Worlds 2010 Final Standings

User avatar
imrahil327
Tournament Advocate
Posts: 30705
Joined: July 3rd, 2006, 3:51 am
Location: San Diego

Re: Worlds 2010 Final Standings

Post by imrahil327 »

quesosauce37 wrote:meh, i personally dread cube games, love the drafting part, but hate actually playing them
Yup.

I'll correct that game, Tom.


Image
Hunter wrote:Sebulba's W-L record is like...Always and 1. Tebow's is nowhere near that percentage.
allstarz97, about M:TG wrote:I feel like Michael Jordan playing baseball.

User avatar
imrahil327
Tournament Advocate
Posts: 30705
Joined: July 3rd, 2006, 3:51 am
Location: San Diego

Re: Worlds 2010 Final Standings

Post by imrahil327 »

The final standings for all 61 players are up.
Image
Hunter wrote:Sebulba's W-L record is like...Always and 1. Tebow's is nowhere near that percentage.
allstarz97, about M:TG wrote:I feel like Michael Jordan playing baseball.

User avatar
Hunter
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 14816
Joined: February 10th, 2003, 3:27 am

Re: Worlds 2010 Final Standings

Post by Hunter »

quesosauce37 wrote:theres no such thing as a sealed world champ title
Ah. Sounds like Lord of the Rings then. There's no such thing as a World Champ title for that either.
mikefrench wrote:i'm an idiot who can't control himself.

User avatar
spideyguy0
Member
Posts: 7373
Joined: January 1st, 2003, 1:57 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: Worlds 2010 Final Standings

Post by spideyguy0 »

I was curious so I figured out SoS for the top 31 (up to myself) in the field. Formula I used was total VP, throwing out the lowest score with a minimum of 33% or 5VP (5 being closer to 1/3 than 6).


Sokol (7): 81
Baroni (3) : 77
Anis (31): 75
Olson (16): 75
Shaw (22): 75
O’Shea (29): 75
Desai (4): 73
Chu (1) : 71
Gogolen (14): 70
Krueger (2) : 66
Kim (5): 65
Fred (12): 64
Murray (11): 63
Carulli (23): 62
Westergard (15): 60
Harpster (27): 59
Richards (9): 58
Gaible (26): 58
Konsker (13): 57
Hollingworth (18): 57
Twigg (6): 56
Lepine (17): 56
Ferguson (24): 56
Kingery (8): 55
Montgomery (10): 53
Anderson (19): 52
Alperstein (20): 51
R Smith (25): 51
Pistone (30): 51
Bali (28): 50
Rick Z (21): 46
Casey A. - New York, NY
Image Image

The Quick
Sealed Deck
Sealed Deck
Posts: 466
Joined: March 22nd, 2005, 1:56 am
Location: Florida

Re: Worlds 2010 Final Standings

Post by The Quick »

spideyguy0 wrote:
mikefrench wrote:
WiseMarsellus wrote:nick is too modest to mention his dominant showing at the world championships of Creepily Staring At People While They Play Candyland. he crushed the competition
apparently he took the Creepily Staring At People While They Do Things title from one Michael Raveling...
but with Raveling, if you looked away for a second, and then looked back, he would somehow be wearing a different basketball jersey. made it loads creepier. batman creepy.
No, no, no I still win right? C'mon now guys 16 beers still is a winner right? Raveling never even came close. Nick Jones wins!
Image
Image
Image

- Nick Jones

The Quick
Sealed Deck
Sealed Deck
Posts: 466
Joined: March 22nd, 2005, 1:56 am
Location: Florida

Re: Worlds 2010 Final Standings

Post by The Quick »

Hunter wrote:
quesosauce37 wrote:theres no such thing as a sealed world champ title
Ah. Sounds like Lord of the Rings then. There's no such thing as a World Champ title for that either.
Pretty much Brian. These guys may not realize it but I have glass trophies from both this year and last for the sealed deck events. Those of us who play in these take it even more seriously than constructed. I am 2009 World sealed deck champion 2009 and 2010 world champion runner up for the sealed. You guys are joking right? Either way see you in 2011 for both sealed and constructed. Mostly just sealed. That's the only reason I showed up this year no joke.
Image
Image
Image

- Nick Jones

allstarz97
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 6342
Joined: April 1st, 2007, 2:15 pm

Re: Worlds 2010 Final Standings

Post by allstarz97 »

spideyguy0 wrote:I was curious so I figured out SoS for the top 31 (up to myself) in the field. Formula I used was total VP, throwing out the lowest score with a minimum of 33% or 5VP (5 being closer to 1/3 than 6).


Sokol (7): 81
Baroni (3) : 77
Anis (31): 75
Olson (16): 75
Shaw (22): 75
O’Shea (29): 75
Desai (4): 73
Chu (1) : 71
Gogolen (14): 70
Krueger (2) : 66
Kim (5): 65
Fred (12): 64
Murray (11): 63
Carulli (23): 62
Westergard (15): 60
Harpster (27): 59
Richards (9): 58
Gaible (26): 58
Konsker (13): 57
Hollingworth (18): 57
Twigg (6): 56
Lepine (17): 56
Ferguson (24): 56
Kingery (8): 55
Montgomery (10): 53
Anderson (19): 52
Alperstein (20): 51
R Smith (25): 51
Pistone (30): 51
Bali (28): 50
Rick Z (21): 46

so if we used sos instead of diff and didnt distinguish between timed and full wins the top 8 would have been:

1. chu
2. sokol
3. baroni
4. desai
5. kruger
6. kim
7. murray
8. richards

User avatar
spideyguy0
Member
Posts: 7373
Joined: January 1st, 2003, 1:57 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: Worlds 2010 Final Standings

Post by spideyguy0 »

Yeah, those would've been the top 8, but what's important to remember is that had we not been using diff to determine matchups, people wouldnt've played the same schedule and so the SoS would be different.
Casey A. - New York, NY
Image Image

mryellow
World Champion
World Champion
Posts: 2252
Joined: February 17th, 2005, 11:20 am

Re: Worlds 2010 Final Standings

Post by mryellow »

Interesting, thanks for doing that.

I'm not a fan of SoS (really anti actually) but i like that Sokol would've finished 2nd. He was the only undefeated after 6 and it seemed rather cruel that he fell to 7th.
Image

User avatar
Bane Slader
Member
Posts: 2473
Joined: November 4th, 2002, 8:24 am
Location: J-Town Baby, IL

Re: Worlds 2010 Final Standings

Post by Bane Slader »

mryellow wrote:Interesting, thanks for doing that.

I'm not a fan of SoS (really anti actually) but i like that Sokol would've finished 2nd. He was the only undefeated after 6 and it seemed rather cruel that he fell to 7th.
Agreed not a fan of SoS but Matt did seem to get jacked.
Driven up and down in circles
Skidding down a road of black ice
Staring in and out storm windows
Driven to a fool's paradise

From the song "Driven" by Rush
Image

User avatar
puck71
Member
Posts: 12897
Joined: February 17th, 2008, 8:59 pm
Location: St. Paul, MN
GEMP Username: puck71

Re: Worlds 2010 Final Standings

Post by puck71 »

Bane Slader wrote:
mryellow wrote:Interesting, thanks for doing that.

I'm not a fan of SoS (really anti actually) but i like that Sokol would've finished 2nd. He was the only undefeated after 6 and it seemed rather cruel that he fell to 7th.
Agreed not a fan of SoS but Matt did seem to get jacked.
i think its odd you two arent a fan of sos, but then say you do like that it would have done exactly what it's meant to do. If you like the part where it would have helped sokol what dont you like?
John Anderson
Proofing, Tournament Committee, GEMP Team

The Quick
Sealed Deck
Sealed Deck
Posts: 466
Joined: March 22nd, 2005, 1:56 am
Location: Florida

Re: Worlds 2010 Final Standings

Post by The Quick »

puck71 wrote:
Bane Slader wrote:
mryellow wrote:Interesting, thanks for doing that.

I'm not a fan of SoS (really anti actually) but i like that Sokol would've finished 2nd. He was the only undefeated after 6 and it seemed rather cruel that he fell to 7th.
Agreed not a fan of SoS but Matt did seem to get jacked.
i think its odd you two arent a fan of sos, but then say you do like that it would have done exactly what it's meant to do. If you like the part where it would have helped sokol what dont you like?
:epic: I agree with John Anderson completely here. So far I've read nothing but the pros of updating the system and haven't read a single negative thing about SoS. The only negative things I've read thus far are "I'm against it" or "I don't like change". There are way more reasons that the new system should and most likely will replace the traditional differential system at the major events for the upcoming tournaments. It's ignorant to say you don't like something that you've never even tried.
Image
Image
Image

- Nick Jones

gogolen
LS Region: Coruscant
LS Region: Coruscant
Posts: 11228
Joined: May 2nd, 2005, 3:52 pm
Location: Somerdale, nj
Holotable username: gogolen
GEMP Username: gogolen

Re: Worlds 2010 Final Standings

Post by gogolen »

the downside is if you lose games early it makes it very tough to climb out of the basement and still make the cut as you are playing against other players with weak records for the next couple rounds who will give you low SoS total. With the current system, the lowball is possible, as players who started 0-2 had a chance to make top 8 late into the tournament. It keeps them around playing, and not just going 0-2 drop.

Or so I hear. I was 0-6 at an event once and still wanted to keep playing with the two worst decks ever, but dropped per the TD's request to go run a side event. Never been one to drop.
Image

PC Store Manager
Kevbozzz wrote:I agree 100% with Gogolen's responses.
Now streaming games on Youtube & Twitch- please subscribe to my channels- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjqwgj ... Xu5T9vp4AQ
Twitch- https://www.twitch.tv/gogolen

NEW & RETURNING PLAYER ARTICLES- https://forum.starwarsccg.org/viewt ... 32&t=50486

The Quick
Sealed Deck
Sealed Deck
Posts: 466
Joined: March 22nd, 2005, 1:56 am
Location: Florida

Re: Worlds 2010 Final Standings

Post by The Quick »

gogolen wrote:the downside is if you lose games early it makes it very tough to climb out of the basement and still make the cut as you are playing against other players with weak records for the next couple rounds who will give you low SoS total. With the current system, the lowball is possible, as players who started 0-2 had a chance to make top 8 late into the tournament. It keeps them around playing, and not just going 0-2 drop.

Or so I hear. I was 0-6 at an event once and still wanted to keep playing with the two worst decks ever, but dropped per the TD's request to go run a side event. Never been one to drop.
I still find it hard to believe that is you go 0-2 your first 2 games then 6-0 on your next six games that your 6-2 record won't have a chance at meaning a thing. I'd also rather play decks that aren't all out or bust. I hate having to worry about diff. and keep my cool when a game goes timed in a clearly won position. My Watto deck lost by 32 to profit and won by 37 against QMC, so I'd rather move on and embrace the possibility of change for the better.
Image
Image
Image

- Nick Jones

User avatar
PapaLorax
Member
Posts: 2268
Joined: October 30th, 2002, 9:06 am
Contact:

Re: Worlds 2010 Final Standings

Post by PapaLorax »

gogolen wrote:the downside is if you lose games early it makes it very tough to climb out of the basement and still make the cut as you are playing against other players with weak records for the next couple rounds who will give you low SoS total. With the current system, the lowball is possible, as players who started 0-2 had a chance to make top 8 late into the tournament. It keeps them around playing, and not just going 0-2 drop.

Or so I hear. I was 0-6 at an event once and still wanted to keep playing with the two worst decks ever, but dropped per the TD's request to go run a side event. Never been one to drop.
While this is mostly true, I think the big question should be...what better reflects your performance that day. The quality of people you played or the amount of differential you won with? I don't think a tie breaker system should be selected based on "what gives people the best chance to stay in contention longer". FWIW I believe that SoS does the following:
* select the person who performed best that day
* removes the ability for 2 people to fix a result and have a huge effect on the standings
* allows people to select a broader range of decks
* allows TDs to have enforceable penalties without an arbitrary differential
* eliminates the negative effect of receiving a Bye
Terron wrote:Can't we settle this like real virgins?

retwin316
LS Region: Corellia
LS Region: Corellia
Posts: 3832
Joined: March 14th, 2007, 4:55 pm
Location: Indianapolis, In
Contact:

Re: Worlds 2010 Final Standings

Post by retwin316 »

gogolen wrote:the downside is if you lose games early it makes it very tough to climb out of the basement and still make the cut as you are playing against other players with weak records for the next couple rounds who will give you low SoS total. With the current system, the lowball is possible, as players who started 0-2 had a chance to make top 8 late into the tournament. It keeps them around playing, and not just going 0-2 drop.

Or so I hear. I was 0-6 at an event once and still wanted to keep playing with the two worst decks ever, but dropped per the TD's request to go run a side event. Never been one to drop.
I finished with the 12th highest sos, and I lost my first 2 games. If I had won my last 6, I think I woulda likely made it even with sos, but oh well.

User avatar
spideyguy0
Member
Posts: 7373
Joined: January 1st, 2003, 1:57 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: Worlds 2010 Final Standings

Post by spideyguy0 »

retwin316 wrote:
gogolen wrote:the downside is if you lose games early it makes it very tough to climb out of the basement and still make the cut as you are playing against other players with weak records for the next couple rounds who will give you low SoS total. With the current system, the lowball is possible, as players who started 0-2 had a chance to make top 8 late into the tournament. It keeps them around playing, and not just going 0-2 drop.

Or so I hear. I was 0-6 at an event once and still wanted to keep playing with the two worst decks ever, but dropped per the TD's request to go run a side event. Never been one to drop.
I finished with the 12th highest sos, and I lost my first 2 games. If I had won my last 6, I think I woulda likely made it even with sos, but oh well.
but a big reason for your good SoS was that you had huge diff which propelled you up within your victory point group and gave you the top matchups possible with your number of victory points. in true SoS, pairings are random within your victory point group and you wouldn't have nearly as good an SoS as you had with the differential system for determining pairings.
Casey A. - New York, NY
Image Image

User avatar
darkjediknight11
Communications Advocate
Posts: 22850
Joined: April 17th, 2005, 5:26 pm
Location: Chicago
GEMP Username: djk11

Re: Worlds 2010 Final Standings

Post by darkjediknight11 »

spideyguy0 wrote:
retwin316 wrote:
gogolen wrote:the downside is if you lose games early it makes it very tough to climb out of the basement and still make the cut as you are playing against other players with weak records for the next couple rounds who will give you low SoS total. With the current system, the lowball is possible, as players who started 0-2 had a chance to make top 8 late into the tournament. It keeps them around playing, and not just going 0-2 drop.

Or so I hear. I was 0-6 at an event once and still wanted to keep playing with the two worst decks ever, but dropped per the TD's request to go run a side event. Never been one to drop.
I finished with the 12th highest sos, and I lost my first 2 games. If I had won my last 6, I think I woulda likely made it even with sos, but oh well.
but a big reason for your good SoS was that you had huge diff which propelled you up within your victory point group and gave you the top matchups possible with your number of victory points. in true SoS, pairings are random within your victory point group and you wouldn't have nearly as good an SoS as you had with the differential system for determining pairings.
but...that's kinda the point of SoS. If you start 0-2 then your next 3-4 games are going to be a lot easier than someone starting off 2-0. And if you lost your first two...they were probably to good players anyway.

Meto
Reflections Gold
Reflections Gold
Posts: 4698
Joined: August 21st, 2003, 2:57 am
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Worlds 2010 Final Standings

Post by Meto »

Yeah, you're really only SOL if you lose your first two games against players that go on to do terribly, and if that is the case...you probably should've just won those games.
"I was blackout drunk and shot Hunter."

retwin316
LS Region: Corellia
LS Region: Corellia
Posts: 3832
Joined: March 14th, 2007, 4:55 pm
Location: Indianapolis, In
Contact:

Re: Worlds 2010 Final Standings

Post by retwin316 »

spideyguy0 wrote:
retwin316 wrote:
gogolen wrote:the downside is if you lose games early it makes it very tough to climb out of the basement and still make the cut as you are playing against other players with weak records for the next couple rounds who will give you low SoS total. With the current system, the lowball is possible, as players who started 0-2 had a chance to make top 8 late into the tournament. It keeps them around playing, and not just going 0-2 drop.

Or so I hear. I was 0-6 at an event once and still wanted to keep playing with the two worst decks ever, but dropped per the TD's request to go run a side event. Never been one to drop.
I finished with the 12th highest sos, and I lost my first 2 games. If I had won my last 6, I think I woulda likely made it even with sos, but oh well.
but a big reason for your good SoS was that you had huge diff which propelled you up within your victory point group and gave you the top matchups possible with your number of victory points. in true SoS, pairings are random within your victory point group and you wouldn't have nearly as good an SoS as you had with the differential system for determining pairings.
I guess that is also true, good call.

I coulda also lived without playing Desai game 6, I would have gladley taken a random pairing than an auto loss match. :)

Post Reply

Return to “2010 Worlds - Philadelphia, PA - August 12-15, 2010”