that's correct, dorbel .. it is me and a vast conspiracy of virtually every tournament organizer other than you that suggests when a bracket is seeded by rating the byes go to the top seeds .. give it a rest

dorbel, debating this with you ad nauseum seems pointless .. you have long labelled the Bloody Mary, seeded by rating, as "unfair" .. but you seem to ignore the weekly evidence that top seeds do NOT win Bloody Marys with an unfairly disproportionate frequency despite often receiving a first round bye .. it just doesn't happen with the frequency you apparently imagine .. certainly it happens occasionally, but i have no evidence that suggests it is unfair

more importantly, you also seem to ignore the popularity of the Bloody Mary tourney which speaks for itself ..  if the FIBS community agreed with you, in time it would opt out of registration in the Bloody Mary .. it has not .. if fact, registration has grown steadily .. now, the Bloody Mary consistently has 20-25+ players per week, often the best registration of any weekly tourney

perhaps then, it is no coincidence that i am in favor of a weighting system suggesting wins in tourneys with a higher registration than others are worth more in comparison .. for example, i consider a Bloody Mary win with 27 players equated with a win in a tourney with 7 players as patently "unfair" .. therein is the crux of the issue .. that is the topic i was hoping to see discussed here

i am seriously considering moving these posts to a different thread where they can be appropriately discussed without causing disruption and distraction to the topic at hand, but frankly it is more trouble than it is worth at the moment

Dorbel's  repeated emphatic assertion that top seeded players get byes has piqued my interest. If this is indeed the case, then I would agree its not equitable and my sympathies lie with the underdog weaker player who continually gets the shaft.

Though dorbel hasn't submitted any evidence for this that I can see, I regard his backgammon analytical skills (as evidenced in his daily dorbel blog) to be quite advanced and so would therefore tend to regard his viewpoint and analysis on something of this nature to be credible despite the lack of evidence.

So what is the evidence that the byes are given to top seeded players? Is this easily verifiable or testable?

In response to sixty's rejoinder to dorbel:

dorbel, debating this with you ad nauseum seems pointless .. you have long labelled the Bloody Mary, seeded by rating, as "unfair" .. but you seem to ignore the weekly evidence that top seeds do NOT win Bloody Marys with an unfairly disproportionate frequency despite often receiving a first round bye .. it just doesn't happen with the frequency you apparently imagine .. certainly it happens occasionally, but i have no evidence that suggests it is unfair

The debate can easily be settled by disproving dorbel's claim that top seeders are routinely given first round byes, which sixty has failed to do.

Rather, sixty has unsuccessfully attempted to shift the subject of the debate to the strawman of whether Bloody Mary top seeds win or not and in what proportion, then blow it down by claiming this is evidence that refutes dorbel's claim

more importantly, you also seem to ignore the popularity of the Bloody Mary tourney which speaks for itself ..  if the FIBS community agreed with you, in time it would opt out of registration in the Bloody Mary .. it has not .. if fact, registration has grown steadily .. now, the Bloody Mary consistently has 20-25+ players per week, often the best registration of any weekly tourney

Just because the popularity of the Bloody Mary has reached all time highs does not disprove dorbel's claim that top seeds get byes and the low seeds don't and neither does it mean dorbel is ignoring that fact, as that was not the subject of the debate.

sixty's finally abandons any pretense of logical argumentation altogether by claiming that if the FIBS community agreed with dorbel, they would opt out of Bloody Mary registration.

perhaps then, it is no coincidence that i am in favor of a weighting system suggesting wins in tourneys with a higher registration than others are worth more in comparison .. for example, i consider a Bloody Mary win with 27 players equated with a win in a tourney with 7 players as patently "unfair" .. therein is the crux of the issue .. that is the topic i was hoping to see discussed here

Clearly,  sixty was hoping the discussion would lead in this direction and it seems to me he has put a great deal of thought into making things as equitable as possible, given the inherent inequality and disparity of the the various tourneys.

However, I think dorbel's claim that top seeds get byes deserves some consideration and should not be dismissed out of hand by sleight of hand argumentation,  especially since dorbel has apparently a simple remedy.

However,  as I said earlier, i would like to see a little more 'evidence' from dorbel as to why he claims top seeds get byes.

Convince me.

i am seriously considering moving these posts to a different thread where they can be appropriately discussed without causing disruption and distraction to the topic at hand, but frankly it is more trouble than it is worth at the moment

I think this is relevant, only its not the topic at hand sixty wishes to discuss.

Perhaps if dorbel can provide some better arguments for why top seeds get byes, sixty would be willing to at least consider taking that into consideration.

I would.

This topic should be read in conjunction with..

http://www.fibsboard.com/tourneybot/tournament-seeding-a-good-thing/

I thought I had a strong sense of deja vu...

re topic split..your original post http://www.fibsboard.com/other-tournaments/fibs-tournament-player-rankings/ asked folks what they thought..

there are other considerations such as player ratings and length of tourneys, but we can deal with those later .. for now, a way to settle the debate over the value of a tournament win appears to be doable .. what do you think?

and as Diane has reminded us, there is a poll and further discussion on
http://www.fibsboard.com/tourneybot/tournament-seeding-a-good-thing/

i have just voted, and note that the majority vote so far is in favour of random seeding

a TD is entitled to set whatever parameters they want for their tourney, but Dorbel is correct -- if that seeded tourney is then included, along with other 'random bye' tourneys for assessment of an overall winner, then there certainly remains a discrepancy, and a bias toward the more highly rated player

It should be noted that all live tournaments, as far as I'm aware, are seeded.  Therefore, seeding may be desirable for that reason.   

I, however, shall continue to run my tourneys in the sequential order because I think it's a fairer prospect for the underdogs in the tourney.     Also, I've always been a rebel!   

socksey



"Every man is to be considered in two capacities, the private and public; as designed to pursue his own interest, and likewise to contribute to the good of others." - Joseph Butler

I have been playing backgammon, including numerous live tournaments, for over 20 years. I have never played in a live tournament that has been "seeded", nor have I ever heard of such a thing.
All players should go into the draw with the same chance of getting a bye in the first round. Good players don't need any further advantage from being given a bye. Weaker players don't need any further disadvantage.

Then I apparently have a misunderstood.  Thanks for clearing that up for me and I will continue to run my tournaments unseeded.   

socksey



"And I will show that nothing can happen more beautiful than death." - Walt Whitman

first, thanks for the continuing stream of great responses .. vic, in particular, came right to the point with his quote from $$$ Backgammon Tournament $$$ -- Running a tournament .. however, IMO, vic really nails it when he says quite directly "This is for fun ..."

i think it is also very important to add this is not about right or wrong, this is not even about fair or unfair .. obviously, right or wrong and fair or unfair can be debated ad nauseum, but the answers to those questions are not on point from my perspective as a tournament organizer

today, in an early morning email reply to Tom on Tournament Seeding, i spent some time thinking and sharing my thoughts on this issue .. i realized then and understand even better now that it has never been about fair or unfair, neither has it been about right or wrong .. for me, it has all been about tournament promotion .. here is a little background familiar to some, perhaps interesting for others

i observed when i first began hosting the Bloody Mary that, like most other tourneys, it had no real attraction other than a nice time slot .. people just played because they wanted to play which is fine .. in time there were regular players representing a good cross section of FIBSters .. i really enjoyed and still do enjoy getting to know folks by playing and meeting them in tournaments .. indeed, other than playing BlunderBots it is about all i do at FIBS

however, in those early days of the Bloody Mary, i noticed that top rated players like Zorba, donz, dorbel,  vegas_vic, and others were not playing even when logged in and actively participating in shouts .. in chats with them, i discerned a common issue was that they didn't like entering tournaments only to be paired randomly with a 1400 rated player they didn't know or want to know and promptly lose a match on dice .. another common issue was the problem of setting aside the time, entering and looking forward to a few matches, only to be paired by a random draw with another top seed resulting in one of them being knocked out in an early round
 
hello? anyone notice the common theme there and in the second paragraph of vic's on point quote

So, if fairness is the only consideration, you definitely should not seed anyone.

But it sometimes helps a tournament if it is known that a number of good players are going to play in it. Players enjoy the prospect of playing against a champion. There is always the pleasure of a gloat after a win. In that case, you may have to seed the draw just to get the good players to agree to play. They hate it if they are drawn against each other early on.

fairness never was a consideration of mine .. after repeated unsuccessful attempts to coax highly rated players to play, i began increasing the Exp and Rep limits to levels most thought absurd .. my thinking then was to create a "Special" environment for the Bloody Mary .. those limits have repeatedly proved to be easily attained by most regular players at FIBS .. also, since i have never refused anyone who asks to play, i don't think the limits are interpreted as an indication of exclusivity -- anyone that is other than my pal, dorbel, who seems to enjoy his role as critic as much as i enjoy his feedback

as the Bloody Mary evolved, a change to seeding by rating came next when Tom at my request made seeding by rating work correctly on TourneyBot .. with no additional promotion by me, top players soon started showing up and registering with regularity .. with the singular and very vocal exception of guess who, no one has ever complained about seeding by rating
 
few folks, even other TD's, knew this background or understood my logic for seeding by rating .. now, the Bloody Mary regularly has the highest weekly registration .. excluding outliers, the average continues to increase closing in on 32 .. i began noticing these trends ONLY after the changes described above a few years ago
 
further, when i was away for a year recently, the tourney continued thanks to players demanding it and volunteer TD's who stepped up to run it, but the substitute TD's began dropping those changes .. average registration also began dropping .. when i resumed hosting, i reverted to my original recipe .. with very little active promotion by me, registration began rising steadily once again .. in a few weeks we hit 31 players and have pretty much remained around 25 players ever since .. i don't think it was just because of my good looks .. so, i have been resistant to change for a singular and, IMO, very important reason -- if it ain't broke, don't fix it
 
nevertheless, i am not totally resistant to change .. indeed, as i began pulling back from FIBS related activities recently in anticipation of no longer being around as a weekly TD at the Bloody Mary, i planned to return the seeding to random and drop all limits at the beginning of the new season, our sixth .. (hmm, whatever happened to that plan?) .. now, we are 8 weeks into that new Bloody Mary season and here i am still lurking about finding new ways to involve myself at FIBS 

so, what's a boy to do?

for now, i'll just go with the old hucksters maxim that any publicity is good publicity, even bad publicity

from day one as a tournament organizer here at FIBS, i have attempted to increase participation and improve the promotion and awareness of tournaments .. other than the fun of just doing it, such remains my sole motivation .. on reflection, i am satisfied we continue to move in a positive direction along that path .. if a little unfairness along the way has aided in accomplishing those goals, so be it

It's not a big issue, it doesn't matter much I guess, but I thought it was worth bringing up. I'm done on this subject, with the exception of correcting any further misrepresentations of my views.

Can you correct this misrepresentation?

dorbel shouts: I hear sixty has a new plan to record every match on fibs for a "Fibs Best Player and All-Round Top Human Being" end of season play-off for the top 512 players.

Joke. n. A jest: a witticism: anything said or done to excite a laugh: anything provocative of laughter: an absurdity.
Chambers 20th Century Dictionary.

I haven't the faintest idea what challonge means by traditional. Frankly socksey, I don't think that you do either, but if you do, perhaps you could explain it to me. You could start by telling me how challonge decides who the seeded players are?
I note that LuckyDice runs his tournaments without appearing to use either of these methods, ie, there is no seeding and players are not paired in their order of entry.

Hi folks,

I really didn't want to jump into this discussion about seeding, but this is going to be a proclaim of sixtie to export his ideas into the whole tourney scene on FIBS. He should stay with Bloodys and do it his way and not trying to infect the brilliant job and following ideas of Naavanaxx.

Short and emphatic: I don't like any seeding, except by random....all other is unfair here and not needed.
It doesn't interest me what kind of seeding is used in chess or baseball or..or.. .
We are here on fibs and want to have fun, with equal chances.

I have played a lot of live tourneys, including big ones, in Germany. Each tourney had a random draw.
Even a ranking tourney, played over 12 months and held by a professional td for years, had a random draw.

Answering to dorbel: in challonge is the preset to traditional. You can read the explanation in challonge.
Yes, I don't use either of methods. No, not really...I use traditional, but I overrule it.
Long ago I noticed, before using challonge, that players were trying to calculate their opponent  by the time of registering.
I always shuffled the players listing before drawing the bracket. This is my real random seeding.
So I do in challonge, but many players doesn't realize it and register late.
Some say, I can shuffle till the bracket suits me well. Yes, I could do it....I will rather give up being a td instead of being totally unfair. That's not my style.

So folks, think well about this senseless never ending discussion.
Have fun on FIBS, enjoy the tourneys with equal chances, without seeding other than random.
Make it equal, fair and understandable for everyone.
Naava is on the right track and I support him in his attempts as td and his work all around it.

Player with high rating (which way ever they rached it) can stay out if the are feared to lose points.
They lose points when playing low ranked players, and they know why. ( see the FIBS project )

greetings to all

LuckyDice

the vote is here..... http://www.fibsboard.com/tourneybot/tournament-seeding-a-good-thing/

currently 10 out of 20 in favour of 'random', 4 for seeding by rating,2 seeded by previous wins, 4 by tourney registration  order -- which is quintessentially random

so i make that 14 for random, 6 for seeded........

Yup, fibsters like things to be all the same, and it must be their version of 'the same'.

They struggle deeply with the concept...here is what I am offering..you can buy it or walk on by..