The simple simple truth

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
1,311
Blah ****ing blah. RR suggested by a billiard player. You said Dennis to one of our more deliberate players, the reason the tournament went long is we didn’t play enough early matches then you jump into the RR bull chip as THE solution. I have never heard anyone complain about being knocked out too early. It’s bull. If there aren’t enough rounds played the first day, then play more rounds. Or play two rounds Thursday night.
Or the five or six or you that want a RR tournament, have one and have fun. Leave the MOT alone.
I think one solution for MOT and keep the double elimination. Is on Friday play 1 rd. of race to 3. Get done early and open up tables for free time. Then start early Saturday with one loss players doing a race to "2".

This should work for everyone because, Friday night tables will be open for plenty of match ups, which should satisfy players going out early Saturday.
Plus the players that do not go to the rd. of 16 have open tables to keep playing on.

If you stay with loser side of race to 2 then the tournament would get done on schedule and hopefully no one is exhausted! If you go to 8 man single elimination on Sunday then the matches will come off on schedule.

Yes we got it on in our match, 5 games in 1hr.45 min. I was getting it on with Frank before the tournament. Good luck with the stream, and thanks! Whitey
 

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
1,311
Darmoose, it just came to me that after the 1st rd. of 14 RR games, that then the rd. of 16 could go to a race to 2. This would add the excitement of hill/hill matches, and make for a definite winner/loser of each match. Then scores could be based on win/loss record and ties decided upon ball count.

It will only take a 1/2 game count longer, for avg. game score would be 2 games to 1/2 game. So the time factor would be based upon 2-1/2 games/player.

This is only if players want to, and time allows of course. But, what a great addition that would be, IMO. It would be the best of both worlds. Also a shorter race to 2 just as with a single elimination final rd. gives the lesser skilled player a little better chance for an upset!

One has to realize when promoting a tournament that it is the lesser skilled players that are the important ones. Without their entry and funds most tournaments would not exist, so if there is more enticement incentive's for them, all the better! The more skilled players want the lesser players in their tournament and almost always needs them, like for instance; West Coast Swing events.

Well it is getting time to watch the "big" match. Whitey
 
Last edited:

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,446
Darmoose, it just came to me that after the 1st rd. of 14 RR games, that then the rd. of 16 could go to a race to 2. This would add the excitement of hill/hill matches, and make for a definite winner/loser of each match. Then scores could be based on win/loss record and ties decided upon ball count.

It will only take a 1/2 game count longer, for avg. game score would be 2 games to 1/2 game. So the time factor would be based upon 2-1/2 games/player.

This is only if players want to, and time allows of course. But, what a great addition that would be, IMO. It would be the best of both worlds. Also a shorter race to 2 just as with a single elimination final rd. gives the lesser skilled player a little better chance for an upset!

One has to realize when promoting a tournament that it is the lesser skilled players that are the important ones. Without their entry and funds most tournaments would not exist, so if there is more enticement incentive's for them, all the better! The more skilled players want the lesser players in their tournament and almost always needs them.

Well it is getting time to watch the "big" match. Whitey
While we are waiting for the Big Match to start, let me ask you a question.

14 games will take 10.5 hours, then you will have the semi-finals with a race to 2 and at 2 hrs/ match times 3 = another 6 hours of play for half of the field (16 players. That's a total playing time of 16.5 hours before the finals on Sunday. My suggested 21 game format for the RR takes 15.75 hours total, and eliminates no one until the Sunday finals.

Why do you insist on eliminating half the field after 14 games? What is the value of doing that, instead of having all 32 players play 21 games, and then selecting the 8 finalists from there.

You know, there is the possibility that someone who gets eliminated after 14 games might qualify if they could play the whole 21 games.

:)
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,563
I think one solution for MOT and keep the double elimination. Is on Friday play 1 rd. of race to 3. Get done early and open up tables for free time. Then start early Saturday with one loss players doing a race to "2".

This should work for everyone because, Friday night tables will be open for plenty of match ups, which should satisfy players going out early Saturday.
Plus the players that do not go to the rd. of 16 have open tables to keep playing on.

If you stay with loser side of race to 2 then the tournament would get done on schedule and hopefully no one is exhausted! If you go to 8 man single elimination on Sunday then the matches will come off on schedule.

Yes we got it on in our match, 5 games in 1hr.45 min. I was getting it on with Frank before the tournament. Good luck with the stream, and thanks! Whitey
I have yet to hear any player express a concern about not wanting the first elimination round to be held the first night of the tournament -- only room owners/managers. I really don't think it is an issue for our players. Of course none of us is eager to lose and especially to go 2 and out, but we are not just coming for the tournament wins! We are coming for the competition, yes, but also the camaraderie -- probably first and foremost!

Then there is the idea of a second chance tournament, which obviously gets more people competing a second day, at least.

I still think we can push the rounds in a 3/3 double elimination further Friday and Saturday night -- neither of which have we ever done -- in order to get to something like 6 players on Sunday, and that would go a long ways toward avoiding a 3 AM final. We can start earlier on Friday of course. We can also very simply go to races to 2 on the one loss side -- or only as needed if any matches are not starting by their designated time. We can also have shot clocks available, for use only if a match is behind. All of these things without any tweaks to the rules.
 

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
1,311
While we are waiting for the Big Match to start, let me ask you a question.

14 games will take 10.5 hours, then you will have the semi-finals with a race to 2 and at 2 hrs/ match times 3 = another 6 hours of play for half of the field (16 players. That's a total playing time of 16.5 hours before the finals on Sunday. My suggested 21 game format for the RR takes 15.75 hours total, and eliminates no one until the Sunday finals.

Why do you insist on eliminating half the field after 14 games? What is the value of doing that, instead of having all 32 players play 21 games, and then selecting the 8 finalists from there.

You know, there is the possibility that someone who gets eliminated after 14 games might qualify if they could play the whole 21 games.
:)
My opinion about 21 game RR vs. 14 game RR
1. It will run late Friday night and I think pretty late Saturday night vs. being able to adj. format. at rd. of 16.
2. you play the same 7 players, vs. 7 and a different 3 players =10 players.
3. Only 1 or 2 players advance from each flight to Sunday's final depending whether you want 4 or 8 players to advance. That is a 1 out of 8, or a 2 out of 8 chance to adv. vs. a 50/50 chance to adv. to rd. 16, and a 50/50 chance to adv. to rd. of 8.
4. Tables generally will not open up for free time because all players are still in. vs. 8 tables opening up after prelims, Saturday mid afternoon.
5*. But, going to 21 games gives you more games before a player is out than going to 14 games. And I agree that going to 21 games gives you a better chance to come back and stay in the tournament vs. going to 14 games. I know you like these positive points about 21 games.

As I stated if a player's goal is to mainly to play in the tournament then 21 game RR is fine. If the goal is play in the tournament and still have free time then the 14 game RR would suit them. It is pretty simple!

This is my respectful opinion! Whitey
 
Last edited:

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
1,311
I have yet to hear any player express a concern about not wanting the first elimination round to be held the first night of the tournament -- only room owners/managers. I really don't think it is an issue for our players. Of course none of us is eager to lose and especially to go 2 and out, but we are not just coming for the tournament wins! We are coming for the competition, yes, but also the camaraderie -- probably first and foremost!

Then there is the idea of a second chance tournament, which obviously gets more people competing a second day, at least.

I still think we can push the rounds in a 3/3 double elimination further Friday and Saturday night -- neither of which have we ever done -- in order to get to something like 6 players on Sunday, and that would go a long ways toward avoiding a 3 AM final. We can start earlier on Friday of course. We can also very simply go to races to 2 on the one loss side -- or only as needed if any matches are not starting by their designated time. We can also have shot clocks available, for use only if a match is behind. All of these things without any tweaks to the rules.
The host pool hall would not want players going out the first day, but players would be ok with it, now that's a dilemma! Obviously the decision is not to have the players to go out the first day, as it was with the last Cal. MOT, and I assume the previous MOT's.

The Cal. MOT I would of been ok with going out the first day if it was a 3/3 format. And ok going longer into Friday night but not to the point of exhaustion. A final starting time of 9-10 pm. seems reasonable. And if it is not down to 16 on the one loss side, just play the remaining matches the next morning.

mr3cushion posted up a site that will bracket a tournament in respect to format, # of players, and time allotted. Sounds pretty good, and if he says it works, there is a very good chance there is something to it.

Miller and Crabbcatjohn that started this thread have stated; "that every rd. needs to be 3/2 to be successful". They claim to have worked the #'s, and the proof is in the pudding.

Going to a race of 2 on the 1 loss side rd. of 16 would work for me just dandy, and through out the rest of the tournament, for what it is worth. I'd rather see this than run these elderly players into exhaustion by both playing late Friday and also again Saturday night with an endless time sucking up 3/3 format. Possibly players need to discuss this.

I like your once idea of a 8 man single elimination final. I like, as you stated it; "that a lesser skilled player just has a slight more chance for an upset". Plus, you'll agree, it keeps Sunday on track. Plus you have mentioned that the final 8 are in the money! It kind of compliments each other!

The second chance tourney, I think that its ok, or ok for players to use their free time to match up. Probably most players would prefer the tourney, for they will still have time to match up!

As far as players leaving the tournament after being out, that only pertains to players that can drive to the tournament. So players that flew will stay, and the host pool hall should be aware of this so there is no a concern about players not staying, and being out the first day.

That's my opinion as it pertains to MOT 3/3 format. And there just might be a possibility that with players going out the first day, it then will keep the tournament on schedule with a 3/3 format, for it has not been tried yet. I think this is what your essentially saying! thanks, Whitey
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,563
The host pool hall would not want players going out the first day, but players would be ok with it, now that's a dilemma! Obviously the decision is not to have the players to go out the first day, as it was with the last Cal. MOT, and I assume the previous MOT's.

T....
I would think if the room owners better understood that our MOT is different from their usual tournaments, in that we are more of a captive audience for the duration, rather than the majority of drive-ins they are accustomed to in their regular events, they would find it more agreeable. We will need to ask, because if we are going with a double elimination format, it is necessary to give a fighting chance to a reasonable time finish on Sunday.
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,563
At some point I will post two polls -- one basically pitting the Double Elimination format vs the Round Robin for our member tournament.

The other being a multiple choice concerning what time management measures are preferred.


I know this thread (and others like it) have gone on way too long for many of you, but I think it is honestly a good thing to be thinking about -- or better yet, trying out -- to see what if anything actually works and how palatable it is :D

So far I know that races to 2 on the one-loss side definitely help and has been tried
The Grady rule has been used (mostly in CA)
Shot clocks have been in place at all (that I know of) of Accustats matches for years.
I've seen shortened games (i.e. go to six balls vs 8) used locally here
 

crabbcatjohn

Verified Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2014
Messages
2,686
I would think if the room owners better understood that our MOT is different from their usual tournaments, in that we are more of a captive audience for the duration, rather than the majority of drive-ins they are accustomed to in their regular events, they would find it more agreeable. We will need to ask, because if we are going with a double elimination format, it is necessary to give a fighting chance to a reasonable time finish on Sunday.
You would think they wouldn't mind since they get to charge table time for the subsequent matching up. I didnt think room owners could determine how we run our tournaments except for business hours.. If they can we are in the wrong room.
 

Island Drive

Verified Member
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
3,703
Darmoose, it just came to me that after the 1st rd. of 14 RR games, that then the rd. of 16 could go to a race to 2. This would add the excitement of hill/hill matches, and make for a definite winner/loser of each match. Then scores could be based on win/loss record and ties decided upon ball count.

It will only take a 1/2 game count longer, for avg. game score would be 2 games to 1/2 game. So the time factor would be based upon 2-1/2 games/player.

This is only if players want to, and time allows of course. But, what a great addition that would be, IMO. It would be the best of both worlds. Also a shorter race to 2 just as with a single elimination final rd. gives the lesser skilled player a little better chance for an upset!

One has to realize when promoting a tournament that it is the lesser skilled players that are the important ones. Without their entry and funds most tournaments would not exist, so if there is more enticement incentive's for them, all the better! The more skilled players want the lesser players in their tournament and almost always needs them, like for instance; West Coast Swing events.

Well it is getting time to watch the "big" match. Whitey
Your above perspective, is the same type of mindset that John Lewis used for payout structure....pay down 40%. It worked well, seeing the happy faces at the control desk of teams and individuals, picking up their checks, knowing they should of done better.

I think what we have going on, should pay down 30%, not 25%.

We're dealing with many true gamblers/rounders, these are NOT league players that come to drink/party and hit balls once a week.

The payout amounts should be Greater.

Tho....when it comes to payouts, it should not be too Top Heavy.

I would call up a vote....at the players meeting with different payout structures. Give em 3 or 4 choices....let em pick.
 

youngstownkid

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
1,529
The simple simple truth

At some point I will post two polls -- one basically pitting the Double Elimination format vs the Round Robin for our member tournament.

The other being a multiple choice concerning what time management measures are preferred.


I know this thread (and others like it) have gone on way too long for many of you, but I think it is honestly a good thing to be thinking about -- or better yet, trying out -- to see what if anything actually works and how palatable it is :D

So far I know that races to 2 on the one-loss side definitely help and has been tried
The Grady rule has been used (mostly in CA)
Shot clocks have been in place at all (that I know of) of Accustats matches for years.
I've seen shortened games (i.e. go to six balls vs 8) used locally here


I’d like to see a third option added to your poll, for a Chip tourney, which wouldn’t need any time management assistance...because it (long games) become a non issue.
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,563
I’d like to see a third option added to your poll, for a Chip tourney, which wouldn’t need any time management assistance...because it (long games) become a non issue.
So lets see if I understand this:

Each player starts with a certain number of chips. Draw determines initial player assignment -- based on number of tables, many or all players will be going at the same time. I would assume one game of One Pocket for each "match". If you win you keep your chips and stay on that table, if you lose you turn in one chip to the TD, and move to the next numbered table from the last one you were on. If you were on the highest number table, then the next table would be table 1.

Seems like from what I read, the incoming loser gets the break each game.

When you run out of chips you are eliminated.

You can continue until the end this way, or more likely, redraw (or seed) when you get down to 8 players and finish with a single elimination bracket like we are all used to on Sunday (three rounds to complete).

I have no experience seeing or playing in one of these, so I am starting from scratch understanding it, therefore I don't know the plus or minuses. One plus for a member tournament is every game would be with a different player to start with -- and for many, that is how their tournament would begin and end. One game with each fellow member until you are out of chips, right?

It would mean a busy TD with constant turnovers of players at the tables because each "match" is just one game.

I wonder if having the incoming loser break would change the host winner's playing style, since they have to consistently defend against the break. Has anyone tried this for One Pocket especially?? It seems a little odd to have basically a player that keeps winning stay on the same table for the duration, but I also don't how much that matters. Obviously the incoming player breaking would make it harder to hold a table very long...

As far as time issues, if a slower player keeps winning, I would still think that clogs up their table, which would ultimately cause players to wait on one side and/or the other, right? Because players who finished their matches first on the tables to either side would need to wait, which would ultimately effect tables beyond those, also -- kind of the way traffic clogs up sometimes.
 
Last edited:

jlcomp45

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2017
Messages
276
the slow player would in theory have fewer chips even if he kept winning & thus have a lower "seed" if he did make it to the finals was the thought Mark originally put in there. slower players would only bog down their 1 table & current opponent, not the rest of the tournament. it's really a rather cool idea that "fixes" a lot of the major issues without compromising the game.
 

LSJohn

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
7,626
slower players would only bog down their 1 table & current opponent,
I'm not sure I have the details right, but if Steve is correct that when you lose you move to a designated table for your next match, the slow player not finished on that table yet would hold you up and might put you behind schedule... and subsequently, everyone else.

Looks to me that in dealing with slow players, there's no free lunch. :)
 

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
1,311
Jlcomp45;
following up on your statement; "the slow player would in theory have fewer chips even if he kept winning & thus have a lower "seed" if he did make it to the finals was the thought Mark originally put in there. slower players would only bog down their 1 table & current opponent, not the rest of the tournament. it's really a rather cool idea that "fixes" a lot of the major issues without compromising the game".

So Mark actually imposed a safe guard against slow play. I am assuming this, that if a match went over the allotted time then even with a player winning the match they was still a penalty of what; loss of a chip if they make it to the finals, or loss of chip for each match that went over the time allotted, if they make it to the finals. "OR" do they lose a chip right then and there when a match goes over allotted time?

With a 32 player field with a 3/3 format, just how many chips does a player get? What determines a rd.?

LS John, I do not believe a slow match holds up the entire field as Jlcomp45 has stated; "it only holds up that table, and the one player waiting for that table". Whitey
 

youngstownkid

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
1,529
The simple simple truth

So lets see if I understand this:

Each player starts with a certain number of chips. Draw determines initial player assignment -- based on number of tables, many or all players will be going at the same time. I would assume one game of One Pocket for each "match". If you win you keep your chips and stay on that table, if you lose you turn in one chip to the TD, and move to the next numbered table from the last one you were on. If you were on the highest number table, then the next table would be table 1.

Seems like from what I read, the incoming loser gets the break each game.

When you run out of chips you are eliminated.

You can continue until the end this way, or more likely, redraw (or seed) when you get down to 8 players and finish with a single elimination bracket like we are all used to on Sunday (three rounds to complete).

I have no experience seeing or playing in one of these, so I am starting from scratch understanding it, therefore I don't know the plus or minuses. One plus for a member tournament is every game would be with a different player to start with -- and for many, that is how their tournament would begin and end. One game with each fellow member until you are out of chips, right?

It would mean a busy TD with constant turnovers of players at the tables because each "match" is just one game.

I wonder if having the incoming loser break would change the host winner's playing style, since they have to consistently defend against the break. Has anyone tried this for One Pocket especially?? It seems a little odd to have basically a player that keeps winning stay on the same table for the duration, but I also don't how much that matters. Obviously the incoming player breaking would make it harder to hold a table very long...

As far as time issues, if a slower player keeps winning, I would still think that clogs up their table, which would ultimately cause players to wait on one side and/or the other, right? Because players who finished their matches first on the tables to either side would need to wait, which would ultimately effect tables beyond those, also -- kind of the way traffic clogs up sometimes.

Yes, start out with a random draw, of course.
If you lose, you go back on the waiting list not on to the next table. Unlimited chips for two days. Finalists on day 3 get limited number of chips/buybacks, like DCC.
 

youngstownkid

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
1,529
The simple simple truth

I'm not sure I have the details right, but if Steve is correct...



Looks to me that in dealing with slow players, there's no free lunch. :)

You don’t, and he wasn’t. However, If you read my explanation in the link and show up to the next MOT, I’ll give you a free lunch, LOL
 

youngstownkid

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
1,529
The simple simple truth

Jlcomp45;
following up on your statement; "the slow player would in theory have fewer chips even if he kept winning & thus have a lower "seed" if he did make it to the finals was the thought Mark originally put in there. slower players would only bog down their 1 table & current opponent, not the rest of the tournament. it's really a rather cool idea that "fixes" a lot of the major issues without compromising the game".

So Mark actually imposed a safe guard against slow play. I am assuming this, that if a match went over the allotted time then even with a player winning the match they was still a penalty of what; loss of a chip if they make it to the finals, or loss of chip for each match that went over the time allotted, if they make it to the finals. "OR" do they lose a chip right then and there when a match goes over allotted time?

With a 32 player field with a 3/3 format, just how many chips does a player get? What determines a rd.?

LS John, I do not believe a slow match holds up the entire field as Jlcomp45 has stated; "it only holds up that table, and the one player waiting for that table". Whitey


I don’t think we need to have alotted times, some of our members don’t want to change this game, and the beauty of this format minimizes the negative effect an occasional slow game has. Yes, a slow game will tie up one table but the other tables will still allow people to move thru the waiting list just fine. I actually think this format could speed up play, as someone losing badly may do well to concede to save time and get back on the waiting list.
 
Top