Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
buck

Coin Toss Selection

59 posts in this topic

On 1/9/2017 at 3:44 PM, Knobbe said:

 

Rules

"Madsion Rules" as originally defined by the group at "Tecmo Madison"

 

1. Team Selection & Coin Toss: A manual coin-flip will precede each game. The coin-flip winner can choose the matchup (i.e. the two teams) or defer the matchup choice to the coin-flip loser.

If the winner chooses the matchup, the winner is given the P1 controller, and the loser chooses his choice of the two teams in the matchup.

If the winner defers the matchup choice, the winner is given the P2 controller,  the loser will then choose the matchup and the winner will select his choice of the two teams.

In summary, the winner of the coin toss either gets P1 and choice of matchup or P2 and choice of teams.

 

 

so, I either don't understand the wording of the rule or the reason for the change of the "coin flip" stuff. 

 

I recall that the "coin flip" winner simply would choose a matchup, and then the "loser" would choose to either:

1) take P1 and whatever team the winner doesn't take

2) choose a team from the matchup and take P2.  

 

this process is very simple, straight forward, and fair, in my opinion.  

 

am I reading this correctly that now the coin flip winner gets to call the matchup and also takes P1?  what?  this is actually the opposite of the way the coin flip was previously done for the past 10 years, is it not?  

 

did Madison do the coin flip this new way last year?  how did it go over?  

 

you shouldn't get to call the matchup and get P1 because this seems unfair in favor of the coin flip winner, in my opinion.  1) a coin flip should't mean this much and 2) give the coin flip winner so much advantage right of the bat.  

 

forget "tap meters", there needs to be some data taken on the correlation between coin flip winner and game winner.  I would bet that the correlation would be high, in this new format.

Edited by buck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, buck said:

I recall that the "coin flip" winner simply would choose a matchup, and then the "loser" would choose to either:

1) take P1 and whatever team the winner doesn't take

2) choose a team from the matchup and take P2.  

 

am I reading this correctly that now the coin flip winner gets to call the matchup and also takes P1?  what?  this is actually the opposite of the way the coin flip was previously done for the past 10 years, is it not?  

 

The highlighted portions of your statements say the same thing. It has not changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, buck said:

this is actually the opposite of the way the coin flip was previously done for the past 10 years, is it not?  

 

did Madison do the coin flip this new way last year?  how did it go over?  

 

you shouldn't get to call the matchup and get P1 because this seems unfair in favor of the coin flip winner, in my opinion.  1) a coin flip should't mean this much and 2) give the coin flip winner so much advantage right of the bat.  

 

forget "tap meters", there needs to be some data taken on the correlation between coin flip winner and game winner.  I would bet that the correlation would be high, in this new format.

 

The coin flip rules from Madison were actually in place from about Tecmo 7 or 8 on - the rules kept being amended because of near constant complaints about who gets P1. After discussing the situation, and taking in to account the constant complaints, we decided to simplify the coin toss system due to the fact that no one wanted to win the toss. That put the tournament in a situation where a majority of players were not happy with winning the toss because the loser of the toss received P1 unless the winner chose a matchup that was so one-sided as to overcome the prejudice against P2 (Just off the top of my head Tecmo VII and Tecmo XII were won from P2 side). 

 

Since the general feel of the competitors was that P1 was important and that matchup choice was not important - most people choose a neutral matchup, we allowed for the fact that if a player chooses the matchup (bad by a large group of people) then that player receives a mental bonus of P1 (good by a majority of people). However, if a player wishes to choose the team from a matchup, that player can pass on P1 to grab a preferred team (like if you called Rams - Anyone against @averagetsbplayer, he'll give up P1 for the Rams). 

 

This simplifies things. And as the guy who, on tournament day, listened to every single P1/P2 complaint and the endless complaining about the "unfairness" of the 5 year old coin flip system, I like the simplicity of this "not really newer" format. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok.  

 

if you guys don't keep tournament stats on coin flip win % vs game winner correlation, it would be irresponsible and a waste of significant (in my opinion) Tecmo win prediction data. 

 

I say start keeping who wins coin toss along with the win at this Lincoln tournament.  and then take this data at every tournament for the rest of the year.  publish results.  

 

and I will go ahead and predict that the coin flip winner has significantly higher win % than loser, under your new bitch-appeaser system.

 

I still don't understand why winning a coin toss should be considered to give you some kind of advantage.  the coin flip is just a "starting point", it is supposed to be a "fair start", not an advantage, right?  because, the game should be decided on the field, not in a coin toss, right?

 

the new rule gives the coin flip winner too much advantage, where there shouldn't even be consideration for an advantage in the first place.  we might as well be sitting around flipping coins to see who wins and just playing TSB for fun on the side.  am I crazy?  I am not trying to be a dick.

 

 

Edited by buck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@buck

 

Well you might be wrong. 

 

Detroit kumite did and I compiled the data for P1 vs P2, the person calling the matchup(P1) had a tiny tiny edge. It averaged out to just less than 1pt a game.

 

 For one specific tourney....i think kumite 3... it was actually negative. Even just limiting the data to just the best players didnt really change things. 

 

P1 has some tiny (maybe a few) % edge advantages in recovering a fumble. And a big edge in onsides kicks. And for some people they are just less comfortable playing as the p2 side due years of playing com as p1 

 

But in most matchups one team is usually marginally better than another even if its slight so its usually a wash. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope that I am wrong, bruddog.  because it would be wrong to give the coin flip winner any advantage.  the coin toss should just provide a fair starting point.

 

and to automatically give the coin flip winner P1 is to give them an instant advantage.  for comfort, for onsides, for fumble %, etc.  those are all advantages.

 

at least in the old system, the coin flip loser had some control of their destiny, being able to choose a team or P1.  not now.  coin flip winner now gets a clear advantage, by automatically getting P1, before anyone even thinks or makes any decisions.  

 

and obviously I don't agree that a coin flip should determine who gets this advantage.  

 

ps- I am talking about win %, not points - points don't mean much to me, as they are very dependent on the teams being played with in TSB.  

Edited by buck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

point differential(home team pts- away team pts) correlates VERY highly with win %. But I'll pull the WIN%  that for you to because its basically the same 

 

 

ALL PLAYERS

Sample Size = # games = 378

 

Home PPG average 16.2

Away PPG average 15.8

Average differential = 0.4 pts

home team win 53%

 

ELITE MATCHUPS ONLY (BOTH PLAYERS rated >7)

Sample Size = # games = 46

 

Home PPG average 17.28

Away PPG average 17.15

Average differential = 0.13 pts

home team win 53.3%,  24/45, +1.5 win over expected 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks, pure win % is good enough for me and all I personally care about.

 

and without standard deviations given, point averages are meaningless to me.

 

standard deviation:  if you have a forest of 100 trees, and 99 of the trees are 1 foot tall, but 1 of the trees is 100 feet tall.  without standard deviation, how would one know that the "average" height of a tree in said forest of around 2 feet, is a quite meaningless number?

Edited by buck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm open to talking this over during the next week.  If picking the teams is considered an advantage, then the process of rolling for tiers would negate this. On the flip side, I'm not looking to over-complicate things.

 

Less complicated rules >>>> minor statistical advantages

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Knobbe said:

If picking the teams is considered an advantage,

 

I don't know about rolling for tiers, but I think picking teams should be considered an advantage.  for the obvious and simple facts that - some people are more comfortable with poor teams (tiers) than others, and some are more comfortable with elite teams (tiers) than others - and in general, some people are just not comfortable with certain teams, so they will never even pick them for a matchup.  

 

so, if you get to pick the two teams that will be playing, and since they are comfortable to you (or uncomfortable to your opponent), then that is an advantage.  you are not stuck using a team you don't know, like, or whatever.  you may be playing with P2, but that is the risk you take, at least you get to be a team you like or know.

 

is picking the matchup more of an advantage (or equal to) than picking controller in any given matchup?  I don't know, but it seems pretty close to equal and fair, in my experience and opinion.  

 

is winning the coin flip bad because you get to pick the matchup?  is winning the coin flip bad because the loser gets to pick P1 and the winner is left choosing between a team he picked?  maybe, it could be seen that way, but how much "badder" is it to lose the coin flip now under they new rule!  you are instantly screwed by not getting a chance at P1 and not getting to choose the teams that will be used!  

 

If you automatically get P1 (advantage #1) and you get to choose the teams (that you are comfortable with, or your opponent is uncomfortable with = advantage #2), that is just pure obvious advantage and coin flip winner bias right there...and I don't think winning a coin flip should automatically give you an advantage

 

the old way, if the coin flip winner (matchup caller) called a matchup that the other guy was uncomfortable with, at least the coin flip loser could take P1 to hopefully compensate for having to play with teams they aren't good at using.  and this is fair, isn't it?  it is some offset, some equalization, right?  perhaps the "old way" isn't perfect and leaves room for much bitching and whining, but this "new way" is beyond unreasonable, because the coin flip obviously becomes too important , the way I see it.

 

because, I think that a coin flip should just be a "starting point" for a civil TSB game, and should be as fair as possible and not inherently give any advantage/bias to the coin flip winner.

 

Edited by buck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, I'll take input and make some sort of decision this week either way.

 

47 minutes ago, buck said:

but this "new way" is beyond unreasonable


I could basically have people draw names out of a hat and use that team the entire time or have everyone play NFC vs AFC so you might want to re-calibrate the phrase "beyond unreasonable"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Knobbe said:

I could basically have people draw names out of a hat and use that team the entire time or have everyone play NFC vs AFC so you might want to re-calibrate the phrase "beyond unreasonable"

 

true.  that would suck but I wouldn't even call that a tournament, maybe an exercise in futility.

 

I think that the things to ask yourself and others are:

 

#1 is calling a matchup of two teams an advantage?  (yes, see my post above)

 

#2 is choosing controller (P1) an advantage? (yes)

 

#3 is taking your choice between two teams an advantage? (yes)

 

#4 is coin flip winner (a) calling a matchup of two teams and (b) getting his choice of team

(c) with P2 - as close to equal/fair of an advantage as letting the loser pick P1?  (yes, close enough and fair and worked up 'till now, except for alleged recent "complaints" received by qb_browns)

 

#5  here is what seems to be the big question/ideological issue - should the coin toss show more favor to the winner of it by automatically giving winner advantage, by giving him 2/3 of these advantages right off the bat, without any input or strategy on the losers part?  (no, it should only be a fair starting point for a game)

 

#6 what if you lost every coin toss in a tournament under this new coin flip style - how would you feel - cheated?  why - is it because you never got to use P1 or even call a matchup all day?  would you feel like the day was decided by a coin?  (yes, cheated by a freaking coin flip!)

 

 

Edited by buck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, buck said:

(yes, close enough and fair and worked up 'till now, except for alleged recent "complaints" received by qb_browns)

 

I keep forgetting that you were sitting at the registration table during the last 12 Madison tournaments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't sitting anywhere, but you must have a huge penis!  And way to avoid the valid points and questions I have raised, mr big dick.

 

I don't need to hear random losers bitching because they think that a coin toss should automatically give them a great advantage to know that is what the deal is.  I hear people bitch all the time about stuff they shouldn't.  

 

Maybe some day you'll understand that this new coin flip way is not fair to the coin flip loser.  Unless you wanna just come out and admit that it gives coin flip winner advantage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three questions off the top of my mind

 

1. What exactly does "originally defined" mean?

2. What does it say at http://tecmobowl.org/lincoln?

3. What is the historical rate of @Knobbe having to clarify something that he's posted without double checking it?

 

Any input on any sort of rule changes open still open until the end of the week

Edited by Knobbe
Of course screwed this up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I.  look, since I have started playing in TSB tournaments back at the time I first met you in Lincoln, was that 2006, something like that, about 10 years....anyways, for the last 10 years the coin-flip rule (as I have always known it at Madison "He Went to Jerry" (elite 8 def by champ Mort), and including recent 2014 & 2015 in Lincoln tournaments) was:

 

1. winner of toss must pick a matchup (two teams)

2. loser must

- take his pick of those teams and use P2

- or, take P1 and let the other guy take his pick of the two teams from the matchup he chose

 

 

II.  this "new" style coin flip:

 

1. winner of toss

(a) automatically gets P1 AND he gets to pick a matchup (two teams)

loser picks a team and gets P2

(b) or, winner "defers? (lol)" matchup, will take P2, but then chooses a team from the matchup that coin flip loser must now call.  

Loser will get P1, in this case, after he calls a matchup.

 

or another way to say the new system might be: 

the coin flip winner has the choice to

(a) call a matchup and take P1 (and loser gets choice of team), or

(b) take P2 and pick what team he wants from the matchup that the loser calls.

 

I do see how the winner of the toss in this new system gets two instant advantages, in scenario II. 1. (a):  gets P1 and also calls matchup.  All the loser gets is choice of a team.

 

I can see a semi-fair tradeoff in the old coin flip way - you can take your choice between the teams or take P1.  simple.  I have never minded winning or losing the coin toss in the old coin flip way.

 

But now, I can see that the new way would make winning the coin toss to be a great thing!  and I would love to win the toss every single time, so that I can get P1 and also call two teams that I am comfortable rolling with.  that would be seen as a huge advantage to me!

 

But, I don't like the lack of fairness of it and the very small say that the coin flip "loser" has in the deal.  Because, the coin flip should be fair and present a fair strategic foundation to a TSB game, not just give P1 advantage, which in effect is what has happened with the change.  

 

 

Edited by buck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For sake of clarity (Knobbe or mods, please move to a better location so this doesn't completely run a tournament thread off the rails) here is the basics of the Madison rule change rationale:

 

The tournament organizers and committee members have fielded two very different complaints/comments/opinions etc before, during, and after the tournament. They are:

1. I hate choosing a matchup, that's the worst part

2. I hate not being P1

 

This lead to the bizarre situation in the last 3 tournaments where people would rather lose the toss than win it. Losing the toss would allow a player to have P1 *and* avoid choosing a matchup - the best of all worlds (to a 50%+1 degree of participants). To take the comparison from above, a person would be able to "lose" every coin toss and still feel like that came out ahead by playing P1 and not choosing a matchup, while a person would be able to "win" every coin toss, go 0-2 and never pick up P1. 

 

After discussions with people way, way, way smarter than the committee, we decided that the net positive opinion result - being P1 - should be coupled with the net negative result - picking a matchup - to simplify the coin toss process and not end up with some confused participants, which has also happened in past tournaments.

 

Our thought process was coupled with the following thought: the matchup isn't the main point of the coinflip, its the P1 v P2 conundrum. 99% of people who choose a matchup tend to call an even matchup no matter what the situation - very rarely do you see something bizarre like 49ers v Cowboys or Oilers v Seahawks, most matchups are of the Raiders v Bear/Green Bay v Browns variety, evenly (ish) matched teams. Therefore, the importance of matchup to 2 players who have never seen each other (or even those who have seen each other 1000 times) is not as important psychologically as being P1. Since matchup is neutral (in most cases) the next important part of the process is choosing your preferred team. If a player - lets call him Tony O (actually, let's call him T. Orenga) - really prefers a team like the Rams and the coin toss winner chooses a Rams - Vikings matchup, Orenga would jump at the chance to be his preferred team which means he might not care which controller he has in his hands.

 

If you rank the preference of the various things to choose in the game of Tecmo, the rankings would probably go like this:

1. P1 controller

2. Team choice

3. Matchup for the game

Since P1 v P2 choice is the top "prize" for most tecmoers, we just made it the default prize for winning a 50/50 coin toss. Since the second most preferred prize is team choice, we made it the default runner up "prize" for losing the toss. Since the "winner" benefits the most and the "loser" benefits next, the third choice goes back to the winner. 

 

Now, as much as I would like to rant about symmetrical v asymmetric and zero-sum v non-zero-sum game theory, I think I've revealed enough about the rule adjustment instituted for a different tournament on a thread about a tournament a friend of ours is running. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here is something that will blow your mind, like a freaking boombox....what if you keep the old coin flip strategic genius but instead make one simple and important change, that will solve every problem that you, the bitches, and me have brought up:

 

the coin flip LOSER must choose a matchup, and then let the WINNER select P1 or his choice of teams from the matchup called and P2?

 

this is the exact same as the old coin flip system - it is still as fair as before, except the responsibilities (semantics) of the winner/loser have swapped, and those bitches who complained that they didn't want to win the coin toss will be satisfied to their exact specifications!  ....and so would I.

 

boombox.jpg

boombox2.jpg

 

 

 

Edited by buck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You clearly did not even read the last reply. So, this thread is over in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sort of a large blade cut here as I do not mind people giving me feedback for the tourney but I get it though because cheese and Jerry Rice guys.

Maybe instead of golden showering all over each other wait for me to chime in about my own tourney. #Topical

 

BTW, the link to Tecmo Madison was actually there to give them credit for coming up with rules, not as the goto

Edited by Knobbe
readability, BTW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Knobbe said:

Sort of a large blade cut here as I do not mind people giving me feedback for the tourney but I'll roll with it though I get it because cheese and Jerry Rice guys.

Maybe instead of golden showering all over each other wait for me to chime in about my own tourney. #Topical

Sorry bud, hijacking is not cool. I'll grab you a beer or 5 in Madison. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, davefmurray said:

You clearly did not even read the last reply. So, this thread is over in my opinion.

 

TLDR - go to BOLD.  leave your ego on the floor, use your brain and heart.

 

I read all of it and don't buy it.  Well written, sure.  Understandable, yes.  Correct, in my opinion and worth such a drastic change to give coin flip winner advantage - Fuck No.  I am one of the people who qb_browns refers to as "way smarter" than him, but I never got a chance to use my smarts and share my ideas with you guys.  Here is his/your chance.  

 

I always thought the original (way it was for about 10 years, I suppose) coin-flip style was "genius".  But like some of the pussies you mention that whined, at times I thought that it was "bad" to win the toss...but that depended on who I was playing, usually....so I can see how you would want to tweak it.

 

But, you clearly haven't read my arguments.  Especially my last one, because it solves all your "problems" that you list, and creates no new ones, like you have by changing the rule.

 

The only thing that was "wrong" with the old coin-flip system is that people didn't want to "win" the coin-flip because they were too big of pussies to call a matchup and they want P1.  So, why not swap what the winner and loser does and still use the genius tradeoff of that coin-flip system?  

 

*Proposed Coin-Flip Solution (exact same as the old-style coin flip, except the role of winner and loser swaps):

Loser of coin flip chooses matchup

Winner of coin flip chooses P1 or picks a team and P2.

 

Simple as fuck.  Fair as hell.  Solves all problems without creating new ones or giving unfair advantages to coin-flip.  

 

What is wrong with this proposed solution?  Please respond with what is wrong with my idea or how yours is better.

 

I am only trying to help!  Please, do not think that I am just being a dick and trying to argue.  

I am not trying to kill time here, I am trying to convince you that this way is better and more fair.

 

I am trying to keep true TSB alive.  I think your new coin flip hurts.  I am not trying to hurt.  

Just because I am not a high roller $ or want to spend time away from my family and/or sports teams I coach, travelling all over playing TSB, or because I don't live in Wisconsin, does not mean my heart does not bleed 8 bits!  Nor do my circumstances invalidate my opinion or thoughts.  

 

So, FFS, hear me out. 

 

Edited by buck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've completely heard you and read everything you've written thus far. This decision has been discussed and made. I've noted your opinion. Thanks.

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with egos. We've laid out very clearly how the playing body at large ranks the three potential variables and why we chose what we chose. It will never make everyone happy agree. From our perspective, we solved a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry if I have been short, repetitive, and perhaps obtuse with my stance on this issue this whole time.  I really do appreciate qb_browns sharing some insight into the alleged thought processes and decision making explanations.  and I do appreciate you "reading" my "opinions".  but heck, when you "solve" a problem but add a new, worse problem, what did you actually gain?   

 

Out of curiosity, did anyone ever mention the stupid easy and exact "solution" for the problems you've layed out, that I have proposed?  My solution fixes all those same things you say you fix, but there is no uneven advantage given to anyone!

 

And, beside the obvious fact that you'd already "decided", tell me what is wrong with my proposed solution?  no offense, dave, but you are acting like somebody's lazy dad that just doesn't want to get logical when their kid has a valid point.  How does this way of mine not solve exactly what your boy qb_browns has layed out?  how is yours better, more fair?  I don't see it.

 

PS- and if you think it has something to do with "happy", you are mistaken.  "unhappy" is a pussy TSB player whining because he has to pick a matchup and he doesn't want to.  my problem has to do with instant, unadulterated advantage given to coin toss winner, under your new system.  illogical.

Edited by buck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.