PDA

View Full Version : the size of poules in competitions



tree
-28th March 2004, 11:55
When there is a single round of poules at a competiton and, for example, there are 2 poules of 4 and 1 poule of 5. Surely the people in the poule of 5 are at an advantage? or do they equal the points out somehow?

Robert
-28th March 2004, 12:39
The first indicator is Win/Loss, so this should in theory even things out. It does give a few odd results. The typical situation is that you either have a poule of 6 or a poule of 7. If you drop 1 fight in the 6 poule you seed below everyone who dropped 1 fight in the 7 poule, regardless of other indicators, bad. If you win 1 fight, you finish above everyone else who won 1 fight regardless of other indicators, good.

At a large comp this can make 15 places difference in the seedings, but most of the time the effect is much smaller than that.

In answer to your question it is an advantage if you are at the bottom end of the fencers present to be in a small poule, and a disadvantage if you are among the better fencers. But not much of an advantage/disadvantage in either case.

Robert

jonny
-28th March 2004, 15:19
At the SoutWest Qualifiers last year the second round of poules in my group had one poule of 4 and one poule of 5. One person in the poule of 4 dropped out before the round started so we had a poule of 3 and a poule of 5!

One person in the poule of 5 (NOT ME!) lost all their bouts and was ranked below the person who dropped out of the poule of 4 (because the drop out lost only 3 matches by dropping out, rather than loosing 4)!

Australian
-28th March 2004, 16:19
Originally posted by J.Harris
One person in the poule of 5 (NOT ME!) lost all their bouts and was ranked below the person who dropped out of the poule of 4 (because the drop out lost only 3 matches by dropping out, rather than loosing 4)!

surely the person who dropped out would be removed from the rankings? And even if you did leave them in (which you arn't supposed to, if someone drops out/is black carded in the poules it is treated as if they were never in the poule in the first place), it would be remarkably difficult for someone to to finish worse than V/M = 0.00, HS-HR = -15, HS = 0.


anyways, a bigger poule is best if you are a better fencer, as your indicator (HS-HR) would be higher and if you lose a bout, you'll be higher than people in smaller poules who have lost only 1 bout.

In World Cup competition they have compulsory poules of 6 or 7, with the higher seeds getting the bigger poules. Also at World Cup's the domestic country is allowed to field additional entries on the day to create a multiple of 6 or 7.

Australian
-28th March 2004, 16:20
Originally posted by tree
. Surely the people in the poule of 5 are at an advantage? or do they equal the points out somehow?

only at the top end, because they will score more hits. At the lower end of the poule, they will recieve more hits, pushing them lower.

I suppose one disadvantage is that they have to fence an additional bout?

jonny
-28th March 2004, 17:08
Originally posted by Australian
surely the person who dropped out would be removed from the rankings? And even if you did leave them in (which you arn't supposed to, if someone drops out/is black carded in the poules it is treated as if they were never in the poule in the first place), it would be remarkably difficult for someone to to finish worse than V/M = 0.00, HS-HR = -15, HS = 0.


I expect they probably should have been removed but they weren't. They were put down as loosing all three of their fights 5-0. The person finishing last in the other poule lost all their fights 5-0 as well and had HS-HR = -20.

Rdb811
-28th March 2004, 20:05
Originally posted by tree
When there is a single round of poules at a competiton and, for example, there are 2 poules of 4 and 1 poule of 5. Surely the people in the poule of 5 are at an advantage? or do they equal the points out somehow?

Depends if your glass is half empty or half ful - one win in a poule of 4 will give you .25 as opposed to .2 whereas one defeat will give you .75 as opposed to .8.

I suspect we were at the same competiton - (Surrey Intermediate Foil) - in which case there was a full DE and it would all come out in the wash.

(For the curious, I managed to lose three foil fights 5-4 due to lack of puff / ideas, and then ran into a clubmate.)

The full Surrey Foil is on Sunday - I will take entries by PM.

pqg
-29th March 2004, 13:31
There is an anomaly in the rules relating to poules of different sizes:

Most people will be separated in seeding by V/M (no. of wins over no. of matches), so as noted above eg. 4/5 is beaten by 5/6 regardless of indicators. While it can affect your seeding that seems reasonable enough (I don't think any other method would be fairer). The problem comes when people are on 100% (or 0%) and get separated by indicators, with no reference to the number of fights.

For example, someone winning all their fights in a poule of 5 without conceding a hit (Ind +20) will be seeded below someone who won all their fights in a poule of 6 but dropped 4 hits (Ind +21) which seems clearly wrong.
Similar issues occur with people who have lost all their fights. (scoring 4 hits in a poule of 6 you would still be below someone who scored no hits in a poule of 5)

This could easily be dealt with by using Ind/M instead of just Ind
to split fencers whose V/M is equal. In other words when you have won (or lost) all your fights you are ranked by your average winning (or losing) margin.

Note that this remedy would (rightly) have no affect on people who aren't on 100% or 0% because otherwise where indicators are used to split 2 fencers M will be equal.

PS Moderators - as there's nothing foil specific about this thread would it be better in either the Off Piste or Rules sections?

Gav
-29th March 2004, 13:44
Originally posted by pqg


PS Moderators - as there's nothing foil specific about this thread would it be better in either the Off Piste or Rules sections?

Agreed. And I have found it interesting in a geeky-stats kinf way.

Off to Rules and Regs with you!

Robert
-29th March 2004, 16:46
Originally posted by pqg
This could easily be dealt with by using Ind/M instead of just Ind
to split fencers whose V/M is equal. In other words when you have won (or lost) all your fights you are ranked by your average winning (or losing) margin.

Note that this remedy would (rightly) have no affect on people who aren't on 100% or 0% because otherwise where indicators are used to split 2 fencers M will be equal.


This is a good solution to the indicators problem from having more fights. But it can also occur in competitions with two rounds of poule for people with 5/10 verse 6/12 wins, as you can run one fight adrift for every round of poules.

So, if I had a vote with the FIE, mine would be to changed HF-HA, and HF to (HF-HA)/M, and HF/M.

Robert

pqg
-29th March 2004, 17:21
Originally posted by Robert
This is a good solution to the indicators problem from having more fights. But it can also occur in competitions with two rounds of poule for people with 5/10 verse 6/12 wins, as you can run one fight adrift for every round of poules.

So, if I had a vote with the FIE, mine would be to changed HF-HA, and HF to (HF-HA)/M, and HF/M.

Robert

Well spotted - another situation where the same change would make it fairer.
It would also help even situations where a fencer has dropped out of a smaller poule, which can lead to anomalous indicator based seedings.

And in case anyone's confused, although we used different abbreviations we are proposing the same thing; here's an attempt to phrase it in non-acronym:

We agree that proportion of fights won is the first thing to seed on, but after that it should be average winning/losing margin as opposed to total winning/losing margin.

When this is still equal, (as you pointed out) it then makes sense to use average hits scored per fight as opposed to total hits scored.

PKT
-5th April 2004, 05:57
pqg,

your attempt at restating things in 'plain English' - http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/
- is admirable; but methinks the abbreviations still work better.

pk

sparkymark567
-22nd April 2004, 17:43
Unless you are the bottom person in a pool (i.e. lose all your fights) it's better to be in a bigger pool, since the extra person will have a very low seeding. i.e. one extra victory for everyone else.

pinkelephant
-22nd April 2004, 22:15
Funny - where I come from 1/6 is worse than 1/5, 2/6 is worse than 2/5. If you're in the top HALF of a larger pool you're better off (usually for HS-HR as well as V/M) and in the bottonm HALF you're worse off. Anyone who thinks pools work out according to seedings hasn't been round many epee competitions lately, especially where someone has a 999 ranking because they have been injured for a year/retired and came back/ went abroad/had a baby/forgot to tell anyone they got married and changed their name/spelt their name differently (Jacky Yu). Also, computers strangely don't distinguish between one 999 and another, so to say the extra person in a pool is worse than everybody else is a load of round objects.

Neo
-12th May 2004, 00:14
Originally posted by Rdb811
Depends if your glass is half empty or half ful - one win in a poule of 4 will give you .25 as opposed to .2 whereas one defeat will give you .75 as opposed to .8.

I suspect we were at the same competiton - (Surrey Intermediate Foil) - in which case there was a full DE and it would all come out in the wash.

(For the curious, I managed to lose three foil fights 5-4 due to lack of puff / ideas, and then ran into a clubmate.)

The full Surrey Foil is on Sunday - I will take entries by PM.

I didn't know you fenced foil... (our science museum bout comes to mind :grin: :grin: )

Rdb811
-12th May 2004, 00:59
On odd occasions, since I have the kit - it's expected (or used to be) that everyone at Streatham can fence all three weapons.

I won't mention the Science Museum sabre or the Wimbledon Invitation sabre.

Neo
-12th May 2004, 01:12
LOL. Still the last match against u was fun - its that look when you get all determined when you realise if you don't get this point, you might suffer being beaten by me of all people :P

gah what is a secure free space wipe utility doing leaving 2GB tmp files lying around!