Aggregate vs Sudden Death playoff

[Discette]

Excellent question. It's not the higher rated player, it's the player who is playing at a higher level of skill during the simulated tournament.

There's a subtly in the model that eliminates the day to day variation in skill level that players experience. In real life, a player might play above or below their rating on any given round for two reasons: One, they are actually playing better (or worse) because the course suits their style (or not) or they are hungover, or any number of factors that affect their play. The second reason is that for a given level of play, there are random results. Sometimes the disc that hits only nubs goes in and sometimes it rolls away. Sometimes the disc barely misses a tree, and sometimes a puff of breeze will knock it into the hanging dead branch.

I eliminated the first variation. In the model, when a 1005 "rated" player is pitted against a 995 "rated" player, each player's expected score on every hole is based on their skill level that day. For example, the 1005 rated player will have a better chance of getting a two on every hole.

The actual score is randomly selected from each player's expected distribution of scores for that hole. As a result, the player who is playing higher rated golf that day doesn't always get assigned a better or equal score on each hole.

In other words, before the simulated players get started, I know exactly at what skill level they are going to play, so I know who should win. A tournament (with tiebreaker) has failed to do its job if it didn't identify the player who I know was playing better that day. That's why I use the correct/incorrect terminology.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[FrontRimBanger]

I like sudden death, it really shows how the players handle pressure. What i really hate is CTP playoffs, I know it's not used in tournaments for the most part but I've seen it in some leagues/doubles and it irks me. Soooooo we both have a tap in on this hole but since you're an inch closer you beat me? Yea no thank you

 

[Karl]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but chess competitions are rarely about a single game. If you're just playing one game and it ends in a draw, sure, no big deal. But typically a chess tournament/competition comprises a series of games, either a best of X series or a first to X wins sort of thing. The Chess World Championship, for example, is a best of 12 series between the challenger and the champion. The last World Championship was tied 6-6 after 12 games (some games were drawn with players each getting .5 credit), so they played off to determine a winner.

More times than not (in regards to chess tournaments) you're correct - but not always...although the trend IS towards that now-a-days more so than in the past. It seems that EVERY 'competition' is feeding off this "we must have a clear winner (no matter what)" and it thus self-perpetuating. I just think there's nothing wrong with "a tie". Over 18 (36, 54, 72, et al) holes the "luck factor" kind of evens out (at least more so than not) and to have 2 obviously evenly matched entities (at least on that day) - after gearing up to play X holes / amt. of time / expending a certain amt. of energy / etc. - have to 'throw fate to the luck of the gods' by playing 1 or more holes IMO doesn't really accomplish what the initial competition set out to prove. It's kind of why we don't hold 1-hole tournaments. Such wouldn't really prove much.

 

[Zanguini]

I would be awesome at a 1- hole tourney. So long as i got to pick the hole, and tees, and basket, and who is allowed to play, max distance drive, OB, etc. I would be like the best ever.

 

[araytx]

Why is it better for a competition to determine a winner?

Just a matter of taste, of course, but I suspect I'm in in the majority in thinking that if I'm going to engage in a competition---or even watch one---I want it to result in a conclusion: that someone won it. Though you can find exceptions, it seems prevalent at most levels of sport, from media-driven spectator sports down to the grassroots.

As to the method, its fairness or similarity to the main competition, this is a matter of practicality and compromise. At one ludicrous extreme you could re-stage the entire event. At the other, you could flip a coin. Somewhere in between, sports settle on a format that weighs fairness, time considerations, and sometimes entertainment value.

In our case, my question would be, if you have a situation where sudden death (or 3-hole aggregate followed by sudden death) is not practical or presents problems, what are the other options? Leaving it tied, or some other formula based on the completed play? We can lampoon either because, being compromises, they have their faults. It's just a matter of which is best (or least worst), and live with it.

To my taste, an unbroken tie---an unresolved competition---is tough to swallow.

I appreciate your honest and objective thoughts there.

If I am TD and I go through the trouble of making/buying a trophy for first place for whatever division it happens to be you better believe we are doing a playoff. No way am I going to buy/make another 1st place trophy.

But you don't have to. Tell the players in advance, a tie is a tie, and if we have one the trophy goes to (select one of my methods).

I have not given it much thought. It just induces vomiting.

Great reasoning. Thanks, Dr. Cooper.

...

Well it stands to reason right, they couldn't find a winner playing by the original rules. So you choose to change them to get a winner or else we are going to be here all night.

Ftfy

Baseball is experimenting with a change for breaking a tie. In the World Baseball Classic I saw a new (to me) method which after the 10th or 11th inning each inning started with your player who last batted out starting on 2nd base.

A couple of weeks ago our 13U baseball team played a tournament in Albq., NM and in our last game we were tied after 7 innings (regulation play) This same format was used for another 3 innings until our catcher made an error at home and the other team scored to win. I'm split on whether or not I like it. It instantly creates drama at the start of an inning, but man this is BASEBALL, a game pretty much unchanged for many years.

International tie-breaker. Seen it used in softball a lot, especially competitive fast pitch where a great pitcher can shut teams out for 20 innings or more.

 

[Orioles_Lefty]

More times than not (in regards to chess tournaments) you're correct - but not always...although the trend IS towards that now-a-days more so than in the past. It seems that EVERY 'competition' is feeding off this "we must have a clear winner (no matter what)" and it thus self-perpetuating. I just think there's nothing wrong with "a tie". Over 18 (36, 54, 72, et al) holes the "luck factor" kind of evens out (at least more so than not) and to have 2 obviously evenly matched entities (at least on that day) - after gearing up to play X holes / amt. of time / expending a certain amt. of energy / etc. - have to 'throw fate to the luck of the gods' by playing 1 or more holes IMO doesn't really accomplish what the initial competition set out to prove. It's kind of why we don't hold 1-hole tournaments. Such wouldn't really prove much.

I come from a chess (and soccer) background and feel the same way about the trend you mention and with being okay with ties. I find a tie to be beautiful in a way: we agreed to compete within X parameters, and after the agreed upon length of competition and because of what occurred for both of us across this agreed up competition, we are equal to one another. As in chess, you shake hands and, instead of using an additional mechanism to make us unequal, you agree to battle another day.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Technically, golf competition is everyone playing against the course and not each other unlike match play. So the "competition" in medal play is essentially just ranking final scores against the course to determine final placement. And has been mentioned, you may not even have played in the same group as the player you end up tied with. Sounds like a tie that would be unfair to break by stats or in some severely shortened format.

Maybe a provisionally scheduled Final 6-9 holes might make sense in large events. But if there's just one clear leader more than 2 shots ahead after regulation, there's no Final and the leader wins. However, anyone within 2 shots of the leader after regulation gets to play a minimum of 6 more holes. There's a potential cut after 6 holes if anyone falls 2 or more behind the current leader at that point. Of course, if that leader is the only player 2 or more ahead, they win right there after 6 holes. However, if at least two players are still within 1 shot, the final 3 holes are played to determine a winner. And if their scores still end up tied, players remain tied for first.

Seems like this might be a cool way to complete big events. Most people don't want to watch a "victory lap" final 6 or 9. But if it's close with some potential drama, it might be compelling. There's also time for word to get out on the net that it's happening so people can tune in.

 

[Steve West]

provisionally … But if …However,… if …if …However, if ..And if …players remain tied for first.

So seven decision points, and it might still end up in tie. No thanks.

During the regular round, any single hole could have broken the tie. Also, a lead of just one throw is enough to win.

I see no problem with continuing that and having any single hole (sudden death) be a tiebreaker and a lead of just one throw being enough to win.

Good enough for the regular round, good enough for a tiebreaker.

 

[Cgkdisc]

So seven decision points, and it might still end up in tie. No thanks.

During the regular round, any single hole could have broken the tie. Also, a lead of just one throw is enough to win.

I see no problem with continuing that and having any single hole (sudden death) be a tiebreaker and a lead of just one throw being enough to win.

Good enough for the regular round, good enough for a tiebreaker.

It's actually pretty simple. The Final 9 is scheduled but a player can win by at least 3 during regulation which minimizes any one hole fluky luck having an impact. If no regulation winner, then play next 6 holes aggregate score and try to win by at least 2. Again, avoiding 1-throw luck and hopefully playing a balanced set of holes. If not, play 3 more holes and win by 1. If not, then players tie. The extra 6+3 holes are only played if there's potential drama. Otherwise, the award ceremony can get underway earlier so other players and spectators don't have to watch perhaps less interesting play.

 

[araytx]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but chess competitions are rarely about a single game. If you're just playing one game and it ends in a draw, sure, no big deal. But typically a chess tournament/competition comprises a series of games, either a best of X series or a first to X wins sort of thing. The Chess World Championship, for example, is a best of 12 series between the challenger and the champion. The last World Championship was tied 6-6 after 12 games (some games were drawn with players each getting .5 credit), so they played off to determine a winner.

It happens all the time in sports. In boxing and all fighting events, you have to BEAT the champion to get the belt. If the fight is a draw the champion has successfully defending his/her title and remains the champ. Teams know when playing to a tie means winning their division or a playoff spot. What I am advocating for is ALWAYS faster, MOST OFTEN equally compelling, and NO LESS valid than sudden death.

You're assuming tee times rather than shotgun start. You're also assuming that either player is playing the tiebreaker hole late/last in the round. Neither may be the case.

If you've selected hole 18's score as the first tiebreaker in the event of a tie, does that hold for all divisions playing in the event? Even the MA2s who started on holes 9 through 13 and would be playing through hole 18 midway through their round when none of them have a clue whether there will be a tie at the end of the round?

The reason sudden death is the standard PDGA tiebreaker is because it is easily and universally applied to all divisions at all events. You have a tie, you play it off in the same manner no matter the division or the level of the event. It's simple and easily understood by all. Going back and breaking ties with a random hole or some other method using past performance is only inviting more headaches for the TDs and the players.

I think the debate of aggregate vs sudden death is a worthy one and I'd be fine with the PDGA allowing TDs to decide which they prefer, provided players are made aware in advance. But no way should there ever be statistically based tiebreakers such as who had the better score on hole X during round Y.

Re-vitalizing.

The part in the red, that's totally true. However, as they step up to hole 8 (their final hole) they have opportunity to check how each player did on hole #18 and so on. It's very easy to know if you need to win the last hole you're playing outright or push in order to win the event. Just takes a little 10-second check.