Today I want to discuss with you how many players should be in a draft pod.

It seems pretty clear that 8 is ideal, but how bad is it (in terms of having a good draft experience) to have between 6-11 in a pod?
Is an odd number ever excusable?

Please discuss.

It really depends on what you are looking for. If you have 14 players and are pairing outside of pods then two pods of 7 is probably going to work better than one pod of 14, but if you want to pair within the pods then 6 and 8 might be better.

Here's what WER does by default, which is actually pretty good assuming you're pairing within pods.
All pods are 6-11 players, minimising the number of odd numbered pods (and thus byes).

One odd number is ok, but you should never have two odd numbered pods.

From 25 onwards the pattern continues by breaking it up into a combination of the below, but ignoring the lines that have pods of 11. Only exactly 11 and exactly 21 players should result in 11 person pods, which is the worst pod size.

E.g. 30 = 8 + 22, so (8) (8 8 6)

Think really carefully before deciding to do cross pod pairings, as it may upset some players, or result in weird prize structures. Playing just 3 rounds within your pod and awarding prizes based on that is short and sweet.

Edited Fabian Peck (May 5, 2016 11:40:11 PM)

There's two things to consider in terms of pod size: pairings and play.

For pairings, an even number is important since you don't want to give multiple players the bye. If you're doing cross-pod pairings, then this isn't a concern, however, you generally will want people paired in-pod so you don't want even numbers. 8 also works out nicely because it means that you can do three rounds without any pair-downs and get a unique winner. The pair-downs will increase as you move away from powers of 2.

For play, (modern) sets are calibrated to 8-man drafts. Different pod sizes impact the strategy a lot, since they change the total number of cards in the draft. In a smaller pod, it's easier to see what others are doing and, since you see each pack on average two and a half times, easier to try to table cards and find a niche. It requires more care to draft dynamically since fighting for cards will leave you so much worse off. In a larger pod, you can't see as well what others are doing, but there are a lot more cards, and this means more copies of cards. Linear strategies (that get better the more copies of the cards you have) get better, especially the more oddball builds that revolve around having one or two commons in quantity.

Once events are large enough and the prizes are big enough going with
GP pods rules works well, but this is only a good idea with >64
players, and probably only then when some round of sealed are done
first. That algorithm is to only use 8 and 7 player pods. Keep
creating pods of 8 from the top of the standings until you have a less
than 64 players remaining and a multiple of 7 players, then you make
that many 7 player pods.

Chances are pretty good this method should never be taken during a
regular REL tournament, such large and advanced tournament formats
lend them selves to comp REL generally.

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Sean Hunt
<forum-26928-3871@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:
> There's two things to consider in terms of pod size: pairings and play.
>
> For pairings, an even number is important since you don't want to give
> multiple players the bye. If you're doing cross-pod pairings, then this
> isn't a concern, however, you generally will want people paired in-pod so
> you don't want even numbers. 8 also works out nicely because it means that
> you can do three rounds without any pair-downs and get a unique winner. The
> pair-downs will increase as you move away from powers of 2.
>
> For play, (modern) sets are calibrated to 8-man drafts. Different pod sizes
> impact the strategy a lot, since they change the total number of cards in
> the draft. In a smaller pod, it's easier to see what others are doing and,
> since you see each pack on average two and a half times, easier to try to
> table cards and find a niche. It requires more care to draft dynamically
> since fighting for cards will leave you so much worse off. In a larger pod,
> you can't see as well what others are doing, but there are a lot more cards,
> and this means more copies of cards. Linear strategies (that get better the
> more copies of the cards you have) get better, especially the more oddball
> builds that revolve around having one or two commons in quantity.
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view
> and respond to this message on the web at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/173944/
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/26928/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/26928/?onsite=yes
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/



–
Gareth Pye - blog.cerberos.id.au
Level 2 MTG Judge, Melbourne, Australia

I believe GP pods have changed recently to have all 8 player pods and 1 larger than normal pod at the end of the standings.

GP Albuquerque (most recent limited GP) had one pod of 7, the rest were 8; we got lucky with numbers. There could have been a few pods of 7, had the numbers worked differently.

d:^D

Also, I understand that we're supposed to go with what WER says, regardless of whether we think we can make better pods. So if WER says something weird, we have to go with it. Fortunately though WER is relatively smart about these things :)

Unlike pairings, I'm not sure we have to go with WER for pod sizes. As soon
as you change things within a pod, WER automatically randomizes player
seating in the pod. The MTR just says “pods of roughly equal size”. I tend
to do things slightly differently than Fabian's list between 18-21 to avoid
huge pods:
18: 6 6 6
19: 6 6 7
20: 6 6 8
21: 6 7 8


2016-05-06 4:29 GMT-04:00 Mark Mc Govern <

Edited Dominik Chłobowski (May 6, 2016 08:51:32 AM)

Dominik is correct that WER does not necessarily need to be followed. From the MTR:

For Booster Draft and Team Rochester Draft tournaments, players assemble into random drafting circles (called pods) of roughly equal size at the direction of the Head Judge.

Also, pairing within pods isn't even necessarily mandatory, according to the MTR.

Players within a pod may play only against other players within that pod. In Regular REL tournaments, the Tournament Organizer may elect to lift this restriction. This must be announced before the tournament starts.

This post is not an endorsement to go against WER, simply statements of what is allowed.

Edited Matt Braddock (May 6, 2016 11:59:18 AM)

Originally posted by Matt Braddock:

Also, pairing within pods isn't even necessarily mandatory, according to the MTR.

May not be mandatory, but I'ld make sure and let my players know if you are going to use cross pod pairing. I for one will never participate in a draft with cross pod pairing again.

Originally posted by Jim Shuman:

May not be mandatory, but I'ld make sure and let my players know if you are going to use cross pod pairing.

That's why the MTR says:

This must be announced before the tournament starts.

Again, I'm not recommending it, only stating that it's allowed. Frankly I think following WER is the simplest way to go, though there are some exceptions to forming pods (as Dominik pointed out) that players may find more pleasing.

I'll point out that sticking to what WER does deflects any blame to the software, and away from the judge(s).

Note that this is also a good reason to stick to policy, even in difficult rulings - players can still be mad at you, but they'll have to blame policy for the outcome, not you.

d:^D

I'll point out that sticking to what WER does deflects any blame to the software, and away from the judge(s).

Note that this is also a good reason to stick to policy, even in difficult rulings - players can still be mad at you, but they'll have to blame policy for the outcome, not you.

d:^D

But when WER defies policy, what should we stick to?

There's a couple threads somewhere about that. For the record, the last WER
update had “fixed breakers” (paraphrased) in the release notes, so that's
one less “WER defies MTR” complaint there. =P

2016-05-06 17:08 GMT-04:00 David Záleský <