[LSJ] Optimal Seating Order - is it legal?

At some tournaments the optimal seating order isn't used. The reason behind this has been that it's said to be illegal according to the V:EKN rules since seating of round 2 and 3 isn't random. Personally I don't agree with this since the numbers are assigned randomly to begin with, so round 2 and 3 are random too. But I want to have it confirmed by LSJ that this is true. Is optimal seating order 1) the most recommended seating method by WW and V:EKN, 2)just one among many methods 3) illegal in tournament play? (I'm sure this isn't the case but want it explicitly clarified) Roger

Roger Carhult wrote: > > At some tournaments the optimal seating order isn't used. The reason behind > this has been that it's said to be illegal according to the V:EKN rules > since seating of round 2 and 3 isn't random. It is completely legal (and random), so long as the assigning of numbers to the players is random. > Personally I don't agree with > this since the numbers are assigned randomly to begin with, so round 2 and 3 > are random too. But I want to have it confirmed by LSJ that this is true. Is > optimal seating order LSJ made the optimal seating charts, you know. :-) > 1) the most recommended seating method by WW and V:EKN, > > 2)just one among many methods > > 3) illegal in tournament play? (I'm sure this isn't the case but want it > explicitly clarified) 2) I personally recommend it for any 3-round (plus a final) V:TES tournament, but it is not, AFAIK, the "official" recommendation. Any seating method that is random and otherwise conforms to the V:EKN rules is sufficient. The seating charts are just an aid, since making the seating designations on-site can be difficult to do well. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

> > At some tournaments the optimal seating order isn't used. The reason behind > > this has been that it's said to be illegal according to the V:EKN rules > > since seating of round 2 and 3 isn't random. > > It is completely legal (and random), so long as the assigning of numbers to > the players is random. This is what I think too, but is not viewed as such by some people I know, who claim that round 2 and 3 aren't random in accordance to the V:EKN rules of randomness, and thus illegal (to those rules). > > > Personally I don't agree with > > this since the numbers are assigned randomly to begin with, so round 2 and 3 > > are random too. But I want to have it confirmed by LSJ that this is true. Is > > optimal seating order > > LSJ made the optimal seating charts, you know. :-) Yes I knew this but needed an official proof to show :-P > > 1) the most recommended seating method by WW and V:EKN, > > > > 2)just one among many methods > > > > 3) illegal in tournament play? (I'm sure this isn't the case but want it > > explicitly clarified) > > 2) > > I personally recommend it for any 3-round (plus a final) V:TES tournament, > but it is not, AFAIK, the "official" recommendation. Any seating method > that is random and otherwise conforms to the V:EKN rules is sufficient. The > seating charts are just an aid, since making the seating designations > on-site can be difficult to do well. I think the optimal seating order isn't really optimal though. I'm not a math genoius (like you ;)) but there must be more optimal ways. I could think one out for a specific number of players, but I'm not smart enough to come up with a mathematical formula that would work for all number of players. For example we recently had a tournamnet with 20 players. That is 4 5-player tables. in round 1 and 2, I played with Johan Carlsson at the table and round 1 and 3 I played agaisnt Archibald. That's two players I played twice, while there's at least 7 players I can think of right now that I never played at all! (probably even more). This can impossibly be optimal. It was the same for most other people (perhaps all?) in that they played some people twice and a lot of people they didn't play at all. What's your defence for this? :-P Roger

> I think the optimal seating order isn't really optimal though. I'm not a > math genoius (like you ;)) but there must be more optimal ways. I could > think one out for a specific number of players, but I'm not smart enough to > come up with a mathematical formula that would work for all number of > players. For example we recently had a tournamnet with 20 players. That is 4 > 5-player tables. in round 1 and 2, I played with Johan Carlsson at the table > and round 1 and 3 I played agaisnt Archibald. That's two players I played > twice, while there's at least 7 players I can think of right now that I > never played at all! (probably even more). This can impossibly be optimal. > It was the same for most other people (perhaps all?) in that they played > some people twice and a lot of people they didn't play at all. Ok it's late and I'm tired...obviously it must have been 9 people I never got to play. Since on round 1 I played 4 new people, round 2 I played 3 new people and round 3 I played another 3 new ones. That's 10 people + me so it's 20 - 11 = 9 people I never played. Why play 2 people twice when there's a whole nine I don't play at all? Obviously it's the same for all so it must be possible to make a seating order where you only play new people if you're as many as 20 players split on 4 tables. Roger

In article <a1vv9l$u0tap$1...@id-104455.news.dfncis.de>, Roger Carhult <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: >Ok it's late and I'm tired...obviously it must have been 9 people I never >got to play. Since on round 1 I played 4 new people, round 2 I played 3 new >people and round 3 I played another 3 new ones. That's 10 people + me so >it's 20 - 11 = 9 people I never played. Why play 2 people twice when there's >a whole nine I don't play at all? Obviously it's the same for all so it must >be possible to make a seating order where you only play new people if you're >as many as 20 players split on 4 tables. Can't be done. Think of it this way: There are 4 tables, 1, 2, 3, 4. Table 1 had 5 players: a, b, c, d, e, for round 1. Round 2 comes along. You have 5 players and 4 tables. Try as you might, you cannot avoid having one table with 2 people from Round 1 at it. Round 3 is just like round 2 -- there are 4 tables, and 5 people who played at table 1 in round 1, so there's no way not to have 2 people who played together in round 1 at the same table in round 3. Breaking it down: You have a 3/4 chance of having an all-new table in Round 2, and a 3/4 chance again of an all-new table in round 3 = 9/16 chance of meeting 12 players throughout the tournament (meeting 4 new players at each of 3 tables). You have a 6/16 ((3/4 * 1/4) + (1/4 * 3/4)) chance of meeting 11 new players in the tournment (Round 1: meet 4 new players, Round 2 or 3: meet 3 new players, Round 3 or 2: meet 4 new players). You have a 1/16 (1/4 * 1/4) chance of meeting only 10 new players (Round 1: meet 4 new, round 2: meet 3 new, round 3: meet 3 new). So you were just unlucky =(. Cheers, gomi -- Blood, guts, guns, cuts Knives, lives, wives, nuns, sluts

"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@panix.com> wrote in message news:a200n6$ivo$1...@panix3.panix.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Ummm I didn't quite follow all this, but it *does* make sense, coz I always have really bad luck =( It jusrt seems weird there has to be players that only meet 10 players at all, sicne there will be players who meet only new ones at the same time. Sounds like it's not really optimal...couldn't seating be done so everyone meet 11 new players only? And if exceptions are needed there won't be exceptions BOTH up and down (that is both 10 and 12 new players)? Roger

In article <a2016u$tdm3i$1...@id-104455.news.dfncis.de>, Roger Carhult <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: > >"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@panix.com> wrote in message >news:a200n6$ivo$1...@panix3.panix.com... [ quoted text not captured ] >> Breaking it down: [ quoted text not captured ] >Ummm I didn't quite follow all this, but it *does* make sense, coz I always >have really bad luck =( It jusrt seems weird there has to be players that >only meet 10 players at all, sicne there will be players who meet only new >ones at the same time. Sounds like it's not really optimal...couldn't >seating be done so everyone meet 11 new players only? And if exceptions are >needed there won't be exceptions BOTH up and down (that is both 10 and 12 >new players)? I'm afraid that's as optimal as it gets, because for each round you're trying to stuff 5 players into 4 tables so that people don't play each other more than once. The leftover player has to wind up somewhere, so it's unavoidable, unless your tournament has an attendance equal to a power of 5 (5, 25, or 125. How big do tournaments in France get? I don't think 125 yet). [ quoted text not captured ]

>Ummm I didn't quite follow all this, but it *does* make sense, coz I always >have really bad luck You don't *always* hav bad luck... Remember, you did manage to get into the finals of that Sundsvall tournament! Of course, the faxt that only four more players showed up might have helped... :p /henrik

LSJ skrev i meddelandet <3C43659E...@white-wolf.com>... >> Personally I don't agree with >> this since the numbers are assigned randomly to begin with, so round 2 and 3 >> are random too. But I want to have it confirmed by LSJ that this is true. Is >> optimal seating order > >LSJ made the optimal seating charts, you know. :-) Are we supposed to get worried in some way when LSJ refers to himself in third person? =) /Henrik

"Henrik" <henri...@spray.se> wrote in message news:a207od$tp8ve$1...@ID-99227.news.dfncis.de... [ quoted text not captured ] hehe see?? :P but well I did go in as 2nd :P Roger

> I'm afraid that's as optimal as it gets, because for each round you're trying > to stuff 5 players into 4 tables so that people don't play each other more > than once. The leftover player has to wind up somewhere, so it's > unavoidable, unless your tournament has an attendance equal to a power of 5 > (5, 25, or 125. How big do tournaments in France get? I don't think 125 yet). Hmm what have France with this to do? I'm in Sweden =P Roger

LSJ wrote: > Roger Carhult wrote: > >>At some tournaments the optimal seating order isn't used. The reason behind >>this has been that it's said to be illegal according to the V:EKN rules >>since seating of round 2 and 3 isn't random. >> > > It is completely legal (and random), so long as the assigning of numbers to > the players is random. > > Recorded and will be considered. From now on every player in our tournaments could know after seating for round one is randomized which players they will meet during round 2 and round 3, including the seating-order and who starts first in order to better plan ahead without risking any randomness for all consecutive rounds. Do I hear any protests? Did I say anywhere that I think that this is awful? ;) Sten During

"Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote in message news:3C440EB3...@netg.se... [ quoted text not captured ] The judge could always keep the seating order secret or something =) During the tournaments I've played I've not experienced that people have looked ahead and checked who they're going to meet in the next round until that time has come. Even when I myself organized the Set's Call did I do that even though I easily could. The thought didn't cross my mind and it felt like it didn't matter anyway, I'd meet the people whether I liked it or not, so knowing in advance wouldn't change anything. Perhaps people would be more keen to figure out what decks other people are playing if they know who they're going to meet, but it's not like they could ask friends who played them to know anyway. I don't have anything against randoming seating order each round, except that you risk end up playing the same people (at different positions on the table) in all three rounds. Something that happened in Gothenburg last time too. We were only 10 people, and yet in three rounds I never played at the same table as both Johan Hansson and Johan 'Bern' Carlsson (something I'm glad of though since at least Hansson's deck seemed dangerous and I know Bern's deck wasn't the best for my deck to meet either, but still it's not fair for example Bern to have to face Hansson's deck three times when it won all the three preliminary rounds). I think such a scenario is worse than knowing who's gonna meet who the next round. Which could be solved in either that the judge keeps the seating order secret or that it's published at start to everybpdy has that info. Roger C Prince of Falkenberg

In message <3C440EB3...@netg.se>, Sten During <ya...@netg.se> writes: >Recorded and will be considered. From now on every player in our >tournaments could know after seating for round one is randomized >which players they will meet during round 2 and round 3, including >the seating-order and who starts first in order to better plan >ahead without risking any randomness for all consecutive rounds. >Do I hear any protests? If this occurs, don't tell players which actual table they're on for the purposes of the seating chart and so forth. -- James Coupe You remind me of the babe. What babe? PGP 0x5D623D5D The babe with the power. What power? EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Power of voodoo. Who do? 13D7E668C3695D623D5D You do. Do what? Remind me of the babe.