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.
Today I’ll ruminate a bit more about fairness. It strikes me that elaborating fairness into the three elements of fairness I suggested might be useful in helping to explain how people can disagree so completely about what’s fair. I’ll see if I can apply that insight in the context of trying to determine what is and isn’t fair in the world at large.
To review, there are three somewhat distinct virtues that all get called “fairness”. I’ll restate them a little to help generalize the context:
Fairness A: Fairness is meeting people’s settled expectations, and honoring past practice;
Fairness B: Fairness is treating everybody equally; and
Fairness C: Fairness is rewarding good performance (and punishing bad). Continue reading “Fairness in the World”
Participation is the value players derive from playing in the tournament.
Unlike fairness, participation has a simple and obvious metric: the number of games played. Thus, a 16-team single elimination involves playing 15 games or matches, and so has a participation score of 15. The double elimination tournament gets a score of 30 involves 30 games (or possibly 31 – more about this in a future post).
This simple and obvious measure can be refined in any number of ways, most of which are more complicated and debatable. Continue reading “Measuring Participation”
Now that we’ve spent some time outlining the virtues we seek in our tournament designs, we can begin to get geeky. In this post, I’ll introduce a simple way of testing various tournament designs by running simulations to produce an estimate of the tournament’s fairness.
As I see it, the goals we have to keep in mind when designing tournaments call into four main categories: fairness, efficiency, participation, and spectator appeal. One of the keys to designing tournaments is to keep in mind how these different values interact, and in knowing which values are paramount in any particular context.
(This framework is used in other posts, where I refer to it as the “FEPS” framework, where “spectator appeal” is condensed to “spectacle” so that it doesn’t have to become “FEPSA”.) Continue reading “The Four Goals in Tournament Design”