I don't know how to explain this without sounding negative, so I'll just say it and see what happens.
The doubling cube WILL NOT WORK in this competition. It is designed for high level play and ESPECIALLY for people who know what they are doing. People (to use the poker reference) who know what Poker hands are but have no idea about the odds or when to raise, or re-raise WILL NOT understand when to cube.
My most simple of arguments is this: If I WIN all 20 of my rounds and my opponent either doesn't understand or wants to mess with the doubling cube, then at most I can get 2 points per round, or perhaps 4 or 6 if I can Gammon or Backgammon my opponent. Lets say I do and I end up with 60 or 80 points in my INCREDIBLE no loss, 20 streak run.
Someone else, who either for FUN, or laughs, or sheer ignorance, or perhaps, not knowing much about Backgammon decides to go "all in" and either win or loose 64 points in ONE round, and BOOOOOM, someone does get that 64 points in ONE round, LOL, so funny, GG, hahaha...
And then that person proceeds to LOSE almost every following game, ignoring the doubling cube for the most part, maybe winning 40 points, and losing 40 points.
And they end up with a pretty respectable score, thanks to that "one shot" super cube round.
What I'm trying to say is, that no MATTER HOW GOOD YOU ARE at Backgammon, it's posible that due to the scoring system, a person can IN ONE MATCH get more points than you can in the ENTIRE ROUND 2, through no fault or lack of skill on your part.
So again, with all due respect, I say that you must use your own, self invented, agreed upon scoring system that clearly recognizes a 18-2 player is better than a 12-8 player, a 15-5 player or a 17-3 and has "won" the top spot for that round.
Otherwise, prepare to see a 3-17 player or a 4-16 player DECIMATE the field with a misplayed/accidental/intentional or even just a FUCK YEAH, COME AT ME BRO, ONE SHOT AT VICTORY, ALL IN BITCHES! CUBE round.
I not only predict this wil happen, i GUARANTEE IT. Why? Because I will do it myself.
I will immediately offer my first round opponent ALL of my points in the very first game, and vice versa. Why? Because unless you GO BIG, you might as well GO HOME.
It's not about how well you play gammon, it about GETTING THOSE POINTS, so crank the dial way the fuck up ladies and gentleman, because you don't turn up to a knife fight when there is a nuke sitting on the sidelines.
The doubling cube is a means to the stars. Use it, or your 20-0 streak that you are so proud of may have been decimated round 1, of the first match, and you won't have ANY idea what the fuck happend to you, magical rape. BOOM, you never knew what hit you.
Dude, FFS, assign your OWN points to a win and a loss. 20-0 takes this round, 19-1 and 18-2 probably take 2nd and 3rd and the rest fight out for the lower positions.
Thats all, and If i have misinterpreted a rule then I guess all the above is moot. Tell me it is so, please...
The main problem is that we are playing for a utility that is a step function at first place (in the overall tournament). The only way a 100 points system works if you have to pay $100 to enter and get back money equal to your points. Even then some people like Mr. Moneybags deCoster may not care.
Standard swiss pairings and scoring is the only objecitvely fair system.
On the other hand, any unfair system can just be said to test other aspects of gaming especially politics and metagaming.
Complaining about getting "no doubling" opponents and someone getting "all in 4 teh lulz" opponents is like complaining about getting bad window placements in Canabalt. For all we know Dromaro and lackofcheese just got incredibly lucky (in fact the gap to third place makes is more probable). The fact that there is a human element to the randomness of your "oppsition" just makes it more easy to place blame :-).
Yes, the doubling cube is for high level play. This is a high level competition. Playing Backgammon without the cube is a game of little more than luck. We may as well just have a coin flipping tournament.
Ok, I have been thinking, and I have a possible solution for you to comment on.
It's still a swiss tournament. You get X points per opponent. You play an undetermined number of games with each opponent. It could be one game, it could be many games. You play until either one player gives up, or is eliminated because they lost all of their points. When you eliminate the opponent, that counts as a win. The points do not carry over.
The only problem here, that I wanted to avoid, was back and forth 1 point games forever. Nobody has time for that.
I think that the way you have the tournament set up with the cube, it's still going to be little more than luck.
If we're not using the cube, I'm not playing. Backgammon is pretty boring as a straight game, and mostly optimal play is well known.
From what I've learned so far, I agree that the cube is an essential part of the game; removing it isn't what I had in mind.
After playing my first few games on FIBS, it seems to me that playing matches the way they are set up there is pretty reasonable. I think that's basically what Scott is suggesting, but I'm not quite clear yet.
A standard backgammon match is an indeterminate number of games where the first person to reach X points is the winner. An additional rule is typically used, wherein the doubling cube is disallowed for the first game where someone is within one point of winning (in this situation the other player would always double since they have nothing to lose from it).
The other problem I have with the tournament format as stated is that 4 rounds is somewhat inadequate for the number of players we have. If we want to ensure that there is an unequivocal winner, and relatively good resolution elsewhere in the scale, we should have 6 or 7 rounds:
Determining a clear winner (and, incidentally, a clear loser) usually requires the same number of rounds as a knockout tournament, that is the binary logarithm of the number of players rounded up. Therefore three rounds can handle eight players, four rounds can handle sixteen players and so on. If fewer than this minimum number of rounds are played, it can happen that two or more players finish the tournament with a perfect score, having won all their games but never faced each other.
i'll put my two cents in. I feel the problem with predetermined pairings is that the two people may not be able to schedule a match together during the time period provided. For example, if I have to play someone that has an opposite schedule from me work-wise, and/or lives in a different time zone, then playing them may be very difficult to schedule. I am sure more than 5 of the participants are going to PAX East, and it would be fairly easy to set up games there. I would prefer to be able to play my matches with another player in real life, at PAX, with the exception of anyone I may be able to play before then (like Ro).
I also think there should maybe be a penalty for declining to play someone unless it can be shown that a match would never be able to be set up with that person... It wouldn't have to be a large amount of points, maybe 5 or 10.
How about during the seeding, all matches are announced in advance. Sure, it'll be somewhat up to experience, but the players have 3 weeks to set up matches with all parties. If you cannot within three weeks at least play by email....
How about during the seeding, all matches are announced in advance. Sure, it'll be somewhat up to experience, but the players have 3 weeks to set up matches with all parties. If you cannot within three weeks at least play by email....
How do you roll dice by e-mail? And the way seeding works is you need to see how the first round played out before you seed the second round.
Knowing what is "going on" they both agree to double up first round to their maximum of 100 points. Luke defeats Rym in glorious combat, scores a Backgammon (3X!) and walks away with with FOUR HUNDRED POINTS.
Round 1, match 1, Rene vs random:
Rene begs opponent double up to 100, knowing that otherwise, we are just fighting over the scraps. Opponent wants to "play properly" and will only re-double if they feel like they are winning. Throughout the 5 matches, the cube either stays low or never really gets pushed high by opponent. We either walk away with basically what we started with (assuming a 3-2 or 4-1) or perhaps Rene wins all 5 and walks away with (5 matches were the cube was not returned by my opponent, 2, 4, 6, 2, 4)... 118 POINTS!!!!
lol, Luke looks down from space, and laughs at the ants, playing out there game.
The entire round 2 is pretty much already decided. Game 1, Match 1.
Luke gambled, and became god. Rym laughs, cos he thinks it's funny and had a 50/50 chance of being god as well, totally worth a shot, lulz, GG Luke, see you in Spaaacceeee.
First of all, Luke would only be allowed to walk away with 200 points, since Rym only has 100 to give him. Secondly, there would be upwards of 10 such "gods" after the first match, so it wouldn't actually be decided at all.
That said, I don't approve of the tournament structure we're discussing because the outcome is too strongly dominated by luck. A standard match type of "first to X points" makes more sense.
lol, Luke looks down from space, and laughs at the ants, playing out there game.
Luke would never do that; he spells "their" correctly.
First of all, Luke would only be allowed to walk away with 200 points, since Rym only has 100 to give him. Secondly, there would be upwards of 10 such "gods" after the first match, so it wouldn't actually be decided at all.
That said, I don't approve of the tournament structure we're discussing because the outcome is too strongly dominated by luck. A standard match type of "first to X points" makes more sense.
lol, Luke looks down from space, and laughs at the ants, playing out there game.
Luke would never do that; he spells "their" correctly.
Backgammon = 3x points. 300 + 100....
Their :P
Who else will try to shoot the moon? Only people who are aware of what's going on. Anyone who reads this thread I guess.
Cheese, in a 20 round tournament, you think most people expect to go "all in" Game 1, match 1? It's seems crazy. But it's what you need to do to win, I think.
Irrelevant. You're not able to get more than 100 points because Scott stated that it was zero-sum - those points come from your opponent, who only has 100, and so you only get 100.
Who else will try to shoot the moon? Only people who are aware of what's going on. Anyone who reads this thread I guess.
Whether through reading the thread or analysing the tournament structure, I think a sizeable number of people would come to the same conclusion.
Cheese, in a 20 round tournament, you think most people expect to go "all in" Game 1, match 1? It's seems crazy. But it's what you need to do to win, I think.
You're being a little weird with the terminology, so let's clarify. Round - distinct game played during the grand prix; this is Round 2 Match - a series of Backgammon games played against a single opponent Game - a single game of Backgammon.
Also, perhaps the strategy would be more complicated than all in on game 1 match 1, given that you actually have 5 games in which to go all in and there's no need to do it on game 1, since eliminating your opponent would end the match.
Consequently, there might be a little give and take, with players attempting to nudge their odds of doubling up above 50%, but in the end it's in both players' best interests to raise the stakes right up high.
I'm sure Scott said all Backgammon rules were in effect... 3X for a Backgammon.
Yes, those rules are active, but Scott was proposing a table stakes game, which means the maximum possible win or loss is equal to the lesser amount of chips among the two players. In that situation, if the stakes were 32 points you'd win 96 with a backgammon, but you'd only get 100 points if the cube was up to 64 points.
That said, it seems likely that we're changing up the tournament structure anyway.
Also, I think it's important to note that the flaw we're discussing is not so much a flaw in that tournament structure, but rather that it doesn't work with having a fixed number of matches. A table stakes tournament can work perfectly well (e.g. poker tournaments), but the only way that kind of tournament works is if you play to the last man (or woman) standing. You might be also be able to mitigate it by having play be terminated at random.
I'm sure Scott said all Backgammon rules were in effect... 3X for a Backgammon.
Yes, those rules are active, but Scott was proposing a table stakes game, which means the maximum possible win or loss is equal to the lesser amount of chips among the two players. In that situation, if the stakes were 32 points you'd win 96 with a backgammon, but you'd only get 100 points if the cube was up to 64 points.
That said, it seems likely that we're changing up the tournament structure anyway.
Also, I think it's important to note that the flaw we're discussing is not so much a flaw in that tournament structure, but rather that it doesn't work with having a fixed number of matches. A table stakes tournament can work perfectly well (e.g. poker tournaments), but the only way that kind of tournament works is if you play to the last man (or woman) standing.
I am genuinely excited for how we will solve this. And how its going to work with the timezone-work-life-mess. But I am looking very much forward to getting a chance to play some of you.
Still use the cube but make points a tie breaker. If you win a match (3 of 5) than you are awarded 3 tournament points. The first tie breaker used to help establish seeding is your opponents match record. Second tie breaker opponents game record. Third is points.
Under such a system, if people wish to push up the points "four teh lulz" and they lose, all they have done is handed their opponent a very strong tie breaker. It would still reward trying to win your matches.
Still use the cube but make points a tie breaker. If you win a match (3 of 5) than you are awarded 3 tournament points. The first tie breaker used to help establish seeding is your opponents match record. Second tie breaker opponents game record. Third is points.
Under such a system, if people wish to push up the points "four teh lulz" and they lose, all they have done is handed their opponent a very strong tie breaker. It would still reward trying to win your matches.
Pretty sure we are going with the 100 points (chips) idea now. How you choose to spend those chips in each of your your 5 matches is up to you.
You can GO BIG round 1! Take 100, giving you 200 for the next opponent. (or knocking yourself out of the tourney, lol)
Or you can play conservatively games 1-4 and then risk it all last round.
Or, perhaps you will both play conservatively throughout the 5 games and enter round 2 with 100-ish chips in tow.
Personally, I'd suggest seeded single or double elimination tournament.
Every player gets 100 points to 'spend' on an opponent per match. They keep playing for 5 rounds, at the end of those rounds, whoever has the most points wins. If one player loses all 100 points before that, they lose immediately.
Comments
The doubling cube WILL NOT WORK in this competition. It is designed for high level play and ESPECIALLY for people who know what they are doing. People (to use the poker reference) who know what Poker hands are but have no idea about the odds or when to raise, or re-raise WILL NOT understand when to cube.
My most simple of arguments is this: If I WIN all 20 of my rounds and my opponent either doesn't understand or wants to mess with the doubling cube, then at most I can get 2 points per round, or perhaps 4 or 6 if I can Gammon or Backgammon my opponent. Lets say I do and I end up with 60 or 80 points in my INCREDIBLE no loss, 20 streak run.
Someone else, who either for FUN, or laughs, or sheer ignorance, or perhaps, not knowing much about Backgammon decides to go "all in" and either win or loose 64 points in ONE round, and BOOOOOM, someone does get that 64 points in ONE round, LOL, so funny, GG, hahaha...
And then that person proceeds to LOSE almost every following game, ignoring the doubling cube for the most part, maybe winning 40 points, and losing 40 points.
And they end up with a pretty respectable score, thanks to that "one shot" super cube round.
What I'm trying to say is, that no MATTER HOW GOOD YOU ARE at Backgammon, it's posible that due to the scoring system, a person can IN ONE MATCH get more points than you can in the ENTIRE ROUND 2, through no fault or lack of skill on your part.
So again, with all due respect, I say that you must use your own, self invented, agreed upon scoring system that clearly recognizes a 18-2 player is better than a 12-8 player, a 15-5 player or a 17-3 and has "won" the top spot for that round.
Otherwise, prepare to see a 3-17 player or a 4-16 player DECIMATE the field with a misplayed/accidental/intentional or even just a FUCK YEAH, COME AT ME BRO, ONE SHOT AT VICTORY, ALL IN BITCHES! CUBE round.
I not only predict this wil happen, i GUARANTEE IT. Why? Because I will do it myself.
I will immediately offer my first round opponent ALL of my points in the very first game, and vice versa. Why? Because unless you GO BIG, you might as well GO HOME.
It's not about how well you play gammon, it about GETTING THOSE POINTS, so crank the dial way the fuck up ladies and gentleman, because you don't turn up to a knife fight when there is a nuke sitting on the sidelines.
The doubling cube is a means to the stars. Use it, or your 20-0 streak that you are so proud of may have been decimated round 1, of the first match, and you won't have ANY idea what the fuck happend to you, magical rape. BOOM, you never knew what hit you.
Dude, FFS, assign your OWN points to a win and a loss. 20-0 takes this round, 19-1 and 18-2 probably take 2nd and 3rd and the rest fight out for the lower positions.
Thats all, and If i have misinterpreted a rule then I guess all the above is moot. Tell me it is so, please...
Perhaps we should just do a double-elimination tournament instead?
Standard swiss pairings and scoring is the only objecitvely fair system.
On the other hand, any unfair system can just be said to test other aspects of gaming especially politics and metagaming.
Complaining about getting "no doubling" opponents and someone getting "all in 4 teh lulz" opponents is like complaining about getting bad window placements in Canabalt. For all we know Dromaro and lackofcheese just got incredibly lucky (in fact the gap to third place makes is more probable). The fact that there is a human element to the randomness of your "oppsition" just makes it more easy to place blame :-).
It's still a swiss tournament. You get X points per opponent. You play an undetermined number of games with each opponent. It could be one game, it could be many games. You play until either one player gives up, or is eliminated because they lost all of their points. When you eliminate the opponent, that counts as a win. The points do not carry over.
The only problem here, that I wanted to avoid, was back and forth 1 point games forever. Nobody has time for that.
After playing my first few games on FIBS, it seems to me that playing matches the way they are set up there is pretty reasonable. I think that's basically what Scott is suggesting, but I'm not quite clear yet.
A standard backgammon match is an indeterminate number of games where the first person to reach X points is the winner. An additional rule is typically used, wherein the doubling cube is disallowed for the first game where someone is within one point of winning (in this situation the other player would always double since they have nothing to lose from it).
The other problem I have with the tournament format as stated is that 4 rounds is somewhat inadequate for the number of players we have. If we want to ensure that there is an unequivocal winner, and relatively good resolution elsewhere in the scale, we should have 6 or 7 rounds:
I also think there should maybe be a penalty for declining to play someone unless it can be shown that a match would never be able to be set up with that person... It wouldn't have to be a large amount of points, maybe 5 or 10.
Round one, match 1: Rym vs Luke:
Knowing what is "going on" they both agree to double up first round to their maximum of 100 points. Luke defeats Rym in glorious combat, scores a Backgammon (3X!) and walks away with with FOUR HUNDRED POINTS.
Round 1, match 1, Rene vs random:
Rene begs opponent double up to 100, knowing that otherwise, we are just fighting over the scraps. Opponent wants to "play properly" and will only re-double if they feel like they are winning. Throughout the 5 matches, the cube either stays low or never really gets pushed high by opponent. We either walk away with basically what we started with (assuming a 3-2 or 4-1) or perhaps Rene wins all 5 and walks away with (5 matches were the cube was not returned by my opponent, 2, 4, 6, 2, 4)... 118 POINTS!!!!
lol, Luke looks down from space, and laughs at the ants, playing out there game.
The entire round 2 is pretty much already decided. Game 1, Match 1.
Luke gambled, and became god. Rym laughs, cos he thinks it's funny and had a 50/50 chance of being god as well, totally worth a shot, lulz, GG Luke, see you in Spaaacceeee.
That said, I don't approve of the tournament structure we're discussing because the outcome is too strongly dominated by luck. A standard match type of "first to X points" makes more sense. Luke would never do that; he spells "their" correctly.
Their :P
Who else will try to shoot the moon? Only people who are aware of what's going on. Anyone who reads this thread I guess.
Cheese, in a 20 round tournament, you think most people expect to go "all in" Game 1, match 1? It's seems crazy. But it's what you need to do to win, I think.
Round - distinct game played during the grand prix; this is Round 2
Match - a series of Backgammon games played against a single opponent
Game - a single game of Backgammon.
Also, perhaps the strategy would be more complicated than all in on game 1 match 1, given that you actually have 5 games in which to go all in and there's no need to do it on game 1, since eliminating your opponent would end the match.
Consequently, there might be a little give and take, with players attempting to nudge their odds of doubling up above 50%, but in the end it's in both players' best interests to raise the stakes right up high.
I could be wrong, but.. Unsure on that one.
That said, it seems likely that we're changing up the tournament structure anyway.
Also, I think it's important to note that the flaw we're discussing is not so much a flaw in that tournament structure, but rather that it doesn't work with having a fixed number of matches. A table stakes tournament can work perfectly well (e.g. poker tournaments), but the only way that kind of tournament works is if you play to the last man (or woman) standing. You might be also be able to mitigate it by having play be terminated at random.
Who knew Backgammon would be so problematic.
Edit: I just want to start
Under such a system, if people wish to push up the points "four teh lulz" and they lose, all they have done is handed their opponent a very strong tie breaker. It would still reward trying to win your matches.
You can GO BIG round 1! Take 100, giving you 200 for the next opponent. (or knocking yourself out of the tourney, lol)
Or you can play conservatively games 1-4 and then risk it all last round.
Or, perhaps you will both play conservatively throughout the 5 games and enter round 2 with 100-ish chips in tow.
I'm happy with what seems to be going to happen.
Every player gets 100 points to 'spend' on an opponent per match. They keep playing for 5 rounds, at the end of those rounds, whoever has the most points wins. If one player loses all 100 points before that, they lose immediately.
Any objections?