Talk:Round-robin tournament

message: That was a short American-centric article with no edit history talk page.  I incorporated its extra information to this article and redirected it here.  Just need an administrator to rename. Joestynes 11:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have overwritten the old content of Round-robin tournament with the old content of Round-robin (sports) and made the latter a redirect; the talk page now redirects in the opposite direction.  I had already done my best to merge the content prior to the rejection of the move request.  Not sure if this is procedurally kosher but nothing's been happening about clearing up the duplicacy. Joestynes 08:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed move to [[Round-robin tournament]]

message: The Condorcet method is a "choice voting" system that is oft compared to Round-robin.  Voters mark ranked-ballots (same as with Instant-runoff voting) with their first preference marked "1", second choice "2", and so on.  Tabulation and determination of the winner is different that IRV; a hypothetical 2-person race is run with every candidate pair in round-robin fashion.  The candidate who beats every other candidate in the paired-off races (and there can be no more than one candidate who does that) is the Condorcet winner and is elected.
There is an oft repeated potential flaw or problem with Condorcet elections, the potential for a Condorcet paradox or |cycle which is a rock-paper-scissors problem.  What happens in a Round-robin tournament if Wrestler A beats Wrestler B, Wrestler B beats Wrestler C, and Wrestler C beats Wrestler A?  Then who is declared the winner?  Or do they all come away from that with a tie?  I think this ambiguity and how it has been resolved in Round-robin tournaments could be spelled out in the article, and this article should have Condorcet method put into the See also section.
Just a suggestion from an anonymous editor. 74.104.160.199 (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it can be put under See Also, but it seems quite a bit different.  In chess, round-robins are done with more than three players and the winner is the one with the most total points.  In the event of that being tied, sometimes tie-breaking methods are used, usually they are co-champions.  Bubba73 (talk), 19:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  It seems to me that this article should be linked to [[Condorcet method]]. 

message: Construction of Berger table explained. Table shows logic of the Berger table construction.
217.123.83.212 (talk) 10:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Berger tables included + table 

message: What is ribbon-like about this kind of tournament?  The first sentences in the "Terminology" section beg that question. The section starts: 
I could see a square shape involved, in a list of all players crossed with list of all players.  Where is a "ribbon" involved?  Maybe it is obvious to some, but not to me! --doncram 01:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  how is this type of tournament "ribbon-like" in the first place? 

message: Why are parentheses used in the following sentence? And shouldn't there be a comma after "in team sport"?</br>
"In team sport the (round-robin) major league champions is generally regarded as the "best" team in the land, rather than the (elimination) cup winners."--Adûnâi (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parentheses? 

message: The article claims: The champion, in a round-robin tournament, is the contestant that wins the most games. Unless there is a draw, there can be no more than one contestant who emerges as champion because, if there were two, eventually they must meet each other and one contestant will be defeated by the other. But it isn't hard to come up with an example where this is not true. Consider a tournament with four entries, A, B, C, and D. A wins against B and C; B wins against C and D; C wins against D; D wins against A. We end up with A and B having 2 wins, C and D 1 win, and no draws. --2001:981:4B0C:1:7038:2583:C1D0:E0B8 (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  One winner 

message: On 4-Jan-2019 a dubious tag was added to this sentence: "The element of luck is seen to be reduced as compared to a knockout system since one or two bad performances need not cripple a competitor's chance of ultimate victory.". The IP editor who put the tag wrote "If a contestant loses one game or match, that contestant will not be the champion unless there is a circle of death that later is resolved". But this is clearly not always true. e.g. a contestant can lose 1 game but still be outright winner. There are many examples of this actually happening. Adpete (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed "dubious" tag 

message: I believe the sentence "When the result of the addition is greater than (n-1), then subtract (\begin{matrix} \frac{n}{2}\end{matrix}-1)" is wrong and the last part of it should instead read "then subtract (n-1)".  Rather than editing it myself, I'd like a second opinion on this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feasel (talk • contribs) 09:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible error 

message: In the example for 10 teams diagram, top right, except for the first day two circles are coloured light blue and the legend for that says "break". It is not clear to me what that is and nothing seems to explain it. Petelomax (talk) 09:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Break? 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round-robin_tournament#/media/File:Round-robin-schedule-span-diagram.svg
Shouldn't this have been "rotate 13 times"? (maybe with total of 14 round )
Otherwise e.g. 14 never plays with 2. 212.160.155.132 (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible error in the graphics