Discussion and announcements relating to unofficial Countdown competitions, held online or in real life. Observation, discussion, reflection, and other stuff ending in -ion.
Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 12:00 pm
[*] [Not my words, but someone else's, who can identify themselves if they want] In a divisioned event, if a top player gets a tough draw early on and ends up in a lower division, it not only sucks for them but also every other player in that division, who now will have no chance of winning their division.
*waves* hi this was me
I would not have admitted to that myself.
This dumb argument could also be used as a good reason to not bother attending any co-event that e.g. Jack Worsley signs up for, coz by the same logic you have no chance of winning that one either...
I will say that I think there is some sense of occasion though - I still have my third place group B trophy from Leamington 2013 (before I 'got good') with all my winner,
RU etc trophies, which I remember being excited to win (despite a SF loss to Tom Cappleman, who I assume was among the best 8 players on the day). Bristol 2016, I lost on a crucial to Zarte in game 1 and won everything else to make me the group B champion which did feel good on the day, but I subsequently realised that if I'd done that at an event without the divisional scoring I would have finished higher than 9th.
Swiss pairs at mk always felt alright - seeded groups of of 3 before going Swiss maybe wasn't great for players at the top or bottom. At the recent co:ne we had five Swiss games and then divisions of 8 - I had a nightmare start with two losses on crucials, but then won my next three with reasonably high scores to end up 7th on wins points of 36 players, being the highest scoring of the 12 three game winners who spanned three divisions, so I still ended up playing Conor and Callum in the top group. It was nice to make the cut when I didn't think I would, but was it the fairest way? Answers on a postcard
Tldr I think the divisions can feel good, but there's too many issues in the current format, which might just be because you can't have too many games before them (I'm sure it'd be fine if everyone played ten games, but the day isn't long enough).
Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 12:00 pm
[*] [Not my words, but someone else's, who can identify themselves if they want] In a divisioned event, if a top player gets a tough draw early on and ends up in a lower division, it not only sucks for them but also every other player in that division, who now will have no chance of winning their division.
*waves* hi this was me
I would not have admitted to that myself.
This dumb argument could also be used as a good reason to not bother attending any co-event that e.g. Jack Worsley signs up for, coz by the same logic you have no chance of winning that one either...
My point is more that let's say I'm a player who's OK but not that great. If I play my three random games and get one win, which is about what I was expecting, and get put in division C. The point of the divisions is then that if I play reasonably well I stand a chance of winning this division. But then my next game is against a series a champion, who is also on one win out of three after a bastard of a draw, and suddenly I can't make the podium in my own division. I wasn't expecting to beat someone like Worsley (maybe he hammered me early on), but to not end up playing someone I have a chance of beating in my division when I've played to the level of most people in it is a bit crap. This often happens (although it's less of an issue with more games - you do 5 random games at your events, which makes this situation much less likely, and that's good)
Just to throw in my 2p worth about divisioned events, back when there were official co-event ratings (so, like, 2007-ish) there was talk about making COLIN a divisioned event based on pre-tourney rating. Everyone hated that idea. They did, however, like the overachiever award, the tuff luck award and the tuff draw awards over the years, giving everyone in the field something to play for even if they lost their first few games. To say nothing of the fact that at the last 7 COLIN hangover events, at least 50% of the entire field have gone away with at least one prize.
Divisions are nuts for all the reasons outlined previously.
Classroom style is no fun for me. The main reason I attend co-events is to catch up with people and meet new ones with a background of playing the game. Classroom style kills this. It's so rigid.
To be honest I don't know what other formats there are other than the groups of threes cycling around and Bristol style. I've only been to one and I thoroughly enjoyed the former that it did.
When people criticise this and that, one thing that often seems to escape criticism (except from me) is the Swiss pairs system itself. So I'll summarise:
1. It's intrinsically biased, favouring those who have done poorly so far. This is a mathematical fact.
2. It patronisingly assumes that people only want to play people of a similar level to them and can't possibly play one of the top players unless they are one themselves (except that in events like COLIN the first round is run to different logic, questioning the commitment to that philosophy anyway).
3. It means that weaker players are more likely to have the ignominy of playing Prune. It's annoying having to play Prune even if it's a free win. People don't want to play Prune and it's unfair to just foist it on the players who've done badly (which often ends up being the same people at many events) rather than spread it around.
And from Mark Deeks in this thread:
Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Fri Dec 23, 2016 4:02 pmADDITIONAL - At said Co:Lins, my favourite round is always the first one, where I'll play players I wouldn't normally.
Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 7:25 pm
14 rounders are also a joke format.
I disagree, I think the opposite. They’re ideal for finals. The extra conundrum in the middle makes for an exciting 2-leg game, and the skillsets are more balanced. They make a great final showdown and it’s more fun and interesting to watch.
Agree that all events should be one all-open division, and I think 9 rounders in the heats make it more accessible and more fun, as it means anyone can beat anyone. Think 15-rounders favour the practisers more.
Against ratings as well. Unsuitable for an activity that is meant to be fun.
Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 7:25 pm
14 rounders are also a joke format.
I disagree, I think the opposite. They’re ideal for finals. The extra conundrum in the middle makes for an exciting 2-leg game, and the skillsets are more balanced. They make a great final showdown and it’s more fun and interesting to watch.
They introduce too much randomness. Potentially a 40-point swing on what could just be a buzzer race. That's not balanced.
Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 7:25 pm
14 rounders are also a joke format.
I disagree, I think the opposite. They’re ideal for finals. The extra conundrum in the middle makes for an exciting 2-leg game, and the skillsets are more balanced. They make a great final showdown and it’s more fun and interesting to watch.
They introduce too much randomness. Potentially a 40-point swing on what could just be a buzzer race. That's not balanced.
20-point swing surely? Still in winning margin if all letters and numbers are maxed. And it’s not a buzzer race if the conundrums are chosen carefully and properly, as seen in TV finals and the last Champion of Champions.
They hardly introduce “randomness”, they make it more variable skills-wise. 8 letters and 4 numbers is better than 10 letters and 4 numbers. The 14-round format is the most varied skillset of all the televised formats (apart from the Masters, but 5 conundrums is not a fair balance, really) and doesn’t have a string of 4 letters games at the end which the current 15 rounders has. It’s a more flexible brain exercise.
I disagree, I think the opposite. They’re ideal for finals. The extra conundrum in the middle makes for an exciting 2-leg game, and the skillsets are more balanced. They make a great final showdown and it’s more fun and interesting to watch.
They introduce too much randomness. Potentially a 40-point swing on what could just be a buzzer race. That's not balanced.
20-point swing surely? Still in winning margin if all letters and numbers are maxed. And it’s not a buzzer race if the conundrums are chosen carefully and properly, as seen in TV finals and the last Champion of Champions.
They hardly introduce “randomness”, they make it more variable skills-wise. 8 letters and 4 numbers is better than 10 letters and 4 numbers. The 14-round format is the most varied skillset of all the televised formats (apart from the Masters, but 5 conundrums is not a fair balance, really) and doesn’t have a string of 4 letters games at the end which the current 15 rounders has. It’s a more flexible brain exercise.
It's a 40-point swing between e.g. someone winning by 39 points and losing by 1 point, which can happen due to the two conundrums going either way.
But the point is that the conundrum has a bigger impact than the other rounds. Normally two good players will match each other on most other rounds. Then you have this massive influence of the conundrums. I'd call it more random because it creates larger unpredictabilities.
James Laverty wrote:One thing I would change though from CoHudd this year is the seeding through out, and keep it in a set bracket, instead of the current system where highest seed automatically plays the lowest remaining seed (Eg if 1, 2, 4, 6 were the QF winners, I'd keep it as 1 v 4 and 2 v 6 for the SFs, instead of 1 v 6 and 2 v 4 that happened this year).
I didn't notice that that had happened. I agree with you. I think it's really unfair that the number 8 seed would automatically have to play the highest seed left in the draw. If they defeat number 1, they should take their projected place in the draw.
This happened at an event recently. Everyone was put into groups of 8 after 3 games. I think I was seeded 7 in my group, won the QF but then still had to play the highest remaining seed in the SF (which might have been number 1 seed). This is not the standard method and not how it should be done.
They introduce too much randomness. Potentially a 40-point swing on what could just be a buzzer race. That's not balanced.
20-point swing surely? Still in winning margin if all letters and numbers are maxed. And it’s not a buzzer race if the conundrums are chosen carefully and properly, as seen in TV finals and the last Champion of Champions.
They hardly introduce “randomness”, they make it more variable skills-wise. 8 letters and 4 numbers is better than 10 letters and 4 numbers. The 14-round format is the most varied skillset of all the televised formats (apart from the Masters, but 5 conundrums is not a fair balance, really) and doesn’t have a string of 4 letters games at the end which the current 15 rounders has. It’s a more flexible brain exercise.
It's a 40-point swing between e.g. someone winning by 39 points and losing by 1 point, which can happen due to the two conundrums going either way.
But the point is that the conundrum has a bigger impact than the other rounds. Normally two good players will match each other on most other rounds. Then you have this massive influence of the conundrums. I'd call it more random because it creates larger unpredictabilities.
The 14-round format works better on TV than it does in live play because it was born out of the Calendar Countdown final, which was two legs. If you see it as 2x 9-rounders (with a couple of letters shaved off for timing reasons) it, conceptually, looks much better.
Hence if you want to do a longer final in a live game you would be better off doing either 13 or 17 rounds. (or indeed, 25+ rounds).
