Continuing on from discussion on the Competitive REL forum, but posting here as it pertains to FNM specifically.

I run 4-round events regardless of the number of players; usually we have 16-20 players in any one event. This works out nicely as we finish with two undefeated players for two of the FNM cards and an even number of boosters, and a fifth round drags the event out a little too long. The philosophy is that if first and second place have an equal number of match points after 4 rounds, they'll receive equal compensation; this is announced ahead of time.

Under normal circumstances, if first and second place had different match records, first place would receive more boosters than second place. So if there are 16 or fewer players, after 3 rounds, if the current #1 and #2 players have equal match points, they'll often ID to secure their spots, with the implicit understanding that they'll receive equal prizes rather than the normal #1/#2 distribution.

Am I actually encouraging illegal behavior by distributing the prizes this way? Would it be better to make 1st prize and 2nd prize equal regardless of whether the match points are the same? It's sort of like drawing to get into a Top 8, only it's Top 2, and the only real incentives for getting in are the prizes. At least this way I'm not giving players the opportunity to collude; if they want to play a match outside of the event for extra boosters among the ones they've been awarded, that's their business, not ours.

When prizes are based on Swiss standings, I like the distribution of packs to reward playing, not drawing.

Say, for example, that 4-0 is worth 12 packs, and 3-1 is worth 9 - a pack per point. That means two 3-0 players who play will earn, in total, 21 packs. If 3-1-1 is only worth 10 points, then an intentional draw “loses” one pack, in total.

Players will do the EV calculation, and take the rewarded behavioral path.

If an intentional draw nets the same total number of packs as playing it out, they're much more likely to draw than they would be if prizes favor playing it out.

If, instead, you say that 1st gets 12 packs and second gets 9, then drawing still nets them 21 total packs.

Of course, the calculations get wonkier when you have premium prizes - e.g., FNM Foils - added to the mix. Since I'm not intimately familiar with WPN requirements re: FNM Foils, I'm hesitant to suggest alternatives.

If it were just me, and not FNM, I'd be tempted to say X-0 (a “perfect” record) gets the premium prize; packs are awarded based on points; premium prizes not earned by perfect records will be distributed by random drawing.
(Be very, very clear about that idea: I am NOT giving an “official” answer, here. Just an idea - you need to make sure it's not in violation of any WPN policies before you try it yourself!)

d:^D

No what you are doing is awesome and widely viewed as the best way to avoid
having to DQ players: you are giving them very little incentive to commit a
DQ offence.


On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:38 AM, Aaron Huntsman <
forum-2644@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:

> Continuing on from discussion on the Competitive REL forum, but posting
> here as it pertains to FNM specifically.
>
> I run 4-round events regardless of the number of players; usually we have
> 16-20 players in any one event. This works out nicely as we finish with two
> undefeated players for two of the FNM cards and an even number of boosters,
> and a fifth round drags the event out a little too long. The philosophy is
> that if first and second place have an equal number of match points after 4
> rounds, they'll receive equal compensation; this is announced ahead of time.
>
> Under normal circumstances, if first and second place had different match
> records, first place would receive more boosters than second place. So if
> there are 16 or fewer players, after 3 rounds, if the current #1 and #2
> players have equal match points, they'll often ID to secure their spots,
> with the implicit understanding that they'll receive equal prizes rather
> than the normal #1/#2 distribution.
>
> Am I actually encouraging illegal behavior by distributing the prizes this
> way? Would it be better to make 1st prize and 2nd prize equal regardless of
> whether the match points are the same? It's sort of like drawing to get
> into a Top 8, only it's Top 2, and the only real incentives for getting in
> are the prizes. At least this way I'm not giving players the opportunity to
> collude; if they want to play a match outside of the event for extra
> boosters among the ones they've been awarded, that's their business, not
> ours.
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this e-email. Or
> view and respond to this message on the web at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/12762/
>
> Disable all notification s for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/2644/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/2644/
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/profiles/edit




–
Gareth Pye
Level 2 Judge, Melbourne, Australia
Australian MTG Forum: mtgau.com
gareth@cerberos.id.au - www.rockpaperdynamite.wordpress.com
“Dear God, I would like to file a bug report”

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

If it were just me, and not FNM, I'd be tempted to say X-0 (a “perfect” record) gets the premium prize; packs are awarded based on points; premium prizes not earned by perfect records will be distributed by random drawing. (Be very, very clear about that idea: I am NOT giving an “official” answer, here. Just an idea - you need to make sure it's not in violation of any WPN policies before you try it yourself!) d:^D

AFAIK, the only requirement is that 4 premium cards are given out per FNM event; one each to first and second place, and the other two given out randomly among the remaining players. After 4 rounds with more than 16 people, we'll almost always have two players at X-0, so they'll get the foil card and equal boosters and everyone's happy. If it's fewer than 16 players, we'll have two X-0 players after 3 rounds, who know if they draw they'll get the foils and split 1st and 2nd prizes evenly.

I certainly want to encourage the X-0 players to play in the final round, but there's no guarantee that the loser of that match won't drop below 2nd place in the official standings and thus be ineligible for the premium cards. As boosters go, I try to make the payouts as even as possible among players with similar records, but the prize pool is based on the total number of players and there are only so many packs to go around. I could go on but again I think this is delving more into TO problems than rules enforcement. As long as I know I'm not steering any players toward bribery, I'll be satisfied.

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Aaron Huntsman <
forum-2644@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:

> I certainly want to encourage the X-0 players to play in the final round,
> but there's no guarantee that the loser of that match won't drop below 2nd
> place in the official standings and thus be ineligible for the premium
> cards. As boosters go, I try to make the payouts as even as possible among
> players with similar records, but the prize pool is based on the total
> number of players and there are only so many packs to go around. I could go
> on but again I think this is delving more into TO problems than rules
> enforcement. As long as I know I'm not steering any players toward bribery,
> I'll be satisfied.


It just takes careful setting up of the prize distribution if you have:
1st: 10 boosters
2nd: 6 boosters
3-4th: 2 boosters
for a 16 man event with 4 rounds that just changes to:
4-0: 10 boosters
3-0-1: 6 boosters
3-1: 2 boosters
if you want to discourage IDs (IDing the final gets you a split of going
4-0 and the worst possible 3-1 result)
or
4-0: 10 boosters
3-0-1: 8 boosters
3-1: 2 boosters
If you want to encourage IDs

The first option here gives out less boosters if players ID so it can
encourage DQ's so I suggest the second option make x-01 be the average of
what you used to give out to 1st and 2nd.

With care you can ensure you give out the same number of boosters as you
used to give out under the standing based system, it just takes a bit of
thinking.

While there is something to be said for encouraging playing rather than drawing, I personally feel that discouraging improperly determining a winner is more important, and therefore recommend against a prize structure that gives two people on X-0-1 less in total than one X-0 and another X-1.