king of the beach tourney format?
Todd Haverkos
Greetings all,
Does anyone have a resource on setting up a KOB tournament? A
bracket, or playing schedule, or what not?
--
Todd Haverkos t...@vbref.org
http://www.vbref.org/
Michael Borga
>bracket, or playing schedule, or what not?
yep, i sure do, ours is proprietary though.
USAV should be happy to help you out. IF not try the AVP
And We'll See You on the Beach,
Michael Borga -- Jersey Shore Volleyball Association (JSVBA)
jsvba.com -- 732-506-9449
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/jsvba">Link to JSVBA Website</A>
Todd Haverkos
> >Does anyone have a resource on setting up a KOB tournament? A
> >bracket, or playing schedule, or what not?
>
> yep, i sure do, ours is proprietary though.
Doh! You and Bill Gates! Separate standards, closed architectures.
:-\
So...are there any "open source" KOB formats out there? GNU KOB
perhaps?
Michael Borga
>
>Doh! You and Bill Gates! Separate standards, closed architectures.
>:-\
>
>So...are there any "open source" KOB formats out there? GNU KOB
>perhaps
like i said USAV should be able to help you out. Are you saying they
can't/won't?
They always seem willing to give their rules away LOL
or try the AVP
Bruce Kvam
in California.
The format would depend on the number of participants, the number of
available courts, the available time, the number of points per game,
the minimum number of games a player is guaranteed to play and the
maximum number of games.
What kind of numbers are you looking at?
Todd Haverkos
>
> The format would depend on the number of participants, the number of
> available courts, the available time, the number of points per game,
> the minimum number of games a player is guaranteed to play and the
> maximum number of games.
>
> What kind of numbers are you looking at?
I'm looking at two courts, and perhaps 20 participants.
Jacob Gillette
mikeyvball
> Greetings all,
>
> Does anyone have a resource on setting up a KOB tournament? A
> bracket, or playing schedule, or what not?
It depends on your goal. Are you trying to rank players 1-x and
actaully care about 2,3,4,5,6,7.... or is your primary focus to figure
out who single best player is?
Mikey
Bruce Kvam
>I'm looking at two courts, and perhaps 20 participants.
Do you care if someone plays just three games and they're out? Or do
you want to guarantee each participant a minimum number of games, say
8 or 9?
Todd Haverkos
It's an idea cooked up by one of the players in our club. I think
he's interested in just the top 1 2 3 -- everyone chips in $20, food
and drinks, then the top three finishes pay out progressively from the
pool of money that's left over.
Guaranteeing 4 games would be a good thing if possible. I've never
seen one of these formats before, so I'm thoroughly ignorant of the
status quo for such tourneys.
Bruce Kvam
If you have two courts and 20 guys, a logical course would be to split
them up into four pools (A-D) of five players. Seed the best four
players into the #1 slots in each pool, the next best four players
into the #2 slots, etc.
Each player is guaranteed four matches, with each court holding ten
matches, plus three matches for the finals.
For each court you'd have a schedule like this:
A1 & A2 vs. A3 & A4
B1 & B2 vs. B3 & B4
A1 & A3 vs. A4 & A5
B1 & B3 vs. B4 & B5
A1 & A4 vs. A2 & A5
B1 & B4 vs. B2 & B5
A1 & A5 vs. A2 & A3
B1 & B5 vs. B2 & B3
A2 & A4 vs. A3 & A5
B2 & B4 vs. B2 & B5
Depending on how long your games last, each match might consist of two
games instead of just one.
From those four pools, the top player goes to the finals. If there's a
tie in won games, go to points. If there's a tie on points in pool
play, you should have a playoff game, selecting partners for the tied
players from the third and fourth-place finishers.
Have the finalists play once with each player:
A & B vs. C & D
A & C vs. B & D
A & D vs. B & C
Personally, I wouldn't find 4 games enough, but I don't know if you'd
have enough time for more if you've only got two courts.
Let me know how it works out.
Michael Borga
Bruce's idea is good, and we do something very similar at our KOB,
but a better and fairer way to do it is to limit it to 16 have four pools of
four everyone plays with and against everyone in their pool then take the top
twoin each pool, do it again, then take the top two, do it again, giving you
your first through fourth.
with two courts you would have four rounds of three matches, or one round of
six matches where you split the time between two pools on the same court and
then one round with one pool on each court, one round with one court.
if you do this in one day be prepared to play until dark and the finishers will
be more tired than they can imagine.
Our KOB is one game to 15 in all rounds and our top open players are usually
completely exhausted at the end.
have fun
Victor Lindal
js...@aol.com wrote on 2/7/01 5:09 am:
The pools of 4 is a bogus system.
Once you have completed two rounds people have been know to cheat.
Good idea to put in rewards for wins if you use this system.
The system of 5 in a pool is superior.
Where every one plays with everyone once and against every one exactly
twice.
This will give you a true ranking.
You can also do this exact formula for 8 and 16.
If any one is interested I can send the formulas for all these numbers.
Vic
Victor Lindal
js...@aol.com wrote on 29/6/01 8:54 am:
Todd Haverkos
>
> Check out http://hypbus.com/vicvball/coach/doubles.html
Beautiful! Cheers and applause!
Michael Borga
>
your welcome!
Michael Borga
>Once you have completed two rounds people have been know to cheat.
>
I'm sure that can be said of any system if, by cheat, you mean that players can
figure out how many points they need to move on to the next round. I am a bit
confused though by just what you mean, please expound upon your statement.
if you start each round of four "fresh" with 0 points, as we do, then if you
don't play well in that round you are gone!
>The system of 5 in a pool is superior.
>
I disagree. For it to be completely "FAIR" you must play with everyone against
every possible combination of opponents or you make the luck of sheduling more
important than the actual competition.
That means you play with everyone thrice as in A+B play C+D, then A+B play D+E,
then A+B play C+E.
Of course, this assumes that you believe the play on the court rather than the
politics of seeding, or perhaps country quotas, are the important feature of an
event
>This will give you a true ranking.
>
????????
Victor Lindal
js...@aol.com wrote on 4/7/01 12:44 am:
> I'm sure that can be said of any system if, by cheat, you mean that players
> can
> figure out how many points they need to move on to the next round. I am a bit
> confused though by just what you mean, please expound upon your statement
My observation is once player A knows how many points he need to get in then
he may coast in order to bring a friend in.
I am surprised you have not observed this.
Vic
Michael Borga
>he may coast in order to bring a friend in.
>I am surprised you have not observed this.
>Vic
I have, and any format can be "gamed".
I do not see this as cheating though, it is perfectly permissible under the
rules.
Just as forfeiting your last match in pool play to conserve energy on a hot day
is permissible under the rules if you have already qualified for the playoffs
or perhaps forfeiting or losing your last match in a five person pool in a KOB
tourney if it would benefit a friend, or even just a weaker player for you to
play against in the next round.
Throwing matches to get a better draw in the playoffs has happened in every
system you can think of.
Know what i mean?
Victor Lindal
js...@aol.com wrote on 4/7/01 9:55 am:
Any time a system has a benefit in throwing a game then it is a weak system.
Vic
Peter R.
Every system has rules; participants always exploit those rules.
That's Life.
Peter
Victor Lindal
on 4/7/01 6:25 pm:
How did Wong and Heidger make out in Sydney?
Michael Borga
system.
>Vic
Any time a system is used that will allow one team to qualify or not qualify
before their last point is played, then someone may see a benefit in not
playing either that entire match or some portion of it. Even if it is just due
to the fact that someone has been eliminated they may forfeit just to screw the
next player they were to play with because they don't like them.
Any system can be "gamed" including your five player system. At least in the 4
player groups everyone plays with everyone against every combination of
opponents, a truer determination of who is the better players IMHO
And whether Heidger and Wong tanked or not, it appeared that they would benefit
by losing, and not just in their minds but to many knowledgeable people also.
The end result is unimportant, the point is that the system may have been used
to increase their perceived chances.