Concerning PTW

jamesatzephyr wrote:

yappo wrote:

I'm aware that there remains tournaments where prize support mirrors an inofficial take that there are indeed a second, third, fourth and fifth place.

I would strongly support such tournaments being stripped of official sanctioning. Players in the final are first or second, no ifs, buts, or maybes. There's no slightly-better-second or slightly-worse-second, just second.

Amen, but that's just my opinion.

Minor edit: I may be barking up the wrong tree here, but in case the ranking system hasn't changed since 2008 a minor remnant of second to fifth place remains in as much as the VP gained still counts. Ie, if that's the case there's an officially sanctioned 'out of game consideration' reward for getting second place with more than zero VP.

Rulebook rules apply to all games.
Tournament rules apply to all tournament games. When Tournament Rules and Rulebook contradict, Tournament Rules superseed.

I hope this answers most of the questions, I can only see one remaining: does PTW rule apply to the finals of a tournament? (which was OP's question)

I'm working on this one. One thing is certain, though: as Kevin said, as long as your chances of getting the GW aren't unreasonably low, you must struggle for the GW.

"Unreasonably" has no strict definition. As I wanted to show with the example, everyone is free to make an estimation of their odds. Also, evaluation of "chances that this or that might happen" are, sometimes, blind guesses which can't be represented by numbers.

@Xaddam: I'm thinking about what happens if your chances of GW in the finals are 0. Maybe we do need a PTW rule for the finals in the Tournament Rules -- that would be LSJ's links Forhead gave in his initial post (if you have any chance of getting the GW, then go for it. Otherwise, you're free to choose how to finish second)


Finally, for reminders:
Considerations such as "2 VPs are enough to get me to the finals" or "Let's not give that guy 2 VPs, let's rather have this guy get them, I'm more likely to oust them in the finals" is totally out of game.
PTW is about winning the current game. There is no PTWTT ("Play to win the tournament") rule. Choosing the "secure" VPs over the "less-secure" GW is against the PTW rule.

[EDIT]: Finals end up with one winner and 4 tying for second place. No distinction should be made (at least for tournament prize) regarding these four players. Rating points, as much as table points, time spent playing or being ousted after someone else aren't criteria PTW takes into consideration. Second is second, and the only thing better than second is first.

Pascal wrote:

Maybe we do need a PTW rule for the finals in the Tournament Rules -- that would be LSJ's links Forhead gave in his initial post (if you have any chance of getting the GW, then go for it. Otherwise, you're free to choose how to finish second)

It would be great if this got into the tournament rules.

Forhead wrote:

Pascal wrote:

Maybe we do need a PTW rule for the finals in the Tournament Rules -- that would be LSJ's links Forhead gave in his initial post (if you have any chance of getting the GW, then go for it. Otherwise, you're free to choose how to finish second)

It would be great if this got into the tournament rules.

Observe that the second link explicitly states that any player still in the game is considered to have that chance (which is blatantly false as soon as any player has gained 3 VP, but still). Ie, you're never free to choose how to finish second.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

yappo wrote:

No, VP are worthless during the final table unless they make you win. Four players share second place. There is no such thing as third place unless something VERY strange happened since the 2008 tournament rules. This is also the underlying reason behind the LSJ ruling. You have absolutely nothing to lose by struggling to win the game from even an idiotically lost position.

It also addresses table-splitting deals in the finals, which were thought to be very unpopular. With a fully-ranked final (1st place through 5th place), I have an incentive to 'settle' for 2nd place. This is especially the case when there are differential prizes - by settling for second, I get 10 boosters, instead of the 3 boosters for fifth (or whatever).

This is why finals should never be run with prizes distributed in a way that encourages not winning in a specific way over doing your best to win, even if it is somewhat unlikely.