Shirluban wrote:Tip to newcomers: read ==> this <== and ==> that <==.
One thing bother me in your table-point system, and it\'s not ties.
To take your example:
Imagine 2 tables, table A and B. On table A plays 1 good player (player A1), and three bad players. On table B plays 4 good players.
[...]
Now, after the game is finished, the tables will look like this, despite (or including) uma:
Player A1: A lot of points
Players A2-4: A lot of points minus
Player B1 (finished first on table B ): few points plus
Players B2-4: few points plus or minus
With the table-point point system, the low-skilled player A2 will get more points than the good players B3 and B4. Is it fair?
I don\'t say EMA system is fair either. But where EMA system favors a
good players on a low-level table, a table-point system favors
low-level players.
While I\'m not interested in partaking in a discussion of this on RM, given that the obvious forum for it should be my own blog, I\'ll deign to answer this.
First of all, the example is stretched to absurdity as it is - Europe doesn\'t have many good mahjong players, and the chance of them ending up at the same table in a tournament is just so ridiculously low that I wouldn\'t know how to calculate it.
Okay, now that the snarkiness has been done with, let\'s get on with it. The example is based on extremes, and yes - in that scenario players B3 and B4 will be worse off than B2. However, keep in mind that we\'re still using scoring as a tie-breaker here - so player A2 will only have one good player (from the first table) that\'ll rack up scores for him, whereas players B3 and B4 will have 3 good players.
"My" system works across a lot of games, but breaks down in single-game examples. EMA\'s system doesn\'t work under either, really, but will be "more fair" in a single-game example. What I want to achieve is at the end of the day, the player who\'s played better than the rest - and yes, that includes tactical play - should be at the top of the list. EMA doesn\'t have that - what EMA has is a system where pure luck is a greater deciding factor than
anything else. Hell, I placed 8/24 in Vienna, and I played that entire tournament drunk. There\'s something dodgy when that happens (and I attribute my placing so high on the first game of the day - I scored very well in it, and so kept my ranking quite high even if I ended up on a third and fourth place or something similar), don\'t you think? One game shouldn\'t be a deciding factor in a tournament.
@Mcgreag: good points all across - I\'m aware of how Go tournaments are held. Not sure what could be a better tie-breaker though. I think it\'s fair to say that it would work better in mahjong - you have 3 players (on each table) that you track; so any "bad luck" on seeding should sort itself out. I\'ll run the numbers from the tournament in Hannover some day and see what happens.
And now I leave, until Gemma decides to comment on another of my blag posts.