Disincentivizing Intentional Draws Redux

Intentional draws are not universally liked. They create some weird tournament situations where people have be X-0 with two rounds to go and double draw to make the cut. There are also instances where the entire top 4 matches in the final round of Swiss pairings draw and go into the top cut.

The previous solution of double losses was likely even worse so we definitely don’t want to go back to that.

Our theory is that there simply must be some method to incentivize playing the game with winning providing a preferable outcome to an intentional draw.

We previously tried to come up with an alternative for scoring in competitive events that would help eliminate the intentional draws in the final rounds of Swiss pairings at the very top of the standings. It was met with some disdain and calls to “Shut up and play better.”

While at the Galactic Championship and waiting to enter the event space one morning we came across a nice fellow by the name of Wade Hayes that had a very interesting idea that could accomplish the same goal while leaving scoring completely as it stands today.

Wade said that we could write about the idea and credit him as the originator.

Expanded Cut – The 13/4 System

The basic idea would be to change the top 8 cut line in events to be more like some professional sports. This is not to say that there would be just a cut to top 16 instead of 8, as that would likely have the same potential issues with intentional draws, just at a lower spot in the standings headed into the final round or even second to last round.

The specific version worth walking through here cuts the field to a top 13 instead of 8.

Seeds 12 and 13 would play a single game match against each other with the 12 spot having initiative just to decide who gets the last spot in the top 12 single elimination bracket. This is the wild card round.

Then the first full round of the top cut would have spots 5-11 and the winner of 12v13 facing off in normal best of three matches. 5 vs. 12/13, 6 vs 11, etc. The four winners move onto the next round of the elimination bracket and face seeds 1 through 4.

The top 4 seeds get a bye straight into the quarterfinals round of the single elimination bracket. This would be similar to how a strong regular sports season gains a team a bye week in the postseason.

The system is named for the 13 people now making the cut and 4 of those getting a bye.  Haven’t thought of a clever way to include the wild card part into the system name yet.

Why This Could Work

The point isn’t the extra five spots. It’s what the byes in the single elimination bracket do to the top of the standings. 

Right now, nothing separates finishing 1st from finishing 8th. Players who are clearly making the cut with one or more intentional draws have nothing to lose in taking those IDs. They simply don’t have much reason to keep playing once they are assured of having a top cut spot with the ID points.

Four byes in the elimination bracket changes that math. Having enough points to get into the top cut would not guarantee a bye on its own. That’s the whole trick. You have to be one of the best four and not just good enough to clear the cut. That uncertainty is what keeps seed 3 and seed 4 from shaking hands early.

It won’t touch everyone. Whoever’s actually running away with the tournament will probably still draw, and no bracket structure changes that. But for the five or six players jammed up behind them, fighting over four spots, the incentive is real now. Plus seed 13 gets a chance to still squeak in.

Where This Actually Works and Where It Doesn’t

The natural question is why these particular numbers.
If byes are what give the top players a reason to keep playing, then why not hand out more of them?
If a bigger cut keeps more of the field alive, then why stop at 13?

Basically a bye only works as motivation if it’s scarce. Imagine giving byes to the top 7 seeds instead of 4 and just adding a 9th spot as a wild card. That would cover with a bye basically everyone who would have been in the current top 8 cut format. A player sitting on a strong record going into the last round barely needs to try. A win is nice, a draw is fine, they were getting a bye either way. That solves nothing. It just moves the finish line down to 9 instead of 8 and still lets most everyone relax before crossing it.

Four byes is smaller than the number of players who will realistically be in range, and that’s exactly what makes it work. A win in the last round gets you into the conversation. It doesn’t get you the bye. That gap between being clearly good enough to cut and actually in the top four is where the pressure lives. It’s why anyone sitting 3rd through 10th or 11th going into the final round has a real reason to play instead of locking in a safe draw.

The wild card game does the same job at the bottom of the standings. Today there just is nothing left to play for once you’re mathematically out of top 8 contention. Extending the cut to 13 means more players are still fighting for something in that last round. It could come down to the last round and last game to determine that final 13th seed.

The very top is where this doesn’t work. Two players running away with the best records in the room will probably still draw. They’re likely locked into byes either way and no bracket structure would change that. What this format fixes is the much bigger group behind them. The players who today have nothing to fight for beyond in or out would now have a reason to keep playing.

The Short Version

• Seeds 1-2: no real change. Whoever’s running away with the tournament was always going to draw.
• Seeds 3-11: the actual target. A bye isn’t guaranteed just for playing well, so there’s a real reason to keep winning instead of locking in a safe draw.
• Seeds 9-13: get a shot they don’t have today. The cut simply extends further down, so more of the field is still playing for something in the final round instead of nothing.
• Seeds 12-13: a single-game playoff for the last spot. Real stakes, and a potentially fun addition to have the best of one wild card game.

Wrap Up

Will anything change? Unlikely.
Should it? Maybe.

We still maintain that there should be incentive to actually play the games. While this may not be the ideal solution to that goal, we felt it was an interesting enough to share Wade’s idea with a wider audience.