MATCH PLAY

[Jay Trotter]

WANTED

CREATIVE INPUT

***


Contest 7
Sept 19, 2012 - Oct 28, 2012
Match Play Championship
Top 64 Players Qualify for Head to Head Action

***

Contest 7 of the PaceAdvantage.com Challenge Series
will be an NCAA style bracket playdown
for the TOP 64 Players based on P.A.C.S. Points Earned

WEEK 1 - ROUND OF 64
WEEK 2 - ROUND OF 32
WEEK 3 - ROUND OF 16
WEEK 4 - ROUND OF 8
WEEK 5 - ROUND OF 4
WEEK 6 - ROUND OF 2

***

We are seeking creative Match Play formats
that would see Player vs Player competitions
which would take place over a one week period
and allow the premier handicapper the chance to shine

***

What would the format look like?
Best of 7 Series?
Each player uses the same race?
Players select their own races?
Use ROI or other?
etc.

Please post your ideas for this type of Contest

***

[horses4courses]

Head to head matches need special conditions....the top one being privacy when it comes to posting your selections. For that reason, I would suggest that all contestants have the option of sending a PM to the official scorer with their picks. That being said, all contest selections need to be posted, or with the official scorer, before first post at the designated track.

Stick to the major circuits (NY, FLA, KY, IL, SOCAL), and designate one card per day for all the finalists.
Everyone should face the same obstacles.

Each contestant plays 5 races/day, and starts each day with $1500.
These 5 plays each have set amounts ($500,400,300,200,100), thus, each contestant has to weight their strongest play down to their weakest.
WPS and Exactas would certainly be allowed, with the possibility of Trifectas and Supers should popular opinion be in favor. Vertical wagers, such as PK3 and PK4 are not out of the question, either.

After 5 days of play, the highest $ figure wins the match.

Q.E.D....... ;)

[Track Collector]

Not that the NCAA bracket style of pairings is bad, but here is another possible way of pairings. It comes from the arena of open chess tournaments with a sizable number of players and limited number of playing rounds. It is called the "Swiss System" of pairings.

An example of how it works.......

Let start with a tournament of 16 players. They are initially ranked from top to bottom by their current chess rating. In OUR CONTEST, players would be ranked by their PACS point totals going in to the contest. (One would have to determine ahead of time how to break ties, which affect seeding positions, between players with the same number of PACS points.).

In the first round, the "top" half is paired against the "bottom half". The top player (i.e the one with the most PACS points) would be designed by P1, the second highest by P2, etc.

The pairings for round 1 would be: P1 vs. P9
P2 vs. P10
P3 vs. P11
P4 vs. P12
P5 vs. P13
P6 vs. P14
P7 vs. P15
P8 vs. P16

The difference between this and the NCAA bracket style is that in a general way, all players would have roughly the same difference in ratings in their individual matches. The difference (or competition level) in the P1 vs. P9 match would not in general be too different than the P8 vs. P16 level. All the higher rated players get an equal opportunity to win their individual 1st-round matches, where with the NCAA bracket style, the highest seeds have the easier opportunity to go on the next round whereas the middle seeds (like #8 and #9) have the hardest opportunity to get past round 1 because they are playing a team to be considered their equal.

Now lets say the following players won their first round contests: P1, P2, P3, P5, P6, P8, P12, P15. Once again the "top half" is paired against the "bottom" half, with round 2 pairs looking like:
P1 vs. P6
P2 vs. P8
P3 vs. P12
P5 vs. P15
In "swiss" style chess tournaments, no one is eliminated and all players compete in the pre-designated number of rounds. Those players are paired in like manner, but are not listed here as ours is an elimination-style contest.

In round 2, let's say that players P1, P3, P5, and P8 won. Then round 3 pairings would be:
P1 vs. P5
P3 vs. P8

In round 3, let's say that players P3 and P5 won. These two players then play for the championship. As a special and perhaps necessary twist, you could then have a P1 vs. P8 match to decide 3rd place, as all our other contests have offered special prizes for the first 3 places.

Once the method of seeding players is established and clarified, this "Swiss" system of pairings is actually very easy to administrate. The pairings are cut and dried with NO subjectivity, so the same pairings would be arrived at no matter who has that responsibility. I would volunteer to handle the pairing responsibility if this METHOD of pairings were adopted.

One final point/benefit over the NCAA bracket style.....no subjectivity and/or extra work required to come up with 4-different "equal" regions with 16 players each.

Even though the NCAA Bracket Style is much more commonly known, I hope players will see this much lesser known method of pairings to be both fair and easy to implement.

I'll have more thoughts in other postings. :)

[shots]

All comers, blind draw for matches, double elimination, win betting only.

[Track Collector]

Given that the top 64 players will be taken In regard to taking the highest 64 players from the PACS Points list, I would suggest that ties be broken by the player with the highest finish in ANY contest. If both players have the same highest finish, then compare based on the 2nd highest finish. If still tied, go to the 3rd highest finish, etc.

Example:
Players A, B, and C have finished in a tie for 23rd place overall.
Player A's five highest finishes are 5th, 7th, 23rd, 41st, and 93rd.
Player B's five highest finishes are 5th, 9th, 13th, 31st, and 52nd.
Player C's five highest finishes are 6th, 10th, 22nd, 51st, and 72nd.

Comparing all player's highest finishes, Player A and Player B are still tied, but are higher than Player C.
Player C is then considered to have finished in 25th place.
Comparing Player A and Player B with regard to their 2nd highest finish, Player A has a 7th, while Player B has a 9th.
Player A is then considered to have finished in 23rd place.
Player B is then considered to have finished in 24th place.


This method is actually quite simple compared to other tie-breaker methods, like the one used by the NFL to break ties for teams trying to make the playoffs. :D

[maclr11]

I would run it just like the NCAA tourney
4 brackets of 16
Single elimination
8 races a game
Highest total of $2 wps wins
Each contestant chooses 4 races a game or all 8 are chooses by master scheduler
My take

Rob

[Jay Trotter]

Not much input here.....................

Let me rephrase the challenge. Forget about the fact this is in reference to a contest.

If you were to go up against another handicapper over a 1 week period, what would be a fair way to go about this challenge?

[Fastracehorse]

Not much input here.....................

Let me rephrase the challenge. Forget about the fact this is in reference to a contest.

If you were to go up against another handicapper over a 1 week period, what would be a fair way to go about this challenge?

most people have more time on the weekends

pick 3 A tracks over the weekend - PAIHL style scoring
win ROI is effective but boring
3 tracks would be more than enough work and decent sample

i like the chance to show your stuff and quality tracks; and of course: fun

fffastt

[thaskalos]

Not much input here.....................

Let me rephrase the challenge. Forget about the fact this is in reference to a contest.

If you were to go up against another handicapper over a 1 week period, what would be a fair way to go about this challenge?

If you intend on "allowing the premier handicapper to shine", Jay...then there are a few facts that you should keep in mind.

1.) Selecting which races to bet on is a big part of the smart player's game...and this skill should not be taken away from the player by having the races pre-selected ahead of time by the contest organizers. Allow the players to select their own races (and racetracks) to play...according to their own race and track preferences -- and just tell them how many races they are allowed to play per day.

It's the only way to insure that there will be justice for all.

2.) The betting process is readily acknowledged as the most important aspect of a horseplayer's knowledge...so, IMO, the types of bets should not be pre-selected either. Come up with a suitable dollar amount that should be wagered on each race...and allow the players themselves to decide how to put that dollar amount to proper use.

If this were a daily event, then the case could be made that a player could get "lucky" in one of the exotics...and defeat the other, more skillful player. But with the contest lasting one week...both players have enough time to adequately respond to each other's play.

Just make sure to have the players keep their picks a secret from one another...to insure that the leading player won't just copy the bets of his opponent in the latter stages...thus guaranteeing himself the victory.

3.) A high ROI is all well and good...but that's not how we really keep score when we play this game in real life. When two players start with the same bankroll, and wager the same amounts per race, on the same number of races per day...then their ROI is of secondary importance.

The better player is always the one who emerges from the experience with the bigger BANKROLL.



I hope my suggestions help...