Unless a reasonable solution could be come up with that solves the supposed issue of ID's but does not create any other issues in the process of doing so, there is a Zero percent chance that it would get implemented by wizards and the DCI, it really is as simple as that, all in all. This also means that the change cannot cause undue strain on tournament personnel who are running the events to keep track of what everyone is doing. At an FNM with 30+ people and only one judge, it is impossible for the judge to be able to keep track of what everyone is doing, especially close up enough to make sure people are "playing to win" or whatever else others have said.
There are a ton of reasons why wizards came up with ID's being allowed, they have been at this for 20 years now, I'm sure if there was a better method of doing it that was feasible to implement that wouldn't end up harming other players tournament results in the process, that they would have implemented it by now. You cannot just say that the problems created by a potential solution are better and thus its okay to create them via the solution, that's not a good way to look at things. And no, that person who is 4-1 going into the final round being boxed out because the 5-0's decided to draw is not worse than someone naturally drawing in the final round being told (well, sorry, draws in the last round get you zero points, guess you just lost out).
If a solution can be come up with that covers all of that, while removing the ability to ID, or to be able to benefit in any way from IDing, then more power to you there. At the end of the day though, I suspect there isn't a better solution that would cover all of those things that would be better than the current ID system.
And yes, people do draw naturally due to the time constraints. Happens all the time, especially at FNMs, I judged tournaments at our local shop with regularly had turnouts of 40+ people for years, and draws happened every single round of play, and not because of ID's, simply because the games ran out of time and they weren't able to complete the 3rd game. Those players should not be punished, no matter the round, due to some suggested "fix" to IDs to prevent last round shenanigans or otherwise. If a legitimate draw happens from game play, those people deserve to get their 1 point each. Control vs Control matchups happen, Control vs other deck types happen, where the individual games can last quite a while. Any suggestions that say that certain deck types shouldn't be played in tournaments or that people should play different decks if the games are taking so long, are also poor suggestions/points to make in favor of removing IDs or punishing people for drawing in the last round.
As long as time limits for rounds exist for magic (necessary due to tournament logistics) there will be draws, and so long as their are draws, ID's are going to stick around as an option, because otherwise, as stated previously, people can just play it out, but not be playing to win, but rather to draw naturally due to time, there is no realistic way to stop this within the confines of a normal tournament setting.
If a perfect solution can be thought up, then by all means I'm sure people would be willing to listen, but until then, I just don't think you'll find that enough of the tournament playing playerbase nor wizards/the DCI themselves would be willing to consider such a solution.
The two first players both have, let's say, 12 points from going 4-0. You are 3-1 with 9 points. You win the fifth round before they finish, going to 4-1 with 12 points. You have a tiebreaker that's better than them once one of them adds in the loss they'll get if they play it out - meaning the winner would be at 15 points and alone in first while the loser would be tied with you at 12 points, but be in third because of the inferior tiebreaker. So they draw, both going to 13 points and splitting the prize to make sure neither of them drop below you. It happens when the top two spots get a much better prize or an exclusive prize that the third ranked player gets. I've never seen it occur early, but I see no reason this couldn't apply early enough in a small enough tournament with enough players in on it.
I wish people weren't such childish idiots. Draws shouldn't even need to be a thing in Magic in all but the most ridiculous of scenarios based on actual game mechanics. But since we're not all mature and/or intelligent enough to manage that, yes, you're a less than stellar person if you intentionally draw. If the guy would finish second if you play out your match, particularly if he'd be second no matter who wins, he deserves to be second. No decent person screws that guy over.
This is such utter nonsense that I'm not even sure what to say beyond "wow". Apply this horrendous logic to literally anything else and you'll see what I mean. This is like being at 10-3 and in first place after week 14 of the NFL season and just saying "nah, we're not going to play anymore - we've played best up until now, we get home field advantage." Why not just end the tournament after round 1 if someone went 2-0 while every other winner was 2-1? He's played the best so far - according to you, that's sufficient.
How often you lose is the most important factor. Who you lose to is the next most important factor. When you lose should never even remotely enter into the equation in swiss - that's the entire point of swiss.
And this is coming from a guy who has possibly never once agreed with crimeo.
the NFL does give advantages to the teams who are deemed the best. Home field Advantage is one of them, as you have already stated. The NFL gives the advantage to the team who has played the best ball up until the playoffs. Sound kind of familiar?
You mean to tell me that someone who hasn't lost a match yet shouldn't have any sort of a leg up on the guy who has had one or two losses? Personally, I think it's douchey to draw in an 8-man, but if we are talking larger tournaments (My LGS often gets 30-50 people depending on the weather), why should I have to play the last round if I have a flawless record? Why should I have to risk losing my Top 8 seat if I have obviously outperformed everyone else in the room?
I want to feel like the winner of an event is the person who performed the best at playing Magic. The idea that you can have people conceding to each other and double drawing into the single elimination rounds bothers me in that I think it detracts from the skill of playing magic in lieu of the skill of understanding how to read tiebreakers correctly and how to game the system in general (often at the expense of other players--you don't get into Top 8 without pushing someone else out, after all). The best example I can give is how I remember some people being very upset that Luis Scott-Vargas planned on going undefeated at Pro Tour San Diego instead of drawing his last matches, citing that it goes against some sort of player etiquette to not draw your matches after a certain point. The concept that people thought LSV was uncool for deciding to play games of Magic in a Magic tournament is a problem to me.
In that way, given that one of the reasons the Planeswalker Points system was implemented was that players were abstaining from magic to preserve their rating, I wouldn't be surprised if the tournament scoring system didn't change sometime in the future, because the current state of affairs right now is such that you are having players abstain from Magic to preserve their rank in the standings at events, and I think that is equally as problematic.
It seems like the only reason this behavior is considered acceptable right now is because no one knows how to enforce a rule that prevents intentional draws, and it isn't the case that intentional draws are actually being endorsed as something acceptable.
Can somebody please briefly outline an example of the most common draw-in situation in a large pro type tournament? Don't have any experience with those, only FNM, and keeping track of a lot of rounds realistically is really difficult with made-up results.
Can somebody please briefly outline an example of the most common draw-in situation in a large pro type tournament? Don't have any experience with those, only FNM, and keeping track of a lot of rounds realistically is really difficult with made-up results.
The idea is to split the prize evenly, instead of someone risking losing packs.
So you and your opponent are playing where the winner gets 10 packs but the loser only gets 6. You draw and you both get 8. After a long day where you know you are going up against a tough deck, sometimes you want to just take the packs and run.
Can somebody please briefly outline an example of the most common draw-in situation in a large pro type tournament? Don't have any experience with those, only FNM, and keeping track of a lot of rounds realistically is really difficult with made-up results.
Can somebody please briefly outline an example of the most common draw-in situation in a large pro type tournament? Don't have any experience with those, only FNM, and keeping track of a lot of rounds realistically is really difficult with made-up results.
So lets say you have a 64 man swiss tourney cut to top 8. I believe that's 6 rounds, and any more is 7 rounds. Its currently round 6, so far there have been 0 draws, which is abnormal, but meh.
After round 1 you have:
1-0: 32
0-1: 32
After round 2 you have:
2-0: 16
1-1: 32
0-2: 16
After round 3:
3-0: 8
2-1: 24
1-2: 24
0-3: 8
After round 4:
4-0: 4
3-1: 16
2-2: 24
1-3: 16
0-4: 4
After round 5:
5-0: 2
4-1: 10
3-2: 20
2-3: 20
1-4: 10
0-5: 2
Cuts are to top 8.
In terms of cuts, the WER looks at 4 things, first it checks points. Most points go in. If multiple players have equal points, it then checks opponent match win percentage, and the player who played better opponents gets higher seed. If those are equal, it checks your game win percentage (so more 2-0s are better, and 1-1s are bad), and if those are equal, it looks at opponent game win percentage. We'll only need to worry about the first one.
So our tournament has these players:
5-0: 2
4-1: 10
3-2: 20
2-3: 20
1-4: 10
0-5: 2
We only care about the 5-0s and 4-1s. There are 12, lets letter them A-L.
A-B (5-0)
C-D (4-1)
E-F (4-1)
G-H (4-1)
I-J (4-1)
K-L (4-1)
If every game is played out, and every person on the left wins, A is 6-0, and B, C, E, G, I, and K are 5-1. They all get in. That leaves 1 spots for a 4-2s. These will almost certainly be either D, F, H, J, or L but it could be one of the 10 winners in the 3-2 bracket. Such a 3-2 player would have to have played at least one of the current 5-1s though. Essentially it all comes down to opponent wins.
Wow what happens if all top 12 players tiebreak?
A-B (5-0)
C-D (4-1)
E-F (4-1)
G-H (4-1)
I-J (4-1)
K-L (4-1)
A and B are 5-0-1. Everyone else is 4-1-1. A and B get in, and of C-L, 6 get in. Essentially, it comes down to who out of C-Ls opponents did best. And the only person affected badly is the 3-2 player who won in round 6 and had the best standing, and even then, only maybe.
Now it does get more confusing with byes, since if there are 3+ people with 4-0-1 coming into round 5, the 5-0 guys must draw to be certain they get in.
Top 8 guys ID, 9 & 10 played cause of bad tiebreakers.
The guys 11 to 32 did have a chance to make top 8 if EVERYONE PLAYED. But because of ID shenanigans they didn't.
This isn't strictly true. Only the top guys from 11-32 going into round 13(?) had a chance. The guy in 32nd after round 12 had no more chance than the guy in 1006th.
I guess OP wants it to be 'keyworded' like "dies" was. What word would you replace ETB with though?
When Aegis Angel is born?
When Huntmaster of the Fells arrives?
When Kitchen Sphinx lands?
When Faerie Imposter busts in?
When Dread Cacodemon pops in?
When Malfegor shows up?
If you don't like intentional draws, just win. If you win every round, you will automatically get top seed over every player who intentionally draws a round.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
These days, some wizards are finding they have a little too much deck left at the end of their $$$.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
Top 8 guys ID, 9 & 10 played cause of bad tiebreakers.
The guys 11 to 32 did have a chance to make top 8 if EVERYONE PLAYED. But because of ID shenanigans they didn't.
Okay, so in this actual situation where the top 8 drew in in a GP, the rule:
"If you qualify for top 8 by a single point, and your last match was a draw, that match is 0 points"
1) Would have successfully caused any table who tried to draw in to NEITHER of them make the top 8, thus completely quashing the practice entirely in that tournament
2) It almost certainly wouldn't punish any innocent person. Amongst all those players with 33 points, if anybody got a natural draw, they were out of contention immediately anyway, because there would still be plenty of winners to take the 36 point slots and fill up the whole top 8. Only a natural draw amongst the 36 point people would potentially hurt an innocent, and even then, only if their OMW was high enough anyway. Considering that there seem to be only 3 draws amongst all those people in the top ranks (#1-3) over 14 rounds, the chance of there both being a draw, AND it being a person who would have had a high enough OMW, seems very very statistically unlikely.
So you're stopping 8 dudes from drawing in for free, and you're only hurting as collateral damage 0-1 people, with a much heavier likelihood on 0.
Sounds like an extremely efficient rule to me.
But then we can make it even safer and more efficient! It looks like in most cases, either a whole bunch of people are going to draw in, or nobody (or just a couple) would. In which case, you could make a similar rule that's even a little bit safer:
"If 4 or more of the top 8 had draws in their last round, then all draws in the last round count as 0 points. Otherwise 1 point."
Or similar.
- This allows it if it's just a fringe pair
- This stops a mass draw-in in a situation like abuquerque
- In a situation where mass draw-in is NOT ideal, though, this doesn't kick in, so as to help protect anybody with a natural last round draw, just to be safe.
So over many tournaments, I'd expect that rule to about 95%+ affect would-be IDers, and maybe 5% of the time natural draw-ers. If not even more efficient.
Okay, so in this actual situation where the top 8 drew in in a GP, the rule:
"If you qualify for top 8 by a single point, and your last match was a draw, that match is 0 points"
1) Would have successfully caused any table who tried to draw in to NEITHER of them make the top 8, thus completely quashing the practice entirely in that tournament
2) It almost certainly wouldn't punish any innocent person. Amongst all those players with 33 points, if anybody got a natural draw, they were out of contention immediately anyway, because there would still be plenty of winners to take the 36 point slots and fill up the whole top 8. Only a natural draw amongst the 36 point people would potentially hurt an innocent, and even then, only if their OMW was high enough anyway. Considering that there seem to be only 3 draws amongst all those people in the top ranks (#1-3) over 14 rounds, the chance of there both being a draw, AND it being a person who would have had a high enough OMW, seems very very statistically unlikely.
So you're stopping 8 dudes from drawing in for free, and you're only hurting as collateral damage 0-1 people, with a much heavier likelihood on 0.
Sounds like an extremely efficient rule to me.
But then we can make it even safer and more efficient! It looks like in most cases, either a whole bunch of people are going to draw in, or nobody (or just a couple) would. In which case, you could make a similar rule that's even a little bit safer:
"If 4 or more of the top 8 had draws in their last round, then all draws in the last round count as 0 points. Otherwise 1 point."
Or similar.
- This allows it if it's just a fringe pair
- This stops a mass draw-in in a situation like abuquerque
- In a situation where mass draw-in is NOT ideal, though, this doesn't kick in, so as to help protect anybody with a natural last round draw, just to be safe.
So over many tournaments, I'd expect that rule to about 95%+ affect would-be IDers, and maybe 5% of the time natural draw-ers. If not even more efficient.
What about tournaments that don't have top 8's? (I'll speak more on the idea when that part is answered).
twhy should I have to play the last round if I have a flawless record? Why should I have to risk losing my Top 8 seat if I have obviously outperformed everyone else in the room?
This has been said before, almost verbatim, but I'll state it again.
Why not just end the tournament first round if you go 2-0 and everyone else goes 2-1 or worse then?
You've obviously outpreformed everyone else in the room, haven't you?
What about tournaments that don't have top 8's? (I'll speak more on the idea when that part is answered).
I'm intending it more for pro type large tournaments. They could say "FNM/whatever other lower tier thing organizers can choose to use the rule or not" or something. Draws at FNMs may be more common than in the tour linked to above, in which case you may want to ditch it.
Also, it can extend to prizes in the absence of a top 8. Simply copy and paste the wording, except replace "4 or more of the top 8" with "half or more of prize winners."
I'm intending it more for pro type large tournaments. They could say "FNM/whatever other lower tier thing organizers can choose to use the rule or not" or something. Draws at FNMs may be more common than in the tour linked to above, in which case you may want to ditch it.
Also, it can extend to prizes in the absence of a top 8. Simply copy and paste the wording, except replace "4 or more of the top 8" with "half or more of prize winners."
That still has the same problem of harming those that may unintentionally draw. Harming people who unintentionally draw via such a change is just as bad as the people supposedly being harmed via the current ID being allowed methods. Any method that harms a person for an unintentional draw in any round is simply unacceptable, because unintentional draws oftentimes cannot be helped. The only way to remove draws would be to remove the time limits and make people play until someone wins, or set up a clock like on mtgo, which is rather impossible for paper magic unfortunately. Otherwise draws can and will happen (ID or non-ID), no one should be punished with an effective loss due to it being the last round, or due to what others choose to do in the last round. It can certainly be argued that the current system isn't perfect, but, once again, unless a method to solve the issue can come up with does not replace one problem with even a small chance of another, then its not something wizards, the tournament playerbase, or the DCI are likely to agree with and consider implementing.
Okay, so in this actual situation where the top 8 drew in in a GP, the rule:
"If you qualify for top 8 by a single point, and your last match was a draw, that match is 0 points"
1) Would have successfully caused any table who tried to draw in to NEITHER of them make the top 8, thus completely quashing the practice entirely in that tournament
They would've simply ID'd in the penultimate round instead and you'd have a practically identical top8 pointswise.
ID's are fine. You went undefeated in the event and now can draw into top 8? Congrats, you performed better than everyone else and now have the luxury of drawing into top 8. In smaller events this does tend to lock people out of the top 8 as well, but you all didn't perform well enough so you really only have yourselves to blame.
Now what I'd really like to see is top 16 at larger events, but time constraints makes that just not feasible, and it wouldn't change the ID issue at all.
Players who complain that intentional drawing is unfair need to tell me about these stores where you get massive prize support for 0-0-4.
Otherwise, recognize that if you put yourself in a good position by winning your first few matches, you are often incentivized to draw the last round.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Due to real-life obligations, I am taking a long break from Magic which may include missing the local Legacy GP. Apologies for not being able to keep my threads updated.
unless a method to solve the issue can come up with does not replace one problem with even a small chance of another
This isn't the death penalty. I can't say I'm impressed by "100 guilty men go free!" speeches, because we aren't talking about life changing events or human rights, here.
It's a minor unfairness vs. a minor unfairness.
Except in this case it's very lopsided, and there's a good chance of rooting out 8-10 minor unfairnesses in exchange for 1 minor unfairness of the other sort, thus then the tournament is more fair
It makes no sense to me that you would rabidly defend the rights of the rare dude who unintentionally draws at the right time, yet you don't give a crap at all about the rights of the half dozen people who should have had a chance to win into the top 8 if everybody plays their games, but doesn't due to a quirk of who happened to win in what order (e.g. the 33-point people in the linked example of an albuquerque tournament).
You're just randomly deciding some people are more important to be fair to than others. Whereas I am trying to treat them all equally, and simply remove unfairness from a maximum NUMBER of people.
You went undefeated in the event and now can draw into top 8?
If the event is 5 rounds, then you did NOT "go undefeated in the event" after only round 4, because the event's roudns aren't over yet.
It is rewarding completely arbitrary accidents -- people who would have won in this order (if played out):
W-W-W-W-L
versus people who are equally skilled, but would have won in this order:
W-W-W-L-W
You have no justifiable reason to collect a reward just because your off-game happened to be the one that would have lined up with the last round, instead of an earlier round. Neither of those two people above are better at magic. So they should have a fair way to distinguish winning into prizes. I.e. directly facing off, or opponent win %, etc.
They would've simply ID'd in the penultimate round instead and you'd have a practically identical top8 pointswise.
That's just a matter of fine-tuning details. There's some iteration that would push it far enough back they won't be willing to gamble anymore. For example:
"At the end of every round, determine how many people would be tied in points for the top 8 if it were decided right now. Divide that number in half, rounded down. If that many or more of THOSE people draw that round, draws = 0 for that round"
The 8th person is in 3-2, so all 3-2's and up = 15 people.
if half of those people rounded down draw that turn = if 7 or more of those people draw, draws = 0 this turn.
Or what have you. The numbers and fractions in this example are arbitrary. I have no way of optimizing it for minimal collateral damage without spreadsheets of lots of past tournaments, and their actual draw rates, etc. But WOTC would have that data, and they could easily analyze various numbers and find ones that provide a very high rate of draw-in filters and a very low rate of false positives.
The whack-a-mole part of the game is fairly downhill if you have the numbers in front of you.
If its minor unfairness vs minor unfairness, then you're by your own admission not making the game fairer, so why goto the effort and cause the issues of changing a tourney rule that has been in place for most of (if not all of) MTG's tourney life?
No:
Often 8 people's worth of minor unfairness (people locked out of their chance by IDing, and if only a couple people ID, then the rule doesn't even trigger) in exchange for maybe MAYBE 1 person's minor unfairness (somebody occasionally unintentionally drawing who would have won in the last round). More often 0 people. Let's say 0.25 on average.
8 - 0.25 > 0 i.e. significantly improved overall fairness.
That's just a matter of fine-tuning details. There's some iteration that would push it far enough back they won't be willing to gamble anymore. For example:
"At the end of every round, determine how many people would be tied in points for the top 8 if it were decided right now. Divide that number in half, rounded down. If that many or more of THOSE people draw that round, draws = 0 for that round"
The 8th person is in 3-2, so all 3-2's and up = 15 people.
if half of those people rounded down draw that turn = if 7 or more of those people draw, draws = 0 this turn.
Or what have you. The numbers and fractions in this example are arbitrary. I have no way of optimizing it for minimal collateral damage without spreadsheets of lots of past tournaments, and their actual draw rates, etc. But WOTC would have that data, and they could easily analyze various numbers and find ones that provide a very high rate of draw-in filters and a very low rate of false positives.
The whack-a-mole part of the game is fairly downhill if you have the numbers in front of you.
Then the optimal strategy would be to play until enough games are decided, then the remaining games simply ID. This does sometimes happen in the current arrangement, if 10 people are in the ID bracket, they play until 2 games finish and the rest ID.
This isn't the death penalty. I can't say I'm impressed by "100 guilty men go free!" speeches, because we aren't talking about life changing events or human rights, here.
It's a minor unfairness vs. a minor unfairness.
Except in this case it's very lopsided, and there's a good chance of rooting out 8-10 minor unfairnesses in exchange for 1 minor unfairness of the other sort, thus then the tournament is more fair
It makes no sense to me that you would rabidly defend the rights of the rare dude who unintentionally draws at the right time, yet you don't give a crap at all about the rights of the half dozen people who should have had a chance to win into the top 8 if everybody plays their games, but doesn't due to a quirk of who happened to win in what order (e.g. the 33-point people in the linked example of an albuquerque tournament).
You're just randomly deciding some people are more important to be fair to than others. Whereas I am trying to treat them all equally, and simply remove unfairness from a maximum NUMBER of people.
Here is the question you have to ask though.... What percentage of the current tournament playerbase would you estimate has a problem with the current ID rules?
And in fact, as has been made abundantly clear over the course of the two threads you have been advocating for the removal of ID's about over the last few days, it is you who are deciding that some people are more important than others in the context of the discussion (which makes sense given which viewpoint you are arguing from.) As someone who played magic for years in shops, and then ran/judged the magic tournaments for the local shop I ran my own business out of for 6 years, its important not to dismiss those people who would be harmed by trying to change the ID rules. Its one thing to be frustrated at the top two undefeated people both choosing to draw to guarantee their position, leaving the rest to be forced to be happy with 3rd or 4th place (etc.). I understand the system isn't perfect. But imagine if one of those people who were playing for 3rd or 4th place, played it out and it ended up in a draw due to time? By the rules you are suggesting, you just took those players and knocked them potentially a ways down the prizes where they would have at least been in the top x-amount before that. And draws due to time happen all the time at tournaments like FNMs, which often already frustrates both players since both wanted to win but ran out of time to do so, by your proposed rules change, both of those people would now get the equivalent of losses which would only put an even worse taste in their mouths. At least in the case of the people who end up 5-1 at the end of a 6-round tournament, are still going to be in the prizes even if it may not be 1st or 2nd, even the 4-1-1's are likely going to still be in the prizes under the current system. Take those 4-1-1's and suddenly make them 4-2's (as far as points go) and you can quite likely kiss those prizes goodbye. Imagine being that person under your scenario? Frustrated because you couldn't finish the game because time was called, and then told that you wont qualify for any prizes due to the new rules in regards to drawing in the last round.
And yes, you are arguing for the people who feel slighted due to the current ID rules, whereas I'm arguing for the people that would be affected by and point out what the collateral damage of your proposed rule change would be. Wizards is unlikely to accept a convoluted change to the rules that also creates its own collateral damage. They are certain to know that if they were to change it in such a way, you would then hear from people complaining just as much about how the new rules ruined their tournament experience, for doing nothing other than having the match end in a draw due to the time constraints and potentially the types of decks being played.
I'm curious as well, does anyone know whether wizards has ever commented on there being a problem with the ID rules and drawing in general as they are now? Them having said something about it within the context of it being something they wish they could fix, but couldn't figure out how, would go a long ways towards at least leaving a potential opening for them to be willing to listen to proposals to change the current rules.
At the end of the day, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't believe that a fix is really a fix if others end up being collateral damage as a result. And anyway, the amount of people that would stand to benefit from this each tournament is a very small number, that would likely be equal to those that would have the potential to have a negative impact from the proposed change.
I should note as well, that at least at the FNMs we had at our shop, IDs weren't exactly super common. I would say the top two might choose to ID once every other week perhaps, but typically only the top 2. The rest would typically go ahead and play it out. Thus leaving 3rd-whatever place wide open for people to potentially get from winning their final round. Is drawing more common at bigger events where you have 100's of people playing over the course of the tournament to earn a spot in the top 8? I'm certain it is. But its also a different play environment as well, for often much different magnitudes of prizes.
If shops get enough people complaining about the IDs, they can always adjust their prize payouts to be more flat across the top x spots, rather than giving an overly large amount to 1st and 2nd and something decent to 3rd and 4th, and then perhaps not much else after that, you can do as we did at our shop, which was to spread out the prizes as much as possible. We set it up to where everyone would get a prize of some kind, with the top 33% (sometimes more) of people getting at least something extra. And by flat I mean 1st place: 6 packs + extra, 2nd place: 5 packs + extra, 3rd place: 4 packs + extra, 4th place: 4 packs + extra, 5th-8th places: 3 packs + extra, and so on. (In this case the extra being a pick of a rare/mythic from opening 1 pack per person who entered the tournament, chosen in order of finish).
If I were to propose a solution for FNMs and the like, it would be to flatten the prize payouts in a similar method as above. This requires no rules changes to IDs or the like by wizards, and keeps the top 2 or what not who may be IDing into those top 2 spots from walking away with the majority of the prizes available for the tournament.
Larger events are more tricky in that regard, as they tend to be much more competitive events than your typical shop tournaments, and thusly the use of the top 8 and draws et all to get there are going to be much more prevalent if the opportunity may be there to make use of it for those people at the top. For those events you want the top prizes to be eye-catching because you want to draw those big-name players in to play in those larger tournaments, and draw as many in as possible with the lure of the potential of those larger prizes at the top.
As I said though, its a tricky situation. At the end of the day though, I'm just not sure the support overall from the tournament playerbase/ (wizards/DCI) is there to be able to make some of the proposed changes in these threads a reality.
I'm not here just to shoot people's ideas down, if someone comes up with a solution that doesn't create collateral damage, then I'll be the first to congratulate them on coming up with something not even wizards could think up, until then though, unfortunately I am going to have to keep with my view that collateral damage on other players with the creation of a new rule to punish people who ID, is just not something that I view as being acceptable (and from the sounds of the majority of people in these last couple threads, I'm likely far from alone in that viewpoint on IDs in general.)
Feel free to keep up the discussion though, who knows, someone might just make a breakthrough and come up with something that will be a sure thing :).
Then the optimal strategy would be to play until enough games are decided, then the remaining games simply ID. This does sometimes happen in the current arrangement, if 10 people are in the ID bracket, they play until 2 games finish and the rest ID.
Huh? I don't see how IDing more than once would ever work out well.
In the albuquerque example, the guys in the IDing range were only 1 win ahead at the end, with like 20 people right on their heels. If they IDed more than a single time, it seems like they'd have zero chance anymore.
Or in a 4 round FNM, even, with 6 other people, you play 2 and ID ID, you could still easily have 3 of those other people ahead of the BEST of you, and any of the 10 who didn't get W-W are screwed, etc.
I have no problem in any situation with IDs. Never have, never will. I think if the players would rather take the draw than play out a game they don't want to that's their right. I've been in situations more than once where I go into the final round as one of two undefeated and I'm either paired up against a friend or it's been a long day and the last thing I want to do is play another round and in those situations an ID is great. I've also gone in in 3rd or 4th place and if the top two didn't ID I could place 2nd overall but they do and I don't blame them for it at all. IDs are just part of the game and complaining about them is like complaining that the sky is blue. It's a big waste of energy. IDs are part of the game and whether you like it or hate it it's a practice that isn't going away.
This has been said before, almost verbatim, but I'll state it again.
Why not just end the tournament first round if you go 2-0 and everyone else goes 2-1 or worse then?
You've obviously outpreformed everyone else in the room, haven't you?
Absolutely agree. I am assuming none of you have played other sports or any other type of competitive play with this line of thinking.
Roger Federer is 2 sets up in a grand slam final. Goes over to the referee in the chair and says "Look I have beaten him thus far. If he was better than me he would not be behind. I don't want to play the last set so I will just take my trophy now."
Last quarter of a NFL or NBA game the winning team doesn't want to get on the field/court because they are in the lead and they don't want to jeopardise their position. Could you imagine the outrage? Yet I assume those advocating for ID's would be sitting at home saying yeah that's what I would do!'
I have not seen any philosophical argument at all that says ID's are good other than 'its allowed in the rules.' And also someone raised if WOTC has stated that they have an issue with ID's. Probably not because we have seen the response on this thread. Have you seen an article or release where WOTC say they really endorse and love ID's? I'm pretty sure that when they created the game and when they set up the tournament structure they set out to make id's a thing.
But that's just my opinion. I cannot fathom going somewhere to compete and not competing to the end. Play it out and if you miss out on a few booster packs boo hoo, at least you gave it a shot and kept your integrity.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There are a ton of reasons why wizards came up with ID's being allowed, they have been at this for 20 years now, I'm sure if there was a better method of doing it that was feasible to implement that wouldn't end up harming other players tournament results in the process, that they would have implemented it by now. You cannot just say that the problems created by a potential solution are better and thus its okay to create them via the solution, that's not a good way to look at things. And no, that person who is 4-1 going into the final round being boxed out because the 5-0's decided to draw is not worse than someone naturally drawing in the final round being told (well, sorry, draws in the last round get you zero points, guess you just lost out).
If a solution can be come up with that covers all of that, while removing the ability to ID, or to be able to benefit in any way from IDing, then more power to you there. At the end of the day though, I suspect there isn't a better solution that would cover all of those things that would be better than the current ID system.
And yes, people do draw naturally due to the time constraints. Happens all the time, especially at FNMs, I judged tournaments at our local shop with regularly had turnouts of 40+ people for years, and draws happened every single round of play, and not because of ID's, simply because the games ran out of time and they weren't able to complete the 3rd game. Those players should not be punished, no matter the round, due to some suggested "fix" to IDs to prevent last round shenanigans or otherwise. If a legitimate draw happens from game play, those people deserve to get their 1 point each. Control vs Control matchups happen, Control vs other deck types happen, where the individual games can last quite a while. Any suggestions that say that certain deck types shouldn't be played in tournaments or that people should play different decks if the games are taking so long, are also poor suggestions/points to make in favor of removing IDs or punishing people for drawing in the last round.
As long as time limits for rounds exist for magic (necessary due to tournament logistics) there will be draws, and so long as their are draws, ID's are going to stick around as an option, because otherwise, as stated previously, people can just play it out, but not be playing to win, but rather to draw naturally due to time, there is no realistic way to stop this within the confines of a normal tournament setting.
If a perfect solution can be thought up, then by all means I'm sure people would be willing to listen, but until then, I just don't think you'll find that enough of the tournament playing playerbase nor wizards/the DCI themselves would be willing to consider such a solution.
the NFL does give advantages to the teams who are deemed the best. Home field Advantage is one of them, as you have already stated. The NFL gives the advantage to the team who has played the best ball up until the playoffs. Sound kind of familiar?
You mean to tell me that someone who hasn't lost a match yet shouldn't have any sort of a leg up on the guy who has had one or two losses? Personally, I think it's douchey to draw in an 8-man, but if we are talking larger tournaments (My LGS often gets 30-50 people depending on the weather), why should I have to play the last round if I have a flawless record? Why should I have to risk losing my Top 8 seat if I have obviously outperformed everyone else in the room?
The fighting game community's definition of "collusion" includes what MtG players refer to as "intentional draws". Basically as long as you and your opponent have any kind of agreement that affects the outcome of the match you are liable to get disqualified. It even includes cases where both players select characters in grand finals that are not their "main characters":
http://www.eventhubs.com/news/2013/dec/30/collusion-during-frosty-faustings-blazblue-grand-finals-results-3rd-place-winner-receiving-1st-and-2nd-places-500-pot-bonus/
You can't even throw a match (concede) without coming under fire:
http://www.eventhubs.com/news/2013/apr/07/team-spooky-wants-your-feedback-fanatiq-vs-chrisg-match-final-round-16/
This,
"Oh no we don't allow collusion! That's against the rules! Oh wait, except for these 4 types of collusion that we totally allow."
I want to feel like the winner of an event is the person who performed the best at playing Magic. The idea that you can have people conceding to each other and double drawing into the single elimination rounds bothers me in that I think it detracts from the skill of playing magic in lieu of the skill of understanding how to read tiebreakers correctly and how to game the system in general (often at the expense of other players--you don't get into Top 8 without pushing someone else out, after all). The best example I can give is how I remember some people being very upset that Luis Scott-Vargas planned on going undefeated at Pro Tour San Diego instead of drawing his last matches, citing that it goes against some sort of player etiquette to not draw your matches after a certain point. The concept that people thought LSV was uncool for deciding to play games of Magic in a Magic tournament is a problem to me.
In that way, given that one of the reasons the Planeswalker Points system was implemented was that players were abstaining from magic to preserve their rating, I wouldn't be surprised if the tournament scoring system didn't change sometime in the future, because the current state of affairs right now is such that you are having players abstain from Magic to preserve their rank in the standings at events, and I think that is equally as problematic.
It seems like the only reason this behavior is considered acceptable right now is because no one knows how to enforce a rule that prevents intentional draws, and it isn't the case that intentional draws are actually being endorsed as something acceptable.
The idea is to split the prize evenly, instead of someone risking losing packs.
So you and your opponent are playing where the winner gets 10 packs but the loser only gets 6. You draw and you both get 8. After a long day where you know you are going up against a tough deck, sometimes you want to just take the packs and run.
How To Keep Your FOIL Cards From Curling: http://youtu.be/QTmubrS8VnI
The Best Deck Boxes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEwgLph_Pjk
The Best Binders: http://youtu.be/H5IauASYWjk
Here is an example
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/eventcoverage/gpabq13/stand14
Top 8 guys ID, 9 & 10 played cause of bad tiebreakers.
The guys 11 to 32 did have a chance to make top 8 if EVERYONE PLAYED. But because of ID shenanigans they didn't.
So lets say you have a 64 man swiss tourney cut to top 8. I believe that's 6 rounds, and any more is 7 rounds. Its currently round 6, so far there have been 0 draws, which is abnormal, but meh.
After round 1 you have:
1-0: 32
0-1: 32
After round 2 you have:
2-0: 16
1-1: 32
0-2: 16
After round 3:
3-0: 8
2-1: 24
1-2: 24
0-3: 8
After round 4:
4-0: 4
3-1: 16
2-2: 24
1-3: 16
0-4: 4
After round 5:
5-0: 2
4-1: 10
3-2: 20
2-3: 20
1-4: 10
0-5: 2
Cuts are to top 8.
In terms of cuts, the WER looks at 4 things, first it checks points. Most points go in. If multiple players have equal points, it then checks opponent match win percentage, and the player who played better opponents gets higher seed. If those are equal, it checks your game win percentage (so more 2-0s are better, and 1-1s are bad), and if those are equal, it looks at opponent game win percentage. We'll only need to worry about the first one.
So our tournament has these players:
5-0: 2
4-1: 10
3-2: 20
2-3: 20
1-4: 10
0-5: 2
We only care about the 5-0s and 4-1s. There are 12, lets letter them A-L.
A-B (5-0)
C-D (4-1)
E-F (4-1)
G-H (4-1)
I-J (4-1)
K-L (4-1)
If every game is played out, and every person on the left wins, A is 6-0, and B, C, E, G, I, and K are 5-1. They all get in. That leaves 1 spots for a 4-2s. These will almost certainly be either D, F, H, J, or L but it could be one of the 10 winners in the 3-2 bracket. Such a 3-2 player would have to have played at least one of the current 5-1s though. Essentially it all comes down to opponent wins.
Wow what happens if all top 12 players tiebreak?
A-B (5-0)
C-D (4-1)
E-F (4-1)
G-H (4-1)
I-J (4-1)
K-L (4-1)
A and B are 5-0-1. Everyone else is 4-1-1. A and B get in, and of C-L, 6 get in. Essentially, it comes down to who out of C-Ls opponents did best. And the only person affected badly is the 3-2 player who won in round 6 and had the best standing, and even then, only maybe.
Now it does get more confusing with byes, since if there are 3+ people with 4-0-1 coming into round 5, the 5-0 guys must draw to be certain they get in.
This isn't strictly true. Only the top guys from 11-32 going into round 13(?) had a chance. The guy in 32nd after round 12 had no more chance than the guy in 1006th.
MTG finance guy- follow me on Twitter@RichArschmann or RichardArschmann on Reddit
Okay, so in this actual situation where the top 8 drew in in a GP, the rule:
"If you qualify for top 8 by a single point, and your last match was a draw, that match is 0 points"
1) Would have successfully caused any table who tried to draw in to NEITHER of them make the top 8, thus completely quashing the practice entirely in that tournament
2) It almost certainly wouldn't punish any innocent person. Amongst all those players with 33 points, if anybody got a natural draw, they were out of contention immediately anyway, because there would still be plenty of winners to take the 36 point slots and fill up the whole top 8. Only a natural draw amongst the 36 point people would potentially hurt an innocent, and even then, only if their OMW was high enough anyway. Considering that there seem to be only 3 draws amongst all those people in the top ranks (#1-3) over 14 rounds, the chance of there both being a draw, AND it being a person who would have had a high enough OMW, seems very very statistically unlikely.
So you're stopping 8 dudes from drawing in for free, and you're only hurting as collateral damage 0-1 people, with a much heavier likelihood on 0.
Sounds like an extremely efficient rule to me.
But then we can make it even safer and more efficient! It looks like in most cases, either a whole bunch of people are going to draw in, or nobody (or just a couple) would. In which case, you could make a similar rule that's even a little bit safer:
"If 4 or more of the top 8 had draws in their last round, then all draws in the last round count as 0 points. Otherwise 1 point."
Or similar.
- This allows it if it's just a fringe pair
- This stops a mass draw-in in a situation like abuquerque
- In a situation where mass draw-in is NOT ideal, though, this doesn't kick in, so as to help protect anybody with a natural last round draw, just to be safe.
So over many tournaments, I'd expect that rule to about 95%+ affect would-be IDers, and maybe 5% of the time natural draw-ers. If not even more efficient.
What about tournaments that don't have top 8's? (I'll speak more on the idea when that part is answered).
This has been said before, almost verbatim, but I'll state it again.
Why not just end the tournament first round if you go 2-0 and everyone else goes 2-1 or worse then?
You've obviously outpreformed everyone else in the room, haven't you?
I'm intending it more for pro type large tournaments. They could say "FNM/whatever other lower tier thing organizers can choose to use the rule or not" or something. Draws at FNMs may be more common than in the tour linked to above, in which case you may want to ditch it.
Also, it can extend to prizes in the absence of a top 8. Simply copy and paste the wording, except replace "4 or more of the top 8" with "half or more of prize winners."
That still has the same problem of harming those that may unintentionally draw. Harming people who unintentionally draw via such a change is just as bad as the people supposedly being harmed via the current ID being allowed methods. Any method that harms a person for an unintentional draw in any round is simply unacceptable, because unintentional draws oftentimes cannot be helped. The only way to remove draws would be to remove the time limits and make people play until someone wins, or set up a clock like on mtgo, which is rather impossible for paper magic unfortunately. Otherwise draws can and will happen (ID or non-ID), no one should be punished with an effective loss due to it being the last round, or due to what others choose to do in the last round. It can certainly be argued that the current system isn't perfect, but, once again, unless a method to solve the issue can come up with does not replace one problem with even a small chance of another, then its not something wizards, the tournament playerbase, or the DCI are likely to agree with and consider implementing.
They would've simply ID'd in the penultimate round instead and you'd have a practically identical top8 pointswise.
Now what I'd really like to see is top 16 at larger events, but time constraints makes that just not feasible, and it wouldn't change the ID issue at all.
Otherwise, recognize that if you put yourself in a good position by winning your first few matches, you are often incentivized to draw the last round.
Legacy
UWR Miracles UWR
GWB Maverick GWB
GB Elves GB
UBR ANT UBR
RG Combo Lands RG
Vintage
BUG BUG Fish BUG
Modern
GBW
Junk PodMagic: the BuylistingThis isn't the death penalty. I can't say I'm impressed by "100 guilty men go free!" speeches, because we aren't talking about life changing events or human rights, here.
It's a minor unfairness vs. a minor unfairness.
Except in this case it's very lopsided, and there's a good chance of rooting out 8-10 minor unfairnesses in exchange for 1 minor unfairness of the other sort, thus then the tournament is more fair
It makes no sense to me that you would rabidly defend the rights of the rare dude who unintentionally draws at the right time, yet you don't give a crap at all about the rights of the half dozen people who should have had a chance to win into the top 8 if everybody plays their games, but doesn't due to a quirk of who happened to win in what order (e.g. the 33-point people in the linked example of an albuquerque tournament).
You're just randomly deciding some people are more important to be fair to than others. Whereas I am trying to treat them all equally, and simply remove unfairness from a maximum NUMBER of people.
If the event is 5 rounds, then you did NOT "go undefeated in the event" after only round 4, because the event's roudns aren't over yet.
It is rewarding completely arbitrary accidents -- people who would have won in this order (if played out):
W-W-W-W-L
versus people who are equally skilled, but would have won in this order:
W-W-W-L-W
You have no justifiable reason to collect a reward just because your off-game happened to be the one that would have lined up with the last round, instead of an earlier round. Neither of those two people above are better at magic. So they should have a fair way to distinguish winning into prizes. I.e. directly facing off, or opponent win %, etc.
That's just a matter of fine-tuning details. There's some iteration that would push it far enough back they won't be willing to gamble anymore. For example:
"At the end of every round, determine how many people would be tied in points for the top 8 if it were decided right now. Divide that number in half, rounded down. If that many or more of THOSE people draw that round, draws = 0 for that round"
E.g., after round 5
5-0: 1
4-1: 4
3-2: 10
2-3: 10
1-4: 4
0-5: 1
The 8th person is in 3-2, so all 3-2's and up = 15 people.
if half of those people rounded down draw that turn = if 7 or more of those people draw, draws = 0 this turn.
Or what have you. The numbers and fractions in this example are arbitrary. I have no way of optimizing it for minimal collateral damage without spreadsheets of lots of past tournaments, and their actual draw rates, etc. But WOTC would have that data, and they could easily analyze various numbers and find ones that provide a very high rate of draw-in filters and a very low rate of false positives.
The whack-a-mole part of the game is fairly downhill if you have the numbers in front of you.
No:
Often 8 people's worth of minor unfairness (people locked out of their chance by IDing, and if only a couple people ID, then the rule doesn't even trigger) in exchange for maybe MAYBE 1 person's minor unfairness (somebody occasionally unintentionally drawing who would have won in the last round). More often 0 people. Let's say 0.25 on average.
8 - 0.25 > 0 i.e. significantly improved overall fairness.
Then the optimal strategy would be to play until enough games are decided, then the remaining games simply ID. This does sometimes happen in the current arrangement, if 10 people are in the ID bracket, they play until 2 games finish and the rest ID.
Here is the question you have to ask though.... What percentage of the current tournament playerbase would you estimate has a problem with the current ID rules?
And in fact, as has been made abundantly clear over the course of the two threads you have been advocating for the removal of ID's about over the last few days, it is you who are deciding that some people are more important than others in the context of the discussion (which makes sense given which viewpoint you are arguing from.) As someone who played magic for years in shops, and then ran/judged the magic tournaments for the local shop I ran my own business out of for 6 years, its important not to dismiss those people who would be harmed by trying to change the ID rules. Its one thing to be frustrated at the top two undefeated people both choosing to draw to guarantee their position, leaving the rest to be forced to be happy with 3rd or 4th place (etc.). I understand the system isn't perfect. But imagine if one of those people who were playing for 3rd or 4th place, played it out and it ended up in a draw due to time? By the rules you are suggesting, you just took those players and knocked them potentially a ways down the prizes where they would have at least been in the top x-amount before that. And draws due to time happen all the time at tournaments like FNMs, which often already frustrates both players since both wanted to win but ran out of time to do so, by your proposed rules change, both of those people would now get the equivalent of losses which would only put an even worse taste in their mouths. At least in the case of the people who end up 5-1 at the end of a 6-round tournament, are still going to be in the prizes even if it may not be 1st or 2nd, even the 4-1-1's are likely going to still be in the prizes under the current system. Take those 4-1-1's and suddenly make them 4-2's (as far as points go) and you can quite likely kiss those prizes goodbye. Imagine being that person under your scenario? Frustrated because you couldn't finish the game because time was called, and then told that you wont qualify for any prizes due to the new rules in regards to drawing in the last round.
And yes, you are arguing for the people who feel slighted due to the current ID rules, whereas I'm arguing for the people that would be affected by and point out what the collateral damage of your proposed rule change would be. Wizards is unlikely to accept a convoluted change to the rules that also creates its own collateral damage. They are certain to know that if they were to change it in such a way, you would then hear from people complaining just as much about how the new rules ruined their tournament experience, for doing nothing other than having the match end in a draw due to the time constraints and potentially the types of decks being played.
I'm curious as well, does anyone know whether wizards has ever commented on there being a problem with the ID rules and drawing in general as they are now? Them having said something about it within the context of it being something they wish they could fix, but couldn't figure out how, would go a long ways towards at least leaving a potential opening for them to be willing to listen to proposals to change the current rules.
At the end of the day, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't believe that a fix is really a fix if others end up being collateral damage as a result. And anyway, the amount of people that would stand to benefit from this each tournament is a very small number, that would likely be equal to those that would have the potential to have a negative impact from the proposed change.
I should note as well, that at least at the FNMs we had at our shop, IDs weren't exactly super common. I would say the top two might choose to ID once every other week perhaps, but typically only the top 2. The rest would typically go ahead and play it out. Thus leaving 3rd-whatever place wide open for people to potentially get from winning their final round. Is drawing more common at bigger events where you have 100's of people playing over the course of the tournament to earn a spot in the top 8? I'm certain it is. But its also a different play environment as well, for often much different magnitudes of prizes.
If shops get enough people complaining about the IDs, they can always adjust their prize payouts to be more flat across the top x spots, rather than giving an overly large amount to 1st and 2nd and something decent to 3rd and 4th, and then perhaps not much else after that, you can do as we did at our shop, which was to spread out the prizes as much as possible. We set it up to where everyone would get a prize of some kind, with the top 33% (sometimes more) of people getting at least something extra. And by flat I mean 1st place: 6 packs + extra, 2nd place: 5 packs + extra, 3rd place: 4 packs + extra, 4th place: 4 packs + extra, 5th-8th places: 3 packs + extra, and so on. (In this case the extra being a pick of a rare/mythic from opening 1 pack per person who entered the tournament, chosen in order of finish).
If I were to propose a solution for FNMs and the like, it would be to flatten the prize payouts in a similar method as above. This requires no rules changes to IDs or the like by wizards, and keeps the top 2 or what not who may be IDing into those top 2 spots from walking away with the majority of the prizes available for the tournament.
Larger events are more tricky in that regard, as they tend to be much more competitive events than your typical shop tournaments, and thusly the use of the top 8 and draws et all to get there are going to be much more prevalent if the opportunity may be there to make use of it for those people at the top. For those events you want the top prizes to be eye-catching because you want to draw those big-name players in to play in those larger tournaments, and draw as many in as possible with the lure of the potential of those larger prizes at the top.
As I said though, its a tricky situation. At the end of the day though, I'm just not sure the support overall from the tournament playerbase/ (wizards/DCI) is there to be able to make some of the proposed changes in these threads a reality.
I'm not here just to shoot people's ideas down, if someone comes up with a solution that doesn't create collateral damage, then I'll be the first to congratulate them on coming up with something not even wizards could think up, until then though, unfortunately I am going to have to keep with my view that collateral damage on other players with the creation of a new rule to punish people who ID, is just not something that I view as being acceptable (and from the sounds of the majority of people in these last couple threads, I'm likely far from alone in that viewpoint on IDs in general.)
Feel free to keep up the discussion though, who knows, someone might just make a breakthrough and come up with something that will be a sure thing :).
Huh? I don't see how IDing more than once would ever work out well.
In the albuquerque example, the guys in the IDing range were only 1 win ahead at the end, with like 20 people right on their heels. If they IDed more than a single time, it seems like they'd have zero chance anymore.
Or in a 4 round FNM, even, with 6 other people, you play 2 and ID ID, you could still easily have 3 of those other people ahead of the BEST of you, and any of the 10 who didn't get W-W are screwed, etc.
?
Absolutely agree. I am assuming none of you have played other sports or any other type of competitive play with this line of thinking.
Roger Federer is 2 sets up in a grand slam final. Goes over to the referee in the chair and says "Look I have beaten him thus far. If he was better than me he would not be behind. I don't want to play the last set so I will just take my trophy now."
Last quarter of a NFL or NBA game the winning team doesn't want to get on the field/court because they are in the lead and they don't want to jeopardise their position. Could you imagine the outrage? Yet I assume those advocating for ID's would be sitting at home saying yeah that's what I would do!'
I have not seen any philosophical argument at all that says ID's are good other than 'its allowed in the rules.' And also someone raised if WOTC has stated that they have an issue with ID's. Probably not because we have seen the response on this thread. Have you seen an article or release where WOTC say they really endorse and love ID's? I'm pretty sure that when they created the game and when they set up the tournament structure they set out to make id's a thing.
But that's just my opinion. I cannot fathom going somewhere to compete and not competing to the end. Play it out and if you miss out on a few booster packs boo hoo, at least you gave it a shot and kept your integrity.