A compromise

crabbcatjohn

Verified Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2014
Messages
2,800
Ok, A few ideas. When we first asked who was coming we made a list. We have 40 players who responded that have expressed interest. They are on the spread sheet list. I believe we though at the time there were 15 tables, there are only 12. Why not meet in the middle? Cap it at the 40 players who actually expressed interest. That amount of players might be workable in a regular bracket with a few Friday night matches. We could have a alternate list who could take the place of anybody on that original list who can't make it. We set a time frame for those members to get their entries in. I think 48 players wouldn't work with the 12 tables allotted. I also think a regular bracket 3/2 would benefit us scheduling wise. Although a round robin sounds nice, i don't see any firm time frames for the number of matches needed in that format. Also remember there is a city wide tournament being held at the same time...
I'm changing my vote to 40 players.
 

Miller

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Messages
4,194
you're right, and i'm about to explain why.....
:cool:
 

crabbcatjohn

Verified Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2014
Messages
2,800
A step further

A step further

We could also limit it to the 40 who have expressed interest to this point. We haven't had any new interest except maybe one player in the last few weeks.. So if we keep the original 40 minus the no shows we have a even smaller field which will work better for yet another reason. More action tables will be available...:D. Next year we could plan to accommodate more players.
 

LSJohn

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
7,789
We could also limit it to the 40 who have expressed interest to this point. We haven't had any new interest except maybe one player in the last few weeks.. So if we keep the original 40 minus the no shows we have a even smaller field which will work better for yet another reason. More action tables will be available...:D. Next year we could plan to accommodate more players.
OK, you have an idea that might work. How do you suggest we -- or anyone -- go about implementing it that doesn't result in about a dozen disagreements, complaints and continuing suggestions for something else after it's implemented?

There are many ways to do this. Everybody has an opinion about the best way, and naturally each thinks his way is the best way.

There's no way in hell to give everyone his first choice about stuff, but at some point somebody has to make decisions about things. Yeah, I can see the point of going with 32 because it got more votes than the other two choices. It seems that a few people are failing to see that it also makes sense to decide based upon the fact that most people don't want a 32 cap.

I thought I could go and enjoy it, dead money though I am, no matter how we did it, but the fun is already getting taken out of it for me.

I'll just bow out and let people smarter than me figure it out. There are plenty of those.
 

crabbcatjohn

Verified Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2014
Messages
2,800
Sorry, didn't mean to insult anybody. Just offering a compromise that might work for both sides of a close vote. We have a list of regular posters who actually showed interest, why not use it.
I don't have a problem with either a RR or traditional format. With either we are going to need workable time frames with amount of players and tables allotted. That has not been firmed up until now.
 

jtompilot

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
3,947
I wouldn't mind a compromise if the powers to be think we can get it done without much hardship on the players or Lacy's. I don't think we can get more than two rounds in on Friday due to some members travel plans. Based on the length of the 1P tournaments in Houston and having 12 tables, someone needs to make a realistic analysis on the number of entries that Lacy's can handle whether it's 32, 40, or 48. I can live with that.
 

crabbcatjohn

Verified Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2014
Messages
2,800
I wouldn't mind a compromise if the powers to be think we can get it done without much hardship on the players or Lacy's. I don't think we can get more than two rounds in on Friday due to some members travel plans. Based on the length of the 1P tournaments in Houston and having 12 tables, someone needs to make a realistic analysis on the number of entries that Lacy's can handle whether it's 32, 40, or 48. I can live with that.
That makes the most sense to me.
 

1pwannabe

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
842
I really think a compromise we need to consider, and maybe a poll is needed here, is race to 2 on both sides. So maybe something like, if we get > 32 players, we race to 2. 32 or less and it's 3/2.

Another compromise, which won't be popular, is if we get 48 players (or more) then we do away with loser bracket altogether and empty tables that are open during the event can be used for friendly games for socializing.
 

Cory in dc

Verified Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2012
Messages
1,474
I really think a compromise we need to consider, and maybe a poll is needed here, is race to 2 on both sides. So maybe something like, if we get > 32 players, we race to 2. 32 or less and it's 3/2.

Another compromise, which won't be popular, is if we get 48 players (or more) then we do away with loser bracket altogether and empty tables that are open during the event can be used for friendly games for socializing.
You can't just count the number of matches and divide by the number of tables to figure out how long a tournament will take.

Going to a race to 2 on the winner side won't help that much because there are so many more matches on the losers side than the winners side. So you'll very quickly get people dropping from the winners side to the losers side and then waiting a day to play while the losers side catches up. Starting the first few rounds with races to 2 would help. After that you may as well have races to 3 on the winners side--it won't take any longer in total.

As for single elimination, I think it would suck to travel to NO and then be one-and-done.
 

1pwannabe

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
842
Guess my point is do you want to devote all resources to the tournament even if people have to sit and wait for hours and not play (DCC style)...or make the tournament easy to run and quick and leave more time open for social play. I don't see how both can be achieved once we get 32 players or more.

You can't just count the number of matches and divide by the number of tables to figure out how long a tournament will take.

Going to a race to 2 on the winner side won't help that much because there are so many more matches on the losers side than the winners side. So you'll very quickly get people dropping from the winners side to the losers side and then waiting a day to play while the losers side catches up. Starting the first few rounds with races to 2 would help. After that you may as well have races to 3 on the winners side--it won't take any longer in total.

As for single elimination, I think it would suck to travel to NO and then be one-and-done.
 

JoeyA

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2004
Messages
318
Big foot

Big foot

There is another table available for one pocket that we could use and it is the TEN FOOT monster Diamond Table. It's a great table and some may prefer to play on it. Personally, I don't like playing one pocket on anything except a 9 footer but some may enjoy playing on the ten footer.

I think we should consider utilizing the 10 footer IF both players ASK & WANT to play on the 10 footer. It would speed things up a bit, although it will most likely take a little longer to finish a match on the ten foot table.

JoeyA
 

mhilton777

Verified Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
459
I wouldn't mind a compromise if the powers to be think we can get it done without much hardship on the players or Lacy's. I don't think we can get more than two rounds in on Friday due to some members travel plans. Based on the length of the 1P tournaments in Houston and having 12 tables, someone needs to make a realistic analysis on the number of entries that Lacy's can handle whether it's 32, 40, or 48. I can live with that.
I 100% agree with the pilot.
 

LSJohn

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
7,789
There is another table available for one pocket that we could use and it is the TEN FOOT monster Diamond Table. It's a great table and some may prefer to play on it. Personally, I don't like playing one pocket on anything except a 9 footer but some may enjoy playing on the ten footer.

I think we should consider utilizing the 10 footer IF both players ASK & WANT to play on the 10 footer. It would speed things up a bit, although it will most likely take a little longer to finish a match on the ten foot table.

JoeyA
Great idea!

I would sure play on it, and if matches take longer on it, no problem because those are bonus matches anyway.
 

Scrzbill

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
3,654
OK, you have an idea that might work. How do you suggest we -- or anyone -- go about implementing it that doesn't result in about a dozen disagreements, complaints and continuing suggestions for something else after it's implemented?

There are many ways to do this. Everybody has an opinion about the best way, and naturally each thinks his way is the best way.

There's no way in hell to give everyone his first choice about stuff, but at some point somebody has to make decisions about things. Yeah, I can see the point of going with 32 because it got more votes than the other two choices. It seems that a few people are failing to see that it also makes sense to decide based upon the fact that most people don't want a 32 cap.

I thought I could go and enjoy it, dead money though I am, no matter how we did it, but the fun is already getting taken out of it for me.

I'll just bow out and let people smarter than me figure it out. There are plenty of those.
Most people wanted a cap. Most people didn't want a 48 cap. Statistically it can say. Anything you want it to say. That's why statisticians, like myself, make the big bucks.
 

LSJohn

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
7,789
Most people wanted a cap. Most people didn't want a 48 cap.
Heh... but even more people didn't want a 32 cap. :D

Often when there are more than two choices in a vote no choice will get a majority. The most common next step is to have a run-off between the top two.

If we did that, wouldn't you think it most likely that the the people who chose no cap would choose 48 rather than 32? It might not go that way every time in a situation like this, but it sure seems like it would most of the time. 48 is a lot closer to what they chose the first time. That was my thinking.
 

vapros

Verified Member
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
3,436
I'm not sure we can survive any more polls - once begun, there is no place to stop. We have people here who know how to run a tournament and are ready to help. A tournament of no more than two people should make the plan and then post it here. Then the players can decide: I'm in or I'm out. We are beginning to sound like Congress. :eek:
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,766
I started another thread for Official OnePocket.org Tournament Information -- which I set up as a closed 'sticky' at the top of the main forum for official tournament information. I will add more to it as more is determined but I wanted to lock in one location for "final" decisions regarding the tournament to make it as easy as possible for our members to make plans if they are thinking about coming.

I realize there has been some confusion because of the fluidity of the tournament plans, so my official post is intended to settle some of the big questions asap so interested members can make plans with as much clarity of expectations as possible (although a number of variables continue to be up for discussion, lol).

http://www.onepocket.org/forum/showthread.php?t=11795

Once we have a confirmed number of players who have sent in their money by August 15th, then we still have about 6 weeks to finalize the format and length of races so it fits into 2-1/2 days on 12 tables.
 
Top