Players advancing to the Quarter Finals will play in the S-Class promotion matches. Up and Down Matches [ edit ] Three groups of five players; each group plays a Bo1 round-robin. The top 2 players in each group earn Code for the next tournament. Best of 3. The 4 players of each group are split into two pairs and play each other. The victor places first in the group and advances to the Ro The loser places fourth in the group, will fall to Code Ro The winner gets second place in the group and advances to the Ro The loser places third in the group and will fall to Code Ro Ro Dual Tournament format.
The 4 players of each group in Ro16 will face off similar to Ro Players who place 3rd and 4th in their group will fall to Code Ro Ro8: Single elimination playoffs. Players who reach Ro8 will retain their Code status. Round of 8: Best of 5. Semi Finals: Best of 5. Code A Challenger League [ edit ] Bracket stage [ edit ] Round of 48 Single-elimination Bracket First round Ro48 consists of 40 qualified players and the 8 4th place finishers in the Code Ro32 group stage.
Losers in the first round lose their Code status and must compete in the preliminaries next season. The second round Ro32 consists of the 24 advancing players from the first round and the 8 3rd place finishers in the Code Ro32 group stage.
Winners in the third round advance to Code in the next season. Add 2 players for the Spots Tournament. Tie breaker: If player A and player B have the same number of wins, but A has won over B in a previous game then A will be the winner. If a tie still exists, a rematch will be played. For example A,B and C have the same number of wins. The loser places fourth in the group, will fall to Code. The loser places third in the group and will fall to Code. Players who place 3rd and 4th in their group will fall to Code.
Semi Finals: Best of 7. Early registration is available September 15th — December 31st. Offline payments must be received 3 weeks prior the scheduled event in order to be placed on the schedule.
Three weeks prior, unpaid teams will be removed from the event until completing their payment online. In Group A, however, can we claim that the second place performed better than the third place? They both performed better than the fourth place but worse than the first place, but it is difficult to judge who should be second place.
Also, importantly, how do we define better? However, from a meritocratic tournament perspective, the winner is the better player. Then, is the player who advances in second place the second best player in the group or simply the better player of the fifth series?
This leads to a question of whether we should take the earlier series into account. Should the results of the fifth series carry more weight than the earlier series when determining the second best player? The answer of the current format is yes, because all it matters is the fifth series between the two players ultimately. Is the earlier series truly independent of the later series though? Put it in another way, is the result of the earlier series predictive of the fifth series?
We can examine this using the data from GSL. Ben did all the heavy lifting in getting the data from Liquipedia , and he is a co-contributor of this article. His programming skill saves me from manually getting the data from Liquipedia.
Since the double elimination group format was only implemented in July, we only consider Code S seasons from to Non-full season tournaments e. There are a total of 23 seasons. In these 23 seasons, there were occurrences where the players in the fifth series had played against each other earlier in that group. Quantitatively, we are examining whether the winner of the fifth series is the same or different to the winner of the earlier series. This is essentially a classic hypothesis testing of the coin flipping scenario , whereby you want to test if a coin is fair i.
The outcome is binary, as the winner of the fifth series is either the same or different to the winner of the earlier series. A simple binomial test is sufficient in testing this. The same player won both series in 70 of the , and a different player won in later series in 64 of the Next, we examined if expansion plays a role in the results. Is there racial asymmetry in this scenario? Only non-mirror match ups are included in the analyses. The data suggests the outcome of the fifth series is independent to the outcome of the earlier series.
The expansion, match up, and race are not boundary factors either. This means, simply judging from the results of the fifth series, we can only claim that the winner of the fifth series is the better player of that series.
Independently, it is limited in claiming that the winner of the fifth series is also the second best player in the group. This is not an issue from a meritocracy stand point when the winner of the fifth series also won the earlier series against the same opponent. However, Therefore, for about half of the time, the current GSL format concludes who the second best player is in the group before the results allow us to confidently make that claim.
This begs the question of whether we should only use the fifth series to determine who advances when the two players have played each other earlier in that group.
The obvious alternative is to use a round-robin format instead of double-elimination in the group stage. A round-robin format ensures each series carries equal weight in ranking the players. Round-robin increases the number of series played by one to six, but that is not the main weakness of the format.
When players have to play against everyone in the group, there will be possible redundant games. The match between a player who won two series and another who lost two series is not going to affect who advances to the next round.
The other weakness is issues with tie breakers. It is possible to have three players with in series score fourth player lost all three or three players with in series score fourth player won all three. In fact, GSL was employing a modified round-robin format in the group stage for three seasons in before the current format. The below image shows how the format played out click image to enlarge. The first two series in each group are self-explanatory.
The third series is always between the winner of the first and the loser of the second, and the fourth series is always between the loser of the first and the winner of the second. The fifth and occasional sixth series did not follow the typical round-robin rules. Using group G as example, the fifth and sixth series should be TricKsteR vs. Show more Show less. Related Blogs Find out how esports betting works, read tournament previews and learn esports betting strategy.
Jan 29, Thorin. Building the Narrative: Esports and the Super Bowl. Aug 7, Mathieu Quiquerez. The impact of fatigue on performance. Jun 24, Pinnacle. How the Swiss-System works in esports. May 27, Pinnacle. What is the difference between LoL and Dota 2? Apr 28, Kristian Medina.
Esports events in Apr 21, Michael Moriarty. Esports in China. Ready to start betting?
0コメント