Tennisfrontier Monte Carlo challenge

[Moxie]

All right, how about this:

We take the notion that the poster picks a specific draw, in their own mind. There is no doubling up of options. Therefore:

Quarterfinals: Pick 8

Semi-finals: Pick 4, but drawn from the previous 8

Finals: Pick 2, but drawn from the previous 4

Winner: Only drawn from your 2 finalists

DH: Can be anyone but not a finalist or winner pick. (For example, you could pick Wawrinka as your QFist in MC, and also pick him as your DH, but not if you picked him as a finalist or winner.)

WC: That's just someone to go deep, but not necessarily win. This cannot be someone selected in any of your choices above, i.e., you did not select them for QFs or higher.

Make sense? I think we can use the same point system, but I'll look into that.

How do you like that one, kids?

 

[tented]

All right, how about this:

We take the notion that the poster picks a specific draw, in their own mind. There is no doubling up of options. Therefore:

Quarterfinals: Pick 8

Semi-finals: Pick 4, but drawn from the previous 8

Finals: Pick 2, but drawn from the previous 4

Winner: Only drawn from your 2 finalists

DH: Can be anyone but not a finalist or winner pick. (For example, you could pick Wawrinka as your QFist in MC, and also pick him as your DH, but not if you picked him as a finalist or winner.)

WC: That's just someone to go deep, but not necessarily win. This cannot be someone selected in any of your choices above, i.e., you did not select them for QFs or higher.

Make sense? I think we can use the same point system, but I'll look into that.

How do you like that one, kids?

I think we're getting there, but ...

By nature, a dark horse is someone who has a chance of winning (albeit slim), but isn't an obvious, main contender. Wawrinka would have been the perfect dark-horse pick in Australia, for example: a Top 10 player, yet had never been in a Major final before.

With that in mind, I don't see how we can add the qualification that a dark horse must be someone who hasn't already been picked for another category. If we had done this before the AO began, and I had picked Wawrinka as my dark horse, but hadn't been allowed to pick him as the winner, then what?

 

[Moxie]

All right, how about this:

We take the notion that the poster picks a specific draw, in their own mind. There is no doubling up of options. Therefore:

Quarterfinals: Pick 8

Semi-finals: Pick 4, but drawn from the previous 8

Finals: Pick 2, but drawn from the previous 4

Winner: Only drawn from your 2 finalists

DH: Can be anyone but not a finalist or winner pick. (For example, you could pick Wawrinka as your QFist in MC, and also pick him as your DH, but not if you picked him as a finalist or winner.)

WC: That's just someone to go deep, but not necessarily win. This cannot be someone selected in any of your choices above, i.e., you did not select them for QFs or higher.

Make sense? I think we can use the same point system, but I'll look into that.

How do you like that one, kids?

I think we're getting there, but ...

By nature, a dark horse is someone who has a chance of winning (albeit slim), but isn't an obvious, main contender. Wawrinka would have been the perfect dark-horse pick in Australia, for example: a Top 10 player, yet had never been in a Major final before.

With that in mind, I don't see how we can add the qualification that a dark horse must be someone who hasn't already been picked for another category. If we had done this before the AO began, and I had picked Wawrinka as my dark horse, but hadn't been allowed to pick him as the winner, then what?

No, no…my idea is that only the Wild Card can't be from the list of others from QFs on. The DH CAN be from that list of picks, just not an obvious choice. Say you pick Wawrinka, (I was using the MC draw in my own mind…you're thinking AO, but both work…) for a Quarterfinalist. But not as finalist or winner. He could still be your Dark Horse to win. But he couldn't be your wild card.

Here's an example, using this MC:

Quarterfinalists:

Nadal
Ferrer

Wawrinka
Robredo

Tsonga
Federer

Berdych
Djokovic

From that, we pick SFs: (noting that all SF picks come from my QF picks.)

SFs:

Nadal
Wawrinka

Federer
Djokovic

(Note again that I only can pick my Semi-finalists from my Quarterfinalists.)

Finalists/Winner:

Two from the above 4, and the winner one of those 2. These cannot be my DH.
In this case, my semi-finalists choices: Nadal, Wawrinka, Federer and Djokovic, cannot be my Dark Horses.

However, Berdych, Tsonga, Robredo and Ferrer are still eligible to be my DH. Only the WC must come from the field, and not be any of these 8.

So, I can say my DH is: Berdych, though doesn't have to be from my final 8…could be Almagro
But my wild card is: Dimitrov, or Garcia Lopez, etc. (cannot be from my final 8)

Make sense?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

All right, how about this:

We take the notion that the poster picks a specific draw, in their own mind. There is no doubling up of options. Therefore:

Quarterfinals: Pick 8

Semi-finals: Pick 4, but drawn from the previous 8

Finals: Pick 2, but drawn from the previous 4

Winner: Only drawn from your 2 finalists

DH: Can be anyone but not a finalist or winner pick. (For example, you could pick Wawrinka as your QFist in MC, and also pick him as your DH, but not if you picked him as a finalist or winner.)

WC: That's just someone to go deep, but not necessarily win. This cannot be someone selected in any of your choices above, i.e., you did not select them for QFs or higher.

Make sense? I think we can use the same point system, but I'll look into that.

How do you like that one, kids?

We surely are getting there. We may need to iron out the details and definitions for
WC and DH.

Also, as far as the consistency is concerned, it should fit the draw pattern. i.e, it is not
enough for my two finalist picks to come from my 4 semifinalist picks, each finalist
should come from my projected semifinal match. (same story for the semifinalist and
quarterfinalist picks). In other words, the picks should be fully consistent (have a theoretical
possibility of all the picks materializing).

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Moxie, tented wants to have the ability to name the same player as DH and winner
and you are prohibiting that.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Tented's issue is genuine. But it is easy to fix. Basically, the definitions of DH and WC should
be absolute and not dependent on one's picks.

Here is my attempt at a complete set of rules. See whether folks like them.

Regular Picks:

Pick 8 quarterfinalists (5 points each)
Pick 4 semifinalists (10 points each)
Pick 2 finalists (20 points each)
Pick 1 winner (40 points).

Your picks above should be COMPLETELY consistent. Also, you get points for each
correct pick (and not the maximum a player reaches). So, if you pick Nadal as
winner in MC and he wins Nadal alone will fetch you 5+10+20+40 = 75 points.

Dark Horse: You cannot name the defending champion or any one of the top 4 seeds
(not rankings) of the tournament as the dark horse. Your dark horse can
be one of your regular picks as well. But, one of your regular picks can be
a dark horse only if they meet the definition. You get points only if your
dark horse wins the whole event. In that case, you get 40 points. Otherwise
you get 0 points, even if your DH ends up being a finalist.

Wild Card: You cannot name the defending champion or previous year's finalist
or any one of the top 16 seeds (not rankings) of the tournament as
the wild card. You get 5 points if your WC reaches QF and not higher,
you get 10 points if your WC reaches SF and not higher, you get 20 points
if your WC is a finalist and not higherand you get 40 points if your WC
wins the event. Note that unlike the regular picks, the points that a WC
fetches you is based on the maximum level reached by him. Your WC
can be one of the regular picks. One of your regular picks can be a WC
as long as he meets the definition above. Finally, your WC can be the
same as DH as long as he meets both definitions.

The maximum amount of points that can be won by anyone is 240 (40 for QF picks,
40 for SF picks, 40 for finalist picks and 40 for the winner pick, 40 for DH pick and
40 for WC pick).

Having DH and WC picks certainly adds a fun element to the competition and so
we should have it. There are 160 serious points obtainable and 80 fun points
obtainable. That appears to be a right mix of seriousness and fun.

In the event of a tie, the person with more "likes" (at the time of entry to
the competition) wins.

In the event of a further tie even after factoring number of "likes" (at the time
of entry to the competition), the person with more "posts" wins.

These will act as incentives for people to post more messages and also to
post more likable messages.

People take turn in determining the winner of the contest in the tournaments.
The prize (or penalty) for winning is that you get to be the judge that tallies
all the entries and determines the winner of the next contest.

This contest will be run only for the ATP 1000 events and not for the smaller events
or the GSs for which there are draw competitions with real prize money.

Once ATP or some commercial entity starts a competition with real prize money
for the ATP masters events, we will cease to run the competition.

Moxie decides the winner of Monte Carlo competition (the above rules do not
apply to MC as it was formed during the tournaments, she will use the old
rules whatever they may be).

Tented decides the winner of Madrid competition. After that the competition will
be running itself as the winner of each contest will be administering the next
contest.

See how folks like the above rules from the Supreme Dictator, GSM.

 

[Moxie]

All right, how about this:

We take the notion that the poster picks a specific draw, in their own mind. There is no doubling up of options. Therefore:

Quarterfinals: Pick 8

Semi-finals: Pick 4, but drawn from the previous 8

Finals: Pick 2, but drawn from the previous 4

Winner: Only drawn from your 2 finalists

DH: Can be anyone but not a finalist or winner pick. (For example, you could pick Wawrinka as your QFist in MC, and also pick him as your DH, but not if you picked him as a finalist or winner.)

WC: That's just someone to go deep, but not necessarily win. This cannot be someone selected in any of your choices above, i.e., you did not select them for QFs or higher.

Make sense? I think we can use the same point system, but I'll look into that.

How do you like that one, kids?

We surely are getting there. We may need to iron out the details and definitions for
WC and DH.

Also, as far as the consistency is concerned, it should fit the draw pattern. i.e, it is not
enough for my two finalist picks to come from my 4 semifinalist picks, each finalist
should come from my projected semifinal match. (same story for the semifinalist and
quarterfinalist picks). In other words, the picks should be fully consistent (have a theoretical
possibility of all the picks materializing).

I think that's what I said above, about it being a consistent draw. And as to your subsequent post, I'm not trying to "prohibit" anything. We're just trying to work our way through the rules, and I'm open to your ideas. I did ask for them to be revised before MC, but Denisovich chose not to. You could lighten up on me a bit, friend. We've just been trying to make a game so everyone could enjoy it. :hug

 

[Moxie]

^^ I like your rules above, GSM. Well-thought out and clear. I think you do a good job of making DH and WC clear. I'm also perfectly fine with me if people choose one or either as their winner. It's their draw choice, after all.

I only wonder if WC having to be out of the top 16 seeds isn't a bit restrictive…but we can do it this way for Madrid, and see how folks feel about it. The only reason I say "restrictive" is that I enjoy seeing who people really think might be a wild card, outside of their safer bets for QFs, SFs, Fs & W, but that's my personal preference.

As to declaring a winner for MC, I believe that's Denisovich's job. And I'm not sure tented wants to be saddled with it, in future. He has lots of other jobs, but we'll let him say. I'd be fine if you'd like to run it, GSM. TBH, tented and I both have "homework" at the end of a tournament, to put up news items for the front page. Would you like to?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

As I explained in my big post, one of the administrators or moderators need to do it only
once and afterewards it will be running itself as the prize for winning one contest will be
the duty of administering the next contest. Of course, the winner of one contest does
not get to set the rules of the next contest and merely administers the contest as per
the rules that we collectively agree upon.

I am open to relaxing the wild card to anyone outside of defending champion, past
finalists and top 8 seeds, if that is what folks prefer.

 

[Moxie]

I am open to relaxing the wild card to anyone outside of defending champion, past
finalists and top 8 seeds, if that is what folks prefer.

Personally, I like that, because I think it's more likely to reflect who folks think could make some noise, rather than just picking randomly out of the top 16 seeds, but let's see if anyone else weighs in before Madrid. Anyway, I think you've refined it to a good challenge.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

All right, how about this:

We take the notion that the poster picks a specific draw, in their own mind. There is no doubling up of options. Therefore:

Quarterfinals: Pick 8

Semi-finals: Pick 4, but drawn from the previous 8

Finals: Pick 2, but drawn from the previous 4

Winner: Only drawn from your 2 finalists

DH: Can be anyone but not a finalist or winner pick. (For example, you could pick Wawrinka as your QFist in MC, and also pick him as your DH, but not if you picked him as a finalist or winner.)

WC: That's just someone to go deep, but not necessarily win. This cannot be someone selected in any of your choices above, i.e., you did not select them for QFs or higher.

Make sense? I think we can use the same point system, but I'll look into that.

How do you like that one, kids?

We surely are getting there. We may need to iron out the details and definitions for
WC and DH.

Also, as far as the consistency is concerned, it should fit the draw pattern. i.e, it is not
enough for my two finalist picks to come from my 4 semifinalist picks, each finalist
should come from my projected semifinal match. (same story for the semifinalist and
quarterfinalist picks). In other words, the picks should be fully consistent (have a theoretical
possibility of all the picks materializing).

I think that's what I said above, about it being a consistent draw. And as to your subsequent post, I'm not trying to "prohibit" anything. We're just trying to work our way through the rules, and I'm open to your ideas. I did ask for them to be revised before MC, but Denisovich chose not to. You could lighten up on me a bit, friend. We've just been trying to make a game so everyone could enjoy it. :hug

1. I know that is what you meant. I just wanted to make it explicit before somebody exploits
the weakeness in the wording.

2. The "prohibition" thing came from tented's valid objection to the previous suggestion.

3. We do want to prohibit somethings though (such as Nadal being named wild card for MC).

 

[Moxie]

^ No one is going to "exploit" anything. I think you take it too seriously. It's just an internal game, and as I keep saying, it's just for fun. It will always be self-policing, to some extent: if anyone tried to make Nadal a WC for MC, they'd be laughed off these boards. I don't think you have to worry about that. :laydownlaughing

 

[GameSetAndMath]

^ No one is going to "exploit" anything. I think you take it too seriously. It's just an internal game, and as I keep saying, it's just for fun. It will always be self-policing, to some extent: if anyone tried to make Nadal a WC for MC, they'd be laughed off these boards. I don't think you have to worry about that. :laydownlaughing

I took "Chilling Out 101", but miserably failed. I really need to retake it when I get some free time. :chillout:

 

[Moxie]

^ No one is going to "exploit" anything. I think you take it too seriously. It's just an internal game, and as I keep saying, it's just for fun. It will always be self-policing, to some extent: if anyone tried to make Nadal a WC for MC, they'd be laughed off these boards. I don't think you have to worry about that. :laydownlaughing

I took "Chilling Out 101", but miserably failed. I really need to retake it when I get some free time. :chillout:

Like this game, honey…we're all a work-in-progress.

:clap

 

[isabelle]

The ones who predicted Stan the Man in semi were right !!

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

I had a feeling playing this time I jinxed my player

I was right.....Rafa................Meh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Riotbeard]

^ No one is going to "exploit" anything. I think you take it too seriously. It's just an internal game, and as I keep saying, it's just for fun. It will always be self-policing, to some extent: if anyone tried to make Nadal a WC for MC, they'd be laughed off these boards. I don't think you have to worry about that. :laydownlaughing

As Ricardo would say, this is the wiffle-waffle feminist thinking that is destroying this country moxie.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Anybody else picked Stan for the winner except yours truly?:celeb:

 

[Riotbeard]

Anybody else picked Stan for the winner except yours truly?:celeb:

I don't think so buddy! Congrats!

I did pick him for the final...

 

[Moxie]

Denisovich wasn't game to do the math, so I have. Note that a lot of folks picked Dimitrov as their WC, which would have garnered 10 pts. per his subsequent round and changed the results, but no such luck.

While Murat does get the bragging rights for picking the winner, Riotbeard takes the day on points!

Riotbeard: 25
Murat: 20
Nehmeth: 15
GameSetMath: 15
Kieran: 10
Tented: 10
Fashionista: 10
Anti-Pusher: 10

Embarrassingly, I seem to have forgotten to play. Oh, well, I would have done poorly anyway.

As to the next challenge, we've had discussions. Not sure where we netted out, on rules, or who runs the challenge. Either Riotbeard takes it over, as the winner, or GSM does, as the most interested. We have a week to sort it out.

Congratulations, Riotbeard! :celeb: