mir ist gestern schon wieder aufgefallen, dass in einem First 7 Event
(2023 RWG Day 10 - Short Track Speed Skating)
einige Spieler nach ihren absolvierten 7 Spielen
auch noch ein 8,9…10 mal spielten,
um potentielle Mit-Konkurrenten im Kampf um Medaillenplätze ohne Risiko für die eigene Plazierung zu “eliminieren”? (Z.b durch wiederholtes All-In usw.)
Es mag jeder darüber denken was er will und davon halten was er mag: Ich finde das ist den Mitspielern gegenüber unfair. Punkt. (Selbst wenn es möglich ist)
Im Ernst: Muss das denn wirklich sein? Ich will hier jetzt keine Namen nennen, aber hat ein guter Spieler wirklich so etwas nötig?
Nur als Anregung zu verstehen, nicht als Kritik.
Viel Glück an den Tischen. Translate: Uncle777
1m
Good morning,
I noticed again yesterday that in a First 7 Event
(2023 RWG Day 10 - Short Track Speed Skating)
some players after their completed 7 games
also played another 8.9…10 times,
to “eliminate” potential fellow competitors in the fight for medal places without risking your own placement? (e.g. by repeated all-in etc.)
Everyone may think about what they want and think of what they like: I think that’s unfair to the other players. Point. (Even if it’s possible)
Seriously, does that really have to be the case? I don’t want to name names here, but does such a good player really need something like that?
To be understood only as a suggestion, not as criticism.
I dont think it is unfair as such, but it is a reasonable question. It is certainly possible that someone who has played all 7 games sees a SnG registering with a close competitor on less than 7 games in it and enters to try and hamper the particular player.
I wonder if ‘repeated all-ins’ is actually harming the opponent. Playing recklessly in general is making the game easier, unless they deliberately avoid losing to the specific player. That might be a form of cheating / collusion.
Players circling back to play more games are creating opportunities for those players on less than 7 to fill their quota of 7 games. In truth, we need all the players we can get in some of these Daily Turbo style promotions and I am not sure how many would be able to get to 7 if the most engaged players were prevented from playing the later events.
It seems to me that the “First 7” ranking method makes it quite easy to distort the results in a risk-free manner. Sure, soft playing and chip dumping are illegal, but to what extent is this really enforceable?
Perhaps it would be better to use the ranking method from the monthly SnG leaderboards instead (with 7 games instead of 60, of course). Then someone playing more than 7 games would be be risking losing points when they play more than 7 games. I think that would solve this issue to an extent.
I didn’t check the numbers for the RWG SnG games, but usually any kind of SnG promotions are showing a high volume of games played. So I doubt that this would significantly reduce players’ chances at completing 7 games.
This strategy is a gamble as @Chasetheriver stated I looked in on the games and noticed that the majority of players that played more then 7 were not in contention for a Medal but had still ranked to collect chips from the leaderboard. I think if a “average” system was put into place it would definitely deter these players from filling the seats allowing others to finish their first 7
It was not an issue before and it shouldn’t be now. Don’t try and fix anything that is broken. Be thankful there is enough butts to fill seats. Everything is running smoothly so have fun and good luck to all. If you try and beat the system you’re going to get caught !
Where is it to see quickly how many SnG’s this 100 players played on this day? The leaderboard shows only the 7 needed, no one can there have > 7, the next played SnG’s, > 7, are then out of Promotion and leaderboard.
Replay: Only the tournament points scored in your first seven games will count, but you are welcome to play as many as you like!..
if you see one player in the ranking of 7/7 playing on a table, it must be the 8th or more…
the 8th or 9th can bring chips, if you finish in the top 3, can bring experience…
it’s a competition: be better than the others, have more luck…
on the other hand:
isn’t it unfair, when players can not play multitable (Ring), while other players play 4 or 5 tables simultaniously and make many more points…
if you win a medal, be happy, many players are dreaming of it only…
to Goatsoup: an average ranking system would be interesting…
Also ihre Antwort auf mein Anliegen ist ernsthaft:
Damit alle ihre 7 Spiele Kontingent spielen können? Ok.
Ja danke für diese Antwort. Keine weiteren Fragen.
Aber ich bleibe dabei:
Natürlich ist es unfair, wenn ich meine 7 Spiele beendet habe und andere daran hindere
ein ähnlich gutes oder sogar besseres Ergebnis zu erzielen!
Ich habe es selbst oft genug erlebt, aber weiß ja nun auch:
Es ist alles für einen “guten Zweck.”
Damit sie auch alle ihre 7 Spiele spielen können…
Wie konnte ich nur zweifeln an den Replay Gesetzen, ich Unwürdiger? Translate:
So your answer to my request is serious:
So everyone can play their 7 game contingent? OK.
Yes thanks for this answer. No further questions.
But I stick to it:
Of course it’s unfair if I finish my 7 games and prevent others from doing so
achieve a similarly good or even better result!
I’ve experienced it myself often enough, but now I know:
It’s all for a “good cause.”
So that they can also play all their 7 games…
How could I doubt the replay laws, unworthy me?
Danke, dass man hier seine Meinung äußern darf. Vielen Dank, das ich ihre Erlaubnis habe. Translate:
Thank you for allowing us to express your opinion here. Thank you for your permission.
Das stimmt nicht. Zwei der Spieler, die mehr als 7 Spiele spielten waren unter den Top 10 platziert. Translation That’s not true. Two of the players who played more than 7 were placed in the top 10
Top 3 get Medals … Don’t say I am saying an untruth over such a completely meaningless subject … I happen to want this system to be fair for all involved and am not going to cry b/c I did not win when those that did Medal played within the Rules same as me … Either play better to get one of those spots or not but the Rules are set for All to play by … FYI I think they sell crying towels in the lobby and there is an extra b/c I don’t need one
Bei allem Respekt: Doch das tun sie. Es waren in meinen Partien, mindestens 2 der Top 10 Spieler dabei. Machen sie also keinen Wind, ich könnte es ja ganz einfach beweisen, möchte aber darauf verzichten. Übrigens, wenn sie sich schon so weit aus dem Fenster lehnen und sich den Schuh anziehen: Bei den letzten Olympiaden gehörten auch sie zu den Spielern, die mehrfach mehr als 7 Partien spielten. Bei der aktuellen waren sie in meinen Partien aber nicht vertreten. Also immer schön den Ball flach halten!. Gell? Ausgerechnet sie Mr. Goatsoup sprechen von Fairness, das ist schon fast Ironie.
Translation With all due respect, they do. There were at least 2 of the top 10 players in my games. So don’t make a fuss, I could easily prove it, but I don’t want to do it. By the way, if you lean so far out of the window and put on your shoes: At the last Olympics, you too were among the players who played more than 7 games several times. In the current one, however, they weren’t represented in my games. So keep the ball flat! Right? You, Mr. Goatsoup, of all people, speak of fairness, that’s almost ironic.
