Tiebreakers
Página 1 de 1 • Compartilhe •
Tiebreakers
In any Swisssystem tournaments, it is inevitable for players to end
up with the same score. The only resolution to decide who gets to enter
the Top 8 is through Tiebreaker.
In this article, we’ll explore the various types of Tiebreakers
commonly employed and the strength and weakness of each system. At the
end of the article, I will suggest a new form of Tiebreaker that can be
employed easily on pen and paper.

210(1)
210(1) (pronounced as TwoOneZeroNegative One) is a simple
system where players are awarded points based on their performance for
each match.
W:L = Amount of points
2:0 = 2 points
2:1 = 1 point
1:2 = 0 point
0:2 = 1 point
This system is simple and can be easily employed on pen and paper.
However, the biggest flaw is the fact that a player with a 2:0 win is
essentially gaining two times more points than a player with a 2:1 win.
To illustrate this scenario:
Player A has won 4 games with a 2:1 win each. His total score is 4 points.
Player B has won 2 games with a 2:0 win each. His current total score is 4 points as well.
Although Player A has won more games, he is awarded the same amount
of points as Player B who has only completed 2 games. The only way for
Player B to lose out to Player A is to lose at least one match with a
0:2 record. Player A is obviously at a disadvantage even though he has
won all his matches.
Additionally, this system heavily favors meta decks due to the simple
fact that meta decks have a higher chance of winning the first game
(before sidedecking), hence largely increasing the chances of getting a
2:0 win.

3210
Similar to the 210(1) system, the players are awarded points according to their performance for each match.
W:L = Amount of points
2:0 = 3 points
2:1 = 2 point
1:2 = 1 point
0:2 = 0 point
The main difference for the 3210 system is that a 2:0 win does not give such a big advantage anymore. In the same scenario:
Player A has won 4 games with a 2:1 win each. His total score is 8 points.
Player B has won 2 games with a 2:0 win each. His current total score is 6 points.
Player A still retains his advantage of winning more games compared
to Player B. However, this system has its flaws as well: conspiracy by
players at the last round to rig the scores. Often by the last round of
the Swiss, players would often play for 3 points by giving the winner of
the match a 2:0 win. This would break the system and result in multiple
tied scores at the end.
Magic: The Gathering employs a similar system (3 points for a win, 1
point for a draw, and 0 point for a loss). The top players of the last
round would settle for a draw to ensure that both would be able to enter
the Top 8, often depriving the rest of a chance to squeeze into the Top
8.

Mantis 3.0
This is system employed by Upper Deck Entertainment for their
YuGiOh! TCG (now replaced by Konami Digital Entertainment’s Cossy), VS
System (discontinued) and World of Warcraft TCG.
Instead of awarding points according to the performance of each
match, the players are first ranked according to their number of wins.
If the number of wins are tied, the following tiebreaker bonus will be
employed:
Tiebreaker Bonus 1 – Win/Loss Sum
This score is determined by the performance of your opponents. For each
game your opponent has won, you will be awarded 1 point, and for each
game that they loss, you will receive 1 point.
For example:
Player A has played against 4 players 
Opponent 1: 0 win 4 loss = 4 points
Opponent 2: 1 win 3 loss = 2 points
Opponent 3: 2 win 2 loss = 0 points
Opponent 4: 3 win 1 loss = 2 points
The tiebreaker 1 for Player A would be 4.
Tiebreaker Bonus 2 – First Tiebreaker Sum
This is determined by the performance of the players that your opponents
played against. The Tiebreaker Bonus 1 of all your opponent is added
together and equate to your Tiebreaker Bonus 2.
Tiebreaker Bonus 3 – Timing
This is determined by your personal performance; the later you lose in
the tournament, the higher your Tiebreaker Bonus 3 will be. The formula
to calculate this number is the sum of the squares of the rounds that
you lost in.
Source: UD Official Tournament Policy Jan 12
This a good system that has served UDE well for many tournaments. The
only problem is the requirement of a computer to run the program, which
is largely restricted by the tournament venue.
dracofu Exodias

Número de Mensagens : 3643
Idade : 39
Pontos : 1682023
Data de inscrição : 28/02/2008
Página 1 de 1
Permissão deste fórum:
Você não pode responder aos tópicos neste fórum