What of the complaint that a bracket with shifted drops is lopsided? What sort of complaint is it, anyway, fairness (A), fairness (B), or fairness (C)? Potentially, at least, all three kinds of fairness might be of concern. Continue reading “Fairness and the Lopsided Bracket”
There is unfinished business from the last couple of posts.
The remaining thing to do in addressing the question of whether a shifted bracket is a good thing or a bad thing is to address the question of whether it is bad because it uses an unbalanced bracket. Is an unbalanced bracket inherently unfair?
Before we do that, however, I want to consider whether it would be a good thing to consider a somewhat different coefficient that looks at the distribution of rewards short of winning the tournament as a whole.
Continue reading “Fairness for Everyone? Do We Need Another Measure?”
Today we’ll dig into the rather surprising result that the shifted version of our 16DE tournament was at least as good, and in several respects better, than the standard, unshifted version. Continue reading “Finding Fairness in Analyzed Brackets”
Yesterday I discussed a technique for squeezing a round out of the lower bracket in a double-elimination tournament by shifting some of the drops into early rounds. Now it’s time to discuss the other merits of that technique.
Here’s the bottom line: The round compression technique doesn’t just save a round so that the tournament runs faster, but it also improves overall fairness, and reduces the number of repeated pairings. It’s not just a plausible way to save some time in a round-intensive tournament, but it should probably be the technique of choice for almost any double-elimination tournament, whether or not there’s any benefit from running fewer rounds. Continue reading “Building a Better Bracket, Part II”
The double-elimination tournament is one of the most popular designs. But it has some well-known flaws. In this post, I’ll introduce another way to draw a double-elimination bracket that, at least in some contexts, is superior to the more familiar bracket. Continue reading “Building a Better Bracket”
So, having made a case for the importance of putting the drops in the right places, let’s turn to the issue of how to get them there.
As a practical matter, the easiest thing to do is to download or copy from some source that can be relied upon to get it right. Unfortunately, there’s no site, other than this one, that I think can recommend on this point. I hope, in the fullness of time, to build out the collection of sample documents I make available here to the point where a tournament organizer can find a useful sample for any but the most exotic tournament. But don’t hold your breath. In the meantime, let me explain a general approach that I’ve found useful. Continue reading “Getting the Drops Right, Part II”
Today’s topic is arranging the drops in a double-elimination tournament. By drops, I mean the guides that show where the loser of a winner’s bracket match should reappear in the losers bracket. The goal is to avoid, as much as possible, repeating a pairing that happened earlier in the winners bracket.