For constructed events we have the following bracket at a top8, based on places in the swiss:

1v8 (A)
4v5 (B)
3v6 (C)
2v7 (D)

with the winner of A playing the winner of B and player C playing the winner of match D, with the final following.

While for a limited event the MTR says: Use a random method to seat players around the draft table and conduct the draft.

Why is this random, why can't we put players around the table like this:

1 - 2 - 3 - 4
5 - 6 - 7 - 8

So that we have similar pairings like constructed? (With player 1 playing 8 and so on)

Or is it done this “random” way because we want to prevent player 1 feeding the better players (which according to some drafters is more difficult)?

Randomization of Limited Top 8s was introduced long ago - ten years? more? - and, as I recall, addresses two primary concerns. First, to avoid manipulation of final round results (I know, I know - Collusion!) to ensure a match vs. a “weaker” drafter. And, what you mention is also a concern.

Also, before the randomization, the seating was ordered - but not as you listed. Instead - and this is from memory and may not be completely correct (I can't recall if I have 2 & 3 in the right order):
1 - 6 - 5 - 3
7 - 4 - 2 - 8

I don't have an official answer, but one nitpick: your table should be listed as some variant of:

1 - 2 - 4 - 3
6 - 5 - 7 - 8

Your setup works fine for quarterfinals, but the semis has 1/8 vs 3/6 and 2/7 vs 4/5, when it should be 1/8 vs 4/5 and 2/7 vs 3/6.

As I recall, it was also to prevent players from making deals or agreements with the players sitting next to them - “I'll draft red, you should draft blue”. Since there's usually a short break between announcing the top 8 and starting the draft, it was very hard to stop players from doing something like that.

Originally posted by Johanna Virtanen:

As I recall, it was also to prevent players from making deals or agreements with the players sitting next to them - “I'll draft red, you should draft blue”. Since there's usually a short break between announcing the top 8 and starting the draft, it was very hard to stop players from doing something like that.

This. If you know where everyone is sitting before they get to the table, you can engineer things we'd rather not have happen.

As I recall, the seating order prior to the change was:

1 - 6 - 4 - 2 -
- 7 - 5 - 3 - 8

The way I retained that data is understanding that the table was set up to reward #1.
First, they play the weakest player (8).
Then they're fed by the next weakest player (7) two packs–this sets #2 seat.
They're fed by the next weakest player (6) one pack–this sets #3's seat. Note that 2 and 3 are thus maximally away from 1.
To figure out the 4 - 5 seating, again have the weaker player (5) feed.

The checksum, if you will, is that the table winds up with an “odd” half (1 - 7 - 5 - 3) and an “even” one (6 - 4 - 2 - 8).

Technically the seating comes from that 1st plays against 8th in the quarter, 2nd against 7th etc. While you also won't be able to be paired against the player sitting in the next seat until the eventual final, this is true for every seat.

On Tue Sep 10 19:16, Jonas Eriksson wrote:
> Technically the seating comes from that 1st plays against 8th in the quarter, 2nd against 7th etc. While you also won't be able to be paired against the player sitting in the next seat until the eventual final, this is true for every seat.

Actually, for limited events you randomize seatings and then cross pair, so you're not playing 1/8 etc. If you did pair like this then people could pre-calculate who they were drafting next to and engage in collusion more easily, which we'd like to avoid.

For constructed events we do pair like that.