Mouse Trap Trophy rule questionnaire

What I forgot to add: Preliminarily planning to run this initial phase through to the first week of Wimbledon, then the second phase from second week of Wimbledon to the weekend before the US Open.

Not bothered either way about a tiebreak rule - no preference.

I think switching should be allowed, but participants should try to avoid doing this too often as it can become time consuming for the organiser, in this case edy. If you really want to, you should still be allowed to swap up until the match first ball of your initial pick, but doing this is a pretty extreme example and would hardly ever happen.

Thanks for running the comps.

1) I am still against tiebreakers. Shared joy is doubled joy and all.
I am specifically against the type of tiebreakers that changes the strategy of the game, such as higher odds being rewarded, fewest games conceded et cetera.
The only type of tiebreaker I would not be as much against is if the tiebreaker is based on future events. So let's say the two final participants get killed on day 6. If those two then went into extra time on day 7 and onwards that I would find acceptable. Whether that's playing on from scratch, pick a number of games for a particular match et cetera.

2) My opinion is it should not be allowed. I like to make my pick and not have to worry for the rest of the day whether I should change it or not.
If you allow them but add some rules, for instance one or more of the following:
* no switching after a certain time from your original pick
* only allow a certain number of switches per tournament
* disallow switches if more than 50% of the picks are on one player
that might also work.

I'm happy just to go with the flow,

It's just bit of fun between everyone

In response to Edy's questionaire I'm posting this on both the relevant threads.

I think switching is nonsense and shouldn't be allowed unless the player withdraws.
However I don't see a difference between different types of strategic play after the first match of the day has started.
To me whether picks are being switched or contestants are waiting to make decisions based on other peoples picks and how results pan out it amounts to the same.
It basically changes the contest from a pure picking contest to a strategic contest.

Now strategy can be fun but it's apples and oranges. It's either a picking contest or a strategy based thing.
To me there are only two ways the contest should be played.
SEMI PURE - Everyone posts their picks before the day's play starts.
FULLY PURE - Everyone submits their picks by DM to the organiser.

I brought this up after the last slam and the response was that it would be too much work for the organiser. Which I understand.
I have been using switching strategically in the mens competition. In fact today I would have switched again to Tsitsipas based on what happened in the Novak match.

I may have got carried away with making a point whereas on reflection I can see it could be upsetting for whoever it was that has questioned it.
So I am happy to pull out of the mens contest on that basis.

I have been careful to make my womens picks all before 10am (mostly the previous nights).
So I'll play on in that contest. Apologies again to anyone that was annoyed.

I agree with Caramba's opinion on tiebreaking btw.

It was brought up to me before any switching had happened, so you weren't the cause of it, Journeyman, don't worry. It was simply an inquiry when they themselves noticed that being in the rules. They weren't aware that previously it had already been allowed (but not used because nobody apart from my non-stragetic mindgame playing self seems to have been aware). Nobody came and complained about you, I can absolutely assure you of that.

However, you mentioned that you were making a point and in the last few days I felt that indeed you were trying to make me understand that switching is BS and I agree to an extend as it looked problematic. That said, I myself did of course switch players when I went from Fritz to Vavassori. As I said in this thread, I think that switching itself should be allowed, but with some restrictions put in place. If someone changes their mind either before play at all has started or within a reasonably short time after their pick, then I don't really see why not. As I said in the opening post, I will go with whatever garners popular support.

Journeyman • June 4, 2023 3:44 PM BST
I agree with Caramba's opinion on tiebreaking btw.

For the sake of clarity: You are voting no tie breaker here or tiebreaker yes, but with something like the previously last standing folk being revived if they all went out on the same day?

Thanks Edy for that clarification (and also thanks to Caramba for his correlating post).
On that basis I will play on, my pick as explained above being Tsitsipas
(At time of posting Musetti is 2 games up on carlos so no benefit to me)

I posted in the main thread.

In addition, as far as picking contest vs strategy based contest goes, I think we've had a good balance and should try to keep it that way.

If you make it too much in one direction by having everyone submit picks either by dm or at the start of they day that will mean too much work for participants and the organizer and it will put people off, they will miss the deadline etc.

If you make it too much of a strategy contest by allowing infinite repicks etc that could also put off contestants as they might feel too much work is required to win if others are becoming too strategic about the whole thing. (I can speak from experience on this because I used to play in fantasy leagues where you picked a team at the start of the season and then you stayed with that team all season. If you had made good choices going into the season you had a good shot. In later seasons they started to allow changes every week. That meant that in order to have to chance to win you pretty much had to make changes every week in order to stay in contention. I just felt that was too much work for me and stopped playing. It became too much work). But again, if you have some restrictions in place for switching this shouldn't be a problem.

Yes regarding the tiebreaker.

Example last night I chose Iga and the other two players chose Ons.
Both won but say both had lost and there was a tiebreaker. The tiebreaker would have to be some kind of level playing field not putting the contestant that had already picked the number 1 seed at a disadvantage.

The only type of tiebreaker I would not be as much against is if the tiebreaker is based on future events. So let's say the two final participants get killed on day 6. If those two then went into extra time on day 7 and onwards that I would find acceptable. Whether that's playing on from scratch, pick a number of games for a particular match et cetera.

A clarification on this. I don't know why I wrote from scratch. If you've picked Djokovic on let's say day 1 you shouldn't get to pick him again during extra time.

(I know we're not voting on that now)

I would like a tie-breaker if the remaining people go out on the same day, maybe based on least sets lost over the tournament.

I don't think people should be allowed to switch players during a day. This would favour those who have access to a computer all day.

I don't mind what you go with, this is just a bit of fun for me and I don't spend much time each day deciding which player to pick.

Thanks, Anubis! All input is really appreciated.

As a first summary (corrections if I got things wrong please):

on tiebreakers:
   - yes -> 3 (Journeyman, Anubis8, I)
   - no -> 1 (SamuelMertensBertens)

on switching (withdrawal switching excluded):
   - yes -> 2 (wisewords, I)
   - no -> 3 (Journeyman, Anubis8, SamuelMertensBertens)

you need to canvas aaron, n88uk and Grant

Jun 4, 2023 -- 8:06AM, edy wrote:

What I forgot to add: Preliminarily planning to run this initial phase through to the first week of Wimbledon, then the second phase from second week of Wimbledon to the weekend before the US Open.

Closing this tomorrow, so if you want to add your vote, this is the last call.

Ok, so.....the results are the same as in the June 5 8:36 post.

Tiebreakers and the prevention of switching (without a withdrawal) won.

My suggestion for the new respective rules would be:

Tiebreakers: In case all remaining participants go out on the same day, those people submit their best educated judgement regarding the outcome of the final match of the tournament - winner, amount of sets lost by the winner, amount of games lost by the winner and....do we need more? Judged also in that order. If both are the same in winner, then we go to sets. If both also had the same number of sets, then we go to games. If games are also the same (or both had the same difference to the actual number of games), we go to.....yet to be determined.

To enable that, those tiebreaker judgements will be sent to me (or the respective host if they keep the rule) per private message or (or maybe twitter in some cases) instead of being publically announced in the thread. If the tiebreaker involves me, we'd have to find someone else who accepts the private messages, but I'm positive that will not be a problem.

If the situation arises that two heroic people make it all the way to the final match of the tournament, something we've never had I think, but you never know, and they can theoretically tie, then those judgements will also be sent to the host.

switching has two (slightly different) suggestions:

- Everybody submits their pick before the day's play starts, no switching
- Everybody submits their pick before the day's play starts, with a certain amount of time during which switching is allowed if play hasn't started by then either. I'd say 5 to 10 minutes after the original pick.

In both cases, the possibility of posting a replacement pick in case of your player or their opponent having withdrawn remains, even if general play for the day will have started by then. The replacement pick will naturally have to be from a match that has not started.

Thought?

*addition to the tiebreaker.

If I am around, I would post the respective best educated judgements shortly after the start of the final.

didn't no for switching win?

you could add points lost so we're covered for those tournaments where Iga double bagels the opponent and all competitors have predicted that score. But in most cases games should do it.

No switching won, yes, but I am fickle and was hoping to get a trojan horse compromise through if I add that choice in addition to the no switching ever.

My 2 cents.

I like that tiebreaker rule. I can't think of a better alternative, it's good.

No posting after play starts. If that's set in stone then it doesn't matter as much about switching really.

Everyone should have the option to post an alternative pick but they shouldn't have to as some players might find that a chore. In these cases the last available favourite substute should apply.

Speaking of which the last available favourite substitute should not apply to late/invalid picks. I realised during the tournament that we were all wrong to be suggesting that and edy's obvious reluctance to go along with it was right all along. That rule if added would open up a myriad of potential abuse and headaches. Late or invalid should just be defaulted if no replacement posted before play starts.

Tiebreak rules are fine.

With switching I think the wishes of the people should be followed.

With the two options presented, I think both would decrease participation. Simply for the reason people will forget to post on time, or it will just not fit their schedule to post before start of play (or 5-10 minutes into the day). I would prefer keeping it as it was (picks allowed until that particular match starts), but just not allow switching unless there's a withdrawal etc.

I agree with caramba above.

This got a bit lost, my bad. With the US Open fast approaching, let's see if we can still get it done in time for the rules to be implemented there.

Firstly, I'm glad the suggested tiebreaker rule is deemed fine. On the deadline to submit picks I personally am a bit torn. I long shared the concerns about participation being reduced, because all these years there have been picks that were submitted after play for the day started. I've most likely done it myself here and there. Life can get in the way of things as you say, SaMeBe. On the other hand, if one feels they will be busy close to the start of play, then there are plenty hours between the releaseof the order of play and the start of play. If there was a deadline in place, I think everybody should find the time to submit it between the evening (local time) and start of play at usually 11 am (local time).

Still, this is meant to just be a bit of fun on the side and it probably shouldn't be overcomplicated and overtly restricted, so I think I lean towards keeping the possibility for people to make picks when they wish as long as their respective match has not started. Also makes the replacement pick situation easier if someone either makes an invalid pick or someone withdraws.

So for the new rules I'd now say:

- no deadline for picks
- no switching unless there is a withdrawal involving the match that a player was picked from
- tiebreaker as outlined last time around

For rules, my draft would be:

HOW TO PLAY:

Rule changes compared to Wimbledon - 2:

1) To determine a single winner at the end of the comp, a tiebreaker is introduced in case all remaining participants go out on the same day. The concerned parties submit their best educated judgement regarding the outcome of the final match of the tournament - winner, amount of sets lost by the winner, amount of games lost by the winner. Judged also in that order. If both are the same in winner, then we go to sets. If both also had the same number of sets, then we go to games.

To enable that, those tiebreaker judgements will be sent to me per private message(or maybe twitter in some cases) instead of being publically announced in the thread. If the tiebreaker involves me, we'd have to find someone else who accepts the private messages, but I'm positive that will not be a problem.

If the situation arises that two heroic people make it all the way to the final match of the tournament, something we've never had I think, but you never know, and they can theoretically tie, then those judgements will also be sent to the host.

2) Previously it was a(n often unstated) rule that switching your pick was possible as long as the match of the new pick had not started. This has been changed. After the pick for the day has been submitted by you, that is your pick.

There are two exceptions:

a) You make an invalid pick (please no abuse)
b) You picked a player whose match doesn't happen because they or their opponent withdrew before the match

Basic rules:

Pick a player each day. If your player wins, you advance to the next day and get to pick again. If your player loses, you are out. Each player can only be chosen once. The picks continue every day until only one person is left, everyone has been eliminated, or the tournament has finished. That's the basic rules already.

Some additional rules:
- picks have to be submitted before the relevant match starts
- in case of a retirement, all picks count as long as 1 ball of the match has been played
- switching is not allowed (see rules changes section)
- if your pick withdraws before the match and you do not submit a new pick for the day yourself, then the last to start eligible favourite (I will use average odds on tennisexplorer.com) of the day is automatically entered for you. Eligible means player that had not been picked yet on a previous day. This is done because it cannot be expected from people to be around all day.
- in case of (long) rain delays and carried over matches, you can not pick from these matches on the next day. I.e. a match is first scheduled on Monday, there is rain and the match never starts on Monday. It is then rescheduled for Tuesday. You are not allowed to pick from that match. If this situation arises, I will try to post the ineligible matches.

At the end, glory, lots of forum cred, and an entry into the competition's Hall of Fame awaits the ultimate winner(s). The Hall of Fame can be found at:

https://community.betfair.com/tennis/go/thread/view/94186/30945693/suicide-pool-winners-throughout-the-years

I hope that covers everything. If there are any additional questions, feel free to ask.

There are two exceptions:
a) You make an invalid pick (please no abuse)


If you are going to allow invalid picks I think there needs to be clarity about what happens if the picker doesn't post a replacement. Are they out or do they get the benefit of last eligible favourite.

eg. I make an invalid pick. My last eligible favourite that day is Noskova playing at 2pm. Noskova turns in a trademark hissy fit shocker and loses. I pop up at 4pm to pick somebody else.

Good point. That is something that should be clarified and had been brought up before. I simply forgot to add it. If you make an invalid pick, it's on you to make the replacement pick yourself.

Don't understand the example though. If Noskova starts at 2pm and she is the final eligible favourite that day, then you should have nobody to pick from the 4pm match unless the 4pm match has odds that are exactly the same for both players.

If Noskova is the final eligible favourite that day then yes that means I must have already picked the 4pm favourite. But if the 4pm favourite is a marginal favourite then the machiavellian JM having made an invalid pick can have a free hit at the Noskova match. If she wins I simply don't post and if the last eligible pick rule applied then I'm through. If she loses I then have a free swing at the 4pm match picking the marginal outsider.

Anyway you have clarified the matter. Thanks.

Oh

That'd not be very nice.

No. It would be outright cheating.