyone else either didn't want the invite or had already left.

It doesn't violate anything in the MTR, but this feels…weird. It seems like we are clearly manipulating the tournament when a person who didn't place in the top 20 is now playing in the top 8. To continue with the analogies of GPs and the Pro Tour, there's a reason those tournaments don't pay out based on standings and then “just play for the trophy.” I've judged/been to multiple GPTs where literally one person was going to the GP; are we fine with functionally just giving them the byes/invite?

I definitely see the up side of doing this on many levels. You likely eliminate virtually all bribery in the playoffs since everyone already has prizes and any bribery that does take place would be quite clear. From the store's perspective, you eliminate virtually any reason for a player to leave before the last round of swiss.

I also could see the issue players would have with it, depending on how prizes were distributed. Being able to draw in one or both of the last two rounds is an advantage players earn by how well they do; having one person's desire to draw/not draw being affected by how prizes are distributed seems sub-par.

Definitely something for me to think about.

Certainly worthy concerns. I would suggest that players may decide to draw
or not draw based on a variety of factors anyway, so I'm not sure the
player incentive argument is much of an issue. At least this way, it's
relatively easy for a player to mentally justify her opponent's decision
not to ID. “They want more prize” is an argument that most people would
easily understand and accept. “They don't believe in IDing” or “they don't
understand that IDing is good for them” is, in my experience, harder for
people to accept. There's also the silver lining that such an opponent,
having achieved the larger prize payout, may not be interested in the Top 8
anyway and would drop and give the player a chance to achieve her goal as
well.

Also, in practice, players still ID into Top 8, even sacrificing a shot at
a higher seed to do so. Particularly at the PPTQ level, most players are
interested in the RPTQ invite, and IDing into Top 8, even at the cost of
being 6th seed instead of 3rd, is often a safe way to advance that goal.
The biggest place where this decision changes is for the #1 seed in an
event where they didn't have the option of double-drawing with 3 other
undefeated players. Most of the time, the players on the cusp will still
opt to ID in safely rather than play for more prize and risk losing.
Players like taking their option to ID and not have to play when they've
earned such an option.

From a player standpoint, there's also the frustration of missing Top 8 on
tiebreakers, only to see one or more of the Top 8 players announce that
they aren't going to the RPTQ/GP anyway and only want the packs/money/etc.
Tournaments like these have two prize-based incentives: the invite/byes and
the prizes offered by the TO. Separating those two, to some degree,
certainly makes players who are interested in one and are much less
interested in the other much happier.

I would council against “going down the list”. That does have problematic implications for someone being pressured to drop out so the next person can be in. Once the standings are public, the top 8 is locked in.

Simply put out a call for “if you don't want to play for the invite, please let us know now and we'll drop you. It won't affect your Swiss position,” then cut to top 8.

As a Judge who has at times struggled on the split/no split question, I find this thread quite educational. I just want to make sure I understand it so I can try to convince the TO's around my area to adopt this system.

Let's say we have a GPT. After a solid 5 rounds of Swiss, we have our Top 8. On announcement of players, they receive prizes based on their standing. They are then each offered the choice to drop if they would like to before the start of the playoffs. 2nd and 6th seed don't care about the GPT byes and drop. This means that 9th and 10th players move into the playoff bracket. Once there are 8 players, we start the Top 8.

This sound right? I really like this method as it seems to ease some of the tension. I assume this type of distribution is made clear to the players before the tournament begins?

Also, why use this method for GPT events when GP awards the Top 8 based on final result? I would be curoius to learn the differing philosophies.

Kyle “Ghost_Stache” Gorbski

A crucial difference between GPs (and similar) and events like this is that at GPs, all the players in the Top 8 care about all the prizes. Whereas at a GPT, it's not uncommon for only a couple of the people at the event (let alone in the Top 8) to be going to the GP the byes are for at all. So prizes based on Swiss and allowing people to drop at the end of Swiss leads to happier players (and there's no consideration of coverage etc.)

I like the idea of prizes being based on record or standing at the end of the swiss portion. That said, I don't understand the logic of bumping people up into the top 8 rather than having people who decide not to continue into the top 8 have their absence result in byes.

Sure, it ‘feels good’ to squeeze more people into the top 8, but it also feels equally bad to loose the invite or get knocked out of the tournament to someone with a sub-par or loosing record in swiss. Is it a good thing to make all the players wait around hoping that most of the players with good records aren't interested in the invite? Especially with the average turnout for GPTs in my area, why even bother to run the swiss portion at that point? You're running two tournaments, one competitive swiss event for prizes, and another single-elimination event for whoever's still around that actually wants the invite.

Edited Chase Culpon (March 20, 2016 06:58:04 PM)

As a follow-up, suppose I'm running a 17-person GPT. When after the 5 round Swiss portion of the event, I annouce the Top 8 and make the offer for players to drop if they don't want the byes. When the dust settles, it turns out I only have seven people interested in byes, due to some not being interested and others for leaving the event.

Have I done something wrong in my interpretation, or is this a problem that can be avoided if we just “lock-in” the Top 8 when announced, and those players that don't want the byes can just pick up their standings-based prizes and jet, leaving possibly a 5-person Top 8?

Just want to be clear on how this works. Like I said, I like the concept and thinking, but want to be sure on the method before I try this.

Kyle “Ghost_Stache” Gorbski

Originally posted by Kyle Gorbski:

As a follow-up, suppose I'm running a 17-person GPT. When after the 5 round Swiss portion of the event, I annouce the Top 8 and make the offer for players to drop if they don't want the byes. When the dust settles, it turns out I only have seven people interested in byes, due to some not being interested and others for leaving the event.

Just dont drop below 8. Thread the 8th Player as a no-show. So basicly the 8th player is the “Bye”.

As a follow-up suppose {I encounter the worst-case scenario; does that invalidate everything others have said in this thread?}

No.

As a compromise, what about limiting how many player you roll up to top 8 based on match points. That lets you include the players who placed 9th and 10th in swiss but missed top 8 based on tie breakers while still making the swiss portion matter for the invite if only a few players actually want to play for it. Obviously you'd need to announce this structure.

I think that probably is much more engineering than we want to have to get our tournament results, Brian. I think the best way to do it is as Toby said above, asking people to drop before top 8 before standings are posting, paying out (including to folks who drop) based on swiss, then determining the top 8 via WER with players remaining in the event. It isn't that weird to have people of different records in the Top 8, especially for a smaller event, and that way we have a full top 8 so that everyone in it will play. Deciding that someone can't be in the top 8 based on having fewer points than someone else in the same situation seems really counterproductive as far as getting legitimate results for the tournament. It seems like too much intervention.

Edited Eliana Rabinowitz (April 20, 2016 03:50:10 PM)

I am a bit confused. Not the “those that don't want the byes can drop” part, but with prize distribution. Initially this thread seemed to be saying if the original and advertised prize structure was: 1st, byes and booster box, 2nd, 18 packs, 3 & 4, 9 packs, 5 - 8, 5 packs, instead you offer everyone in the top 8 12 packs (even split), then have a playoff for the byes. Is that correct? If so, I just don't get it. If a player isn't interested in the byes and only came for the prizes, why would they settle for 12 when there is a chance for a box?

If on the other hand you're saying after swiss and before playoffs the person in 1st place gets a box, 2nd gets 18 packs, etc., THEN you start a playoff for the bye, I guess I understand your point a little better, but as a competitor I still don't know why players would want that. I guess I'm just a dinosaur that believes in the little guy's chance for a comeback (“just get to the playoffs and then anything can happen”). I get beat and limp into top 8, but I put together a good run and win a box.

Then again there are any number of things players do that I don't understand and would never do if I were playing.

Look, a Mastadon!

Originally posted by Reggie Kemp:

instead you offer everyone in the top 8 12 packs (even split), then have a playoff for the byes. Is that correct?

No, absolutely not. I hope no one is suggesting that?!?!!?

Originally posted by Reggie Kemp:

after swiss and before playoffs the person in 1st place gets a box, 2nd gets 18 packs, etc., THEN you start a playoff for the bye

Correct.

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Reggie Kemp
instead you offer everyone in the top 8 12 packs (even split), then have a playoff for the byes. Is that correct?

No, absolutely not. I hope no one is suggesting that?!?!!?


d:^D

I think he's saying the advertised prize structure is:
1st - 12 packs & Byes
2nd - 12 packs
3rd - 12 packs
Et…

That's certainly not what I was suggesting, nor what I have seen run at any prizes-after-Swiss event I've attended. In fact, IIRC, such events rarely advertise precise prize breakdowns (1st gets X, 2nd gets Y, etc.) since these events typical run prizes based on record rather than standing, and it's impossible to know how many people at various records you will get for your prize payout so you can't really advertise it that way.

The whole point of this type of prize distribution is to boil down the playoff prizes. If you end up with prizes based on placing beyond the unsplittable invites/byes/etc. then it makes less and less sense to do the prizes after Swiss. I would argue you should just not do such prizes, but that's another discussion.

Sent from my iPad