after you have played all your league games for the current interval, additional games results are reflected in the tiebreaker column -- a win is +1 point and a loss is -1 points. I think tiebreaker points should instead work the same as normal points (+3/+1 for win/loss respectively).

justification: whatever the rationale is for awarding primary points as +3/+1 (and I think it is the right way to do things) should apply equally to tiebreakers.

I think they use the current setup to prevent people from using the tiebreaks to actually propel their rankings above those who achieved a certain score within the defined limits.

For example, assuming the league had a 5 game limit. Joe won all five of his games and got 15 points. Mike lost all his games, got 5 points. Mike then plays and wins eleven tiebreaks and, using your suggested system, overtakes Joe. Not exactly fair for Joe who now has to scramble and catch up.

With the current tiebreak system, Mike is only able to compete with Atahualpa, who, predictably, also lost all his games and can't even overtake George who won one of four will always sit above them with six points. Fair enough, he won more of the prescribed games.

_________________
Looking for: Crumbling Alone (2)
Also looking for: Revenant Bishop, Osin Faith Healer, Pilgrim's Cairn, Avenging Angel (2)

I'm not suggesting that tiebreaker points be added to the primary score. just that the way they are calculated be changed.

so, in your example, we'd have

Player, Points, Tiebreakers, Games Left
Joe, 15, 0, 0
George, 6, 0, 1
Mike, 5, 33, 0
Atahualpa, 5, 0, 0

Joe wins, George is second, and Mike is third (beating Atahualpa on tiebreakers). the only difference between my system and the current system is there is less of a penalty for playing tiebreaker games (which is good because generally, people playing those games are doing so for the good of others who haven't gotten their games in yet.)

The only problem I have with the tiebreaker format is that it is pretty easy to exploit the system. People can throw games to their buddies without affecting their main score once they get their games in for the week. For example:

.............................................................Games
.....Player...........Score.....Tiebreaker.....Remaining
.....Mr1337s............19..............0...................0
.....Mrs1337............14..............0...................2
.....TotalN00b...........8..............0...................1

Mr1337 now plays his good friend, or 2nd account, Mrs1337 and throws the match. Mr1337 still has 19 points, but now has -1 tiebreaker. Mrs1337 gets 3 points. It will be easy for Mr1337 to cover his tracks too by beating TotalN00b or anyone else in a tiebreaker. The only way to catch this behavior is if someone is blatantly obvious and ends up with a suspicious number in the tiebreaker column.

This might not be an issue now with a small player base, but this either has or will happen in the future with gold on the line. Just something to think about.

I disagree. The formula for "regular league games" is basically +1/-1 for winning or losing, just like tiebreakers, plus 2 points for playing each game, aka participation points. This is a common scoring system used in many league formats for other games and sports. Here's the math:

Current Regular Formula
± 1 win/lose + 2 participation

Regular Game
Win = +1 + 2 = 3
Loss = -1 + 2 = 1

Current Tiebreaker Formula
± 1 win/lose

Tiebreaker Game
Win = +1
Loss = -1

So you can see that the only difference between the two scoring systems for regular and tiebreaker games are the participation points. People should not be rewarded participation points in tiebreaker games.

The reason a scoring system like this is desirable is because it essentially requires people to play all their games for the interval. This is good because you want everyone to play their full amount of games each interval.

If you apply this scoring system to the tiebreaker format, then it would reward people for playing a lot of tiebreaker games or penalize the players who don't. This is bad because tiebreaker games shouldn't have a participation bonus.

If EVERYONE plays all their regular games for an interval, then the +3/+1 scoring format is exactly the same as the +1/-1 scoring format. Just subtract 2*GamesPlayed from the score and you'll see the same numbers. Unfortunately, the is no was to guarantee or force everyone to play all the regular games for the interval, so the +3/+1 scoring format is better.

The main advantage to having tiebreaker games is to make it easier for everyone to get their regular games in each interval. For example, if you have 4 people (A, B, C, D) in a league but player A & D are never on at the same time, then they get screwed if players B & C have played all their games for the interval already. If B & C are allowed to play extra (tiebreaker) games, then A & D can get their games in for the interval. The tiebreaker games help people to find games. Otherwise, you will find people scrambling to find the people who still have games left for the week, which is an issue you already have. This problem would be exponentially increased without the tiebreaker option.

To summarize, some people are going to be able to play all their regular games plus all their tiebreaker games during an interval. There will also be people who can get in their regular games, but not their tiebreaker games. These people should not be penalized. A +3/+1 regular and +1/-1 tiebreaker scoring system is much more fair for these reasons.

you seem to have completely missed my point. right now, playing tiebreaker matches is usually a charitable activity -- there is an incentive built into the system to deny players games after you have finished yours. my proposed solution amounts to "penalizing those who play tiebreakers less." it doesn't come close to solving the issue completely; but, it at least improves the situation.

LOL, I didn't miss your point, you never made it until just now. The only thing you said was that you wanted to change the scoring system and your reason was "justification: whatever the rationale is for awarding primary points as +3/+1 (and I think it is the right way to do things) should apply equally to tiebreakers."

Your follow-up post was just an example of your scoring system and a claim that "the only difference between my system and the current system is there is less of a penalty for playing tiebreaker games." I'm sorry, but your example only shows how you're rewarding someone for playing tiebreaker games in your new system, but doesn't explain or show how there's any penalty for playing them in the current system.

Yes, if people are intentionally not playing tiebreaker games to keep other people from getting their regular games in on the week, then they will gain an advantage IF, and only if, that person isn't able to find someone else to play. This is poor gamesmanship. It is not the same as being penalized if you play that tiebreaker game.

For example, Player A & B both have all their games in for the week but have not played any tiebreaker games. Player C still needs a regular game this week. Player A declines to play Player C, but Player B obliges. Player B has just as much of a chance of getting +1 tiebreaker point for winning as he does getting -1 tiebreaker point for losing. Playing the tiebreaker game is an advantage if you win and a disadvantage if you lose. It is by no means a penalty.

Not playing someone so they can't get their games in is just poor gamesmanship. Your system won't resolve the problem either. If Player A & B don't want to play Player C but want to get tiebreaker games in, they can just play each other or other players who have all their games in for the week.