Seeding Question

[Masterfulks]

Ok lets see what you guys think.

I've heard two answers on this.

Assume you have two pools

One has 4 the other has 5.

Lets also assume that someone in both pools win all their bouts.

Does the person in the larger pool automatically get the 1st seed spot, or do you go to indicator?

I've heard yes and no.

[epeemike81]

to determine seeding:

1st: use winning pct. (note that two undefeated people will clearly have the same pct.)
2nd: Indicator (this stat favors the undefeated person in the larger pool, but doesn't necessarily give them the seed)

btw, just out of curiosity, why was there a pool of 4 and a pool of 5??

with that few fencers, you might as well run a pool of nine and let them get more fencing in.

-m

[Masterfulks]

I just used 4 and 5 person pools as an example....

I tested it out on a program called "Point Control", and unless I entered it wrong then it gave the 1st spot to the guy in the larger pool.

The wish the rules went into more detail. The way you stated sounds the fairest way, so that the larger pool fencers dont have an advantage as far as indicator is concerned.

I will have to keep my eye out for this at future tournaments.....

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Masterfulks
I just used 4 and 5 person pools as an example....

I tested it out on a program called "Point Control", and unless I entered it wrong then it gave the 1st spot to the guy in the larger pool.

The wish the rules went into more detail. The way you stated sounds the fairest way, so that the larger pool fencers dont have an advantage as far as indicator is concerned.

I will have to keep my eye out for this at future tournaments.....

I just tried the situation you described using point control. I gave it two pools, one of 4, one of 5, where the undefeated person in the 4 had better indicators than the five. It seeded correctly. are you sure the undefeated person in your pools didn't just happen to have better indicators???

-m

[Gav]

Actually it depends on the situation. It isn't uncommon to find one or more pools in a tournament are either under or over stocked. It's very rare to to get an exact multiple of 4, 5 or 6. In the UK (and the US too I imagine) the the seeding is worked out by victories (expressed as victories/total no. of bouts) then indicators, hits for and finally hits against. In the case of a tie seeding is decided randonmly. If you are in the smaller pool and win 3 out of 4 this gives you 75%. However a fencer in a pool of 5 who loses only one get's rating 80%. Additionally a fencer in a pool of 5 who only wins 3 fight gets an average of 60%. In other words being in the bigger pool is a slight disadvantage (you have to win more fights to get an equivalent %) however you are given a better cushion against losses - providing that you are consistent. Additionally if there are a lot of pools with different amounts of fencers (say 50-50 pools of 4 and 5) it's better to have more than 1 round of pools to give a better average overall.

I hope this makes sense it's 0510 where I am and my maths skills start to atrophy after midnight.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Gav
the the seeding is worked out by victories (expressed as losse/victories)

In my experience, the first seeding level isn't losses/victories, but victories/total bouts. given the examples you gave, I believe this is what you meant, and merely mistyped.

-m

[Gav]

err yes this is what I meant. I see it wasn't what I typed - it's early (or late depending on you point of view) and I need sleep. Ta for the heads up I'll make the appropriate change,

[edew]

Also, if you're tied at touch scored, then go straight to random choice. It's not possible to have the same victories/bout, indicators, touch scored, and different touch received. Indicators = TS - TR, so if Ind and TS are the same for two people, TR must also be the same.

When I do this (as I did over this past weekend), I randomize by giving the higher seed to the first person I see reading down the list. It's pretty random how I receive and write down the V/B-Ind-TS, so that's my randomization.

[oiuyt]

In other words being in the bigger pool is a slight disadvantage (you have to win more fights to get an equivalent %)

I strongly disagree. I'd MUCH prefer the larger pool (and not just because it means more fencing). The difference between that pool of 6 and that pool of 7 is someone in the lowest tier of the seeding snake (ie one of the worst people in the tournament). If adding one of the worst people is going to hurt you it really doesn't matter what your pool size is. Otherwise it's a bout that you're VERY likely to win, helping your percentage (unless you would already be undefeated) and helping your indicator (whether or not you'd be undefeated). Being in the bigger pool is an advantage.

-B :)

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by oiuyt
I strongly disagree. I'd MUCH prefer the larger pool (and not just because it means more fencing). The difference between that pool of 6 and that pool of 7 is someone in the lowest tier of the seeding snake (ie one of the worst people in the tournament). If adding one of the worst people is going to hurt you it really doesn't matter what your pool size is. Otherwise it's a bout that you're VERY likely to win, helping your percentage (unless you would already be undefeated) and helping your indicator (whether or not you'd be undefeated). Being in the bigger pool is an advantage.

-B

Agreed. after all, lets say that me and a friend of mine are both the second best people in our respective pools. All goes as it should, and we each lose one bout. you'll note that if I am in the larger pool, I now have a higher winning pct. than my friend. THAT is why it is an advantage.

-m

[S. Fisher]

I've been in Louisville many times when we had pools very similar to 4 and 5.

Hey Masterfulks, nice to see you over here, I just joined a few days ago. I you don't have a clue who I am, I'm fisher at the Highlander forum.

[Masterfulks]

Hey man!

Looks like its a small web after all

[Gav]

It is I've already met a couple of people who post here. One I knew who was posting, the other I had no idea he was the best friend of a friend till he approached me at a party. I remember thinking "It's a weird wired world!"