Forums Menu

User: 
Pass:  

Curling Scores

M: USA Curling Junior National Championships
Eau Claire, WI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: M6 -- Thu, Mar 28 -- 12:00pm CT
Church Final
Rose (9) Watch Live Curling!
Brenden Final
Guentzel (9) Watch Live Curling!
Fitzgerald Final
Hebert (9) Watch Live Curling!
Lannoye Final
Cenzalli (10)
W: USA Curling Junior National Championships
Eau Claire, WI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: W5 -- Thu, Mar 28 -- 8:00am CT
Giroux Final
Schapman (7) Watch Live Curling!
Johnson 10  Final
Scheel (9) Watch Live Curling!
Berg Final
Viau (9) Watch Live Curling!
Pekowitz 11  Final
Berg (7) Watch Live Curling!
M: Canadian Mixed Doubles Curling Championship
Fredericton, NB
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: CF -- Fri, Mar 22 -- 1:00pm AT
Lott/Lott Final
Walk/Muyr (8) Watch Live Curling!
M: Swiss Junior Championships
Thun, SUI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: CF2 -- Sun, Mar 24 -- 3:00am ET
Caccivio Final
Brauchli 12  (EE)
Dryburgh Final
Ringgenberg (9)
W: Swiss Junior Championships
Thun, SUI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: CF2 -- Sun, Mar 24 -- 9:00am CET
Schwaller Final
Oberson (9)
Blackham Final
von Arx (9)
W: NWTCA Curling Club Championships
Fort Smith, NT
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: 3 -- Sat, Mar 23 -- 11:00am MT
Stroeder Final
Delorey (7)
M: NWTCA Curling Club Championships
Fort Smith, NT
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: 3 -- Sat, Mar 23 -- 1:00pm ET
Delorey Final
Lockhart (EE)
Full Scoreboard  |  Play Fantasy Pick'em!  

CurlingZone : Powered by vBulletin>
<smallfont><b><a href=CurlingZone > Chat Forums > General Curling Chat > Rock Talk > Idea to eliminate extra ends: award win to the team that throws first rock

Disclaimer: CurlingZone does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any Content posted on any Forums area and you acknowledge that any reliance upon such Content shall be at your sole risk. Any Content placed on any Forums area by users and anonymous posters are the views of the user posting the statement, and do not represent the views of CurlingZone or our partners, advertisers or sponsors. By posting anonymously, you are allowing your IP address to be displayed for identification purposes. CurlingZone reserves the right to remove any post at its discretion without warning or explanation.
Page 4 of 6 -- Go to: ««   | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | »»   Last Thread   Next Thread
Author
Thread Post New Thread   Post A Reply
01-19-22 12:36PM
Maggie is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Maggie Find more posts by Maggie Add Maggie to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Maggie
Hitting Paint

 

Registered: Feb 2020
Location:
Posts: 156

quote:
Originally posted by IN-OFF-FOR-2
FTLOG let it go. Do you get paid by the word? 50 links and BS quotes. Good gravy man/lady let it go. Back to the Big Bang theory. Penny falls in the shower,Sheldon tried to help her get dressed. Grabs under her arm to help her get dressed, Penny says is that my arm? Sheldon feels around around whilst fondling her breast, and she says is that my arm? No. Then let it go.

Just let it go. Stop the 50 links, the 50 quotes. LET IT GO.



I find this thread interesting. I enjoy seeing most of the clips. Reading other people’s point of view ( even your weird rants) is often food for thought.

You know you can scroll past the discussions that don’t interest you, right?

You can even read the title of the thread and decide whether it’s worth a look.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-20-22 02:34PM
curlingclips is offline Click Here to See the Profile for curlingclips Find more posts by curlingclips Add curlingclips to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker

 

Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523

I'm now convinced that curling would be a lot more interesting if we use the pie rule komi system from Go.

So, for the Canadian trials final, instead of giving LSFE for free to Gushue, already the proven "better" team as the round robin winner, Jacobs gets to put the price on LSFE.

Let's say Jacobs boldly puts the price at 1.5 points (i.e. whoever has LSFE must outscore the opposition by 2 in 10 ends to win).

Gushue can accept this price, or he can decline it, in which case Jacobs gets LSFE.

This seems like a very fair and interesting way to decide LSFE.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-20-22 04:38PM
oliviertoisel is offline Click Here to See the Profile for oliviertoisel Find more posts by oliviertoisel Add oliviertoisel to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
oliviertoisel
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Feb 2021
Location:
Posts: 587

It would definitely be more interesting in one sense. But would it be a better sport? I don't think so. More complexity and gambling doesn't always equal better. Chess could apply a similar rule and it doesn't; do we need to fix chess? Nah.

You can always make sports infinitely more complex with any number of rules and it has a more interesting component but it starts to make the sport a game about rules and not sport and it loses appeal. And I don't intend to get into a long discussion about sports vs. games so don't @ me. lol But I do think curling has to be sensitive since it wants to be a sport not a game.

Plus we have a format for stuff like that: MD. Do it there.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-20-22 05:36PM
curlingclips is offline Click Here to See the Profile for curlingclips Find more posts by curlingclips Add curlingclips to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker

 

Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523

quote:
Originally posted by oliviertoisel
Chess could apply a similar rule and it doesn't

Komi does not apply to chess because there's no points to count. You either win, lose, or draw. There's no point compensation that can reinterpret a loss as a win and vice versa.

(Whereas in Go, winning by 3 points is a loss if komi is 6.5 points).

But chess does have a sudden death auction format that eliminates draw: armageddon. This is a format where, as a compensation for the move order disadvantage, a traditional "draw" becomes a win for black. In other words, white, who has the move order advantage, must find a way to win decisively, or else it's a loss.

To compensate for this extra burden, white is usually given extra thinking time. The pie rule is used sometimes: one player states how much extra time white should be given to find a way to force the win, then the second player chooses color.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-20-22 11:05PM
oliviertoisel is offline Click Here to See the Profile for oliviertoisel Find more posts by oliviertoisel Add oliviertoisel to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
oliviertoisel
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Feb 2021
Location:
Posts: 587

I said similar rule not the same rule. White wins more than black so you could similarly come up with something. And variations are not really relevant unless this whole discussion is just about curling variations. Standard chess does not apply the variation.

I go back to my earlier point: this is all distraction from the actual sport. You’re gaming all these things that have nothing to do with rocks on ice. Keep the sport focused on the actual sport more or it becomes about rules not sport.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-20-22 11:29PM
curlingclips is offline Click Here to See the Profile for curlingclips Find more posts by curlingclips Add curlingclips to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker

 

Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523

quote:
Originally posted by oliviertoisel
Keep the sport focused on the actual sport more or it becomes about rules not sport.

I think it's best for sports to evolve and update their rules regularly...

But in any case, the nice thing about the pie rule LSFE komi auction idea (which is really not that complicated) is that it happens BEFORE the game even begins. Once the game starts, it's all business as usual. The only difference is that the scoreboard does not start at 0-0. Everything else stays the same.

In contrast, what WCF proposed, with a Draw to the Button shootout to replace extra end, that is indeed an issue because it affects the game itself, since it's something that can be potentially added on AFTER the game.

I agree with you that it would not be ideal to introduce unnecessary rules that has an effect on a game in progress (although, as a side note, the No Tick Zone is one such rule, but most high level players find it agreeable).

Last edited by curlingclips on 01-20-22 at 11:37PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-21-22 01:00AM
curlingclips is offline Click Here to See the Profile for curlingclips Find more posts by curlingclips Add curlingclips to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker

 

Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523

Gerry Geurts wrote on Twitter that this 0.5 point LSFE handicap idea is/was used at Kurl for Kids.

https://twitter.com/Guertez/status/1484327486355697664
"The idea feels wonky, but if you want to balance out the winning percentage value of starting the game with hammer, it should be considered. The idea was borrowed from the @KurlforKids Charity Spiel where avoiding extra ends was preferred."

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-21-22 07:47AM
oliviertoisel is offline Click Here to See the Profile for oliviertoisel Find more posts by oliviertoisel Add oliviertoisel to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
oliviertoisel
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Feb 2021
Location:
Posts: 587

I'm drawing a distinction between rules that primarily affect play and rules that are play in and of themselves. The Go options introduces a major strategic element that has nothing to do with play, it's just a choice. I think that's a bad way to resolve something in sport and it is preferable to use the play to resolve these issues (please don't list 10 examples of other sports that have these types of rules, their existence isn't the point).

No tick zone is a bad example for you and good for me because it is a rule controlling play itself. It limits what shots players can make. We can like or dislike how it affects the game but it affects it through play not extraneous elements. To draw a comparison: baseball had an extra-innings issue so they're trying to solve it by giving each team a runner on 2nd at the start of each extra-inning in regular season. That is a play-based solution even though it's a rule change.

Some people have apparently decided that LSFE being an advantage is a problem. I think these people spend too much time in stats obsessing over "equal" in a sport played by humans but whatever. If we want to "fix" this "problem" then we should look to play not to rules and gambling options. One option is to use draw-to-the-button. It would be dramatic. But people don't like it because whatever reason. Another option is to have extra ends be just four rocks (like baseball); I'm not actually suggesting it I'm just saying that is a play-based solution. Another more reasonable option is to preclude removal of any stones in the extra end or a no-tick zone, etc, all rules designed to make steals easier (aka the goal of the entire MD discipline). Another option not discussed is make the 1st end unblankable; that would up the ante for hammer and lead to more exciting first ends.

I don't see a need to change extra ends personally but then again I'm not a WC marketer. But if it's going to change I think it should be a play based solution not a rules based game solution.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-21-22 09:35AM
jamcan is offline Click Here to See the Profile for jamcan Click here to Send jamcan a Private Message Find more posts by jamcan Add jamcan to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
jamcan
Super Rockchucker

 

Registered: Sep 2002
Location: vernon bc
Posts: 2340

Pretty sure not a single sport uses this silly idea. Kinda think that's all we need to know...

__________________
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
Hunter S. Thompson

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-21-22 09:45AM
oliviertoisel is offline Click Here to See the Profile for oliviertoisel Find more posts by oliviertoisel Add oliviertoisel to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
oliviertoisel
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Feb 2021
Location:
Posts: 587

quote:
Originally posted by jamcan
Pretty sure not a single sport uses this silly idea. Kinda think that's all we need to know...


Don't challenge curlingclips to a "nobody does that" challenge. They will dig and find examples that disprove you.

It's not a good argument anyway. "No sport does this" is informative but not definitive. No sport uses brooms that i'm aware of (except Quiddich) but that's not a reason for curling not to.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-21-22 11:00AM
curlingclips is offline Click Here to See the Profile for curlingclips Find more posts by curlingclips Add curlingclips to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker

 

Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523

quote:
Originally posted by oliviertoisel
it is preferable to use the play to resolve these issues

Here's where we disagree.

Believe it or not, I don't think there's much wrong with the actual play of curling the way it is.

Let's say that, for argument sake, curling has 100 rules affecting play right now. What I'm proposing will keep the game at 100 rules affecting play.

Your example of having extra ends being 4 rocks only or no-takeouts would add to that number, and suddenly we might have 110 rules affecting play, and -- here's the important part -- we don't even know for sure if those 10 additional rules are even the correct ones!

Instead of coming up with additional rules and imposing them onto the players, the pie rule LSFE komi auction puts the power entirely onto the players hands!

If Jacobs thinks that the game is perfect the way it is, then he can simply price LSFE at 0 point! At that price, Gushue would gladly "pay" for the freebie LSFE, and nothing would change in the game!

If, however, Jacobs thinks that LSFE should cost more, then he can simply state what the price is, and Gushue can decide whether to pay that price or decline LSFE and make Jacobs pay for it. It's a self-correcting system, because that price may vary depending on circumstances!

quote:
Originally posted by oliviertoisel
Some people have apparently decided that LSFE being an advantage is a problem


Let's put it this way.

I think you would agree that curling is inherently unfair the way things are if we only play 1 end per game, right? But you're saying that it's fair if we play 10 ends? What is the basis for that argument?

If you think 1 end is unfair, but 10 ends is fair, then what about 8 ends?

The elegance of the pie rule LSFE auction komi system is that it can adapt even to 1 end games!

If we make Gushue and Jacobs play a 1 end game of curling, Jacobs could put the price of LSFE at 1.5 point (i.e. the only way to win with hammer is to score a deuce). Or, if that's too expensive, maybe he could put the price of LSFE at 1 point (i.e. if you're forced to 1 with hammer, they go to extra end).

Jacobs has the power to put whatever price he wants on LSFE, and Gushue has the power to accept or decline it. And we would still have only 100 rules affecting play.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-21-22 11:27AM
oliviertoisel is offline Click Here to See the Profile for oliviertoisel Find more posts by oliviertoisel Add oliviertoisel to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
oliviertoisel
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Feb 2021
Location:
Posts: 587

But my entire point is that these key decisions should be based on PLAY. You've just introduced an entire system that will decide games not based on play. That's the issue. Essentially you are developing a modified version of curling. It might be good and have uses, etc., but I think it is unwise to use these types of extraneous rules in sport as they diliute the sport.

There's also an elephant in the room here: skins games. They exist and do much of what you already want to do. And yet they're not in high demand or played that often.

(I also think you are over-excited about the excitement factor of your suggestion. We'll end up in a scenario where after 1-3 years players always offer 1.5 points or something and no one ever takes it. The actual variety will be zip and it'll just be the 0.5 thing in practice.)

Last edited by oliviertoisel on 01-21-22 at 11:29AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-21-22 11:40AM
curlingclips is offline Click Here to See the Profile for curlingclips Find more posts by curlingclips Add curlingclips to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker

 

Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523

quote:
Originally posted by oliviertoisel
after 1-3 years players always offer 1.5 points or something and no one ever takes it

Well, someone has to pay up one way or another. If Jacobs always say that the price of LSFE is 1.5 points, and Gushue always thinks that 1.5 points is too much and never takes it, then so be it. Let things play out, someone will win and someone will lose, and that ratio will determine if some adjustments have to be made.

Maybe Jacobs realize that paying 1.5 points for LSFE is too much, because he only wins 25% of the time. If so, then he can reduce the price next time he's up against Gushue.

Or maybe Jacobs only wins 45% of the time, but he doesn't care because he likes to have the LSFE, statistics be damned.

Or maybe Jacobs wins 55% of the time, so Gushue has to think twice and think that maybe he should pay for LSFE at 1.5 points!

Or maybe Jacobs wins 50% of the time in 8 end games, but only 40% of the time in 10 end games!

I admit that I don't even know what the right price is for LSFE for different situations between any two players. That's why I think it's fair to let the players decide and figure it out amongst themselves.

quote:
Originally posted by oliviertoisel
Essentially you are developing a modified version of curling.


No, I'm not. If there were 100 rules affecting on-ice play before, there would still be the same exact 100 rules affecting on-ice play after.

Last edited by curlingclips on 01-21-22 at 12:12PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-21-22 01:08PM
oliviertoisel is offline Click Here to See the Profile for oliviertoisel Find more posts by oliviertoisel Add oliviertoisel to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
oliviertoisel
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Feb 2021
Location:
Posts: 587

quote:
Originally posted by curlingclips
I admit that I don't even know what the right price is for LSFE for different situations between any two players. That's why I think it's fair to let the players decide and figure it out amongst themselves.


There might be some team-based nuances but there won't be many. Why? Because the actual point range at play is miniscule. No team will take 0.5 or 1 for hammer because the goal with hammer is to get 2 and no team is so deeply concerned about a steal of 1 in the first end that they'd give up hammer. Conversely most teams will not offer 2 or above because the entire thing they want to avoid is giving up 2 or more. So what is there to offer? 1.5 points. Leaving one question: does a team win more with hammer or without up 1.5. Once we have the stats then we know what will happen every time.

But this then completely negates the rule. Because if teams win more often with hammer than 1.5 points then no team will ever accept 1.5 points. If teams lose more often with hammer than 1.5 points then no team will offer it. So we're going to start the game with the team who has hammer keeping it every single time because they won't accept a worse deal and the other team won't offer a better one. Your scenario where teams act different depending on the team could exist but each team will know their own stats and their opponent's stats and the numbers will shake out the same way: neither team is going to put themselves off worse than they are, leaving hammer to the team that started with it.

All of this effort to do absolutely nothing to address what are supposedly the problems: hammer is too big an advantage in end 1 and extra ends.

If you want to solve that you need to affect play not just introduce a game rule. One suggestion I made was not to permit blanks in the first end. How would that shake out? No idea. But it would certainly change in-game strategy for that end and decrease the value of starting with hammer. And it's based on actual end play strategy and execution (inverting the roll-out consequence).

quote:
No, I'm not. If there were 100 rules affecting on-ice play before, there would still be the same exact 100 rules affecting on-ice play after. [/B]


But this pretends your game rules don't affect the game. They don't affect PLAY but they affect the game. Skins rules don't affect play but they affect the game. Skins is definitely a variation of curling. As is where you're going.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-21-22 01:50PM
curlingclips is offline Click Here to See the Profile for curlingclips Find more posts by curlingclips Add curlingclips to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker

 

Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523

quote:
Originally posted by oliviertoisel
So we're going to start the game with the team who has hammer keeping it every single time because they won't accept a worse deal and the other team won't offer a better one.

I don't think that's how market equilibrium works, but in any case...

Are you saying that you believe that if we give the team without hammer a free 1.5 points at the start of the game, that nothing much will change in terms of who wins and who loses overall in the big picture?

Because if that's what you're saying, then isn't that the more reason why we should put a price on LSFE?

If Gushue was going to have good winning probability in the trial final against Jacobs either way, would you rather watch a game where the two starts at 0–0, or would you rather watch a game where Jacobs start at 1.5 points, so Gushue with LSFE needs to outscore Jacobs by 2 points in 10 ends?

If you tell Jacobs that he's still probably going to lose either way, do you think he would rather start at 0, or at 1.5 point?

quote:
Originally posted by oliviertoisel
Skins is definitely a variation of curling. As is where you're going.


Here's the key difference.

Take a limited but knowledgeable curling fan who has only watched every Brier and Scotties and Olympics curling games over the years.

Now put a Gushue vs Jacobs skins game on TV and have this person watch it, with no commentary or any other additional information. They will be utterly confused about what's going on, because skins is definitely a variation of curling, as you pointed out.

Now instead put a Gushue vs Jacobs trials final on TV where the price of LSFE is 1.5 points, so the game starts at 0–1.5 for Jacobs. This person might be confused about why the scoreboard looks funny, but everything else still makes sense. The actual game on the ice itself makes sense.

That's my point.

Last edited by curlingclips on 01-21-22 at 03:45PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-21-22 03:55PM
oliviertoisel is offline Click Here to See the Profile for oliviertoisel Find more posts by oliviertoisel Add oliviertoisel to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
oliviertoisel
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Feb 2021
Location:
Posts: 587

quote:
Originally posted by curlingclips
I don't think that's how market equilibrium works, but in any case...

Are you saying that you believe that if we give the team without hammer a free 1.5 points at the start of the game, that nothing much will change in terms of who wins and who loses overall in the big picture?

Because if that's what you're saying, then isn't that the more reason why we should put a price on LSFE?


If doing something complex doesn't change anything then it is unnecessary. And in this case distracting. Why would we introduce a rule if it has no effect and doesn't solve the problem?

quote:
If Gushue was going to have good winning probability in the trial final against Jacobs either way, would you rather watch a game where the two starts at 0–0, or would you rather watch a game where Jacobs start at 1.5 points, so Gushue with LSFE needs to outscore Jacobs by 2 points in 10 ends?

If you tell Jacobs that he's still probably going to lose either way, do you think he would rather start at 0, or at 1.5 point?


If Jacobs chance of losing was 80% at both 0 and 1.5 then he would not care which he had. Or at best he'd have a psychological attachment to one option (like people do to down 1 with vs. up 1 without) but in practice the game would be identical because the outcome is going to be the same. After 2 years of that there would be nothing exciting about Gushue winning after starting down 1.5 points versus winning 0-0 with hammer if he wins the same % in both scenarios.

But that's not the issue you're missing. The issue is Jacobs doesn't decide. Gushue AND Jacobs do. And so the equilibrium will change. Your "market equilibrium" does work this way. Because if 1.5 up is an advantage then Gushue will take it...but then Jacobs won't offer it. Meaning the only possible offer is the one that is advantageous to Jacobs and the only possible acceptable offer is what's acceptable to Gushue. So if Jacobs puts a hammer favouring offer up then Gushue takes it, but why would he do it? He wouldn't. So after a couple seasons we'd hit the equilibrium and then we'd be back to the same old issue.

quote:
Here's the key difference.

Take a limited but knowledgeable curling fan who has only watched every Brier and Scotties and Olympics curling games over the years.

Now put a Gushue vs Jacobs skins game on TV and have this person watch it, with no commentary or any other additional information. They will be utterly confused about what's going on, because skins is definitely a variation of curling, as you pointed out.

Now instead put a Gushue vs Jacobs trials final on TV where the price of LSFE is 1.5 points, so the game starts at 0–1.5 for Jacobs. This person might be confused about why the scoreboard looks funny, but everything else still makes sense. The actual game itself makes sense.

That's my point.



But the only difference in both formats is scoring. Yours in the first end only, skins in every end. Now skins is more complex for sure, I agree. Yours is an element of a new format only, not a new format.

This is all conflating the issues anyway. The extra end issue is the extra end is predictable based on who has hammer. The hammer in end 1 issue is similar but different. What about my idea for no blanks end 1? Doesn't it achieve a similar idea without the added rule complexity?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-21-22 04:34PM
curlingclips is offline Click Here to See the Profile for curlingclips Find more posts by curlingclips Add curlingclips to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker

 

Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523

quote:
Originally posted by oliviertoisel
The issue is Jacobs doesn't decide. Gushue AND Jacobs do.

Yeah, that's kind of the whole point of the pie rule.

There's a pie on the table, and they want to share the pie between the two. You give a knife to Jacobs, and he makes the cut and now we have 2 pieces of pie. You give a plate to Gushue and let him pick one piece. You give the remaining piece to Jacobs.

It's a fair process regardless of how much pie each person gets.

quote:
Originally posted by oliviertoisel
But the only difference in both formats is scoring. Yours in the first end only, skins in every end.


I disagree. There's nothing special about scoring just because LSFE has a price. There's nothing special about the first end either.

Scoring is exactly the same as before. 1 red stone is closest, then scoreboard for red team goes up by 1, and so on.

The only difference is that the scoreboard does not start at 0-0. That's it. It's not that complicated.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-21-22 05:14PM
hogged again is offline Click Here to See the Profile for hogged again Find more posts by hogged again Add hogged again to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
hogged again
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Mar 2019
Location:
Posts: 659

Yes let's bring in the go rule. But why stop there?
Bring in the Jeopardy rule where a random end is a daily double and points count double.
And bring in a Scrabble rule where certain squares are triple points. Each team can pick 1 end where points scored are triple and not revealed until after the end.
Also some teams are way better thru skill and hard work at a certain turn than their opponents so we need to have a rule that says you must throw 1 inturn and 1 outturn each end.
Because as we all know, the more complicated a game is to learn, the more people want to play it.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-21-22 05:20PM
curlingclips is offline Click Here to See the Profile for curlingclips Find more posts by curlingclips Add curlingclips to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker

 

Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523

quote:
Originally posted by hogged again
Because as we all know, the more complicated a game is to learn, the more people want to play it.

You could say the same thing about FGZ rule. In fact, people did say the same thing about FGZ rule.

Here's a clip from 1991:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uoo-VYRmp1A
Hec Gervais: "I'm against it, mostly because our game has been such a terrific game over the years... They haven't proven that this is going to be any good, and there's going to be lots of complications..."

These are weak arguments that have lost before and will keep losing again in the future.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-21-22 05:46PM
oliviertoisel is offline Click Here to See the Profile for oliviertoisel Find more posts by oliviertoisel Add oliviertoisel to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
oliviertoisel
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Feb 2021
Location:
Posts: 587

quote:
Originally posted by curlingclips

Yeah, that's kind of the whole point of the pie rule.

There's a pie on the table, and they want to share the pie between the two. You give a knife to Jacobs, and he makes the cut and now we have 2 pieces of pie. You give a plate to Gushue and let him pick one piece. You give the remaining piece to Jacobs.

It's a fair process regardless of how much pie each person gets.



But being fair is totally irrelevant if the process doesn't do anything. Also it's not fair because Gushue starts with the decision and, as I've pointed out twice, the only possible outcome is a detente in which Gushue retains some small advantage—which is where we started.

quote:
I disagree. There's nothing special about scoring just because LSFE has a price. There's nothing special about the first end either.

Scoring is exactly the same as before. 1 red stone is closest, then scoreboard for red team goes up by 1, and so on.

The only difference is that the scoreboard does not start at 0-0. That's it. It's not that complicated. [/B]


Where the score starts has a lot to do with scoring. I think maybe you are using it to mean point counting whereas I'm talking broadly about points. But this is by far the least interesting part of this discussion.

quote:
Originally posted by curlingclips

You could say the same thing about FGZ rule. In fact, people did say the same thing about FGZ rule.

Here's a clip from 1991:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uoo-VYRmp1A
Hec Gervais: "I'm against it, mostly because our game has been such a terrific game over the years... They haven't proven that this is going to be any good, and there's going to be lots of complications..."

These are weak arguments that have lost before and will keep losing again in the future.



"Too much complexity is bad" is a great argument. If it's right accurate. It's a bad argument if it's inaccurate. It all depends on the specifics. I think "complexity for complexity's sake" is probably clear bad.

What is an outright bad argument is "someone said that before and was wrong therefore you are wrong" yet you use that a lot.

But this is all silly. The Go thing is a bad idea because it doesn't solve the problem it's intended to solve and tries to do so through non-play based solutions. Full stop.

Also what about my no blank in 1 idea? I am genuinely curious your thought on that.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-21-22 05:54PM
curlingclips is offline Click Here to See the Profile for curlingclips Find more posts by curlingclips Add curlingclips to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker

 

Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523

quote:
Originally posted by oliviertoisel
Also what about my no blank in 1 idea? I am genuinely curious your thought on that.

I will entertain this thought! You've been courteous in brainstorming my idea, so let me return the favor!

First of all, define what "no blank" means, because this is not very clear.

For example, people have literally said things like "there are no blank ends in mixed doubles!", which is clearly false. You can in fact score 0/0 in an end in mixed doubles, and there's even a situation where you get to retain the hammer afterward.

So let's start here. What do you mean by "no blanking the 1st end". What happens when there are no rocks in the house after the hammer is thrown? What happens if there's a measurement of 2 stones and it's tied measurement?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-21-22 06:22PM
hogged again is offline Click Here to See the Profile for hogged again Find more posts by hogged again Add hogged again to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
hogged again
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Mar 2019
Location:
Posts: 659

The entire premise is faulty because you are rewarding a team for failure. You get outperformed in the draw to the button so we are gifting you half a point. Just plain wrong.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-21-22 06:27PM
curlingclips is offline Click Here to See the Profile for curlingclips Find more posts by curlingclips Add curlingclips to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
curlingclips
Super Rockchucker

 

Registered: Oct 2019
Location:
Posts: 1523

quote:
Originally posted by hogged again
The entire premise is faulty because you are rewarding a team for failure. You get outperformed in the draw to the button so we are gifting you half a point. Just plain wrong.

This is a brainstorming thread, and the proposal has now evolved to use the pie rule.

Let's use the Canadian trials as example.

Fleury is undefeated in round robin. Jones challenges her in final.

Jones gets to set the price on LSFE. Let's say Jones say the price is 0.5 point (i.e. whoever has LSFE must outscore the opposition in 10 ends to win, anything else is a lost).

Fleury gets to decide whether this price is acceptable. If she finds it acceptable, Fleury gets LSFE and Jones starts the game with 0.5 point. If Fleury rejects the price, then Jones gets LSFE, and Fleury starts the game with 0.5 point.

If Jones set the price too low, Fleury will gladly pay every time. If Jones set the price too high, Fleury will reject it every time. If the price is set at equilibrium, then the choice becomes more interesting.

I think you would agree that LSFE is valuable, so this is a fair process to determine the price of LSFE, and Fleury as the round robin winner is rewarded with making the choice.

Last edited by curlingclips on 01-21-22 at 06:47PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-21-22 07:35PM
Curlwalker is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Curlwalker Find more posts by Curlwalker Add Curlwalker to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Curlwalker
Hitting Paint

 

Registered: Jan 2015
Location:
Posts: 109

Negative offers

What if Nunavut wins LSFE over Gushue. Their reward is to either give up a lead or give up last rock? They cannot just take last rock or else everyone could. So what can they offer? If they lose the draw challenge at least they can either get last rock or a lead. What is their incentive to win the draw?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-21-22 07:42PM
oliviertoisel is offline Click Here to See the Profile for oliviertoisel Find more posts by oliviertoisel Add oliviertoisel to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
oliviertoisel
Drawmaster

 

Registered: Feb 2021
Location:
Posts: 587

quote:
Originally posted by curlingclips

I will entertain this thought! You've been courteous in brainstorming my idea, so let me return the favor!

First of all, define what "no blank" means, because this is not very clear.

For example, people have literally said things like "there are no blank ends in mixed doubles!", which is clearly false. You can in fact score 0/0 in an end in mixed doubles, and there's even a situation where you get to retain the hammer afterward.

So let's start here. What do you mean by "no blanking the 1st end". What happens when there are no rocks in the house after the hammer is thrown? What happens if there's a measurement of 2 stones and it's tied measurement?



Let's start with MD first: blank end results in loss of hammer. This would certainly change the game as it would negate intentional blanks in the first end and probably lead to more aggressive openings. It doesn't solve our extra end problem but that's OK for now. But can it even out hammer advantage? It certainly reduces hammer power.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

All times are GMT. The time now is . Post New Thread   Post A Reply
Page 4 of 6 -- Go to: ««   | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | »»   Last Thread   Next Thread
Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to thisThread

Forum Jump:
Rate This Thread:

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
 

Curling Scores

M: USA Curling Junior National Championships
Eau Claire, WI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: M6 -- Thu, Mar 28 -- 12:00pm CT
Church Final
Rose (9) Watch Live Curling!
Brenden Final
Guentzel (9) Watch Live Curling!
Fitzgerald Final
Hebert (9) Watch Live Curling!
Lannoye Final
Cenzalli (10)
W: USA Curling Junior National Championships
Eau Claire, WI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: W5 -- Thu, Mar 28 -- 8:00am CT
Giroux Final
Schapman (7) Watch Live Curling!
Johnson 10  Final
Scheel (9) Watch Live Curling!
Berg Final
Viau (9) Watch Live Curling!
Pekowitz 11  Final
Berg (7) Watch Live Curling!
M: Canadian Mixed Doubles Curling Championship
Fredericton, NB
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: CF -- Fri, Mar 22 -- 1:00pm AT
Lott/Lott Final
Walk/Muyr (8) Watch Live Curling!
M: Swiss Junior Championships
Thun, SUI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: CF2 -- Sun, Mar 24 -- 3:00am ET
Caccivio Final
Brauchli 12  (EE)
Dryburgh Final
Ringgenberg (9)
W: Swiss Junior Championships
Thun, SUI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: CF2 -- Sun, Mar 24 -- 9:00am CET
Schwaller Final
Oberson (9)
Blackham Final
von Arx (9)
W: NWTCA Curling Club Championships
Fort Smith, NT
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: 3 -- Sat, Mar 23 -- 11:00am MT
Stroeder Final
Delorey (7)
M: NWTCA Curling Club Championships
Fort Smith, NT
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: 3 -- Sat, Mar 23 -- 1:00pm ET
Delorey Final
Lockhart (EE)
Full Scoreboard  |  Play Fantasy Pick'em!  

Recent News

Recent
Homan Brings Home Gold

Homan Brings Home Gold

Sydney, Canada - In front of a full house with over 4,000 spectators, Canada (photo: Stephen Fisher, World Curling) beat Switzerland by 7-5 to take gold at the BKT Tires World Women's Curling Championship 2024.

Curling Photos

Recent

Curling Blogs

Facebook Feed

Twitter Feed

To top ↑