Atropine Suggestion Box

[Graeme Cole]

I'm going to publish Atropine 1.3.0 soon, probably before the end of the year but definitely before COLIN. It contains a number of improvements, including the main one which I'll describe in a separate post below.

This thread is intended for users of Atropine, the application that administers fixtures, results and standings at co-events. This is mainly people who organise and run events, but if you've played at an event you've probably seen its public-facing display [1] [2] and you might have opinions on that.

Atropine's users are invited to use this thread to give feedback on Atropine and suggest any improvements based on their experience of running events. I maintain Atropine based on my idea of what I think co-event organisers want, but having never run an event myself, this idea might not always be accurate. For example, it took me a few years to realise that the old layout of the result entry page made it too easy to enter results the wrong way round. So, having already created a suggestion box for things I don't run, here's a suggestion box for something I do.

Already happening in Atropine 1.3.0:

• Atropine to be distributed as a single Windows executable, without requiring Python to be installed (for more information, see the post that will shortly appear below).
• New display mode: "Standings/Fixtures (Vertical)", as requested at MK on Saturday. Standings on the left half of the screen, fixtures for the next round on the right half. You can switch to this manually or make the Auto mode do it. This is the same as "Standings/Results (Vertical)" but it displays the next round's fixtures, if generated, rather than the results of the last round.
• Division Setup page: this isn't often used, but it was originally created for a Scrabble tournament and probably makes little sense to co-event organisers. It's been completely redone to make it more intuitive. The "Promote to top division" checkboxes are gone and replaced with simple controls for putting players into divisions.
• "Slingshot" section on Overachievers page: if the players have seedings, show the games which had the biggest seeding gaps between the players, where the lower-seeded player won.
• Make it easier to import/export a tournament's .db file, if you want to transfer it to another computer, back it up, etc.

Just as in the co-event suggestion thread, suggestions are welcome but don't expect every suggestion to be implemented. Some will be uncontroversially good ideas, but some are going to contradict others, some will be too difficult or unworkable for a project I work on occasionally in my spare time, and you can't please everyone.

[Graeme Cole]

The main change for Atropine 1.3.0 is an internal technical one, but one which opens the door to a significant improvement.

Since Atropine's first release in 2014, all its web pages have been generated by what are called CGI (Common Gateway Interface) scripts. These start up a new Python process for every request - that's every result submission, every click of a link, etc, and that script generates the HTML and sends it to your browser. Atropine's use of CGI, and the requirement to start up new Python interpreters all the time, is one of the main reasons Atropine users needed to have Python installed and why it wouldn't work as a single executable file.

Python's CGIHTTPRequestHandler class is being removed from Python soon. Atropine uses this, so it will have to serve web pages another way. This is long overdue anyway - there are many better ways than CGI to serve web pages nowadays.

Therefore, from the next release of Atropine, its web pages will be served by modules loaded by Atropine at startup, which means no more need for Atropine to start up a whole new Python process every time you submit a result or click a link.

On its own, this is an internal change, mostly invisible to users. However, it does remove the main reason Atropine wouldn't work as a simple executable file.

I'm still in the process of testing and fixing things, but all being well, Atropine 1.3.0 and onwards will be released as a single Windows executable, so Windows users won't need to have Python installed. I will still continue to distribute the zip file full of Python scripts as usual, for those who can't use the Windows executable.

What this means for users of Atropine is as follows.

• From Atropine 1.3.0, Windows users will not need to have Python installed to run Atropine.
• Atropine will be distributed as a single executable file, named something like atropine.exe. It is still written in Python, but users will no longer need to know that.
• Running Atropine will be basically the same as now - you'll run atropine.exe, that will start up a local web server and give you a link, you'll paste that into your browser, and then create and administer your tournament from there.
• The "tourneys" folder that lives with the Atropine installation is going away. In the past, you had to extract a zip file, and when you created a tournament its database file would be stored in a folder called "tourneys" in wherever you extracted the zip file to. From Atropine 1.3.0, tourney files will be stored in an "Atropine" sub-folder of your "Application Data" folder, which will be something like "C:\Users\graeme\AppData\Roaming\Atropine". This is the standard folder that most other applications use to store their data. The advantage here is that if you later install a newer version of Atropine, all the tourneys you previously created will still show up.
• Links and buttons will be provided in the Atropine interface to get the tourney .db files out of Atropine, and to import them in from somewhere else, should you need to do that. These will copy .db files into and out of the Atropine's Application Data folder, which is usually a hidden folder so would be quite difficult to find otherwise.

What about Mac users?
I don't have a Mac, so I can't generate executables for it. This means Mac users will still have to install Python and run it the old way. As always, support for Atropine on Mac is on a "well, try it and see if it works" basis. I can try to address Mac-specific problems if they're communicated well and it's obvious what's gone wrong, but I can't test the fixes myself.

[Fiona T]

Not sure if it's an atropine thing as such, but we've had a couple of tourneys where a very good player has missed the first round for various reasons (I can think of 3 tournaments I've attended in the last year where this has happened)- they then join and play the lowest scoring player and inevitably thrash them, which can be disheartening, especially as those players are often newbies. It could be useful to have a way of flagging those players to get a tougher draw than their points/wins suggest - perhaps treat as if they had n wins and x points more than they have when they're introduced late - for fixture generation, not for leaderboard display etc. ? Or maybe there's a better solution, or maybe it doesn't need a solution!

[Callum Todd]

Not sure if it's an atropine thing as such, but we've had a couple of tourneys where a very good player has missed the first round for various reasons (I can think of 3 tournaments I've attended in the last year where this has happened)- they then join and play the lowest scoring player and inevitably thrash them, which can be disheartening, especially as those players are often newbies. It could be useful to have a way of flagging those players to get a tougher draw than their points/wins suggest - perhaps treat as if they had n wins and x points more than they have when they're introduced late - for fixture generation, not for leaderboard display etc. ? Or maybe there's a better solution, or maybe it doesn't need a solution!

I have suggested before I think that this could be done by counting players AVERAGE wins/points for the purposes of Swiss draws, rather than their total. Obviously for most players this will make no difference as they will have the same denominator (games played) but it does mean that if someone turns up late and starts smashing their opponents they will be treated as an average 1 win and 70 points per game player (rather than an average 0.5 win and 35 points per game player as they would currently be treated if they missed game 1)

[Gavin Chipper]

Is it the standard method now for Swiss pairs / triples to put people against a random opponent on the same number of wins, rather than their nearest neighbour in the rankings? I think the random version works much better.

[Graeme Cole]

Not sure if it's an atropine thing as such, but we've had a couple of tourneys where a very good player has missed the first round for various reasons (I can think of 3 tournaments I've attended in the last year where this has happened)- they then join and play the lowest scoring player and inevitably thrash them, which can be disheartening, especially as those players are often newbies. It could be useful to have a way of flagging those players to get a tougher draw than their points/wins suggest - perhaps treat as if they had n wins and x points more than they have when they're introduced late - for fixture generation, not for leaderboard display etc. ? Or maybe there's a better solution, or maybe it doesn't need a solution!

I have suggested before I think that this could be done by counting players AVERAGE wins/points for the purposes of Swiss draws, rather than their total. Obviously for most players this will make no difference as they will have the same denominator (games played) but it does mean that if someone turns up late and starts smashing their opponents they will be treated as an average 1 win and 70 points per game player (rather than an average 0.5 win and 35 points per game player as they would currently be treated if they missed game 1)

The way I see it, there are a few ways Atropine could deal with this...

1. If a player has played fewer games than others, then for the purpose of fixture generation, treat them as having drawn the unplayed games with, say, the average of all other scores in that round. This would put them in the middle of the pack. This is probably the best general solution that doesn't require organiser intervention. Atropine can't assume the latecomer is a strong player.
2. If a player has played fewer games than others, then for the purpose of fixture generation, treat them as having won the unplayed games with the maximum score achieved by anyone in that round. This would put them against the top players for later rounds, even though they'd be bottom of the standings. This is useful if you want to penalise latecomers, but the two main drawbacks are (a) if someone has missed round 1 through no fault of their own it might be unfair to penalise them further, and (b) if the latecomer is one of the lower-rated players, the top players are gifted an easy draw for round 2.
3. Allow the organiser to enter specific win and points values for that player, as you suggest. e.g. "For the purpose of fixture generation, add 1 win and 80 points to Johnny Come-Lately".

In all cases, of course, the "imaginary" games wouldn't count for the standings, only for fixture generation.

The first two of the above solutions have the advantage that they work automatically - the organiser doesn't need to remember to enter some made-up values. Their disadvantage is that they rely on Atropine being able to tell the difference between a player who didn't play, and a player who played but scored zero. In theory this is easy if the person who didn't play wasn't included in the draw, but in practice, organisers often prefer to include the latecomer in the draw in the hope that they arrive soon, and give them zero if they don't show up. When Atropine sees that Fred Smith beat Johnny Come-Lately 72-0, it assumes that Johnny Come-Lately played and scored zero, not that he didn't play.

The third option has the advantage that the organiser can do whatever they think is fair, but the disadvantage that they have to make that decision themselves and remember to tell Atropine.

[Fiona T]

Not sure if it's an atropine thing as such, but we've had a couple of tourneys where a very good player has missed the first round for various reasons (I can think of 3 tournaments I've attended in the last year where this has happened)- they then join and play the lowest scoring player and inevitably thrash them, which can be disheartening, especially as those players are often newbies. It could be useful to have a way of flagging those players to get a tougher draw than their points/wins suggest - perhaps treat as if they had n wins and x points more than they have when they're introduced late - for fixture generation, not for leaderboard display etc. ? Or maybe there's a better solution, or maybe it doesn't need a solution!

I have suggested before I think that this could be done by counting players AVERAGE wins/points for the purposes of Swiss draws, rather than their total. Obviously for most players this will make no difference as they will have the same denominator (games played) but it does mean that if someone turns up late and starts smashing their opponents they will be treated as an average 1 win and 70 points per game player (rather than an average 0.5 win and 35 points per game player as they would currently be treated if they missed game 1)

The way I see it, there are a few ways Atropine could deal with this...

1. If a player has played fewer games than others, then for the purpose of fixture generation, treat them as having drawn the unplayed games with, say, the average of all other scores in that round. This would put them in the middle of the pack. This is probably the best general solution that doesn't require organiser intervention. Atropine can't assume the latecomer is a strong player.
2. If a player has played fewer games than others, then for the purpose of fixture generation, treat them as having won the unplayed games with the maximum score achieved by anyone in that round. This would put them against the top players for later rounds, even though they'd be bottom of the standings. This is useful if you want to penalise latecomers, but the two main drawbacks are (a) if someone has missed round 1 through no fault of their own it might be unfair to penalise them further, and (b) if the latecomer is one of the lower-rated players, the top players are gifted an easy draw for round 2.
3. Allow the organiser to enter specific win and points values for that player, as you suggest. e.g. "For the purpose of fixture generation, add 1 win and 80 points to Johnny Come-Lately".

In all cases, of course, the "imaginary" games wouldn't count for the standings, only for fixture generation.

The first two of the above solutions have the advantage that they work automatically - the organiser doesn't need to remember to enter some made-up values. Their disadvantage is that they rely on Atropine being able to tell the difference between a player who didn't play, and a player who played but scored zero. In theory this is easy if the person who didn't play wasn't included in the draw, but in practice, organisers often prefer to include the latecomer in the draw in the hope that they arrive soon, and give them zero if they don't show up. When Atropine sees that Fred Smith beat Johnny Come-Lately 72-0, it assumes that Johnny Come-Lately played and scored zero, not that he didn't play.

The third option has the advantage that the organiser can do whatever they think is fair, but the disadvantage that they have to make that decision themselves and remember to tell Atropine.

1 seems a good compromise - you could get round the "actually scored zero" thing by having a wee box on score entry like you do for tiebreaks where the score is zero to indicate whether the player played or not.

Thinking of a different scenario at Reading, where we encouraged a spectator to play the last two games to avoid pruning, and assured her she'd play the bottom ranked player (her friend) it wouldn't work, but that's very much an edge case!

[Gavin Chipper]

Is it the standard method now for Swiss pairs / triples to put people against a random opponent on the same number of wins, rather than their nearest neighbour in the rankings? I think the random version works much better.

Is this a thing though? It was discussed but I'm sure I've been at events that were then done the old way. Is it there as an option? Is it the default option?

[Graeme Cole]

Is it the standard method now for Swiss pairs / triples to put people against a random opponent on the same number of wins, rather than their nearest neighbour in the rankings? I think the random version works much better.

Is this a thing though? It was discussed but I'm sure I've been at events that were then done the old way. Is it there as an option? Is it the default option?

It is there as an option, but it is not the default option.

If you use Atropine's "Swiss Army Blunderbuss" fixture generator and don't change any of the settings, it will do the same thing it always did before - it will favour matches between players near to each other in the standings, subject to avoiding rematches.

[Gavin Chipper]

Is it the standard method now for Swiss pairs / triples to put people against a random opponent on the same number of wins, rather than their nearest neighbour in the rankings? I think the random version works much better.

Is this a thing though? It was discussed but I'm sure I've been at events that were then done the old way. Is it there as an option? Is it the default option?

It is there as an option, but it is not the default option.

If you use Atropine's "Swiss Army Blunderbuss" fixture generator and don't change any of the settings, it will do the same thing it always did before - it will favour matches between players near to each other in the standings, subject to avoiding rematches.

In the suggestions thread there was a long discussion about using wins but not points and it seemed to be generally preferred by those in the discussion. So an argument could be made for making it the default option, since many (most?) hosts probably won't bother themselves with specific variants and will stick to the default.

Edit - One other thing - I seem to remember hearing that under this system, if there are the "wrong" number of players on a certain number of wins, the highest scoring on the next number of wins will be "promoted".

E.g. There are three to a table and two unbeaten players. The two unbeaten players will be on the top table along with the highest scoring of those with one loss.

If this is the case, I think it's a bad thing. The highest scoring of those on x wins are the the players that suffer most anyway under Swiss, and benefit from this new system, so you would just be negating that. People who lose a lot of close games often end up in a cycle of being put on tables when the same thing happens over and over.

Under this system, I would just ignore scores completely.

[Graeme Cole]

Is this a thing though? It was discussed but I'm sure I've been at events that were then done the old way. Is it there as an option? Is it the default option?

It is there as an option, but it is not the default option.

If you use Atropine's "Swiss Army Blunderbuss" fixture generator and don't change any of the settings, it will do the same thing it always did before - it will favour matches between players near to each other in the standings, subject to avoiding rematches.

In the suggestions thread there was a long discussion about using wins but not points and it seemed to be generally preferred by those in the discussion. So an argument could be made for making it the default option, since many (most?) hosts probably won't bother themselves with specific variants and will stick to the default.

If the "play a random opponent on the same number of wins" method gets adopted by more organisers and becomes the most widely used system ("becomes the standard method?"), then I'll change the default to match. But I don't think it's right for me to change the default otherwise. Organisers would get annoyed at having to remember to change it back for every event they organise, or they'll unwittingly generate fixtures using the "play a random opponent on the same number of wins" method, contrary to what players will be expecting.

I believe there have been one or two events that used the "play a random opponent on the same number of wins" method, but this was deliberate and announced beforehand. Sure, there's an argument that this method is better and should be more widely adopted, but really that's a decision for organisers and not one for me to sneakily impose by changing a default.

Edit - One other thing - I seem to remember hearing that under this system, if there are the "wrong" number of players on a certain number of wins, the highest scoring on the next number of wins will be "promoted".

E.g. There are three to a table and two unbeaten players. The two unbeaten players will be on the top table along with the highest scoring of those with one loss.

If this is the case, I think it's a bad thing. The highest scoring of those on x wins are the the players that suffer most anyway under Swiss, and benefit from this new system, so you would just be negating that. People who lose a lot of close games often end up in a cycle of being put on tables when the same thing happens over and over.

Under this system, I would just ignore scores completely.

I thought about this at the time. If there are three players to a table, and the number of 2-win players is one less than a multiple of three, we have to "promote" a 1-win player to act as an honorary 2-win player, but who should that be? I considered making it a random 1-win player, but eventually I decided to make it the top 1-win player, simply because that's easier to justify than potentially choosing the lowest-scoring 1-win player and plonking them on the top table with two undefeated players.

[JackHurst]

If the "play a random opponent on the same number of wins" method gets adopted by more organisers and becomes the most widely used system ("becomes the standard method?"), then I'll change the default to match. But I don't think it's right for me to change the default otherwise. Organisers would get annoyed at having to remember to change it back for every event they organise, or they'll unwittingly generate fixtures using the "play a random opponent on the same number of wins" method, contrary to what players will be expecting.

This sounds a lot like Chicken egg. A large chunk of organisers will stick with the default that the software offers because "Well, the default must be the way it's supposed to be used", so you might never get that momentum.

[Gavin Chipper]

I get what Graeme is saying but also it's not as if players (and even organisers really) expected the Swiss triples system when they first started going to events. It's just what happened and they got used to it. If it changed they'd get used to that. There's no implicit contract that would be breached if the default changed.

[Gavin Chipper]

Edit - One other thing - I seem to remember hearing that under this system, if there are the "wrong" number of players on a certain number of wins, the highest scoring on the next number of wins will be "promoted".

E.g. There are three to a table and two unbeaten players. The two unbeaten players will be on the top table along with the highest scoring of those with one loss.

If this is the case, I think it's a bad thing. The highest scoring of those on x wins are the the players that suffer most anyway under Swiss, and benefit from this new system, so you would just be negating that. People who lose a lot of close games often end up in a cycle of being put on tables when the same thing happens over and over.

Under this system, I would just ignore scores completely.

I thought about this at the time. If there are three players to a table, and the number of 2-win players is one less than a multiple of three, we have to "promote" a 1-win player to act as an honorary 2-win player, but who should that be? I considered making it a random 1-win player, but eventually I decided to make it the top 1-win player, simply because that's easier to justify than potentially choosing the lowest-scoring 1-win player and plonking them on the top table with two undefeated players.

Perhaps it's easier to justify from the point of view of having everyone playing games with players at a similar level, but from a competitive point of view, it can screw people over (I'm not bitter about what happened at the Hangover - not at all!)

However, I think there is a better solution. It seems wrong that most people play people on the same number of wins, but if there's the wrong number of players, one single player has to play both the extra players with more wins than them. Spread the load. Instead of "promoting" this one player, "demote" the two players, and perhaps stipulate that they can't play on the same table as each other. That way you'll instead get two players who each have to play one player with more wins than them. This is surely better.

I think one of the biggest problems with the original Swiss system was that people who lose but score highly get screwed over, and this new system hasn't eliminated that. What was the new random-among-people-on-the-same-number-of wins system supposed to achieve if not this?

[Graeme Cole]

Edit - One other thing - I seem to remember hearing that under this system, if there are the "wrong" number of players on a certain number of wins, the highest scoring on the next number of wins will be "promoted".

E.g. There are three to a table and two unbeaten players. The two unbeaten players will be on the top table along with the highest scoring of those with one loss.

If this is the case, I think it's a bad thing. The highest scoring of those on x wins are the the players that suffer most anyway under Swiss, and benefit from this new system, so you would just be negating that. People who lose a lot of close games often end up in a cycle of being put on tables when the same thing happens over and over.

Under this system, I would just ignore scores completely.

I thought about this at the time. If there are three players to a table, and the number of 2-win players is one less than a multiple of three, we have to "promote" a 1-win player to act as an honorary 2-win player, but who should that be? I considered making it a random 1-win player, but eventually I decided to make it the top 1-win player, simply because that's easier to justify than potentially choosing the lowest-scoring 1-win player and plonking them on the top table with two undefeated players.

Perhaps it's easier to justify from the point of view of having everyone playing games with players at a similar level, but from a competitive point of view, it can screw people over (I'm not bitter about what happened at the Hangover - not at all!)

However, I think there is a better solution. It seems wrong that most people play people on the same number of wins, but if there's the wrong number of players, one single player has to play both the extra players with more wins than them. Spread the load. Instead of "promoting" this one player, "demote" the two players, and perhaps stipulate that they can't play on the same table as each other. That way you'll instead get two players who each have to play one player with more wins than them. This is surely better.

I think it's just much of a muchness. Instead of one high-scoring 1-win player having to play two potentially high-scoring 2-win players, you'll get two low-scoring 2-win players playing against one (or four) potentially low-scoring 1-win players. If you put the demoted players on different tables, you'll end up with two tables which have players on differing win counts, rather than just one such table, which is why Atropine doesn't choose that.

I see the argument that "spreading the load" might be better, as it gives you (more) (imbalanced tables) rather than (more imbalanced) (tables). But like every system for deciding who plays whom when you don't have time for a round robin, all you're really doing is exchanging one set of shortcomings for a different set. For example, why should two undefeated players each get two 1-win opponents in the second round, giving both those undefeated players an "easier" draw, when we could make those two undefeated players play each other?

I think one of the biggest problems with the original Swiss system was that people who lose but score highly get screwed over, and this new system hasn't eliminated that. What was the new random-among-people-on-the-same-number-of wins system supposed to achieve if not this?

It hasn't eliminated that problem but it has gone some way towards reducing it. In round 2, high-scoring 1-win players don't necessarily have to play other high-scoring 1-win players any more. Sure, if there isn't a multiple of three undefeated players, maybe one or two people have to play above their level. But whatever system you choose, the luck of the draw will always be a thing for some reason or other. Trying to eliminate it completely increasingly seems to me like trying to build a perpetual motion machine.

Happy birthday, by the way! I don't think it was mentioned at the event.

[Thomas Carey]

Fwiwiwiw I enjoyed the new system. Even if it shafted me in r2 of hangover - after getting 2 wins with a low points total I ended up playing Worsley and TCap, which is presumably a tougher table on paper than whoever I would have got under the old system - I think that's a good thing. Especially with events with onyl two rounds like the hangover, but even normally. And obviously there's all the usual arguments about the people on the win total boundaries. I think this is a good balance between a random draw that stops all the really big dogs playing each other too early and something that upholds the co event ethos of 'you play people who did similarly to you, so don't worry if you get a stinky draw in round one'. Perhaps I will have more useful thoughts when I wake up

[JackHurst]

Massively prefer the new system too. Had loads of competitive games over the weekend, but more importantly I had a really good variety of opponent too! From 16 games played, Tim Down was the only person I played twice all weekend. That's a big improvement in before.

I appreciate this is probably a large slice of luck giving me that variety, but I pretty much never saw that under the old system

[Gavin Chipper]

To clarify a couple of things - when I was the highest scoring player on 0 wins after round one and played two people on 1 win, were they random players? I suppose thinking about it, it's not that bad. I think I was just unlucky with who I got, and could presumably just as easily ended up with someone who scraped a win against Prune.

And I presume Carey was the lowest scoring player on two wins and was the "extra" player? So he played the top two on one win?

[Graeme Cole]

To clarify a couple of things - when I was the highest scoring player on 0 wins after round one and played two people on 1 win, were they random players?

Yes.

I suppose thinking about it, it's not that bad. I think I was just unlucky with who I got, and could presumably just as easily ended up with someone who scraped a win against Prune.

And I presume Carey was the lowest scoring player on two wins and was the "extra" player? So he played the top two on one win?

If you're talking about the situation after R1 of the Hangover, Tim Hebbes and I were the highest-scoring 1-win players, so we got promoted to the next win group up and we played James Robinson.

When a candidate fixture arrangement has a table with people on different win counts, the penalty assigned to that table, other than the penalty for the differing win counts, is based on how far the lower-win-count player is from the top of their win group. The practical effect of this is that it always promotes the top player(s) in a win group up to the higher one, rather than demoting the bottom player(s) in a win group down to the lower one, even when that means promoting two players rather than demoting one.

You might ask, why not change it to demote one rather than promote two? Again, in solving one of these issues you'll just create another. In this case the new problem would be that the lowest-scoring 2-win player would then usually get rewarded with two games against theoretically weaker opposition further down the table. The way it is now, if you're undefeated, you know that you'll probably play other undefeated players, or, at worst, high-scoring one-loss players.

[Gavin Chipper]

To clarify a couple of things - when I was the highest scoring player on 0 wins after round one and played two people on 1 win, were they random players?

Yes.

I suppose thinking about it, it's not that bad. I think I was just unlucky with who I got, and could presumably just as easily ended up with someone who scraped a win against Prune.

And I presume Carey was the lowest scoring player on two wins and was the "extra" player? So he played the top two on one win?

If you're talking about the situation after R1 of the Hangover, Tim Hebbes and I were the highest-scoring 1-win players, so we got promoted to the next win group up and we played James Robinson.

Thanks for the clarifications. But I was wondering specifically why Tom Carey had said that he'd got shafted, but I suppose it's because he just played random players on 2 wins rather than ones with a low score to match what he'd done. (I wondered if he was bottom on two wins so played the two highest on one win who might have lost with scores of 128 or something, but it seems it doesn't work like that anyway.)

[Thomas Carey]

Thanks for the clarifications. But I was wondering specifically why Tom Carey had said that he'd got shafted, but I suppose it's because he just played random players on 2 wins rather than ones with a low score to match what he'd done. (I wondered if he was bottom on two wins so played the two highest on one win who might have lost with scores of 128 or something, but it seems it doesn't work like that anyway.)

Yes this. I haven't looked at who I would have otherwise played but low scoring 2 winsers or high scoring 1 presumably, which would have been probably easier to beat but less fair. If you want a co event final you better work bitch. Sorry I was very tired and couldn't articulate well what I meant. But yes the new system is better imo, I don't have a strong opinion on whether to 'promote' or 'demote' the players at the win boundaries, but Graeme's thing makes sense

[Matthew Brockwell]

I think a nice feature would be to able to see the standings after 2,4,6 etc games to see how the leaderboard changed throughout the day. Only the current leaderboard is displayed at the moment.

[Adam S Latchford]

I think a nice feature would be to able to see the standings after 2,4,6 etc games to see how the leaderboard changed throughout the day. Only the current leaderboard is displayed at the moment.

Absolutely!!