Wednesday 16 April 2014


Related Articles

No related articles found


Readers’ Comments

162Monday, 14 April 2014 03:10
Debbie

How do you start an online game?

161Wednesday, 12 March 2014 11:34
Vitaly
World and European championships provide ideal space for maneuvring, both in terms of number of sessions and participants. Purely random (still with constraint of team or country) scheme does not seem to reasonable at all -- though to use it as a part of any other scheme looks acceptable. IMHO, best scenario is: equally-matched scheme to days 1-2, then top 20-25% struggle within a group for prizes + side-event for the rest of players.
160Wednesday, 12 March 2014 10:09
Vitaly
But what about the idea to split a tournaments in two at certain point? (One can use "stepping", for instance, cut top-24 after session 4, then top-16 after next session, then top-12 etc.).
In ma-any other sports it is quite acceptable that "toppers" play THEIR event fighting for the prizes while all others may play in "side-event" which still may gather a bunch of players (and may be processed separately, with lower MERS coefficient).
And, surely, such schemes are pointless for 1-day events.
159Wednesday, 12 March 2014 09:57
Vitaly
Second day may require more time between session to organise proper sitting. Please, be careful here, "more" in this case means that 15 min is no good though 20-30 minutes is quite acceptable. Current software provides "no-problems" seating (say, in 5 min) for 6 sessions starting from 32 players, 8 sessions -- starting from 60 players. More players-sized 2-day events are welcome (they are easier to be calculated)!
158Wednesday, 12 March 2014 09:52
Vitaly
Now, let's move to "longer tournaments" as stated.
2-days event may use 6-10 sessions, depending on rules, transportation factor (somebody needs to catch a train?), cultural program etc. Sophisticated software (like RiTour.exe) may produce seating for the first 4 session right "on spot", so the first day is "clean" for organisers. Of cause, provided there is no protocol errors.

Login Form

Who's Online

We have 592 guests and one member online

Joseph Edward's Theory of Market Ecocomy

I believe your theory might at first glance has some merit, but is actually extremely flawed and ignorant, bordering absurdity. In the FREE MARKET ECONOMY, Laissez-faire, the market is determined by the consumers and supply and demand theories. If the market condition is viable, there will certainly be new competition that will emerge.
Comments (3)Comments are closed
1Wednesday, 11 November 2009 20:33
Joseph Edwards
PetiteEtoile, I do understand how the free market economy works. As a student of economics, I'm not ignorant of that. What you don't seem to understand is that no market is perfectly competitive and the Anglophone online mahjong market is particularly susceptible to this.

(continuing...)
2Wednesday, 11 November 2009 20:35
Joseph Edwards
For example: its monopoly status thanks to its share of the market (particularly its ability to advertise and affliate), uneven information thus (how can you make an informed decision on what client to use when MahjongTime is portrayed as the only choice?), the nature of the market (particularly in that because of the multiplayer aspect any client must quickly build a strong base to be viable, and thus a limited number of firms can be viable) the small target demographic in the shorter term, etc
3Wednesday, 11 November 2009 20:37
Joseph Edwards
The market condition isn't viable when MahjongTime has such a corrupting influence. It effectively has reached monopoly status and is in a position to prevent or hinder other companies entering the market through its economic power, media and commercial influence, and large market share. If a company was operating under these conditions in a large market with these conditions, it would have probably have been butchered by regulators already!
yvComment v.2.01.1


Mahjong News | Copyright © 1997-2014 | About Us | Sitemap | Contact