Tiebreakers by Lottery: Fair? Allowed?

[DoomYoshi]

I am opposed to them by instinct. However, I see no rational reason why I should be.

Anyone got anything?

[chapcrap]

What do you mean?

If players are tied in a tournament, one is chosen at random?

[DoomYoshi]

What do you mean?

If players are tied in a tournament, one is chosen at random?

Exactly.

[chapcrap]

Well, I would only choose someone at random if it is a standard tournament where only the winners move on and there is a winner that drops out after a round and a replacement needs to be made.

If you're talking about a bracket/league/point scoring type tournament, there should be an easy way to find a tiebreaker. If they've already played and one did better or won, they could win. Another game could be created as well. To me, I would not look to use a random tiebreak.

[Lindax]

What do you mean?

If players are tied in a tournament, one is chosen at random?

Exactly.

In that case I would consider it unfair. Unless all involved agree, maybe. But even then I would prefer another solution.

Lx

[Gilligan]

I would never, ever decide a tiebreaker by randomness of picking a name. I'd rather it be decided by randomness of dice and drops.

[Serbia]

I would never, ever decide a tiebreaker by randomness of picking a name. I'd rather it be decided by randomness of dice and drops.

This. Even if someone drops out, I would not randomly select someone to advance. In a bracket tourney, I would advance the last player to lose to the player who dropped out. In other events where it's not as simple, I'd still want to either advance the highest-placed non-advancing player, or play out a tiebreaker. I'd never advance someone on a random "pick", as I see nothing fair about that.

[DoomYoshi]

I would never, ever decide a tiebreaker by randomness of picking a name. I'd rather it be decided by randomness of dice and drops.

This. Even if someone drops out, I would not randomly select someone to advance. In a bracket tourney, I would advance the last player to lose to the player who dropped out. In other events where it's not as simple, I'd still want to either advance the highest-placed non-advancing player, or play out a tiebreaker. I'd never advance someone on a random "pick", as I see nothing fair about that.

What is it that makes it unfair though. I realize that some have said it is unfair but I don't understand why.

If 2 players or teams have the exact same performance, then they should each have an equal chance at being eliminated.

[Night Strike]

I would never, ever decide a tiebreaker by randomness of picking a name. I'd rather it be decided by randomness of dice and drops.

This. Even if someone drops out, I would not randomly select someone to advance. In a bracket tourney, I would advance the last player to lose to the player who dropped out. In other events where it's not as simple, I'd still want to either advance the highest-placed non-advancing player, or play out a tiebreaker. I'd never advance someone on a random "pick", as I see nothing fair about that.

What is it that makes it unfair though. I realize that some have said it is unfair but I don't understand why.

If 2 players or teams have the exact same performance, then they should each have an equal chance at being eliminated.

That's why people said to have them play another game (or series of games). Plus, if you do something random, there's no way of knowing whether or not or actually did it randomly or just picked a winner.

[chapcrap]

That's why people said to have them play another game (or series of games). Plus, if you do something random, there's no way of knowing whether or not or actually did it randomly or just picked a winner.

He might be referring to this:

In a bracket tourney, I would advance the last player to lose to the player who dropped out.

What is it that makes it unfair though. I realize that some have said it is unfair but I don't understand why.

If 2 players or teams have the exact same performance, then they should each have an equal chance at being eliminated.

And he's right to a certain extent. Why advance the player who loses to the drop out?

It is why I would do as well, because the only really fair way to do it any different is so play out some kind of bracket/round robin tiebreaker in order to decide a player to advance. That tiebreaker system seems a bit ridiculous to me.

I guess if you want a reason why that player should advance ahead of others (besides to keep the tournament moving quickly), I would say that the randomness of the bracket made it that way. It's luck of the draw. You got to face the person who was destined to drop out, so you get to take his place.

[DoomYoshi]

I would never, ever decide a tiebreaker by randomness of picking a name. I'd rather it be decided by randomness of dice and drops.

This. Even if someone drops out, I would not randomly select someone to advance. In a bracket tourney, I would advance the last player to lose to the player who dropped out. In other events where it's not as simple, I'd still want to either advance the highest-placed non-advancing player, or play out a tiebreaker. I'd never advance someone on a random "pick", as I see nothing fair about that.

What is it that makes it unfair though. I realize that some have said it is unfair but I don't understand why.

If 2 players or teams have the exact same performance, then they should each have an equal chance at being eliminated.

That's why people said to have them play another game (or series of games). Plus, if you do something random, there's no way of knowing whether or not or actually did it randomly or just picked a winner.

Random.org will provide seeds to verify any random picking.

Most tournaments don't provide tiebreaker rules. I hate joining a tourney and having arbitrary tiebreakers assigned, almost as much as I hate assigning them.

[DoomYoshi]

Ok, I thought of an idea to verify randomization.

Basically all players liable to be eliminated submit a letter or a number. Say for example there are 3 players.

Player A submits A
Player B submits B
Player C submits C

Now, to determine the persistent identifier, the order that players replied is used.

So, if the players submitted their answers in alphabetical order, the persistent identifier would be: abc.

Then, once the results are posted, anyone can verify.

Why this works better than current tiebreakers:

a) Most tiebreaker rules are not laid down in tournament description and are therefore arbitrary. This method is no less arbitrary, but is more random. It is more random because a good player is more likely to win a tiebreaker game than a poor player. However, a good player is equally likely to win the lottery.

b) Many tiebreakers are game types that are not even described in the rules. For example, I recently played a 1v1 tournament with a 6 or 7 player tiebreaker game. By lottery, this will never happen.

It really is a question of "fair by opportunity" vs "fair by outcome". Usually, I go for "fair by opportunity" (generally conservative and/or libertarian approaches for those who haven't given thought to economic morality). However, both options are "fair by opportunity". Everyone had the same opportunity to beat the tiebreaker. This method is also "fair by outcome".

Now, some other techniques do make sense in certain situations. Usually I reach tiebreakers because the games are multiplayers and you either score points for winning or for other things. Many times tiebreaks can be quite complex (12 or more players tied). While variant options work in some cases, lottery works in all cases.

In Closing:

It is morally imperative that tiebreakers are decided by lottery unless there is a non-arbitrary way of determining (I know some TOs actually do list tiebreaker rules). Basically, if you don't use a lottery, your soul is lost. However, you can get me a place in the next Conquer Cup and I will ENSURE that you will be saved.