Tourney: EHBPC 2012 - Paris - 2012/07/19-21

wtf the tags are out of control on this topic

If you're making money out of bike polo then you're doing it wrong.

Brighton was awesome and unfortunately most tournament organisers end up out of pocket, it's not all about money.

Nobody is making money out of bike polo. Think of all the shit you buy, the travel etc etc. It's not outrageous or 'doing it wrong' for tournament organisers to want to cover their costs.

I meant that it's very unlikely that you'll make any money from bike polo for the foreseeable future (whilst continuing to do what's best for the community).

In my opinion "doing it right" means ignoring financial incentives to allow yourself to prioritise what's best for the community/sport.

We're pretty off topic here, it's probably my fault.

But yeah, it would be good if tournament fees don't go above €75 in the future, in my opinion. There are plenty of other ways of sourcing finance/improving tournaments without extra funds.

Bill, you will get robbed if you enter the wrong neighbourhood...

Robbed of what? My dignity? That went ages ago.

I disagree with Jono that 20 Euros a player is too much.

I wrote a long piece in the context of the messenger scene about sponsorship etc, which is here:

http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/london-messengers-to-bid-for-cmwc-2009

but the short version of it in the context of polo is that there is often a way to do it without selling your soul, but sponsorship is sponsorship, however you chop it up.

On the other hand, if the entry fee is a serious barrier for the Eastern Europeans, then I would happily pay a little bit more so that they can pay a little less. But I really don't think that 20 Euros, or less than we spend of an evening in the Orwell on beer & pizza, is too much.

On the other hand, if the entry fee is a serious barrier for the Eastern Europeans, then I would happily pay a little bit more so that they can pay a little less. But I really don't think that 20 Euros, or less than we spend of an evening in the Orwell on beer & pizza, is too much.

+1.

There is room for cheaper tournaments (like ABC, free) with little or no extras, and expensive tournaments with good hired courts, and the various extras that come with it, and I think you need both. The entry fee is the least of my costs to play in Paris (though I have to admit I've never paid £20 for a tournament before, but I have no idea what Paris's costs are).

Is food involved? If thats the case the reg fee is resonable. But really as far as goody bags go. Epiphanie will always be the winner there IMO. gifts for players and hand printed bidou silkscreen ftw!

But yeah, it would be good if tournament fees don't go above €75 in the future, in my opinion. There are plenty of other ways of sourcing finance/improving tournaments without extra funds.

Doesnt that apply to teams too? If teams can "source" the funds why cant more money be spent on putting on a better tournament for the masses! Theres nothing elite about paying for something you want to go to.

Greg just posted this on LOBP:

The format for the Euros, will be 3 groups (16 teams each) playing 6 rounds of SW. Then the Top 32 will go through the double elimination bracket on saturday.

Here are the 3 groups.

Morning group :

Hooks / Edison / Monkey Punch / Cosmic / Shaft Punk / Nice Touch / Bisons / Paris Bike Polo / Les Vieux Fritzs / Appolo 3 / Rockets / Yea Baby / Calaveras / Alte Herren / Ratapolofia Wild Card 3.

Mid Day group :

L'Equipe / Call Me Daddy / Tough Shit / Dead Rappers / Les Chacals / Dirty Sanchez / Sophie / Tigers / Hells Prospect / Tigers / Vai Polo Rejo / Simon Says / EHVFXD / Seagulls / Ba Boon / Los Defensores / Wild Card 1.

Afternoon group :

Cocorico / Spring Break / Iron Ponies / Toros / Ma Couille / Moteur Fuckers / Candy Colored Clowns / Les Chevals / Gettin Wild / Los Manguis / Guacapolo / MMA / JPG / Bam! / Rode / Wild Card 2.

.greg

Tigers get 2 spots?

Tigers get 2 spots?

mafia

Ha.

32 from 3 groups of 16? Will the 11th placed spots from each group play-off or is there a tie break already in place?

Surely 4 groups of 12 makes more sense?

The above might have already been questioned on lobp but I am not on there or check it for updates.

#noeurosnotalk or whatever but this is turning more and more into a circus and that's a fact. We need a European body ASAP.

I don't think it's as clear cut as you make out, the more groups you have, the less accurate it is.

It's always better to have less bigger groups, the top 10 of 3 groups are more likely to be accurate than the top 8 of 4 groups. (and the top 16 of 2 groups would be even better).

You make no sense John, less bigger groups more accurate? If you are trying to sort the top 4 maybe, but you are trying to get the top 32 from 48 in 6 rounds, really? The more games, the clearer the results for the group stages, it's to decide the top 32, have a look at the Euros UK quali results round by round if you need to, some teams started the tourney well and their places were confirmed early on, some teams started slow, just needed a kick in the rear end but made it in the end. The more games the more accurate the results.

Greg has fallen well below par.

A tournament of this scale should be a double round robin.

You make no sense John, less bigger groups more accurate? If you are trying to sort the top 4 maybe, but you are trying to get the top 32 from 48 in 6 rounds, really? The more games, the clearer the results for the group stages, it's to decide the top 32, have a look at the Euros UK quali results round by round if you need to, some teams started the tourney well and their places were confirmed early on, some teams started slow, just needed a kick in the rear end but made it in the end. The more games the more accurate the results.

I can't be bothered to get into an internet argument with you, going into a discussion with phrases like "You make no sense", really isn't constructive.

So to take your point to an extreme, if you had 24 groups of 2 teams, would that be more accurate? No.

My point is, the bigger a set is, and the lower the number of sets, the more likely it is that the teams in the sets will be equally balanced, before the games start (incorrect seedings are less important as the groups get bigger).
Additionally a group of 16, which will play more total games than a group of 12, is also likely to be sorted better, as freak results carry less weight.
As such the 10th places in groups of 16 are more likely to be of equal ranking, than the 8th places in groups of 12.

Finally, regarding your top 32 point, an elimination tournament should never be used for ranking, it's completely inaccurate. The top 2, maybe, but that's it, below that it's not guaranteed to be even close. If you think the Euros will actually show who the top 32 in Europe are, in the correct order, you are mistaken. Therefore it's not important to actually get the top 32 into the elimination (no split group stages will ever do that, only infinitely repeated RR under perfect conditions can).

Anyone else interested in buying a cheap easy-up in Paris? It's going to rain for sure, so it would be nice to have our own space to shelter. Euro each should do it.

Finally, regarding your top 32 point, an elimination tournament should never be used for ranking, it's completely inaccurate. The top 2, maybe, but that's it, below that it's not guaranteed to be even close. If you think the Euros will actually show who the top 32 in Europe are, in the correct order, you are mistaken. Therefore it's not important to actually get the top 32 into the elimination (no split group stages will ever do that, only infinitely repeated RR under perfect conditions can).

Errr. I don't want to get into a long one about this, but I think this statement is wrong. I think the Euros will show who the top 32 teams are, in order, otherwise why call it the Euro champs?

But mathematically it doesn't.

It's the best system we have, given the parameters of time, courtspace etc, but that doesn't mean it's accurate.

Are Liverpool the best team in the English league system by the fact they've won the league cup? Are Cardiff City the second best?

Or taking another example, the team that loses the winners bracket final, plays against the winners of the losers bracket. If they lose that game, they finish 3rd. But it's entirely possible they never played 4th place, and the 4th place team could be better than them (but had a freak result somewhere along the way that dropped them into the losers bracket, and then correctly lost against the 1st/2nd team).

I agree with John, the less group, the more accurate, and Emmet to play a double round robin, you need to host a tournament on 3 days, wich was not an option given to Paris

I agree with John, the less group, the more accurate, and Emmet to play a double round robin, you need to host a tournament on 3 days, wich was not an option given to Paris

I think Emmet was joking.

But mathematically it doesn't.

Yeah, but polo tournaments are currently elimination tournaments on the second day, so in other words to be good at polo, you have to do well in elimination. Would anyone be interested in seeing (or playing in) a polo tournament in which round-robin or swiss determined the eventual winners and the rankings?

I'm not saying the maths is irrelevant, but surviving an elimination tournament is (currently) a key skill. What you do on the first day is important, but it's what you do on the second day that really counts.

Absolutely, I'm just saying the top 32 from the Euros are unlikely to be ranked in the "correct" order, whatever that may be.

I think Emmet was joking.

Don't disregard my opinions in that manner John.

For what it is worth, the double round Robin should be followed by a quadruple elimination.