The simple simple truth

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,443
I believe the RR format could be used in next years MOT because of the requirement of the host room having at least 16 tables...

Several people have outlined what they believe will and will not work using the RR format, and of course anytime something different is proposed for an event in which there are more than two participants, there’s usually a difference of opinion... perfectly natural...

Imo, Darmoose has the best overall grip on the RR format... He has explained his ideas flawlessly in this thread and I agree with the two days of RR’s
( Friday & Saturday ) to determine which ( 4 or 8 ) will advance to the finals on Sunday...


Winnowing down the field thru Friday’s and Saturday’s RR play to the desired # of finalists, would seem to be the only possible fly in the ointment...To that end, even thought I would prefer playing 21 games, ( 7 matches x 3 games ) I would agree with Whitey and his idea of playing 14 games ( 7 matches x 2 games ) to determine who goes to the finals... That’s still a lot of one pocket...

My reasons are these, (1) Every one of your opponents will get the break only once per match, and so will you... (2) the deliberate players, when matched against each other, will only play two games... (3) Playing 14 games each over a two day span ( rather than 21 ) will allow more time at the end of each day of play, for whatever you choose to use it for, be that socializing, dinner engagements, sight seeing, or matching up and playing some more one pocket...

I feel this could work, something just feels right about this format and the idea that everyone can and will get to play more games with more members... Sorry, but I couldn’t help putting this up, it sounds like a win/win on all fronts, while possibly solving a problem the MOT has had in the past...

Jeff, I wouldn't change a single word. I'm with you 100%.
Jeff and John,

Thank you both for your kind words and flawless judgement. You both are obviously highly intelligent and a credit to the human race.:lol:lol

No sh*t.:D


I can see what your saying about 14 games instead of 21, would give everybody a little more free time, if it is felt that this is needed. No problem here.
 

Island Drive

Verified Member
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
3,702
All the flights play at the SAME time! If 8 tables, 16 players, 16 tables the entire field plays at once!
Yeah, but do all flights finish at the Exact same time. Not in my world. They may START the same. Am I missing something, which is very probable, probably..........:).
 
Last edited:

Island Drive

Verified Member
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
3,702
Yeah, as smooth as my 1P game. **gulp**
Gulp......that reminds me of an English Bull dog that was on my tail at the lake. I took off and ran into the water immediately. The dog chased me into the lake, opened his mouth to bite me, GULP...water rushed in he sunk to the bottom. I was feeling froggy that morning, got quite a few laughs.

Jeff Melton actually asked me, after the fact. Is the dog ok LOL.

I told em, English Bull Dogs DO NOT SWIM, they sink, 99% of em.... I said Jeff, it was a joke LOL. My Grandpa bred and raised em.
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,549
Yeah, but do all flight finish at the Exact same time. Not in my world. They may START the same. Am I missing something, which is very probable, probably..........:).
Pretty unlikely, because no matter what, each group will be slowed by the slowest of their players. If you get a few slow players in a particular group, that group is pretty much guaranteed to fall behind. That said, as long as the room is willing to stay open late Friday and Saturday night, they can still be "forced" to finish their flights "on time" for Sunday morning final playoffs :D:D
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,549
The whole reason for RR format is, NO ONE is sitting around for their scheduled match waiting for a match to finish, in order to play their match!

One other aspect no one has mentioned about the advantage in RR format is, when you have an odd number of players!

Lets say there are 34 players in the field, all that you do is, 'just have 2 of the flights with 1 MORE player in it!' NO need for all those pesky byes!
Ok, I don't see how this can be true. If you have a couple of slow players within a group, all the players who have yet to play those couple of slow players in that group could end up waiting for their chance to play those players -- except in the first round, and of course no one is waiting then :D:D

But if player 1 and 2 take 3 hours for their 3 games (just an example), and everyone else finishes their 3 games in under two hours, then for sure whoever is scheduled to play BOTH player 1 and player 2 next are waiting. Then if their next matches area also slow.... and they are supposed to play all 3-4-5-6 (or however are left in the group, depending on how big the group is) , then those next matches with player 1 and/or player 2 will also be waiting -- possibly even longer if player 1 or 2 follow their long first match with a long second match.

I don't think their is any question -- a RR does not entirely solve slow play issues. Whether you have a double elimination tournament or a RR, you still ought to have a plan in mind to deal with matches that are backed up.

Granted you can solve part of it by playing later Friday and Saturday in order to reach your tournament schedule goals, but that is true whether you have a RR or a double elimination.

Am I missing something??? (I often do lol)
 

Island Drive

Verified Member
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
3,702
Ok, I don't see how this can be true. If you have a couple of slow players within a group, all the players who have yet to play those couple of slow players in that group could end up waiting for their chance to play those players -- except in the first round, and of course no one is waiting then :D:D

But if player 1 and 2 take 3 hours for their 3 games (just an example), and everyone else finishes their 3 games in under two hours, then for sure whoever is scheduled to play BOTH player 1 and player 2 next are waiting. Then if their next matches area also slow.... and they are supposed to play all 3-4-5-6 (or however are left in the group, depending on how big the group is) , then those next matches with player 1 and/or player 2 will also be waiting -- possibly even longer if player 1 or 2 follow their long first match with a long second match.

I don't think their is any question -- a RR does not entirely solve slow play issues. Whether you have a double elimination tournament or a RR, you still ought to have a plan in mind to deal with matches that are backed up.

Granted you can solve part of it by playing later Friday and Saturday in order to reach your tournament schedule goals, but that is true whether you have a RR or a double elimination.

Am I missing something??? #1 (I often do lol)


I am asking much the same....because.

One group takes 6 hrs. other group takes 7. Group A gets to rest, eat and prep for the second RR. Scott Kitto will just walk out to his new trailer in the parking lot, put his feet up, and come back in 45 minutes. Duh. Guys who finish first get a nap. Incentive. How can it be any simpler???
Am I missing something #2
 

LSJohn

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
7,624
Gulp......that reminds me of an English Bull dog that was on my tail at the lake. I took off and ran into the water immediately. The dog chased me into the lake, opened his mouth to bite me, GULP...water rushed in he sunk to the bottom. I was feeling froggy that morning, got quite a few laughs.

Jeff Melton actually asked me, after the fact. Is the dog ok LOL.

I told em, English Bull Dogs DO NOT SWIM, they sink, 99% of em.... I said Jeff, it was a joke LOL. My Grandpa bred and raised em.
LOL

Jeff Melton. Good to see him again after many years. I thought he must have given in and started playing one pocket, but he said, "Not yet." -- but that was over a year ago. :)
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,443
Thanks for the endorsement Jeff! mr3cushion's RR format race to 3 does maintain the 3/3 format for the traditionalists. Makes for a clear cut winner/loser for every match. Also allows one more rd. of play than traditional 3/3, and he states for Seniors with 8 tables it works within the time frame.

If the MOT had a little more playing time per day, I could endorse and piggy back off of mr3cushion's format, by going to a RR race to 2, but with 4 groups of 8 to give more playing time. The pre-lim rd. would take approx. a couple of hrs. longer, and same for rd. of 16, than doing a 14 game, 2 games each against each player format. But, by going to this it maintains mr3cushion's idea of having a clear cut winner or loser each match. Adds more excitement! You can base the final 16 on win/loss record and have tie breaker decided by total games loss.
Whitey,

3C and you continue to talk about "races to 3"," the 3/3 format", "preliminary rounds", and "semi-final rounds". I have asked 3c questions about this, but he refuses to answer, maybe you can enlighten us, please. Appreciate it.:)

What value does playing races have over just playing a set number of games?

What value does having a preliminary round of 32, then a semi final round of 16 (eliminating half of the field) have, over just letting all 32 players play both Friday and Saturday for the entire RR?

Here's an example for you:

Playing 7 opponents races to 3, you win the most races in your group. You qualify for the finals.

Playing 3 games each against 7 opponents you win the most games in your group. You qualify for the finals.

(Also note that races to 3 could last 3, 4, or 5 games which makes the time estimating more difficult.)




For me at this point: staying with a 14 game RR format that has a lesser time frame at the first trial MOT is what I would suggest. But there are great possibilities of going to a race, but I would like it proven first at a MOT that there is time available. I know for the west coast MOT that California billiards did accommodate opening up earlier on Saturday. Just throwing out some more ideas! Whitey
Whitey,

As I said a little earlier to Jeff and LSJ, I am ok with the RR being 14 games (2 games against 7 opponents over Friday and Saturday, and then a 4 or 8 man final elimination on Sunday. It does allow a bit more free time to do some other things, although personally I would vote for the 21 game version given the opportunity. We also need to consider how we would break ties, 21 could be easier than 14 games for this.


Allowing all 32 players to play the entire RR gives everybody either 14 or 21 games guaranteed. Playing a specific number of games rather than races removes a variable when trying to predict the length of matches, making our predictions more accurate.
 
Last edited:

LSJohn

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
7,624
Am I missing something?
I think there's a small thing. IMO, there's no need to create a schedule of the order in which who plays whom. Within the group each guy can keep track of the opponents he still needs to play and check to see if one of them is available as soon as he's ready to play another match. There can still be a bog down but it will mostly come toward the end of the group matches, so there won't be as much domino effect as you might have been thinking.
 

mr3cushion

Suspended
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
6,062
Ok, I don't see how this can be true. If you have a couple of slow players within a group, all the players who have yet to play those couple of slow players in that group could end up waiting for their chance to play those players -- except in the first round, and of course no one is waiting then :D:D

But if player 1 and 2 take 3 hours for their 3 games (just an example), and everyone else finishes their 3 games in under two hours, then for sure whoever is scheduled to play BOTH player 1 and player 2 next are waiting. Then if their next matches area also slow.... and they are supposed to play all 3-4-5-6 (or however are left in the group, depending on how big the group is) , then those next matches with player 1 and/or player 2 will also be waiting -- possibly even longer if player 1 or 2 follow their long first match with a long second match.

I don't think their is any question -- a RR does not entirely solve slow play issues. Whether you have a double elimination tournament or a RR, you still ought to have a plan in mind to deal with matches that are backed up.

Granted you can solve part of it by playing later Friday and Saturday in order to reach your tournament schedule goals, but that is true whether you have a RR or a double elimination.

Am I missing something??? (I often do lol)
Steve; I should of said, NO ONE will be sitting around MORE than 2 rounds! waiting to play! You're missing a little, but, in the ball park! Nothing chiseled in granite! But, the one that is, "The DBL elimination format, race to 3 in 3 days with Seniors, will NOT fly!"

In my offering, I allowed 2.5 hrs per match, (race to 3).If a particular match goes 3 or 3.5 hrs, it's not catastrophic.

Lets say, player 2 & 4 are taking longer than the 2.5 for their match. I player 1 has played 2 or 4 already, as was scheduled for the other, no worries, he can play player 3 in that slot. what that would cause is, when 2 & 4 are finally finished, one of them will have to wait for the, 1 v 3 match!

I think you're assuming the WORST case scenario! I think Whitey already reviewed the stats. and the average score of matchs in the last toury. were 3-1! I'm pretty sure those matches didn't 3-4 hrs.

In my proposal, the pre-lims will follow the SAME RR format as the qualifying rounds! 4 flights of 4 race to 3!

I'm pretty sure the most any player in any flight will sit out is 2 rounds!

FWIT; the MOST critical matches in the event are the in the qualifying rounds!! A player is always a little nervous at the start! They need to, 'find the table', and analyze their opponent! Playing each player in your flight, (4) gives the player a, minimum of 3 games to figure out their style and speed, and maybe 5 games! Instead of just playing, 2 games period, and on to the next out of the gate!
 
Last edited:

mr3cushion

Suspended
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
6,062
I think there's a small thing. IMO, there's no need to create a schedule of the order in which who plays whom. Within the group each guy can keep track of the opponents he still needs to play and check to see if one of them is available as soon as he's ready to play another match. There can still be a bog down but it will mostly come toward the end of the group matches, so there won't be as much domino effect as you might have been thinking.
FINALLY, something that makes a little sense! :frus:frus
 

mr3cushion

Suspended
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
6,062
Whitey,

3C and you continue to talk about "races to 3"," the 3/3 format", "preliminary rounds", and "semi-final rounds". I have asked 3c questions about this, but he refuses to answer, maybe you can enlighten us, please. Appreciate it.:)

What value does playing races have over just playing a set number of games?

What value does having a preliminary round of 32, then a semi final round of 16 (eliminating half of the field) have, over just letting all 32 players play both Friday and Saturday for the entire RR?

Here's an example for you:

Playing 7 opponents races to 3, you win the most races in your group. You qualify for the finals.

Playing 3 games each against 7 opponents you win the most games in your group. You qualify for the finals.

(Also note that races to 3 could last 3, 4, or 5 games which makes the time estimating more difficult.)






Whitey,

As I said a little earlier to Jeff and LSJ, I am ok with the RR being 14 games (2 games against 7 opponents over Friday and Saturday, and then a 4 or 8 man final elimination on Sunday. It does allow a bit more free time to do some other things, although personally I would vote for the 21 game version given the opportunity. We also need to consider how we would break ties, 21 could be easier than 14 games for this.


Allowing all 32 players to play the entire RR gives everybody either 14 or 21 games guaranteed. Playing a specific number of games rather than races removes a variable when trying to predict the length of matches, making our predictions more accurate.
Answer me 1 question, please! What happens when out of the 7 players in a group YOU suggest playing 2 games ONLY, that 3 of those 2 game matches go 3 hrs.

Once again, I don't think players are going to travel to Houston, from ALL over the country to, LOSE to an opponent in 2 games at the opening of the tournament!

The reason, IMHO, the format that was used in the, 'Beast' is, most of the players probably lived 300 miles or closer to it! If a player in a group lost 4 of his 6 two game matches, and lived 1.5 hrs. away they didn't take it that badly! Just my thought!

P.S. If you have 4 flights of 8, lets say 1.5 hrs per 2 games, 7 x 1.5 = 9 hrs. per player per flight!

With 8 flights of 4, race to 3, 2.5 hrs. per match, 3 x 2.5 = 7.5 hrs per player per flight ONLY! Saving 1.5 hrs. per flight right there! Possible 9 games, (min) per player or a (max) of 15!
 
Last edited:

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,443
I think there's a small thing. IMO, there's no need to create a schedule of the order in which who plays whom. Within the group each guy can keep track of the opponents he still needs to play and check to see if one of them is available as soon as he's ready to play another match. There can still be a bog down but it will mostly come toward the end of the group matches, so there won't be as much domino effect as you might have been thinking.
LSJ,

Great minds think alike, they say, and sometimes they do it simultaneously.

I was just about to say da same ting, John. Let me add one more thing for Steve's question. Since the players in a RR group can play their matches in any order, they can always get at least 6 out of their 7 matches done (assuming one slow player in the group), and they could still qualify for the finals, even if they don't get their 7th match completed. The slow player, holding everything up, may not get enough matches completed to qualify
:heh:heh
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,549
I think there's a small thing. IMO, there's no need to create a schedule of the order in which who plays whom. Within the group each guy can keep track of the opponents he still needs to play and check to see if one of them is available as soon as he's ready to play another match. There can still be a bog down but it will mostly come toward the end of the group matches, so there won't be as much domino effect as you might have been thinking.
Yeah, but doesn't this essentially guarantee that the slow will be even more so the slowest? Because everyone else will have by now already played everyone but the slowest players, if you simply automatically go to the next available player. In fact you might even cause one of the slower players to have to wait until the next available player is available -- even though the slow player has only played one or two matches, and the other players meanwhile are on their 4th. And what if one of the slower players takes a longer lunch break? I mean, you would expect them to be exhausted from just finishing a grueling match, right? :D:D I think you would need to make sure you had an opponent ready for the slower players, in anticipation of the slower player finishing their match finally, rather than players simply jumping on next available opponent.
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,443
Answer me 1 question, please! What happens when out of the 7 players in a group YOU suggest playing 2 games ONLY, that 3 of those 2 game matches go 3 hrs.


Of course, unlike you, I will be glad to answer your question(s).:rolleyes:

You will recall I proposed 3 games per match, not 2. I said to Jeff and John that I could see some merit to 14 total games rather than 21 for more free time. If matches go long, same thing happens as in your race to 3, just far less likely to happen cause we would be playing a specific number of games and you would be playing 3 or 4 or 5 games.


Once again, I don't think players are going to travel to Houston, from ALL over the country to, LOSE to an opponent in 2 games at the opening of the tournament!
I don't understand why the players would travel to Houston, when the MOT is gonna be in PHILLY. And I have no idea WTF you are talking about re losing 2 games at the opening of the tournament (are you drinking?):lol:lol

The reason, IMHO, the format that was used in the, 'Beast' is, most of the players probably lived 300 miles or closer to it! If a player in a group lost 4 of his 6 two game matches, and lived 1.5 hrs. away they didn't take it that badly! Just my thought!
In the Beast, we had 5 players and played matches of 4 games each. And once again I have no idea WTF you are trying to say. (are you taking drugs and drinking?):lol:lol
 
Last edited:

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,443
Yeah, but doesn't this essentially guarantee that the slow will be even more so the slowest? Because everyone else will have by now already played everyone but the slowest players, if you simply automatically go to the next available player. In fact you might even cause one of the slower players to have to wait until the next available player is available -- even though the slow player has only played one or two matches, and the other players meanwhile are on their 4th. And what if one of the slower players takes a longer lunch break? I mean, you would expect them to be exhausted from just finishing a grueling match, right? :D:D I think you would need to make sure you had an opponent ready for the slower players, in anticipation of the slower player finishing their match finally, rather than players simply jumping on next available opponent.
Steve,

Impossible to micro manage this or any other format to that degree. As I said to LSJ earlier, if a slow player fails to get enough matches completed he just pays the consequences of not qualifying for the finals. If he causes another player not to make the finals because he didn't get around to playing them, well, they know who to blame.
 

mr3cushion

Suspended
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
6,062
Of course, unlike you, I will be glad to answer your question(s).:rolleyes:

You will recall I proposed 3 games per match, not 2. I said to Jeff and John that I could see some merit to 14 total games rather than 21 for more free time. If matches go long, same thing happens as in your race to 3, just far less likely to happen cause we would be playing a specific number of games and you would be playing 3 or 4 or 5 games.




I don't understand why the players would travel to Houston, when the MOT is gonna be in PHILLY. And I have no idea WTF you are talking about re losing 2 games at the opening of the tournament (are you drinking?):lol:lol



In the Beast, we had 5 players and played matches of 4 games each. And once again I have no idea WTF you are trying to say. (are taking drugs and drinking?):lol:lol
OK, 3 games. The difference being a better format, 8 flights of 4!

FWIT; the MOST critical matches in the event are the in the qualifying rounds!! A player is always a little nervous at the start! They need to, 'find the table', and analyze their opponent! Playing each player in your flight, (4) gives the player a, minimum of 3 games to figure out their style and speed, and maybe 5 games! Instead of just playing, 3 games period, and on to the next out of the gate!
 

mr3cushion

Suspended
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
6,062
Steve,

Impossible to micro manage this or any other format to that degree. As I said to LSJ earlier, if a slow player fails to get enough matches completed he just pays the consequences of not qualifying for the finals. If he causes another player not to make the finals because he didn't get around to playing them, well, they know who to blame.
The room better furnish boxing gloves, with each set of balls!
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,443


P.S. If you have 4 flights of 8, lets say 1.5 hrs per 2 games, 7 x 1.5 = 9 hrs. per player per flight!

With 8 flights of 4, race to 3, 2.5 hrs. per match, 3 x 2.5 = 7.5 hrs per player per flight ONLY! Saving 1.5 hrs. per flight right there! Possible 9 games, (min) per player or a (max) of 15!
Why do you use 45 minutes per game in my case and something less for the games in your races to 3?:rolleyes:

At 45 mins per game in a race to 3, 3 games would be 2.25 hrs, 4 games would be 3.0 hrs, and 5 games would be 3.75 hrs. This would give you totals of either 6.75 or 9 or 11.25 hrs.

With yours and Whitey's calculation of 4 games being the avg number of games in a race to 3, there is NO savings of time.
:sorry
 

Cory in dc

Verified Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2012
Messages
1,457
Yeah, but doesn't this essentially guarantee that the slow will be even more so the slowest? Because everyone else will have by now already played everyone but the slowest players, if you simply automatically go to the next available player. In fact you might even cause one of the slower players to have to wait until the next available player is available -- even though the slow player has only played one or two matches, and the other players meanwhile are on their 4th. And what if one of the slower players takes a longer lunch break? I mean, you would expect them to be exhausted from just finishing a grueling match, right? :D:D I think you would need to make sure you had an opponent ready for the slower players, in anticipation of the slower player finishing their match finally, rather than players simply jumping on next available opponent.
One more RR point. By the end, when things are probably dragging out in some groupings, a good number of matches will be moot as it would already be determined who is advancing. The players should stay late and play for bragging rights, but it wouldn't hold up the Sunday elimination phase. Of course, some late RR matches could also be pivotal.
 
Top