What method is used to score players at FNM?
Asked by thorton 12 years ago
I've recently been plying FNM at a local store. After playing 4 rounds in a group of 10 players my record was 7-2 or 3-1 matches. The tournament winner went 8-0 or 4-0. Second place however got 7-5, but also did 3-1 with matches.
I took third with a better record than 2nd place. According to the T.O. my opponents were easier opponents and that's why I placed third. I have no control over which decks I play so why does this factor? And is this swiss rounds? Does anyone know what method was used to score this?
It can depend on where it was you lost. If you lose your first game, you are then playing against someone else who lost their first game, thus less relevance as opposed to someone who consistently won their first matches against others who did the same.
So winning the first few games is more important as they will count the most in the end, thus allowing a situation like yours to occur.
At least that's how the stores I go to work.
November 3, 2012 4 a.m.
GoblinsInc says... #3
@Ex
if they used the program supplied by Wizards, who they played against shouldn't matter except in tiebreakers. their Game Win percent and match wins will matter first, where he is beating his opponent here.
November 3, 2012 4:27 a.m.
MagnorCriol says... #4
The thing is, at FNM, most stores are using Wizards Event Reporter to pair opponents each round and to tell them the eventual final standings, meaning your individual TO might have little actual involvement in the whole process.
I know at my store it seems like every week I have to deal with someone who's got beef with their pairings, but when we start looking at the data it eventually pans out logically somehow.
The algorithms WER uses can be eldritch sometimes, at least to me. Recently one of the other employees played in a big weekend tourney, and he actually did so poorly that he placed lower in the final standings than someone who didn't even show up but didn't get dropped until after round 1.
I do seem to remember that opponent record actually figures higher into the math than actual game win/loss numbers, though I couldn't tell you why this is. This would, however, explain your situation. My coworker's story sort of corroborates this - both he and the no-show would have had the same final match win/loss number, but his game win/loss number would have been higher (he at least won a couple games), so I think the tiebreakers thing beat him here.
Definitely still ask about it, but understand if they're using WER (most likely) they probably have little directly to do with it. If they weren't using WER and were just doing some sort of handmade bracket, it sounds like they may have been pairing based solely on match win/loss record rather than game win/loss record (since both you and second place were 3-1), and your discrepancy should be addressed.
November 3, 2012 4:31 a.m.
GoblinsInc says... Accepted answer #5
Event standings are determined by match points (3 for each match win or bye, 1 for each match draw, 0 for each match loss).
In case two or more players have the same number of match points, three tie breakers are used, in the following order:
Opponents' Match Win Percentage (OMW)This tie-breaker illustrates how all opponents of a player performed in an event. If a player played against opponents who performed well, the players OMW will be higher. If a player's OMW is less than 33%, it will be set to 33%.
Game Win Percentage (PGW)This tie-breaker divides the number of games a player won by the number of games that player has played. Thus, if a player won all of his or her matches 2-0, the players PGW will be 100%. If a player's PGW is less than 33%, it will be set to 33%.
Opponents' Game Win Percentage (OGW)This tie breaker is the average of all of that player's opponents PGW values.
November 3, 2012 5:16 a.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #6
GoblinsInc has the best explanation of what's going on. By "easier opponents", your TO meant your opponents had worse overall records than the opponents of the player who got 2nd place, so your breakers weren't as strong.
November 3, 2012 9:49 a.m.
Yes, the standings of your opponents is definitely the largest factor when determining where you are in a 3-1 result of a four-rounder. Yes, you have no control over it. My "only lost one round" standings have been full of 2-0 victories and I still ended up in fifth or sixth place behind other 3-1 players.
November 3, 2012 10:40 a.m.
rckclimber777 says... #8
So in other words it appears that the people you beat didn't do as well as the people that the other guy beat. Thats why I always root for the people I beat at FNM.
November 3, 2012 3:11 p.m.
thanks you guys - sorry I didn't select an answer last night. So I'm guessing this system works out more fairly in larger tournaments and at FNM there tends to be a lot of ties.
November 3, 2012 4:22 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #10
It depends. Even in large events, there is only a limited number of possible records for a given round, so people will still end up tied no matter what. There's less potential for the TO to be biased, though, since he or she will typically not be connected to the players and will be using the WER if it's a sanctioned WotC event.
Epochalyptik says... #1
The incorrect one, I'd imagine. Your games aren't supposed to be weighted by opponent skill; they're unweighted, by-the-numbers win/loss affairs. I would approach your T.O. with a properly-constructed defense of your position, because it's biased and unfair. Make sure you don't accuse him or her or intentionally biasing the system; rather, say that it creates a bias toward some players based on matchups instead of being an objective hierarchy.
The only time when another player's record matters in determining how you place is in tiebreakers, where players who beat better players (based again on record, not skill) get better breakers.
November 3, 2012 2:50 a.m.