Swiss vs. Bracket, and the Chess Clock

[Imzakhor]

After a first round loss in Swiss, I am generally left with little hope of recovery, and yet I would soldier on until I am mathematically eliminated from Top 8.

Sounds like you need to toughen up mentally.

I fail to see where I mentioned anything other than doing my best to stay in the tourney. Your insult has been duly noted, however. Is it possible, in this forum, to advocate a change, without being attacked on a personal level?

[Titanium Dragon]

After a first round loss in Swiss, I am generally left with little hope of recovery, and yet I would soldier on until I am mathematically eliminated from Top 8. In bracket-form, as soon as you lose, you know you can find something else to do, like play the other half of first round losers, or watch the other players go at it. A side benefit would be the freedom to analyze people as they play, without the shady feeling that you might be cheating as you look at a fellow competitor's innards.

Oh come now. You have to be in a very small tournament for a round 1 loss to be equal to it being impossible to top 8. I don’t think I’ve ever been in a tournament where a round 1 loss makes it impossible to top 8; I think it is more that you’re likely to lose again because you lost in round 1 to statistically the weakest opponents, and thus it is something of an illusion - you/your deck wasn't up to snuff that day.

Additionally, being able to snoop on other players’ games is fun, its informative, and in any event no fair tournament structure is going to leave you with no time between games.

Tournaments would go MUCH more quickly. As soon as you finish a match, you simply have to wait for your next round's opponent to be available, and then you can be seated for the match.

This doesn’t really work out though; though it would slightly speed things up, that guy who takes 50 minutes each and every round is going to still take the same, and things will only be worse because you, instead of having to wait 15 or 20 minutes between your next game, will have to wait four hours at the end of round 7 while that guy is still on round 3.

Very few player-hours would be wasted, while waiting for time, or for matchup postings. Nothing I hate worse than waiting 10 hours to get in 7 rounds of Swiss at GenCon!

I think that has a lot more to do with data entry methods and tournament methodology than it does anything else.

Note: I do not think that you should post an actual bracket, where winners feed into playing each other. After winning a match, you should RANDOMLY go into the next round, so you don't know who your opponent will be until someone is randomed your opponent's seat.

See, here’s the flaw. This is totally wrong. If you want to speed things up, you use the tournament brackets. You cannot randomly assign winners until the round is over, because then and only then do you know who won. And if you preassign which matches’ winners play one another, then you’re using the brackets.

A side benefit: I think a real problem for getting sponsors to back tournament play offsite of their establishment is the swiss-system. After the first round of a bracket system, HALF of the competitors would be available to trade, shop, and browse onsite vendors, whereas in Swiss, all must remain focused on the task at hand.

Do you know what happens when you do this? I’ll tell you what happens. This happened at our local Time Spiral prerelease; you got 1 pack if you ever lost, and had to win out to get multiple packs. You know what happened? Everyone hated it. It got changed back this time due to massive player complaints. Trust me, people abhor this. You don’t want to show up and only get to play one game for $25.

I think having a chess clock in magic would be very interesting, though quite difficult to implement.  You'd have to hit the clock each and every time you passed priority.  That and of all the formats, it seems that Vintage is one of the few where you really don't need to worry too much about a match going to time.  I would think that having a chess clock would be unnessessary.  Now implementing it in a format thats less mind-taxing, like say standard, would be amusing, but thats a differn't forum.

I think chess clocks would be an excellent idea; yeah, it’d take some getting used to, but it’d eliminate every slow play/stalling problem – they have 30 minutes, say, and can budget that however they want to.

Or you can just stick around anyway, and play MAGIC.

Of course, you could play Magic and not pay any money at all. But what’s the point of tournaments then?

Ah, one more note: maybe you would not have to hit the clock at every priority passing, just turn passing? Lagging on priority on someone else's turn is punishable now, without a clock... With a clock it would be much more blatant.

One of the major perks of a chess clock is that it would immediately become obvious whether you had passed priority or not.

@Lochinvar81: would you be more willing to stick around for friends who are 2-0, while you are 0-2-drop? I don't see how the proposal has changed this outcome, except, in all probability, for the better, especially since you will have a LOT of other fellow players to play/trade casually with, than in a swiss environ.

The upside is you can still play in the swiss tournament, and in many prize payouts still have a chance to get something. Sure, if you’re all playing for a single big prize, that’s pointless (other than to have fun), but you do get to play a variety of opponents and paid money to do so, effectively.

I don't think the price of chess clocks is a barrier when it comes to Vintage when people are spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars on their decks. At most chess tournaments people have no trouble having a clock for each game. The bigger problem with clocks is when it comes down to actually playing a game. In chess clocks are not much of a problem because the pace is much slower and the clock is only hit maybe 80 times total during a game over the course of many hours. In magic however priority is passed many many times during a game and it can become tedious and time consuming to hit the clock every time. This time spent hitting the clock takes more time away from actually playing, which is never a good thing.

I’d bet money you’d actually see faster play with a clock, rather than slower play, and people would build up a routine of quickly passing priority. It’d also allow for more bluffing; if you take time, its costing you “something”, so there’s a better chance you have something in hand.

Also, why do we have to have a KO phase? Why is it 8 players exactly? Why do we have to complete the Swiss prior to the KO phase? The last round or two normally involves draws anyway, so why not end the Swiss phase earlier?

Because then you’d have draws all the earlier, and more ambiguity. The only “real” solution is to prevent IDing and make draws worth 1.5 points. This is possible with chess timers (especially if, say, once you run out of time, you get a warning for slow play, then get 5 extra minutes, once on the day; after that, when you’re out of time, you must always pass priority and can do nothing but pay costs) as every game will have a clear winner.

If clocks are to be used, their cost shouldn't be an issue - you can get reasonable chess clocks for well under US$50. I'd also suggest only using them at and above the Competitive level of Rules Enforcement (PTQs and above) because they don't need to be part of FNM and/or pre-releases.

I agree.

How would the clock rules work?  I mean even if you give a time limit for little decisions you could slow play by taking the max for each decision.  If you have some sort of maximum amount of time you can spend compared to your opponent, then what happens if Stax locks out its opponent.  Now it must play turbospeed in order to win with Welder beats without being Disqualified.

You always know you have exactly, say, 30 minutes. This allows you to build decks with this in mind. There’d be no such thing as “slow play” because the only person it’d hurt would be yourself. Sure, winning via Welder beats can take a while, but if your opponent is totally locked out of the game then you should be able to take your turns very quickly indeed.

There are other weird cases.  I mean what if you have the combo with Turboland and it is a matter of drawing 40 cards and activating Barbarian Ring 10 times.  In a real game your opponent concedes once he sees you have the infinite draw/infinite life engine, but if you only have a certain amount of time then actually comboing out in under a minute or two could be fairly challenging.

It could be, but on the other hand, how long does that really take? You can use handwavium to repeat, and that’s done in magic today.

I would love to see straight-Swiss, no top8 tournaments.  Imagine the amount of collusion you could eliminate.  I'd much rather see myself lose in round 1 and drop than to come in 9th in standings after a full day of playing only because of collusion.  At least I don't waste the entire day this way.

This would be interesting and get rid of a lot of collusion. On the downside, people not in the top 8 would have to wait even longer for their prizes, though on the upside they’d have more chances to make it. It also has the slight downside that all the T8 people might not play each other, though it seems a bit unlikely that they wouldn’t eventually. Unfortunately, it also gets rid of the T8 with rounds of indefinite length, and a T8 is certainly better for Pro Tour coverage and gaming (with rounds of 3 out of 5 and all the time they need).

[Aardshark]

Oh come now. You have to be in a very small tournament for a round 1 loss to be equal to it being impossible to top 8. I don’t think I’ve ever been in a tournament where a round 1 loss makes it impossible to top 8 . . . 

Sadly, I have lost the first round and won out, only to miss the top 4 on tiebreakers.  Admittedly it was a small 4 round tourney.

[Godder]

My experience in playing in Swiss + Top 8 is that the last round has very little effect on who actually makes the top 8. In theory, the last round ensures that there is, at most, 1 undefeated deck, but in practice, players start taking IDs as soon as they safely can, and the last round features 1 or maybe 2 matches that are actually relevant (and it's not unknown for IDs to lock in the top 8 entirely, especially at smaller events). Practical experience dictates that the last round could be done away with entirely if there's a top 8 playoff, or if the top 8 playoff is done away with, Swiss + 1 round would be plenty for determining prizewinners. I liked the not-getting-screwed-by-tiebreakers idea used at TMD Open as well.

Also, the shortcuts used currently would still be able to be used with chess clocks, generally at least.

[Moxlotus]

The only problem with not cutting to top 8 is that tiebreakers matter even more.  In a standard swiss tournament (or maybe its swiss+1.  I dont know what its claled.  The format where 33+ people is 6 rounds) it is like 90%+ that the top 8 consists of everybody X-1-1 and better.  Do you want the prizes for 3/4 to be separated from 5/8 solely on tiebreakers?  Or would you rather have them play it out?  I like to see tiebreakers play a minimal role in prize pay outs.

This is why I am in love with the format that Ray had at the last Waterbury--all the X-1-1 got to play for prizes, all the x-0-2 got good prizes.  The only time tiebreakers mattered were for 2 people--but under a straight cut to top 8 the 9th would have got completely screwed over--now he has a chance to make it in despite crappy tiebreakers. 

[Roxas]

In addition to the numerous problems with single-elimination already stated, the "you can stick around and play Magic anyway" suggestion is pretty flawed as well. It's not an uncommon practice for players to continue playing after going 0-2 for the sole purpose of trying to salvage the rating points lost. This would obviously not be possible in a single-elimination system, which would be a major inconvenience for anyone simply trying to earn a few points to qualify or get byes in an upcoming major event.

As far as clocks: regardless of any practical benefits they may or may not provide, I would personally quit tournament Magic if it required hitting a button every time I pass priority. Magic already has far too many repetitive and tedious requirements (most notably shuffle effects), and having to pay attention to more than that in addition to paying attention to the game would make it pretty much unfun.

[Almighty]

If you play for the atmosphere, would you not be happy playing a bunch of people who got knocked out at the same time as you? Currently, there is nobody left to play, as everyone is still doing swiss. 0-2-drop people have few choices. With a bracket, you could still benefit from the atmosphere, while still playing a bunch of people who are in your boat.

Double-elim would also work well, guaranteeing each person TWO matches. I remember when I was 10, and in my cub scouts Pine Wood Derby. Thrillingly fun, and it was a double-elim bracket. I have played in single elim MtG tourneys as well (sanctioned t1, even). Have most people with an opinion on this, NEVER been involved in a single elim tournament?

The NCAAs, indeed EVERY sport playoff format with a 1-and-done mentality, generates excitement. A tournament is not meant for casual play enjoyment. Isn't that self-evident?

The chess-clock and brackets are overkill; they both get at the task of speeding up games. I think the bracket would improve the format sufficiently, with no need of a chess-clock.

Well, If you would rather hold a bracket rather than swiss as a TO, noone is stopping you. I won't play in your event.

Similarly, If my odds of doing well tank because of the bracket system, I may show up to cheer on friends, but I wouldn't play, thus weakening the prize pool.

Single elimination has worked before as side events, side events are ways to keep people who haven't done well in the swiss another chance to be in the running for prizes.

If my laissez-faire and casual attitude towards tournaments was considered unwelcome, I would quit tournament level magic altogether.

By the way, you aren't *forced* to drop at 0-2. And if you do drop at 0-2, what's to stop you from enjoying the atmosphere as opposed to enjoying the atmosphere when eliminated from a bracket structure?

One more thing. I may have missed it, but how do you handle matches that would go to time without the clock implementation? If they are savage nailbiters, can you stop them from going on for an hour and a half if nessisary? Are draws appropriate and workable for this type of structure? While it may speed things up, it might also slow things way down.

[Godder]

The only problem with not cutting to top 8 is that tiebreakers matter even more.  In a standard swiss tournament (or maybe its swiss+1.  I dont know what it's called.  The format where 33+ people is 6 rounds) it is like 90%+ that the top 8 consists of everybody X-1-1 and better.  Do you want the prizes for 3/4 to be separated from 5/8 solely on tiebreakers?  Or would you rather have them play it out?  I like to see tiebreakers play a minimal role in prize pay outs.

Swiss system just refers to a pairing system where players are paired against opponents on the same score where possible and nobody is eliminated. If there's no top 8, that would be straight Swiss, regardless of the number of rounds. To ensure that there can't be more than 1 player on X-0, a minimum number of rounds is required, such that 2^R >= entries e.g. 32 players is 5 rounds, but 33 is 6. There's no maximum as such, but the more rounds there are, the more accurate the final standings are, and also the closer to a Round Robin (all-play-all) it becomes.

I suggest 1 or 2 rounds more than the minimum required (as calculated above), but whatever. To answer the tiebreak situation given above, a) the more rounds are played, the more accurate tiebreakers become, and b) prizes can be given out in a forced split, as is the norm at chess tournaments, where 3rd place (for example) is often split 3 or 4 ways. That's not so awesome if it's a top-heavy prize pool (like a Mox for first and not much else), but then, those sorts of prizes suck anyway.

This is why I am in love with the format that Ray had at the last Waterbury--all the X-1-1 got to play for prizes, all the x-0-2 got good prizes.  The only time tiebreakers mattered were for 2 people--but under a straight cut to top 8 the 9th would have got completely screwed over--now he has a chance to make it in despite crappy tiebreakers.

Strongly in agreement here, but I still think there's no need for the last round in that sort of cut-off.

As far as clocks: regardless of any practical benefits they may or may not provide, I would personally quit tournament Magic if it required hitting a button every time I pass priority. Magic already has far too many repetitive and tedious requirements (most notably shuffle effects), and having to pay attention to more than that in addition to paying attention to the game would make it pretty much unfun.

Do you mean explicitly pass priority (e.g. put a spell on the stack and await a response) or implicit passes (e.g. go to draw a card for the turn)? Provided warnings continue to be given out for people who abuse priority passes to waste time, a clock shouldn't cause serious issues other than the standard "don't wanna change" attitude that most people have.

[Imzakhor]

Similarly, If my odds of doing well tank because of the bracket system, I may show up to cheer on friends, but I wouldn't play, thus weakening the prize pool.

This means, of course, that someone else's odds skyrocketed, or everyone else's went up a little bit, enticing one or more people to play, thus strengthening the prize pool. Your personal participation is certainly not relevant to having a quality tournament.

I am utterly surprised at the lack of interest, but moreso, the utter disdain displayed against a new, fair, tournament style... One that was sanctioned by the DCI, not too long ago.

[GrandpaBelcher]

The NCAAs, indeed EVERY sport playoff format with a 1-and-done mentality, generates excitement. A tournament is not meant for casual play enjoyment. Isn't that self-evident?

Apparently not.  I don't know how it is in the NCAA, maybe their players don't actually like playing basketball, but I play Magic because I enjoy it.  Sanctioned PTQ or kitchen-table format, I only play the game while it's fun.  I don't want to be sitting there sweating bullets knowing that if my opponent topdecks a Fireball to go with his Channel (or whatever), it will ruin my day.  Go ahead and use the brackets for an invitational like FFY said, but if every tournament were single elimination, (especially in Vintage where the likelihood that you get knocked out by after having played only one or two turns, let alone games) you'd drive a lot of people away.

I am utterly surprised at the lack of interest, but moreso, the utter disdain displayed against a new, fair, tournament style... One that was sanctioned by the DCI, not too long ago.

You're right, it is disdain.  But maybe the DCI gave up on single elimination for a reason...

[ELD]

After a first round loss in Swiss, I am generally left with little hope of recovery, and yet I would soldier on until I am mathematically eliminated from Top 8.
Sounds like you need to toughen up mentally.

I fail to see where I mentioned anything other than doing my best to stay in the tourney. Your insult has been duly noted, however. Is it possible, in this forum, to advocate a change, without being attacked on a personal level?

The word choice of "generally left with little hope of recovery" is indicative of a frame of mind that is not exactly optimal for winning.  I'm sorry you take it as an insult, it's really not meant to be.  If you are able to be more positive after receiving a loss, it would certainly up your chances for doing well.  It was meant as a next time "rub some dirt on it and go kick some more butt."  Math isn't going to eliminate you, it's the second loss that does it.  If two people beat you on any given day, you're simply not going to be the best player that day. 

Perhaps your argument for single elimination would be better received if you tried to point out benefits that do not involve your personal opinions.  As a tournament organizer, I can tell you my events have been running quite smoothly.  The swiss style has a ton of benefits that would be lost if things went to single elimination. 

The NCAAs, indeed EVERY sport playoff format with a 1-and-done mentality, generates excitement. A tournament is not meant for casual play enjoyment. Isn't that self-evident?

The Top 8 is the equivalent of the "playoffs."  They are single elimination.  A single elimination tournament is like a single elimination season.  Picture the Patriots suiting up on opening day, losing, and not being seen again for another year.  That is hardly exciting. 

[Imzakhor]

"yet I would soldier on until I am mathematically eliminated" = "rub some dirt on it and go kick some more butt." Different words, same meaning.

I'm sorry you take it as an insult, it's really not meant to be.

Sure it was, let's call a spade a spade. I can imagine why you would deny it, since personal attacks are not allowed here, in theory.

The Top 8 is the equivalent of the "playoffs."  They are single elimination.  A single elimination tournament is like a single elimination season.  Picture the Patriots suiting up on opening day, losing, and not being seen again for another year.  That is hardly exciting.

This is fair enough. I enter tournaments to win prizes, I don't enter them to play Magic, as I can do that anywhere. I don't need a tournament environment to enjoy Vintage. I think single elim would offer a faster method of generating a champion, and apparently you agree, as do most others: it's just that a "faster" tournament is not necessarily what most people (who have posted!) want.

*edit* Being from Indianapolis, I enjoyed the Patriots reference... Especially the losing-and-not-being-seen-for-a-year part.

*second edit* Hm, got to thinking. Is there a good way to figure out how many people who lose their first match actually make Top 8? Might offer a clearer picture of how difficult it is to T8 after losing in the first round.

[LordHomerCat]

In a reasonable sized tournament, like 5 or more rounds, losing your first round is the same as losing your second or third: you still have to win out (or get lucky and squeek in with a draw depending on the size).  I would not pay $25 to play single elimination vintage, its just too swingy and you wouldn't have the best player winning, you would have the person who gets luckiest.  Honestly, it might be easier to top8 if you lose your first round vs. losing a different round, since your second and possibly third rounds have a good chance of being against less skilled players in those rounds.

On another note, what do you propose for round times?  You say that people can start playing the second round as soon as they finish the first, but how do you know when their round time is up then?   Are your rounds untimed?  If thats the case, your single elim. tourney will take longer than swiss a large amount of the time, especially in a big tournament setting because there are so many people who will take 2 hours to finish a control slaver mirror or something.

I just don't see any reason to do single elim, there is too much luck in this game to do that.  The only single elim format tournaments I can think of are grinders at places like nationals.

[Anusien]

Once you acknowledge the fact that you can drop from a Swiss-style tournament at any point, a single-elim or double-elim only has one potenial advantage, and this is the supposedly faster turnaround on rounds.
Fact #1) These sorts of tournaments can't have draws.  The end of turn procedures would be even more arbitrary than they are now; can you imagine losing the match because of some stupid sudden death?
Fact #2) It's a logistical nightmare.  From the other side of the judges table, I can tell you that I wouldn't want to run a bracket-style tournament.  You'd have to have a clock running for each table to keep track of time.  Doing deck checks would be a nightmare.  You essentially lose the ability to make announcements after the tournament has started (players rarely listen to announcements while the tournament is ongoing).  You'd be continually making pairings and distributing them, which makes it much more likely something goes wrong.  You lose the numbered tables (since table 1 may be occupied already), making it much more difficult to see how you are doing in the tournament.
Fact #3) Players are easily turned off by an elimination tournament.  Even if X-2 is a virtual elimination, players like that they can keep playing to "get their money's worth".  You can't diminish the prizes available, which means prices have to stay where they are, so you're paying the same amount of money for less Magic.
Fact #4) It makes byes untenable.  A three round bye is sort of ridiculous.
Fact #5) People come to tournaments to play Magic.  Yes, once you get eliminated, you can go play T4 or whatever.  But what if you get eliminated at noon?  You're hanging around for 6 hours or more if your friends do well.
Fact #6) You don't actually speed up the tournament.  In almost every round, a match goes to time.  By the sheer nature of pipelining, it's impossible to finish the tournament overall before all the matches are completed.  Let's say we have a player who is very methodical, and that all of his matches go to time (complicated deck/matchup, pairings, whatever).  Also assume this player happens to win all their matches.  This means that the earliest you can end the tournament is Round_Count*(Round_Length+End_Round_Procedure) minutes from the starting time.  Coincidentally, that's the same formula for Swiss style.  The only question is whether End_Round_Procedure for Swiss or Single Elim is smaller, and I maintain that Swiss is much easier to do since there's only one task at a time.

Double-elim would also work well, guaranteeing each person TWO matches

Um, what benefits does that give over swiss?  Swiss essentially is double elim with the option to keep playing if you want.

Um, faster brackets? You would not have to wait for the everyone trying to Top 8, with each of those matches potentially going to time, and then the 5 turn untimed. Your top 8 is self-evident: last 8 standing.

The 1-loss bracket would not even need to be on the same timer as the 0-loss bracket, thus further optimizing time. BTW, I am not even advocating a loser's bracket, though it works faster than swiss anyway. A single bracket, with random pairings generated after each round, is MUCH faster, and is what I'm advocating.

Swiss essentially is NOT double elimination. In a bracket format, you still have the option to keep playing if you want after a loss, with exactly the same people you would be playing ANYWAY in a swiss format. You just won't be slowing up the people who are still in the tournament, and thus, a faster tourney is born. That is good for everyone.

[Godder]

*second edit* Hm, got to thinking. Is there a good way to figure out how many people who lose their first match actually make Top 8? Might offer a clearer picture of how difficult it is to T8 after losing in the first round.

In chess tournaments, losing or drawing in the first round is known as the "Swiss Gambit", because it generally leads to an easier run to the end. On the other hand, actually winning becomes more difficult, but you can usually make the prizes. In Magic, that has less application, because the most relevant factor in the result of a match is generally the decks being played, so there's no guarantee that losing the first round will make it easier to keep going from there.

[ELD]

I fail to see where I mentioned anything other than doing my best to stay in the tourney. Your insult has been duly noted, however. Is it possible, in this forum, to advocate a change, without being attacked on a personal level?

It is unreasonable to give specific examples involving oneself and then be upset when someone comments on the example.  I wouldn't care if the example's subject was my Grandmother, I'm going to objectively look at the example and give my honest opinion.  If you are going to be offended by discussion of your examples, it would have been better to say

"After a first round loss in Swiss, many players are generally left with little hope of recovery, and yet they would soldier on until they are mathematically eliminated from Top 8.....A side benefit would be the freedom to analyze people as they play, without the shady feeling that you might be cheating as you look at a fellow competitor's innards."

Then perhaps you would not be offended if people share their opinions as to the accuracy of your statement.  My response to the suggested statement above would certainly still be that "many players" need to toughen up mentally.  While they're feeling little hope, I would be very hopeful and optimistic, and that is quite possibly the difference between winning and losing. 

On a side note scouting is not cheating, so any feeling of shadiness is totally self-inflicted.  Again, that is not a personal attack, just a statement about what is allowed by the rules while playing in Magic tournaments. 

All that said, I have yet to see any benefit of running an entire event as single elimination.  Single Elimination at best drops the time it would take to do the Top 8.  The single elimination play-off is certainly appropriate, but swiss rounds are filled with benefits that single elimination cannot compete with.  If the goal is to speed up events, then the most obvious thing to do would be to drop people who are mathematically out of the event.  I would not even be an advocate of that, as many people who are in that situation are be newer players for whom tournament experience is very valuable regardless of their record. 

[Imzakhor]

The semantics are cute, but they don't really accomplish anything. Besides, I hesitate to speak for anyone other than myself, or present my own experiences as representative of a larger whole.

Mostly, I am talking about tournaments at GenCon. There is outstanding pressure to leave a tournament early, to go do other things you can only do at GenCon. At a local shop, it is probably better to do Swiss. But at GenCon, where chasing a Top 8 after a first round loss is generally fruitless, perhaps single elim is the way to go. I guarantee GenCon has motivation to get players through the tournies as fast as possible, as well.

[andrewpate]

I guarantee GenCon has motivation to get players through the tournies as fast as possible, as well.

You keep saying this, but you have yet to address the issue that sooner or later, time catches up with the guy playing the Worship deck.  If he takes the full 50 minutes but wins every round, your tournament will take, as like 15 people have said, exactly the same amount of time as a modified swiss tournament.

Until somebody can explain why a single-elimination tournament finishes faster, this entire discussion is pointless.  The only other thing a bracket has going for it is knowing that your day is over as soon as you lose, and as I've already said, anybody who has ever played in a Nationals grinder (256-man single elimination tournament with very topheavy payout) knows that everyone hates them.  I did not see one person in a whole day, where they ran like 8 of them, say, "This is so great that I know right when I've lost!"  Also, every single round went to time somewhere in the room.  This results in the super-amazing single-elimination tiebreakers, also known as whoever has the highest life total.  And if you have the same life total, it goes, with no time limit, until somebody gains or loses a life.  Ever seen somebody Mortify their own Phyrexian Arena eot, then burn through every resource they have to find a Moratorium Stone before their opponent untaps and gains 1 life from Firemane Angel?  Would you like such things to be a major staple of tournament play?

People HATE grinders.  That's why they call them grinders.  They aren't fast, they aren't "useful" so you can go do other stuff, they're just incredibly, incredibly obnoxious.  When I was there, over half of the between-rounds chatter I heard was complaints about the tournament structure.  Why they persist in even using that structure for that one type of event is beyond me, but if I had to guess, I would say that it is because the grinders have a reputation for being harsh, cutthroat, and intimidating, and their marketing staff thinks, for whatever reason, that it's a good thing to have that kind of event around, and why not use it on something like last-chance qualifiers, the attendance at which is fairly fixed.  Hardly something worth bringing to a (comparatively) low-stakes format with a small player base and sparse event support already.

[Imzakhor]

I guarantee GenCon has motivation to get players through the tournies as fast as possible, as well.

You keep saying this, but you have yet to address the issue that sooner or later, time catches up with the guy playing the Worship deck.  If he takes the full 50 minutes but wins every round, your tournament will take, as like 15 people have said, exactly the same amount of time as a modified swiss tournament.

I would be happy to explain. It's a question of probability. With fewer people in each round, the likelihood of any single match being the outlier you describe drops significantly. In Swiss, you are guaranteed that guy is going to grind down your tournament timing, whether or not he wins or loses. In bracket, it's only if he wins. Fewer matches per round means shorter rounds.

As far as your grinder format... I would much prefer a life total tiebreaker, than settle for a TIE. Also, a 256-person swiss format simply gives me convulsions.

[Roxas]

As far as your grinder format... I would much prefer a life total tiebreaker, than settle for a TIE. Also, a 256-person swiss format simply gives me convulsions.

You are still failing to provide any rational reasoning in support of single elimination. You are basing everything on statements beginning with things like "I would much prefer..." Your dislike of draws is particularly irrational; I fail to understand how one would prefer a loss to a draw.

256-player Swiss events give you convulsions, you say? If that is so, I would advise against ever attending a Grand Prix or Pro Tour (you know, the most competitive tournaments in Magic, which seem to do quite well by being entirely Swiss, except with two cutoffs instead of just one).

[rare hunter]

I guarantee GenCon has motivation to get players through the tournies as fast as possible, as well.

You keep saying this, but you have yet to address the issue that sooner or later, time catches up with the guy playing the Worship deck.  If he takes the full 50 minutes but wins every round, your tournament will take, as like 15 people have said, exactly the same amount of time as a modified swiss tournament.

I would be happy to explain. It's a question of probability. With fewer people in each round, the likelihood of any single match being the outlier you describe drops significantly. In Swiss, you are guaranteed that guy is going to grind down your tournament timing, whether or not he wins or loses. In bracket, it's only if he wins. Fewer matches per round means shorter rounds.

As far as your grinder format... I would much prefer a life total tiebreaker, than settle for a TIE. Also, a 256-person swiss format simply gives me convulsions.

Highest life total wins is just stupid. In type 2 for instance, the Rav duals skew that. Same with Fetches, FoW, etc in type 1 and 1.5. Palyers have it ingrained into their heads to use their life totals as a resource. The grinder end of match procedure ruins this. Decks get built around this principle, and cards get designed based on this principle. Wouldn't it be bad to ruin all that? That is one reason swiss is better. Swiss allows for proper testing in the case of multiple events of the same format. Yes, that first round loss makes me unable ot top eight. The second and third may trash my rating, but, I have valueable knowledge for the next event.

And what makes draws so bad?

[Imzakhor]

You are still failing to provide any rational reasoning in support of single elimination. You are basing everything on statements beginning with things like "I would much prefer..." Your dislike of draws is particularly irrational; I fail to understand how one would prefer a loss to a draw.

Did you even read the Original Post? I outline there every basic reason I have for wanting to try single elim... Some more sprang up throughout this thread.

My dislike of draws is not irrational, unlike your conclusion that I (or anyone!) would prefer a loss to a draw. Far from it. Ties are boring. BORING! I would much prefer the purity of win/loss vs. ties; the ability to go for a win (and risk a loss) rather than stall out tactics so prevalent in game 3s that basically ensure ties. That seems more exciting... Seems more like Magic. Also, strategies that involve more shuffling than others will not be falsely turned aside, for fear of going to time and ensuring too many draws.

But, whatever. I am not going to run a single-elim tournament anytime soon, and it's apparent that very few people here will either, and a virtual lock that nobody will run one in the Indianapolis area, so the whole idea is moot anyway, I am sorry for wasting your time. Since the discussion is not even close to being enjoyable, I will simply acknowledge that fact, and move along.