[EasilyFound]

Playing in a heads up tourney this weekend. It will be double elmination. The final match will be the best two out of three games. All of the others will be just one game.

It is correct, is it not, that the "double-elimination" refers to matches not games. If the one of the two finalists has already lost a previous match, that person does not lose the final two-out-of-three "match" with one loss in the final match. In other words, that person must lose twice in the final match to be eliminated.

I hope that was clear.

[ky70]

The use of the word "match" kind of confuses things, but in my double elimination heads up tourney, a player was eliminated from the tourney when they lost their second game.

Now when it's down to 2 players and the player out of the winners bracket has yet to lose, then the player out of losers bracket would have to win two games in a row (without losing) to win the entire event as the player from the winners bracket would need to have 2 losses to be eliminated but 1 more defeat would eliminate the losing bracket player as he already has 1 defeat.

[EasilyFound]

Thanks. If that is the rule, then that is the rule. But it doesn't seem right to me. Doesn't that significantly negate the purpose of having a best 2 of 3 final? It is no longer a true 2 of 3 finale.

[reotexas]

Originally Posted by EasilyFound

Thanks. If that is the rule, then that is the rule. But it doesn't seem right to me. Doesn't that significantly negate the purpose of having a best 2 of 3 final? It is no longer a true 2 of 3 finale.

The problem you are having is that you are switching structures in the tourney (which is perfectly fine). In every heads up play there is only one game being played between opponents. Then, in your tourney, you have a best 2 out of 3 for the final heads up play between finalists. If you are doing this way (the best 2 out of 3 for the finalists) then you should ignore any losses in the preliminary rounds. Basically, if you get to the final match up, then it's best 2 out of 3.

If you are *not* doing the best 2 out of 3 with the finalists then what was previously said goes.

[EasilyFound]

We are changing the structure, having a best 2 of 3 for the final heads up. Then we will ignore any losses in the preliminary rounds. Otherwise, the person from the winner's bracket only has to win one of the next four games to win the whole thing. That doens't make sense to me.

[reotexas]

Originally Posted by EasilyFound

We are changing the structure, having a best 2 of 3 for the final heads up. Then we will ignore any losses in the preliminary rounds. Otherwise, the person from the winner's bracket only has to win one of the next four games to win the whole thing. That doens't make sense to me.

Makes total sense.

[EasilyFound]

I think to preserve the principle of best two of three for the final match, you should ignore the prior loss of the player from the loser's bracket and require that player to win back-to-back best two of three series. Requiring the loser's bracket player to win four in a row vs. the winner's bracket winning just once in four games give too large an advantage, in my mind, at least, to the player from the winner's bracket. There is nothing wrong with that, I suppose. It just depends on how much of an advantage you want to give to the person from the winner's bracket. So I would say that the double-elimination should refer to "matches," however many games comprise a match, and not just single games when you have a structure in which the "matches" in a later round have more games than prior "matches."

[jdunford]

Originally Posted by EasilyFound

I think to preserve the principle of best two of three for the final match, you should ignore the prior loss of the player from the loser's bracket and require that player to win back-to-back best two of three series. Requiring the loser's bracket player to win four in a row vs. the winner's bracket winning just once in four games give too large an advantage, in my mind, at least, to the player from the winner's bracket. There is nothing wrong with that, I suppose. It just depends on how much of an advantage you want to give to the person from the winner's bracket. So I would say that the double-elimination should refer to "matches," however many games comprise a match, and not just single games when you have a structure in which the "matches" in a later round have more games than prior "matches."

When my group played double-elimination HU tourneys, they were strictly double-elimination: Once you've lost twice, you're done. No "best 2 of 3" rule for the final.

The last time we played, I made it to the final in the "winner's bracket" (i.e. I hadn't lost a match), and a player I'd already beaten in a previous round (I think the very 1st round) made it to the final via the "loser's bracket". Because I hadn't lost yet, he had to defeat me twice in a row to win the tourney... and he did!

Now, if I had won either one of our last two matches, I would've won the tournament. But I would've defeated that opponent twice in the tournament. It doesn't always work out that way (I could've faced an entirely new opponent in the finals), but I still would have only needed to defeat him once, vs. him needing to defeat me twice. Otherwise, you're making it "triple elimination" for the "loser's bracket" finalist... which is fine, if that's how you want to play it.

Another way to do it and have a "best 2 of 3" final would be to have two separate pools: go strictly double-elimination in each, then have those two finalists play each other "best 2 of 3". That way, you guarantee that they haven't faced each other in a previous round, and the history of each can be ignored for the final round. That would work well for 16 or more players, but might not be as interesting if you only have 8.

[Captn_All_In]

Here's a wrench for ya....

play it all the way back for a true second, meaning that if the guy who finishes in "third" place hasn't had a chance at the second place finisher they have to play it out.

I wrestled in a tournament like this back in college. I got beat in the first round by the eventual champion, and after winning the match that secured me the third place, I had to wait until the championship match was over. Then the guy I hadn't wrestled lost and we had to wrestle after he was done. I ended up pinning him in the second because he was pretty tired from the championship match.

The reason for doing this was because our league could only send 1 wrestler from each weight class, plus 3 others who placed second, to D3 nationals, and those spots were to be awarded to wrestlers in a way similar to an outstanding wrestlers vote. After the matches the coaches choose the guys to go, but I didn't make the cut I probably wouldn't have had a shot at winning, but it would have been fun to experience it!