NOBs?

[Levi Hinz]

Is NOBs still running?  I'm keen for some drafts, I've got to get 71 more PWPs this season to upgrade to big-boy pants.

1. Levi

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

[Simon O'Keeffe]

Deck b looks powerful and consistent :-)

Maybe a better example is that deck b wins 60% of its matches.

In best of 3 the decks perform as such:

a - WLW WLW WLW

b - WW WW WLL

In best of 1:

a - WLWLWLW

b - WWLWWLW

Not perfect example either...

[Kieran Symington]

The main problem I see with best of one is that a deck only really has a certain number of good match-ups at any given table (unless you are an absolute master at draft). In a best of one round-robin, if deck A should beat B, C and D but should lose to E, F and G but has to mulligan into oblivion against B then mana-floods against C then if the rest of the games go according to expectations it will only win one game when it should have won three. Equally, if E and F have bad luck instead then A will end up winning two games where it would usually have lost. In a match you at least have a second chance to beat the decks you are good against (and get beaten by those you should be losing to). Though equally in Swiss you could be paired against only the three unfavourable match-ups!

[Thomas David Baker]

I'm not sure anyone has come up with complete proof that Round Robin of 7 produces a less reliable winner than 3 rounds of Swiss matches.  Perhaps because it doesn't?

I'm going to revise my position and say that I simply just hate losing to my opponent's bomb or mana screw and then have to move on to another opponent saying "because I am playing more matches tonight I shouldn't care about that c'est la vie".  You can get mana screwed or bombed out of a whole match but it's much less frequent.  So I guess for me the difference is mostly psychological.  If I win or am beaten over three games it usually feels fair, over one game it does not.  Even if the overall victor is just as reliably found by the system.

What's better about best of one?  You get to chat to everyone and we all get to rag on Ross for being slow?

[Daniel Royde]

Isn't chatting to everyone a big reason?

[Thomas David Baker]

I think that's the reason people like it.  It doesn't seem important to me - I am happy to chat to people I am not playing! :)

[Thomas David Baker]

Do you get a lot more PWPs out of round robin?  Does each game count as a full match?

[Paul Hodgson]

You do get more PWP out of RR, aside from that I much prefer best of 3 because of the reasons Baker posted above. It's less tilting to lose a match due to playing badly, rather than "draw, sigh, 10th land in a row, go"

[ross miles]

i think both ways lead to people being frustrated/tilting by mana screw/flood.  these complaits are heard all the time regardless of how the games are organised because its part of the game.

 

i like chatting to everyone. i like definately getting to play against whatever mess kieran has drafted.

[Thomas David Baker]

I personally almost never complain about flood/screw. But I do hate losing the only game of the match to an overloaded Mizzium Mortars that I didn't even know my opponent had in their deck.

[Levi Hinz]

I like the bonus PWPs from RR, not always relevant but it can be.

I also like that in RR, you don't have to organize pairings.  Sounds like a minor thing, but tends to be a big deal and pretty time consuming. 

Also in RR, because you get to play against every deck, you get to practice against every archetype.  This is good if you're actually trying to learn the draft format, gaining knowledge of all the cards in a new format is much faster.

Agreed that a cool side of Swiss is that you get to try play around bombs or removal that you saw in previous games, so a memory for the previous games is actually relevant.

For the record, I'm not against Swiss, or massively pro-RR, I can see the benefits of either.  For a Tuesday night casual draft I prefer the RR format, but wouldn't be devastated if it was swiss.

I'm just against bad arguments.  ;)