Code works fine except...

Ross ross.jett at gmail.com
Thu May 7 06:02:47 CEST 2009


On May 6, 3:14 pm, John Yeung <gallium.arsen... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 6, 3:29 am, MRAB <goo... at mrabarnett.plus.com> wrote:
>
> > I have the feeling that if the number of rounds is restricted then the
> > difference between the minimum and maximum number of byes could be 2
> > because of the requirement that players shouldn't play each other more
> > than once, meaning that the players have to be shuffled around a bit, so
> > a player might play a week earlier or later than would otherwise be the
> > case.
>
> This is the feeling that I am getting also.  All my efforts to keep
> everything as balanced as possible at all times (to be ready for the
> "season" to end suddenly at any time) result in messy jams that could
> otherwise be alleviated if I allowed temporary imbalances, knowing
> that there are more weeks later to make them up.
>
> John

If I were to set up a dictionary that counted players used in the bye
list and only allowed players to be added to the bye list if they were
within 2 of the least used player, would this be a good approach for
managing bye selection or would using a dictionary in this manner be
unnecessary/redundant?



More information about the Python-list mailing list