If the players are tied by wins after the round robin, two more games will be played. The pairing will be made by ordering the players and the two last play a game ad the winner plays against the first. The ordering will be made by points added from player's games. If points are tied, the tied players are ordered by the time of their free round, a later free round being better.

I think that Waylon's auction idea is the most interesting. After a little fooling around with katago, it seems that the range of alternatives can be quite short. Simply declare that the player with the bye in game one will take black in game two. The auction is for how much komi black will give. Under Chinese rules black should be willing to give 9.5 but reluctant to give 11.5 points (37% winrate versus 28%). Under Japanese rules the choices would be a little more nuanced with 10.5 also in the mix.

However, the idea of drawing straws is also an attractive way to cut to the chase. If we have a three way tie, split the prize money evenly but draw straws to choose which two players will complete in a single game for the trophy and the title of "Champion". The chances are the same for everyone at each stage and will not influence earlier play.

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

Well, as I said, I have not been following this discussion. I thought that if the tie-break games did not produce a clear winner, the point total of those three games would be used to break that tie. A three way tie is still possible that way, but unlikely.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Not exactly. If the players are tied by wins after the three games they are ranked by sum of points and if that tied then by having the bye round later. Tww lowest ranked play a game and the winer play against the highest to decide the winner.

So one would draw lots for the order to make a bid.

There might be some ramifications like A would bid over B's 9.5 bid, but not C's 9.5 bid.

I like the thought being put into this, but I don’t like the idea of different komi against players of equal strength.

Trying to win a game of go by 20 points is a different skill, and requires different strategy, than trying to win by 0.5.

You could have a player that can beat everyone else by 0.5 points 99% of the time, but due to playing style, can’t beat the other players by 20 points even 1% of the time.

Go is not about winning by a lot of points, and I don’t like tie breakers that use that method. All tie breakers suck, so it’s an option you could use. But I certainly wouldn’t call it “ultimate”.

_________________
be immersed

Note that the ultimate or final tie break consist of two games played normally. The scores in the previous phase are used to do the pairing in case the round robin is tied.