Going by gut, I don't like it. I haven't done the math on it, though, so I can't say anything definitively.

I listened to a ton of ranting on both sides in the most recent State of the Game podcast about this.  
 
Both sides have decent arguments, but to me it "feels" wrong.  I can't quantify my statement with maths or anything, but the system feels wrong.  I don't like that one player gets an advantage just because he happened to stay in the winners bracket a bit longer.  Both players are meeting in the current match.  The current match is what should be played, not some sort of extended grudge match across a whole tournament.
 
 
Maybe the system will make more sense in a team league or a multi-tournament rankings sense, but as we have set to see that I can't comment.

I don't really like it. It just gives a someone a disadvantage only if they face a specific person, where as for someone else who also crawled out of the losers brackets but never faced that specific person, they aren't being punished.

Mmm, no one with a Yes vote with any counter arguments?

the only thing that really bugs me about that rule is that it can (afaik) fuck up the grand finals if the player from the winners bracket kicked his opponent to the losers bracket in a 2:1 match earlier in the tournament... 
 
or something like that 
 
 
I'd prefer regular double elim i guess

its fine. everyone just wants every tournament to be exactly the same in every way because they don't like change.

" its fine. everyone just wants every tournament to be exactly the same in every way because they don't like change. "

I voted no. It's a terrible rule and it should be removed. Each Match should be a seperate event, and past games should not affect the current match-up. 
It's also just plain unfair, you can't just "give" a player to losses to start with and then tell them they'll need to win alot more than their opponent to win.
 
Also, Halo.
 
I rest my case your honor.

Yes.  Like it.

I'm sorta up in the air...I was actually thinking about posting this very thread after listening to the latest SofG.
If i had to choose though I'd go with Dont Like.
I think it was inControl who made a point that made sense with me. If you face the same person you beat who worked his way up in the losers bracket, you have an advantage, but if you face someone from the losers bracket who you haven't faced before, you don't get that advantage.
That doesn't make any sense to me. 
If you're gonna do it that way, the person coming up from the losers bracket should take their losses into whatever series they go into no matter who they play for it to be fair, but that's an even dumber idea.  Plus i think if a person's clawed their way up from the bottom, they shouldn't be punished. 
So yeah, I'm against.

 I can see the argument on both sides... but I think I have to go with extended series. 

 If you are the better player but happen to get cheesed out or play not up to your skill in the winner's bracket then you can still easily come back from the 0-2 deficit and it doesn't affect you.
 If you are the worse player and lose in the winner's bracket then you would have likely lost in the loser's bracket anyways, even without the disadvantage. Sure it's not ideal, but it likely doesn't change the tournament outcome.
 
The reason why you should have extended series is for this scenario:
You win 2-0 in winner's bracket. Opponent beats you 2-1 in loser's bracket. You have won three games against him, he has won two against you, but he gets to move on and you don't.
 
As you can see, having extended series usually doesn't change the outcome of the tournament and it allows the better players a chance to redeem themselves by playing more games, and it prevents players who you have beat more than you lost to (presumably you are better than them) from eliminating you.
 
Either way, ideally they should just play swiss tournaments :P

I really don't understand why people like the extended series nonsense. In the end, it's a rule that protects someone who plays well in the beginning of the tournament for no other reason than claiming that people who do well there are "the better player".
 
All matches should be isolated events. You shouldn't be penalized simply because someone beat you in the winner's bracket. Starcraft is supposed to be an E-sport right? Name me one other sport where you have something similar occuring?
Ever saw a soccer match where teams have to play down 1-0 or 2-0 from the start against another team simply, because they lost one game to that team in the group phase? That's right, you don't because it's unfair. 
 
Each match should be an isolated event and whoever wins, wins. It's not supposed to be about who's the "better player", it's supposed to be about who wins that match.

I'm torn but I think I'm leaning towards No. 
 
However what I do think is that the advantage should NEVER come into effect in the finals or maybe even final final 4.

That's all well and good, but explain how its fair if someone who you beat more than you lost to gets to move on and you don't?

And also one of the largest complaints about Starcraft 2's balance is the map pool, and by extending the series you get to see a wider variety of maps so that in theory the map racial advantages average out. 

EDIT: And about your point on soccer and other "real" sports, I'm pretty sure soccer doesn't have map pools, doesn't usually have best of 3's, and doesn't usually have double elimination. Try to name a single major sport that uses double elimination -- as far as I know (I could be totally wrong) almost all of them use round robin style play to determine a single elimination championship bracket. "

"The best-known athletic event that employs a double-elimination format is the NCAA baseball tournament, including the College World Series, where a team is not eliminated until it loses twice in each of the four rounds (regional, super regional, College World Series, and CWS championship, with the super regional and CWS championship series featuring two teams in a best 2-of-3 format). It is also extensively used in computer gaming tournaments (most famously by the Cyberathlete Professional League) and table football tournaments. Double-elimination brackets are also popular in amateur wrestling of all levels, surfing and kiteboarding freestyle competitions, as well as Curling bonspiels (where triple-elimination is also used) and certain Olympic sports, such as judo. Since 2009, the World Baseball Classic has used a double-elimination format for the first and second rounds of the tournament. The Little League World Series also switched from round-robin to double-elimination formats for each of its pools starting in 2010 in an effort to eliminate meaningless games."
 

 
You can't really say that it's not a legitimate argument because soccer doesn't use maps or bo3's. Soccer is a game that last 90 minutes or more, so to play a best-of-3 would be rather ridiculous. Also a soccer field has to adhere to a strict number of rules and cannot deviate from the norm by those very rules, so comparing them to a map pool is unfair.

" @Thule: You are right -- the question is where you draw the line. You and people like iNcontroL draw the line at one best of three, I draw the line at one tournament. MLG has also specifically stated that they draw the line at one tournament. That is why they use extended series.  More sports than I thought use double elimination, but I still believe that double elimination is far from the norm in most sporting events. As such, I don't think it's fair to say extended series is bad just because no one else uses it as double eliminations aren't that common in the first place so most tournaments probably have never thought about extended series before.  Comparing it to not having a map pool is a little unfair I'll agree, but I was just pointing out how different E-Sports and real sports are in some ways.  However, most of the real sports with double elimination (like curling) don't have best of three, and that makes a pretty large difference when you are talking about extended series.  They wouldn't think to extend a series of one.  I'm trying to be objective here, because I don't think there is a situation where extended series would have ever actually benefited me. However, in the last US tournament I went 1-1 with Truman and he got eliminated but I didn't. It kind of makes me feel like it was a tie and I was decided to win by coin flip (dreamhack reference lol). "

  The reason why you should have extended series is for this scenario: You win 2-0 in winner's bracket. Opponent beats you 2-1 in loser's bracket. You have won three games against him, he has won two against you, but he gets to move on and you don't.   As you can see, having extended series usually doesn't change the outcome of the tournament and it allows the better players a chance to redeem themselves by playing more games, and it prevents players who you have beat more than you lost to (presumably you are better than them) from eliminating you.   

It depends what you consider a single event, the tourney, or each individual best of 3. In MLG's case they consider the tourney an event, therefore its the extended best of 7 series.
 
Its personal philosophy really.

It seems like a simple argument for no which was covered in the podcast. It isn't fair and doesn't really make sense (you can justify it, but that still doesn't make it sit well).

Listened to the SotG that this was discussed on earlier today.  So aggravating after a while.
 
Mainly because the only real evidence inControl gave was, "Don't use it cos that's not the way things have always been done."
 
Unfortunately, the retort was really not much more than, "Well, this is how MLG works.  If you don't like it, tough shit."