What's a better tiebreaker for pools?

The result of the set played between the two players/teams or their total match score?

We had a round robin teams tournament recently where two teams got first, one had a better overall score but the one set loss they had was the other team that tied for first.

So should the first team win because they got more 2-0's or should the second team win because they beat the team they're tying with?

i think it should def be the direct VS match to decide it.

2-0'ing everyone isnt that impressive if you lose directly to your tied player

I'm pretty sure that in case of ties, you go to the match that was played between them for results.

i would say ranking teams should go in this order:
1. Sets Won (if tied, then)
2. Head to Head Records (if still tied)
3. Individual Matches Won/Lost
4. Records of the teams you lost to.

what ACTUALLY happens, at least at most west coast tournaments, is

1) Sets won
2) Game win-loss percentage
3) Head to Head
4) Some sort of playoff

I personally think H2H should take priority over Game percentage, but that's not the way it usually is

The argument for win/loss % over head-to-head is that a higher win percentage indicates greater success against the entire pool, which is what the pool is attempting to measure in the first place. If the primary measure of ranking is based on success against the entire pool, shouldn't the tiebreak also?

It's just an argument. I think both ways are valid.

I tied a fellow in pools a while back, while I thought I should go on for winning our set, it was decided by another set
that i won :3

well if they beat someone you lost to, that should count for something

Banks: The only team the first team lost to was the one tying for first, while the other team lost to a team the first one beat.

So I can see why it can go either way.

edit: I should probably note that tio uses match score to break ties.

what if you got a three way tie for first?
say each of them lost one set to one of the other ppl tied for first?

Then you would use match score if you didn't already, and then if that's still equal they'd do playoffs.

Flayl: tio actually doesn't do anything for tiebreaks. It's completely random. The app picks a random winner and then leaves it up to the host to break the ties in a way they see fit.

I personally do

1. Sets
2. Head to Head
3. Win Record
4. Loss Record

Concerning to what Neal said I find the purpose of pools to be for winning the sets. In a game with counterpicking to sort of add a ruberband mechanic to a set I don't think that getting a 1-2 instead of someone else getting a 0-2 is that important with how prevalent counterpicking can be in Smash.

nealdt said:

Flayl: tio actually doesn't do anything for tiebreaks. It's completely random. The app picks a random winner and then leaves it up to the host to break the ties in a way they see fit.

Click to expand...

Oh

Well anyhow it seems most are in agreement that head-to-head counts a bit more than match score, I'll keep that in mind for next time.

nealdt said:

The argument for win/loss % over head-to-head is that a higher win percentage indicates greater success against the entire pool, which is what the pool is attempting to measure in the first place. If the primary measure of ranking is based on success against the entire pool, shouldn't the tiebreak also?

Click to expand...

The question/issue is whether individual games won should be considered indicative of the player's actual "success" if it doesn't have to be.

IMO, it's like counting margin of victory in sports... we have all been conditioned to think that 2-1s don't matter, even to the extent that many players choose to forfeit game 2 when taken to a "gay" stage in order to keep their momentum and win the set. Obviously, if it were written in the rules that game percentage was the first tiebreaker, then people 'could' play it out differently, but it affects the complexion of the type of sets we're playing, which I believe is not a desired effect

If really stupid counterpicks weren't allowed like brinstar and rainbow cruise i'd say go with the record over head to head, but they are on so I guess H2H is better.

Overall score.



There are a couple of reasons why players can lose head to heads even when one player is a better overall player, being relatively bad at that particular match-up is an easy example, and I think this is especially true of mains of lower tier characters and fighting lower tier mains.


Playstyles that literally counter the opponent's is another example.



Best indicator of success in the overall tournament is how well they do in the pool overall, not a head to head match against any one person, that's why we do pools.

adumbrodeus said:

There are a couple of reasons why players can lose head to heads even when one player is a better overall player, being relatively bad at that particular match-up is an easy example, and I think this is especially true of mains of lower tier characters and fighting lower tier mains.

Playstyles that literally counter the opponent's is another example.

Click to expand...

there are FAR more reasons why superior players may drop individual games in unrelated sets, including the already given examples

This is a teams pools we had at our last tourney in Portugal.

Mr. Burned + RackamPF beat Organizers. Who should be first?

You could've just read the thread...

1. Sets Won (if tied, then)
2. Head to Head Records (if still tied)
3. Individual Matches Won/Lost
4. Records of the teams you lost to.

^what is normally done

The general philosophy is that in bracket, you're measured by sets, not games. You can win every set in the tournament by 2-1 but you still won the tournament even if the guy who got 2nd 2-0'd everyone but you and 1-2'd you.

Head 2 Head is often used during any ties. If two people have the same # of set wins, it's whoever won between the two. If there's a three way tie, it's wins minus losses; whoever has the highest score after wins - losses gets the higher seed. If there is a tie here, rematch between the tied parties.


Alternatively, you can skip H2H and just do wins minus losses. This shows more overall skill in the pool theoretically, but certain issues exist with this process. If I main MK, it is infinitely more likely for me to 2-0 everyone than it is for someone who mains a character who can be hard countered like DK, Wolf, Fox, Wario, and the like, or for someone like Olimar, Marth, Snake, or any other character that can be CPed to a stage that gives a drastic advantage. This means that characters like MK who have little to no "extreme" matchups and/or "extreme" stages gets a boost in pool play.

It's really a matter of preference.