Ideally you'll usually have a situation where after X rounds you have 1 undefeated player...IMHO, that guy is the champion and there's no need for a cut of any sort.

Just my 2 yen.

Not a fan of this. That's a single elimination tournament, with some guaranteed games attached. Every game played by anyone with one or more loss is just for funsies. That's not ideal to me. You don't really need the tournament structure to get pickup games in with a room full of players. The cut generally keeps 1 loss people in the hunt and depending on how broad the cut is it could keep players with more losses in the hunt as well.

Ideally you'll usually have a situation where after X rounds you have 1 undefeated player...IMHO, that guy is the champion and there's no need for a cut of any sort.

Just my 2 yen.

Not a fan of this. That's a single elimination tournament, with some guaranteed games attached. Every game played by anyone with one or more loss is just for funsies. That's not ideal to me. You don't really need the tournament structure to get pickup games in with a room full of players. The cut generally keeps 1 loss people in the hunt and depending on how broad the cut is it could keep players with more losses in the hunt as well.

You're not taking into account that there are multiple top level prizes, specifically, one prize for the person with the best W/L record, and one prize for the person with the most Tournament Points (yes, this can happen). As well as other prizes for different records (I personally like to reward the player who took dead last with an awesome prize).

Point is, a tournament system that fosters playing games while being competitive is not a mutually exclusive proposition. We can be both.

Sevenstep makes a good point: it's discouraging to know that you're out of the running after just 1 loss. One of our SCs (7 players I think) had no cut to a Top 4, and I lost my first round match, even though I'm pretty sure I could've won that match and the whole event if I'd had a second chance. I do really like it that a Cut still gives a fighting chance to some players who don't go undefeated.

One other thing that would also be fine, IMHO, would be to have a normal Top 4 or Top 8 cut, but then also run some consolation rounds for people who didn't make the cut. Perhaps the results of those consolation rounds would provide some cool prizes. Maybe it would seem like a separate mini-tournament or something? Maybe organize a 4-player free-for-all match with those who are interested. If nothing else, it gives the players who didn't make the cut something to do while the playoff rounds are being played.

But in the current system, the same holds true. One loss and you could potentially be out of the running, based on the number of players and the cut line. Single elimination after a "cut" is basically the same thing, one loss and youre out, what makes that any better? What the current system fosters is a mini-tournament after the original tournament, where people who don't have perfect records (with 4 rounds and 16 players, there can be only one), may get a chance to "start over" where the top seed faces off against the bottom ranked seed (and is favored to win so that, ideally, it comes down to a final round 1st vs 2nd seed) in single elimination. This doesn't allow player who didn't make the cut a chance at getting victories to increase their standings to get a chance to play different opponents. What you are forgetting is that instead of a cut, every player plays more games, and that your win/loss record isnt the only thing that matters. This makes for a forgiving system where the tournament winner may be the person who went 5-1, or 4-2, because everyone played 6 games, not just the people who made the cut.

Without a cut, the top players will get continually matched with each other without opponent duplication, since tournament points would be the method of determining who each person plays. This also means that who the "top" players are will constantly change as the tournament rounds progress. If a single player continues to win, then they have potentially faced the greatest challenges for the day and there would be no question who the victor is.

Getting rid of the cut means no SOS to break ties (use MOV instead).

For example. At the end of round one you have the following Tournament Points:

Round 1 (random pairing):

Alpha: 6 (Win)

Bravo: 4 (Loss)

Charlie: 7 (Win)

Delta: 3 (Loss)

Echo: 8 (Win)

Foxtrot: 2 (Loss)

Golf: 9 (Win)

Hawaii: 1 (Loss)

Indigo: 10 (Win)

Juliet: 0 (Loss)

Kilo: 5 (Draw**, MOV +1)

Lima: 5 (Draw**, MOV -1)

**Draw based on MOV being below a certain threshold to split Tournament Points, assume Kilo has MOV +1) Draw added to simulate pairing issues.

Then the next pairing would be based on Tournament points, not a random pool of players who are 1-0.

Round 2: (Pairing by Tournament Points)

Indigo: 10

Golf: 9

Echo: 8

Charlie: 7

Alpha: 6

Kilo: 5 (Draw** MOV +1)

Lima: (Draw**, MOV -1)

Bravo: 4

Delta: 3

Foxtrot: 2

Hawaii: 1

Juliet: 0

Based of these pairings, and who wins/loses and gets Tournament Points will determine who plays each other in the third round. Note the two players who dominated their first opponents paired with each other, and the players that got dominated paired with each other. This is intentional, and will continue into subsequent rounds. Assuming Indigo wins, they would be paired with someone who has the next highest tournament points who they did not play against. Maybe Indigo won because luck was with him? Maybe Juliet made a critical error that cost her the game early? *IF* Indigo keeps winning, who would stop them, cut or not?

I have said this before, but I will say it again, after running GW tournaments for the better part of a decade, this type of pairing WORKS. It encourages competition while at the same time putting value on playing. Nobody gets sent home until it's over.

Additional hypothetical:

You arrive at a tournament that has 8 players total (yourself included).

Would you rather:

1) Play three rounds, have a top 2 cut, and send 6 people home while 2 players play?

2) Play four rounds, with no cut, and those same top two players are playing each other any way, but now the other 6 players get a chance at another win/loss to change their standings?

3) Play five rounds, no cut, and then things really get knocked into 12th gear. Maybe someone goes 5-0? Maybe the top two went 3-2 and MOV breaks the tie? Maybe all hell breaks loose as two brothers, who know how to take care of business, fight a mexican armada...armed with tomato guns. And old women are there, and they cross-attack! And you don't want to hear about it here, but the moon...crashes into the Earth. So what are these two brothers going to do then?

Wow, I'm not sure I understand everything that you're describing in these 2 posts, Fizz, but I do like the results that you describe: namely, that every player plays more games. And I'm all in favor of that! I'd be more than happy to try your 5-round concept (ie, #3 in the post above).

But in the current system, the same holds true. One loss and you could potentially be out of the running, based on the number of players and the cut line. Single elimination after a "cut" is basically the same thing, one loss and youre out, what makes that any better? What the current system fosters is a mini-tournament after the original tournament, where people who don't have perfect records (with 4 rounds and 16 players, there can be only one), may get a chance to "start over" where the top seed faces off against the bottom ranked seed (and is favored to win so that, ideally, it comes down to a final round 1st vs 2nd seed) in single elimination. This doesn't allow player who didn't make the cut a chance at getting victories to increase their standings to get a chance to play different opponents. What you are forgetting is that instead of a cut, every player plays more games, and that your win/loss record isnt the only thing that matters. This makes for a forgiving system where the tournament winner may be the person who went 5-1, or 4-2, because everyone played 6 games, not just the people who made the cut.

Without a cut, the top players will get continually matched with each other without opponent duplication, since tournament points would be the method of determining who each person plays. This also means that who the "top" players are will constantly change as the tournament rounds progress. If a single player continues to win, then they have potentially faced the greatest challenges for the day and there would be no question who the victor is.

Getting rid of the cut means no SOS to break ties (use MOV instead).

For example. At the end of round one you have the following Tournament Points:

...[lots of example data]...

Based of these pairings, and who wins/loses and gets Tournament Points will determine who plays each other in the third round. Note the two players who dominated their first opponents paired with each other, and the players that got dominated paired with each other. This is intentional, and will continue into subsequent rounds. Assuming Indigo wins, they would be paired with someone who has the next highest tournament points who they did not play against. Maybe Indigo won because luck was with him? Maybe Juliet made a critical error that cost her the game early? *IF* Indigo keeps winning, who would stop them, cut or not?

I have said this before, but I will say it again, after running GW tournaments for the better part of a decade, this type of pairing WORKS. It encourages competition while at the same time putting value on playing. Nobody gets sent home until it's over.

How many rounds are played in this scenario? Let's say the group is 16 players, which would normally be 4 rounds of Swiss.

"Rounds" switched to "Games" for clarity.

Sorry...i didnt read fully...gave the below response to my listed example of 12 players...

In that scenario (12 players), the TO would run either 5 or 6 games (TO's discretion, based on time allotted for the space, etc) . This would be announced at the START of the tournament so that the expectation is set right from the beginning. No "disappearing games" because of standings. No questioning "how many games are we playing today" in the middle of the tournament. Maybe a break for lunch (or catered lunch, those are fun too, with some wacky insane drawings for wacky insane prizes).

Let's expand on the cut. What the cut really is a 4 game swiss tournament with a mini-tournament consisting of 1-5 extra games, based on the size of the cut:

Top 2: +1 game

Top 4: +2 games

Top 8: +3 games

Top 16: +4 games

Top 32: +5 games

if you take the Swiss system (4 games), and then add the cut game back in, you would get your total rounds played. Now, in large format, multiple day tournaments, some players may not want to play 9 games day one, and another 9 games day two. (C'mon, that would be EPIC!!). in those instances you might consider a cut so that players could bail between days if they chose to. But then at that point, you might as well just run two single day tournaments.

So to answer your question, with 16 players, you would probably run 6 or 7 games. Based off where you would have originally placed your cut at Top 4 or Top 8. (Current advanced format for IA dictates a 16-player tournament would have a Top 8 cut, so 7 games, but if you were running a Top 4 cut, then only 6 games would be played. That would work for up to 24 players. 25-40 adds a 5th Swiss round with a Top 8 cut, so at 36 players, everyone would play 8 games).

I'd be more than happy to try your 5-round concept (ie, #3 in the post above).

Try not. Do. Or do not. thereisnotry

I'd be more than happy to try your 5-round concept (ie, #3 in the post above).

Try not. Do. Or do not. thereisnotry

Touche!