Every player has the chance to cash in every game they play in the tournament. If they’re tracking their overall tournament +/- profit, then yeah, someone who hasn’t won enough games will at some point reach a point where even if they win all of their remaining games, they’ll still be coming out of the tournament with fewer chips than they started.
That’s a reality, and my hope is that the people who sign up for this tournament are doing it out of an interest to play in a HU NLHE tournament for fun and bragging rights and some free chips. I’d be a little more wary of the bankroll implications in a real money tournament.
I’m doing what I can within the limitations of how Replay’s set up; since they do not have any options for a 2-seat table MTT with a single buy-in, the only way to do this right now is to make-do with what they do give us. With a relatively small number of players, hopefully everyone’s interest is such that they’ll agree to commit to playing the whole thing out, regardless of the outcome.
I will think on this some more, and try to figure out what makes the most sense.
I did think about the idea of a quitter’s future matches being counted as forfeits, awarding the win to the opponent they declined to face, but I felt that this would probably give the winner-by-default too much of an advantage, since there’s 0 risk of losing those matches.
Fractional wins awarded for forfeits might be a way to go. I’ll have to think on it some more.
I could also see taking wins away from a player who forfeits.
Part of the problem I have is how to properly detect a forfeit situation, where one player was willing to play, but the game didn’t take place. How do I establish who was at fault for the game not happening? All I know is that at the end of the week, not all the games were played. Unless someone messages me and says, “Sorry, I’m out of the tournament for [reasons],” I have no way of knowing what happened and why, and I have zero interest in becoming a detective or arbitrator in such matters.
It’s enough for me to do the organizing; the success or failure of this thing will be in very large part due to the actions of all the participants. I hope that impresses upon everyone, and is enough. Let’s all want for this to be a fun, successful event, even if we go the whole way losing every game.
Those are non-starters due to the way Replay works. The only chips paid out in this tournament will be the chips won from the individual games that make up the tournament series. There’s no provision that Replay provides that would set aside some “extra” chips for an event like this.
That said, I would sure love it if Replay would create a formal event for a 2-seat SNG series of tournaments, as a special promotion. I think it’s feasible that they could do so, something like the Astrasl SNG leagues, maybe, or even an actual 2-Max MTT, would be pretty fun.
If we wanted to have any hope of such a thing becoming a reality, we’d have to want it enough to make this informal event that I’m organizing come off successfully, and hopefully catch on and grow into something that would make Replay Staff sit up and take notice of it.
For this round-robin format, every player will play the same number of games, if everyone plays the full round, and follows the rules as given in the spreadsheet.
The real world usually throws a curveball or two, though, and it may end up that not everything works out according to plan. Being that this is the first one of these that we’re doing, I’m trying to keep things lightweight and simple as much as possible, rather than expend a tremendous effort thinking through every last thing that could possibly happen, however unlikely, and have a perfect response for every situation.
To me, it’s even OK if we do run into some problem and have to deal with it in an ad-hoc manner. I am trying to account for as many contingencies as I can anyway, but if life happens and I have to improvise some solution, it’s not the end of the world, and I’ll treat it as an opportunity to learn and improve for next time.
I appreciate it, and thank you for caring enough to share your ideas for ways to make the event better.
I agree with you, if the number of games played over the full field of particants isn’t equal, then it would be unfair to give a player a higher ranking for more wins out of even more total games. As I designed the tournament structure, that should not happen, but as it depends a great deal on everyone holding up their end of their committment, that’s not something I can fully control, and so it could end up coming to pass. If it does, I’ll have to think of something. Let’s hope it doesn’t happen, and try as much as we can to avoid it, then.
Sound good?
That’s tough to say. Right now, we’re sitting at 5 registered players. That’s 4 opponents for each of us to play, so 12 games of heads-up. A heads-up game can take anywhere from a minute to a half hour or more, just depending on how the players play and what happens.
By the rules I wrote up, I’m giving the full field 1 week to play their 3 games against their first opponent, so that this will give everyone plenty of time to send and accept friendship invites, message each other, coordinate the time they wish to play, and acually play their three games.
So, then, figure maybe 90 minutes over the course of the week, or so, and possibly much less than that.
My hope is that everyone gets together early and plays their games, and reports them to me as quickly as possible, so we can kick off the second matchup without having to wait the full week between rounds. With 4 opponents at 1 week per opponent, that’s already a month to resolve the full tournament, if everyone takes their sweet time. If we can halve the time, or more, then great. But I want to make sure enough time is given for those who really do need it.
Hopefully it will not be a problem for the matched opponents to settle on a time when they can meet to play against each other, but I recognize it’s certainly possible for time zone differences and work schedules and other obligations to make it hard in some cases. We’ll just have to work through those issues case-by-case as best we can.
Thanks again for all the great questions and suggestions, @waidus!