Tennis
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Blimey, it is already time for strawberries with cream already. How time flies. I hope everyone had a good grass season so far.
HOW TO PLAY:
Rule changes compared to Roland Garros - None (Veterans need not necessarily read the below):
Basic rules:
For each day of play, pick one player that you think will win their match. 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 over the course of the tournament. The picks continue every day until only one person is left, everyone has been eliminated, or the tournament has finished. Each pick has to be submitted before the relevant match starts and once you've submitted the pick, you are stuck with it unless the match did not happen due to a prematch withdrawal. In that case you get to submit a new pick. That's the basic rules already.
Tiebreaker:
If multiple people go out on the same day and no-one remains, these last people to go out submit their best educated judgements regarding the outcome of the final match of the tournament - winner of the final, amount of sets lost by the winner, amount of games lost by the winner, points won 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. If that's also still the same or the same difference to the actual number, then points won. That should hopefully always lead to a conclusion.
To enable that, those tiebreaker judgements will be sent to me per private message (or maybe X 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.
Onto the cases:
Case: A pick I made became invalid because the match didn't happen due to a withdrawal. I have a life and don't sit on the computer all day to monitor such things, so wasn't able to submit a replacement pick. Am I screwed?
Decision: No, there is a backup solution. 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.
Case: There was a retirement. Does the pick still count?
Decision: Yes, picks count the moment 1 ball has been played in the match.
Case: I looked at the wrong schedule and picked a player that doesn't even play. What now?
Decision: Please submit a new pick.
Case: A lot of matches were rescheduled for the next day due to rain. Can I pick from those on the new day?
Decision: No, rescheduled matches are not eligible to be picked from. If this situation arises, I will try to post a list of ineligible matches.
Case: I have the same amount of winning picks as someone else, but I ran out of picks whereas the other person was able to make another pick (which then lost). What happens?
Decision: The other person finishes ahead of you. Think of it this way. The moment you ran out of picks to make, you navigated your bicycle into a big mountain of dung. You are unharmed, but you cannot continue your ride on the bike. The other person only rode their bike into the pile of dung the moment their pick lost, which is a long time after you did it. Therefore the other person made it further and gets to finish ahead of you.
Case: I have a great suggestion for the comp. Am I allowed to tell you and others?
Decision: Sure, suggestions are always welcome!
At the end, glory, lots of forum cred, and an entry into the competition's Hall of Fame awaits the ultimate winner. 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.
HOW TO PLAY:
Rule changes compared to Roland Garros - None (Veterans need not necessarily read the below):
Basic rules:
For each day of play, pick one player that you think will win their match. 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 over the course of the tournament. The picks continue every day until only one person is left, everyone has been eliminated, or the tournament has finished. Each pick has to be submitted before the relevant match starts and once you've submitted the pick, you are stuck with it unless the match did not happen due to a prematch withdrawal. In that case you get to submit a new pick. That's the basic rules already.
Tiebreaker:
If multiple people go out on the same day and no-one remains, these last people to go out submit their best educated judgements regarding the outcome of the final match of the tournament - winner of the final, amount of sets lost by the winner, amount of games lost by the winner, points won 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. If that's also still the same or the same difference to the actual number, then points won. That should hopefully always lead to a conclusion.
To enable that, those tiebreaker judgements will be sent to me per private message (or maybe X 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.
Onto the cases:
Case: A pick I made became invalid because the match didn't happen due to a withdrawal. I have a life and don't sit on the computer all day to monitor such things, so wasn't able to submit a replacement pick. Am I screwed?
Decision: No, there is a backup solution. 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.
Case: There was a retirement. Does the pick still count?
Decision: Yes, picks count the moment 1 ball has been played in the match.
Case: I looked at the wrong schedule and picked a player that doesn't even play. What now?
Decision: Please submit a new pick.
Case: A lot of matches were rescheduled for the next day due to rain. Can I pick from those on the new day?
Decision: No, rescheduled matches are not eligible to be picked from. If this situation arises, I will try to post a list of ineligible matches.
Case: I have the same amount of winning picks as someone else, but I ran out of picks whereas the other person was able to make another pick (which then lost). What happens?
Decision: The other person finishes ahead of you. Think of it this way. The moment you ran out of picks to make, you navigated your bicycle into a big mountain of dung. You are unharmed, but you cannot continue your ride on the bike. The other person only rode their bike into the pile of dung the moment their pick lost, which is a long time after you did it. Therefore the other person made it further and gets to finish ahead of you.
Case: I have a great suggestion for the comp. Am I allowed to tell you and others?
Decision: Sure, suggestions are always welcome!
At the end, glory, lots of forum cred, and an entry into the competition's Hall of Fame awaits the ultimate winner. 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.
Show More
A number of matches that were originally scheduled for day 2 had to be cancelled due to the rain delaying their start. Those are not eligible to be picked from day 3. The relevant matches are:
Linette - Svitolina
Golubic - Niemeier
Carle - Volynets
Krejcikova - V. Kudermetova
Frech - Haddad Maia
Osorio - Davis
Please do not pick any of these names for day 3. All other matches on the order of play for wednesday are eligible to be picked from. Thank you!
Linette - Svitolina
Golubic - Niemeier
Carle - Volynets
Krejcikova - V. Kudermetova
Frech - Haddad Maia
Osorio - Davis
Please do not pick any of these names for day 3. All other matches on the order of play for wednesday are eligible to be picked from. Thank you!
Through to day 3:
Anubis8 - Keys, Bouzkova
aaronh - Navarro, Bouzkova
Blencathra - Sakkari, Samsonova
edy - Pavlyuchenkova, Fernandez
GRANTCKING - Navarro, Boulter
n88uk - Noskova, Kalinskaya
SamuelMertensBertens - Raducanu, Bouzkova
stocks - Badosa, Fernandez
To Be Decided:
mesmerised - Kasatkina, Volynets (postponed to day 3)
Freshly Out:
-
Anubis8 - Keys, Bouzkova
aaronh - Navarro, Bouzkova
Blencathra - Sakkari, Samsonova
edy - Pavlyuchenkova, Fernandez
GRANTCKING - Navarro, Boulter
n88uk - Noskova, Kalinskaya
SamuelMertensBertens - Raducanu, Bouzkova
stocks - Badosa, Fernandez
To Be Decided:
mesmerised - Kasatkina, Volynets (postponed to day 3)
Freshly Out:
-
I'm sure Badosa was supposed to be today ?
Oh well good luck peeps
Oh well good luck peeps
Blencathra • July 3, 2024 10:01 PM BST
I'm sure Badosa was supposed to be today ?
Oh well good luck peeps
She was and you are still in. Her match was postponed from today to tomorrow.
I'm sure Badosa was supposed to be today ?
Oh well good luck peeps
She was and you are still in. Her match was postponed from today to tomorrow.
Through to day 4:
Anubis8 - Keys, Bouzkova, Vekic
aaronh - Navarro, Bouzkova, Vekic
mesmerised - Kasatkina, Volynets, Vekic
n88uk - Noskova, Kalinskaya, Vekic
To Be Decided - Please still make a pick for day 4 if you wish to continue
Blencathra - Sakkari, Samsonova, (Badosa delayed to day 4)
edy - Pavlyuchenkova, Fernandez, (Badosa delayed to day 4)
GRANTCKING - Navarro, Boulter, (Kasatkina delayed to day 4)
SamuelMertensBertens - Raducanu, Bouzkova, (Kostyuk delayed to day 4)
Freshly Out:
stocks - Kartal def. Burel
Sorry to see you go out, stocks. As SamuelMertensBertens said it's always nice to see new participants. I hope you will choose to play again here and then. We try to hold this at all four grand slam tournaments.
Anubis8 - Keys, Bouzkova, Vekic
aaronh - Navarro, Bouzkova, Vekic
mesmerised - Kasatkina, Volynets, Vekic
n88uk - Noskova, Kalinskaya, Vekic
To Be Decided - Please still make a pick for day 4 if you wish to continue
Blencathra - Sakkari, Samsonova, (Badosa delayed to day 4)
edy - Pavlyuchenkova, Fernandez, (Badosa delayed to day 4)
GRANTCKING - Navarro, Boulter, (Kasatkina delayed to day 4)
SamuelMertensBertens - Raducanu, Bouzkova, (Kostyuk delayed to day 4)
Freshly Out:
stocks - Kartal def. Burel
Sorry to see you go out, stocks. As SamuelMertensBertens said it's always nice to see new participants. I hope you will choose to play again here and then. We try to hold this at all four grand slam tournaments.
The following matches were postponed from day 3 to day 4 and are not eligible to be picked from on day 4:
Kasatkina - Miyazaki
Badosa - Fruhvirtova
Kostyuk - Saville
Yafan Wang - Keys
Kasatkina - Miyazaki
Badosa - Fruhvirtova
Kostyuk - Saville
Yafan Wang - Keys
Through to day 5:
aaronh - Navarro, Bouzkova, Vekic, Jabeur
GRANTCKING - Navarro, Boulter, Kasatkina, Jabeur
mesmerised - Kasatkina, Volynets, Vekic, Svitolina
SamuelMertensBertens - Raducanu, Bouzkova, Kostyuk, Swiatek
Freshly Out:
Anubis8, n88uk, Blencathra, edy - Dart def. Boulter
aaronh - Navarro, Bouzkova, Vekic, Jabeur
GRANTCKING - Navarro, Boulter, Kasatkina, Jabeur
mesmerised - Kasatkina, Volynets, Vekic, Svitolina
SamuelMertensBertens - Raducanu, Bouzkova, Kostyuk, Swiatek
Freshly Out:
Anubis8, n88uk, Blencathra, edy - Dart def. Boulter
Through to day 6:
GRANTCKING - Navarro, Boulter, Kasatkina, Jabeur, Gauff
mesmerised - Kasatkina, Volynets, Vekic, Svitolina, Sun
SamuelMertensBertens - Raducanu, Bouzkova, Kostyuk, Swiatek, Keys
Freshly Out:
aaronh - Sun def. Zhu
GRANTCKING - Navarro, Boulter, Kasatkina, Jabeur, Gauff
mesmerised - Kasatkina, Volynets, Vekic, Svitolina, Sun
SamuelMertensBertens - Raducanu, Bouzkova, Kostyuk, Swiatek, Keys
Freshly Out:
aaronh - Sun def. Zhu
Through to day 7:
GRANTCKING - Navarro, Boulter, Kasatkina, Jabeur, Gauff, Xinyu Wang
mesmerised - Kasatkina, Volynets, Vekic, Svitolina, Sun, Xinyu Wang
SamuelMertensBertens - Raducanu, Bouzkova, Kostyuk, Swiatek, Keys, Ostapenko
GRANTCKING - Navarro, Boulter, Kasatkina, Jabeur, Gauff, Xinyu Wang
mesmerised - Kasatkina, Volynets, Vekic, Svitolina, Sun, Xinyu Wang
SamuelMertensBertens - Raducanu, Bouzkova, Kostyuk, Swiatek, Keys, Ostapenko
Everybody lost today. See you for the final to decide the comp in a tiebreaker.
Grant has tasked me with asking if you two would also prefer me picking another match for the tiebreaker, preferrably one from tomorrow. He is not keen on waiting all the way to the final.
I can't believe you're attempting to circumvent the official rules stated at the top of this page. how preposterous!
I am not trying to circumvent the official rules. I am merely relaying a request by one of the players.
Stewards enquiry at a tennis comp now I've heard it all Shall we dope test all contestants?
I'll wait until the final please. By the sound of things one of our contestant is a bit nervous already, he will be a bundle of nerves come Saturday and in no condition to make a high quality prediction.
Jul 7, 2024 -- 10:30PM, wisewords wrote:
I can't believe you're attempting to circumvent the official rules stated at the top of this page. how preposterous!
agreed
Jul 7, 2024 -- 11:17PM, SamuelMertensBertens wrote:
I'll wait until the final please. By the sound of things one of our contestant is a bit nervous already, he will be a bundle of nerves come Saturday and in no condition to make a high quality prediction.
Very good. Until the final then!
I would have felt a bit uneasy in determining which match to predict for you. It would have ended with complains about me having had chosen the wrong one.
I don't like the tie break rule, it's lame, it should have be done on countback, going back through the picks you've made and whoever's picks had lost the fewest games in total, won, waiting til the final for another set of predictions for one match is daft, would have been better just picking one random match today and doing the same thing rather than waiting a whole week.
But can't change it now.
But can't change it now.
We had a thread where I invited others to make suggestions, voice opinions and ultimately sanction the rule. This tiebreaker rule is what came out of it.
One particular point of emphasis was that the tiebreaker rule should not promote an all too different approach to making your picks, which is why a previous tiebreaker rule (average odds of your picks) was rejected. If people know that the amount of games might count later, it could also alter the approach. The final was chosen because ...well...it is the big finale of the tournament. When approached by Grant another problem with picking another match also came to mind: If I pick an earlier match, how do I guard myself against calls that I picked a lame one that maybe advantages someone because they are a particularly huge fan of the involved players and know them in and out?
If I did the sums correctly on the quick, this is the sum of lost games btw.
Grant: 2 + 11 + 0 + 6 + 4 + 14 = 37
mes: 3 + 12 + 5 + 7 + 12 + 14 = 53
Sam: 9 + 3 + 16 + 7 + 7 + 4 = 46
One particular point of emphasis was that the tiebreaker rule should not promote an all too different approach to making your picks, which is why a previous tiebreaker rule (average odds of your picks) was rejected. If people know that the amount of games might count later, it could also alter the approach. The final was chosen because ...well...it is the big finale of the tournament. When approached by Grant another problem with picking another match also came to mind: If I pick an earlier match, how do I guard myself against calls that I picked a lame one that maybe advantages someone because they are a particularly huge fan of the involved players and know them in and out?
If I did the sums correctly on the quick, this is the sum of lost games btw.
Grant: 2 + 11 + 0 + 6 + 4 + 14 = 37
mes: 3 + 12 + 5 + 7 + 12 + 14 = 53
Sam: 9 + 3 + 16 + 7 + 7 + 4 = 46
Another problem with picking a QF match is that the chances of retirements are bigger which causes headaches with rules interpretation whereas for Slam finals retirements are extremely rare.
Jul 8, 2024 -- 11:14AM, SamuelMertensBertens wrote:
Another problem with picking a QF match is that the chances of retirements are bigger which causes headaches with rules interpretation whereas for Slam finals retirements are extremely rare.
.
The final has been set. It will be between Barbora Krejcikova and Jasmine Paolini, who has made her second straight major final. For the purpose of the tiebreaker, please fill out the following form in regards to the outcome of that match and send it to me in private. Do not post it in here.
Winner of final:
Number of sets lost by the winner:
Number of games lost by the winner:
Number of points lost by the winner:
Distance covered by the winner (in ft as given on the scoreboard if you select imperial):
Deadline is Saturday at noon BST. If I'm around, which I should be, I will then try to paste the submissions in here before the match starts, so that people know during the match how they are doing compared to the other participants.
Winner of final:
Number of sets lost by the winner:
Number of games lost by the winner:
Number of points lost by the winner:
Distance covered by the winner (in ft as given on the scoreboard if you select imperial):
Deadline is Saturday at noon BST. If I'm around, which I should be, I will then try to paste the submissions in here before the match starts, so that people know during the match how they are doing compared to the other participants.
Babushka Barbora will win 2-0 losing 8 games and 58 points running 1 billion nautical miles.
Everybody has submitted and the deadline has passed. Here they are
GRANTCKING
Winner of final: Krejcikova
Number of sets lost by the winner: 0
Number of games lost by the winner: 9
Number of points lost by the winner: 61
Distance covered by the winner (in ft): 5000
mesmerised:
Winner of final: Krejcikova
Number of sets lost by the winner: 0
Number of games lost by the winner: 8
Number of points lost by the winner: 58
Distance covered by the winner (in ft): 6076115485600
SamuelMertensBertens:
Winner of final: Krejcikova
Number of sets lost by the winner: 1
Number of games lost by the winner: 12
Number of points lost by the winner: 90
Distance covered by the winner (in ft): pass
GRANTCKING
Winner of final: Krejcikova
Number of sets lost by the winner: 0
Number of games lost by the winner: 9
Number of points lost by the winner: 61
Distance covered by the winner (in ft): 5000
mesmerised:
Winner of final: Krejcikova
Number of sets lost by the winner: 0
Number of games lost by the winner: 8
Number of points lost by the winner: 58
Distance covered by the winner (in ft): 6076115485600
SamuelMertensBertens:
Winner of final: Krejcikova
Number of sets lost by the winner: 1
Number of games lost by the winner: 12
Number of points lost by the winner: 90
Distance covered by the winner (in ft): pass
So:
BK 2-0, it will come down to games lost, 8 or less mes wins, 9 or more Grant wins
BK 2-1 SamuelMertensBertens wins
JP 2-0 it will come down to games lost, 8 or less mes wins, 9 or more Grant wins
JP 2-1 SamuelMertensBertens wins
BK 2-0, it will come down to games lost, 8 or less mes wins, 9 or more Grant wins
BK 2-1 SamuelMertensBertens wins
JP 2-0 it will come down to games lost, 8 or less mes wins, 9 or more Grant wins
JP 2-1 SamuelMertensBertens wins
Grant is going to be out if BK wins this set 6-1 or 6-2
With the two players splitting the first two sets, the competition has been decided in favour of SamuelMertensBertens. Congratulations on winning the first tiebreaker since its revival!
damn, was hoping it'd come down to the 1 billion nautical miles tie breaker, well done
Jul 13, 2024 -- 3:27PM, Journeyman wrote:
Wd caramba. Suddenly posting wins all over the place.
Out of last year's winners (you * 3, Grant * 2, Anubis8 * 2, Blencathra *1), only the latter has been able to win a title in the first three majors of this year.
Well done SMB May I suggest a change to tiebreaker instead of distance covered change to time of match
tie break all round is crap, need to go back to the drawing board
you'd be better off with a 'how many aces' will the winner hit instead if you had to keep it.
It didn't come down to this because Krejcikova ended up winning 2:1, but I'm probably going to slightly amend the tiebreaker for next time. Reason is the following: As pointed out by SaMeBe's scenarios at 12:12, mesmerised would have won the tiebreaker with a 6:0,6:0 Paolini win even though SamuelMertensBertens's tip of a 2:1 victory for Krejcikova would have been closer to the hypothetical 0 and 0 victory for Paolini than mes' 6-4,6-4 (or so) for Krejcikova.
So next time I will probably ask for a result prediction (i.e. 6-4,6-2 for...) and whoever is closest wins the tiebreaker. With a 6-4,4-6,6-4 Krejcikova prediction being closer to a 6-0,6-0 for Paolini than a 6-4,6-4 Krejcikova victory.
Thoughts?
stocks • July 13, 2024 4:46 PM BST
Well done SMB May I suggest a change to tiebreaker instead of distance covered change to time of match
Yeah....I noticed that people didn't really enjoy this. I just got scored of two people e.g doing
Winner of final: Krejcikova
Number of sets lost by the winner: 0
Number of games lost by the winner: 8
Number of points lost by the winner: 60
Winner of final: Krejcikova
Number of sets lost by the winner: 0
Number of games lost by the winner: 8
Number of points lost by the winner: 58
....and it ending with 59 won points and wanted something where it should be near impossible to be tied again. Time should also be in that category. I'll see.
So next time I will probably ask for a result prediction (i.e. 6-4,6-2 for...) and whoever is closest wins the tiebreaker. With a 6-4,4-6,6-4 Krejcikova prediction being closer to a 6-0,6-0 for Paolini than a 6-4,6-4 Krejcikova victory.
Thoughts?
stocks • July 13, 2024 4:46 PM BST
Well done SMB May I suggest a change to tiebreaker instead of distance covered change to time of match
Yeah....I noticed that people didn't really enjoy this. I just got scored of two people e.g doing
Winner of final: Krejcikova
Number of sets lost by the winner: 0
Number of games lost by the winner: 8
Number of points lost by the winner: 60
Winner of final: Krejcikova
Number of sets lost by the winner: 0
Number of games lost by the winner: 8
Number of points lost by the winner: 58
....and it ending with 59 won points and wanted something where it should be near impossible to be tied again. Time should also be in that category. I'll see.
Jul 13, 2024 -- 4:46PM, stocks wrote:
Well done SMB May I suggest a change to
Jul 13, 2024 -- 4:49PM, edy wrote:
It didn't come down to this because Krejcikova ended up winning 2:1, but I'm probably going to slightly amend the tiebreaker for next time. Reason is the following: As pointed out by SaMeBe's scenarios at 12:12, mesmerised would have won the tiebreaker with a 6:0,6:0 Paolini win even though SamuelMertensBertens's tip of a 2:1 victory for Krejcikova would have been closer to the hypothetical 0 and 0 victory for Paolini than mes' 6-4,6-4 (or so) for Krejcikova.So next time I will probably ask for a result prediction (i.e. 6-4,6-2 for...) and whoever is closest wins the tiebreaker. With a 6-4,4-6,6-4 Krejcikova prediction being closer to a 6-0,6-0 for Paolini than a 6-4,6-4 Krejcikova victory.Thoughts?stocks • July 13, 2024 4:46 PM BSTWell done SMB May I suggest a change to
I copied&pasted stocks' post without removing the double space.
well I was just going to say that the tiebreakers were great and if you were to put time as one, there would be a potential issue with different places showing different times, I think because some don't count time for bathroom breaks etc.
That would not be a problem because the official scoreboard would be used for that.
It didn't come down to this because Krejcikova ended up winning 2:1, but I'm probably going to slightly amend the tiebreaker for next time. Reason is the following: As pointed out by SaMeBe's scenarios at 12:12, mesmerised would have won the tiebreaker with a 6:0,6:0 Paolini win even though SamuelMertensBertens's tip of a 2:1 victory for Krejcikova would have been closer to the hypothetical 0 and 0 victory for Paolini than mes' 6-4,6-4 (or so) for Krejcikova.
an easy solution would be to have set score as 2nd tiebreaker, but it wouldn't be as much fun :)
an easy solution would be to have set score as 2nd tiebreaker, but it wouldn't be as much fun :)
Jul 13, 2024 -- 4:58PM, edy wrote:
That would not be a problem because the official scoreboard would be used for that.
fair enough, as long as it's clarified so you on't have some Karen like me go "Oh, but look at Flashscore!!"
and then "Games lost by Barbora Krejcikova" as 3rd tiebreaker.
I think the best tie breaker is to go back on the previous picks and add up the odds of each winner, whoever had the highest odds and theoretically, the lowest chance of making it that far, should be declared the winner, with an agreed reference point for the odds, can't be doing with all these lame tie breakers. It will make people think more about their initial pick as well and be less a safe.
What you describe was exactly the tiebreaker I installed the first time around a few years ago on a trial basis for (at least) Roland Garros and Wimbledon 2021
Final ranking is determined by day reached (1st, most important criteria) and then average odds of winnings picks (odds taken from tennisexplorer.com) to break any eventual ties if multiple people reached the same day.
This was rejected in the public commission I held last year to shape the rules
https://community.betfair.com/tennis/go/thread/view/94186/31805061/mouse-trap-trophy-rule-questionnaire
The will of the people was to not have a tiebreaker that influences the way you make your daily picks. So that's a no-go.
Final ranking is determined by day reached (1st, most important criteria) and then average odds of winnings picks (odds taken from tennisexplorer.com) to break any eventual ties if multiple people reached the same day.
This was rejected in the public commission I held last year to shape the rules
https://community.betfair.com/tennis/go/thread/view/94186/31805061/mouse-trap-trophy-rule-questionnaire
The will of the people was to not have a tiebreaker that influences the way you make your daily picks. So that's a no-go.
that's nonsense, it's quick and easy and the fairest way to, you SHOULD be encourage to stopped picking sure things sub 1.2, you should over rule them and be a dictator, it's for the good of people. Kind Regards.
GRANTCKING - Navarro (1.05), Boulter (1.21), Kasatkina (1.06), Jabeur (1.2), Gauff (1.07), Xinyu Wang (1.43), Raducanu (1.18)
mesmerised - Kasatkina (1.03), Volynets (1.31), Vekic (1.21), Svitolina (1.59), Sun (1.94), Xinyu Wang (1.43), Raducanu (1.18)
SamuelMertensBertens - Raducanu (1.09), Bouzkova (1.16), Kostyuk (1.32), Swiatek (1.06), Keys (1.26), Ostapenko (1.2), Gauff (1.28)
looking at the odds above, I made the less safe picks when you add it up and by some distance, Caramba 2nd, Grant Mitchell 3rd.
It makes it more interesting when people are maybe forced not to go for sure things, nobody backed anything abouve 1.5 apart from me.
mesmerised - Kasatkina (1.03), Volynets (1.31), Vekic (1.21), Svitolina (1.59), Sun (1.94), Xinyu Wang (1.43), Raducanu (1.18)
SamuelMertensBertens - Raducanu (1.09), Bouzkova (1.16), Kostyuk (1.32), Swiatek (1.06), Keys (1.26), Ostapenko (1.2), Gauff (1.28)
looking at the odds above, I made the less safe picks when you add it up and by some distance, Caramba 2nd, Grant Mitchell 3rd.
It makes it more interesting when people are maybe forced not to go for sure things, nobody backed anything abouve 1.5 apart from me.
I was a dictator when I unilaterally changed the name of the competition and dedicated it to, in my opinion, the first legend of the competition in light of all those Australian tennis players reporting how depressed and suicidal they were.
I have also unilaterally done some rule tweaks and changes, but ultimately I like to think of it as a community project and competition where the community ultimately shapes the way it is played rather than whoever happens to host it the majority of time. I wasn't the first host here either,
I have also unilaterally done some rule tweaks and changes, but ultimately I like to think of it as a community project and competition where the community ultimately shapes the way it is played rather than whoever happens to host it the majority of time. I wasn't the first host here either,
Well nobody's happy with the current tie breaker, maybe puts the odds things back to them, looks the fairest thing for me and makes it more dynamic - it may also stop a stream of people making the exact same picks in the same round, which is also boring.
Wouldn't say nobody is happy with it
SamuelMertensBertens • July 13, 2024 4:55 PM BST
well I was just going to say that the tiebreakers were great
I'm overall happy with it as well, but saw potential for evolution (not revolution) and tweaking after this first time of it being used.
SamuelMertensBertens • July 13, 2024 4:55 PM BST
well I was just going to say that the tiebreakers were great
I'm overall happy with it as well, but saw potential for evolution (not revolution) and tweaking after this first time of it being used.
As I said, it was my personal first choice when I introduced a tiebreaker on a trial basis back in 2021, but the players who voiced their opinion decided against it and I am also happy with the consensus solution we came up with together (with the voiced potential for tweaks now that some practical issues came up). We continentals grow up thinking in consensus patterns much more than you first past the posters and for me it was already a big victory to have any tiebreakers at all as I had long thought that having multiple winners was rubbish.
To not have it exactly my absolutely preferred way is part of the consensus just like others are able to accept the consensus even though their absolute preference might have been to not have a tiebreaker at all.
Unless you organise a convincing majority that wants to overthrow it, the basis of that consensus is here to stay.
To not have it exactly my absolutely preferred way is part of the consensus just like others are able to accept the consensus even though their absolute preference might have been to not have a tiebreaker at all.
Unless you organise a convincing majority that wants to overthrow it, the basis of that consensus is here to stay.
The consensus being that, if there is to be a tiebreaker mechanism, it is something that is independent from the rest of the competition. Something that does not alter the way you make your daily picks.
Jul 13, 2024 -- 7:33PM, mesmerised wrote:
consensus was years ago, move with the times people.
...Was last year...
Take no notice of us Edy we are only winging because we lost Great job buddy see you USA
Jul 13, 2024 -- 5:11PM, mesmerised wrote:
I think the best tie breaker is to go back on the previous picks and add up the odds of each winner, whoever had the highest odds and theoretically, the lowest chance of making it that far, should be declared the winner, with an agreed reference point for the odds, can't be doing with all these lame tie breakers. It will make people think more about their initial pick as well and be less a safe.
https://media1.tenor.com/m/5p5-2A3RFW4AAAAd/djokovic-nole.gif
Jul 13, 2024 -- 7:39PM, stocks wrote:
Take no notice of us Edy we are only winging because we lost Great job buddy see you USA
Yeah, edy does a great job hosting these comps and also listening to the people. I didn't even want tiebreakers as I believe "shared joy is double joy", but the people wanted a tiebreaker so then we adapt to the rules that are in effect.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539