The simple simple truth

youngstownkid

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
1,540
The simple simple truth

I read it correctly though right? Does that mean I get to buy a cue now? :D

I need to finish one before ANYbody can buy one! Lol. I suffer from free time deficiency. I’ll PM you on FB later...
 

Cory in dc

Verified Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2012
Messages
1,462

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,663
Please just read my explanation in this link. Most of Steve’s reply was based off an incorrect assumption that the losers moved to the next table.




https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?share_fid=31665&share_tid=14910&url=http://www.onepocket.org/forum/showthread.php?t=14910&share_type=t
This is your post from the link:
Easy. Efficient. Flexible. Exciting.

The best way to run a large one pocket tournament, is to use a Chip format because they are (1) so very easy to run, (2) the most efficient in terms of maximizing table time, and most of all, extremely flexible. All that is needed is to create a waiting list and track wins and losses. Every table will be used for two straight days. Finally, it doesn’t matter how many players you have! No more limitations and worries about dropouts or no shows. You can have a hard schedule with no worry about going over.

This proposal is for a 3 day modified chip tourney, but can work just as well for a two day event.

Day 1 and Day 2 are about getting everyone a lot of play, so everyone gets an unlimited numbers of (virtual) chips, and the winners can stay on a table twice (that’s 3 consecutive games in a row max), after that, the next two players on the waiting list will go to that table. Otherwise, as per the norm, losers (always) go on a waiting list (and can grab a bite/drink/smoke/bathroom stall/etc...). TD would keep track of the W-L record as apart of the waiting list. At the end of Day 1, at a designated time, play would be suspended until the following day, player names and the tables they are on would be jotted down so that Day 2 could pick up exactly where everyone left off. Just finish out the games once the call is made by the TD.

The top 8 qualify for the Day 3 Finals, all finalists are given 3 chips (automatic buybacks) and are initially seeded based on W-L record from previous days. Each subsequent round will be random draw.

When one or more players is eliminated, random draws (pills or cards) will determine the matchups for the next round. This should be familiar as this is how the end of the Derby City Classic events finish.

The folks who don’t qualify on the final day can choose to enter a sudden death consolation DCC style tourney but with no buyback, entry fee and payouts TBD.
From reading online, it sounds like there are different ways to advance the games in a "chip" tournament. The one I found was the way I described it -- loser advancing to the next table. The one you are describing is they go to a "waiting list". I'm not sure what difference that makes in practical terms. How is it then determined what table and opponent they go to next? You mention the TD keeping track of won-loss records in connection with the waiting list -- so is everyone on the waiting list?? I am confused about your method, sorry.

Also, am I not right that if we wanted to, we could simply go to an 8 player single elimination for the final day, instead of "what the DCC does" (which is often pretty wild, with late round byes, and serious uncertainty as to how many rounds are left to finish depending on byes, buy backs and who wins).
 

youngstownkid

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
1,540
The simple simple truth

This is your post from the link:





From reading online, it sounds like there are different ways to advance the games in a "chip" tournament. The one I found was the way I described it -- loser advancing to the next table. The one you are describing is they go to a "waiting list". I'm not sure what difference that makes in practical terms. How is it then determined what table and opponent they go to next? You mention the TD keeping track of won-loss records in connection with the waiting list -- so is everyone on the waiting list?? I am confused about your method, sorry.



Also, am I not right that if we wanted to, we could simply go to an 8 player single elimination for the final day, instead of "what the DCC does" (which is often pretty wild, with late round byes, and serious uncertainty as to how many rounds are left to finish depending on byes, buy backs and who wins).

The difference would be faster movement, no delays. When a game ends the next person on the waiting list goes to the table the loser just came from. Everyone will be on the waiting list several times. I can post an excel screenshot of an example.
We could do whatever, sure. I described what I’ve normally seen used to end a chip tourney. A single elimination would be a more conventional way to end it.
 

youngstownkid

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
1,540
The simple simple truth

I finally read that post. That would work pretty well and easily.



How do you break a tie between 8/9? Playoff? Tracking head-to-head results? Other?


Very good question. My original plan would have been to let top 8 and all ties advance and shorten the chips from 3 to 2. If we do a single elimination final day then we would need a playoff. Playoff could be one game single elimination bracket if there are more than two tied. If just two, and they agree to a longer race, then I wouldn’t be opposed to it. After all, it’s their sleep they’re agreeing to deprive themselves of, lol. Reviewing this waiting list, the entire tourney is tracked, so if we wanted to, we could attempt to do head to head tiebreakers if those players got a chance to play each other in the two day period, but that wouldn't be guaranteed to have happened.
 
Last edited:

youngstownkid

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
1,540
Here is an example of a 17 player chip tourney using 4 tables. In this format, the winner is allowed to stay on the table twice, for a max of 3 games, then will go to the waiting list to allow the next two players to take that table. The limit is in the interest of evening out the play some between the better players and the rest. Allowing winners to take 2x helps to separate the pack in determining the final list of players who make it to day 3. After a match ends, I crossed off the persons name, and wrote the name(s) of the players who need added back to the bottom of the list. In doing that I update their W-L count, so that the current totals are at the bottom.

(The Explanation column is just for your benefit right now, we wouldn't need that nor want to create more work when running the tourney.)

Chip-4T-Incomplete.png
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,663
Here is an example of a 17 player chip tourney using 4 tables. In this format, the winner is allowed to stay on the table twice, for a max of 3 games, then will go to the waiting list to allow the next two players to take that table. The limit is in the interest of evening out the play some between the better players and the rest. Allowing winners to take 2x helps to separate the pack in determining the final list of players who make it to day 3. After a match ends, I crossed off the persons name, and wrote the name(s) of the players who need added back to the bottom of the list. In doing that I update their W-L count, so that the current totals are at the bottom.

(The Explanation column is just for your benefit right now, we wouldn't need that nor want to create more work when running the tourney.)

View attachment 23684
Thank you! I have better understand the waiting list now -- it is ONE ever-growing master list, with players who lose always being added to the bottom, as well as the players that won for the third time on one table.

When those bumped winners get to a new table, they break as the incoming player presumably?

In your earlier post (that I quoted), you mention "unlimited chips" for those first two days, so players just keep cycling through, win or lose. So players would have played possibly quite a few different numbers of games -- possibly winning many or losing many, because their games were fast games (maybe they used the Corey Deuel 8-ball break for example). But you are still advancing based on what -- most wins first, least losses second, balls scored 3rd, balls given up 4th??? With that many tie breakers I cannot see too many ties, but I don't know, so I am asking you how it is determined which players advance?

It does sound like a fun two days -- a One Pocket wild jamboree with everyone playing everyone!! I would think some limited number of chips would be in order... or instead just a specific limit on the number of games per person total for those two days -- but I have no experience with this, and what works and what doesn't.

It sounds like at whatever predetermined time of night, both Friday and Saturday, you simply shut off the next table assignments, either for the next day (Saturday AM) or to tally the final 8 for Sunday's finals. So even if some players have played less games, they are done at the same time (which would be reflected in their won-loss record). That would presumably motivate players to play faster! But it might discourage some more deliberate players from entering because in a free-for-all like this, it sure seems to me that the "faster & better" player combination would hold a big advantage. Even more so if they skipped lunch and dinner breaks and just pounded the tables to rack up their win count. You really might see the Corey Deuel break!

Again, I am just trying to imagine how it would work because I am unfamiliar.

Have you seen it tried with a more deliberate game like One Pocket, or just 9-ball?
 

youngstownkid

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
1,540
The simple simple truth

Thank you! I have better understand the waiting list now -- it is ONE ever-growing master list, with players who lose always being added to the bottom, as well as the players that won for the third time on one table.

When those bumped winners get to a new table, they break as the incoming player presumably?

In your earlier post (that I quoted), you mention "unlimited chips" for those first two days, so players just keep cycling through, win or lose. So players would have played possibly quite a few different numbers of games -- possibly winning many or losing many, because their games were fast games (maybe they used the Corey Deuel 8-ball break for example). But you are still advancing based on what -- most wins first, least losses second, balls scored 3rd, balls given up 4th??? With that many tie breakers I cannot see too many ties, but I don't know, so I am asking you how it is determined which players advance?

It does sound like a fun two days -- a One Pocket wild jamboree with everyone playing everyone!! I would think some limited number of chips would be in order... or instead just a specific limit on the number of games per person total for those two days -- but I have no experience with this, and what works and what doesn't.

It sounds like at whatever predetermined time of night, both Friday and Saturday, you simply shut off the next table assignments, either for the next day (Saturday AM) or to tally the final 8 for Sunday's finals. So even if some players have played less games, they are done at the same time (which would be reflected in their won-loss record). That would presumably motivate players to play faster! But it might discourage some more deliberate players from entering because in a free-for-all like this, it sure seems to me that the "faster & better" player combination would hold a big advantage. Even more so if they skipped lunch and dinner breaks and just pounded the tables to rack up their win count. You really might see the Corey Deuel break!

Again, I am just trying to imagine how it would work because I am unfamiliar.

Have you seen it tried with a more deliberate game like One Pocket, or just 9-ball?

The bumped winners go on the waiting list and will break when they get called to a table, just like the other incoming players would.
Ive played in 8b and 9b Chip tourneys only. Incoming player breaks yes. W-L record used to determine top 8. No need to track ball count, too much work. I think unlimited chips would be the best way to go for two straight days, but we could do a “cut” early evening maybe. That’s a lot of play that you get for your money! Maybe a 10am-12pm day 1, and a 10am-11pm day 2, with a cut at 6pm, taking the top 1/2 of the field. This would allow people on the bubble more opportunities.
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,663
The bumped winners go on the waiting list and will break when they get called to a table, just like the other incoming players would.
Ive played in 8b and 9b Chip tourneys only. Incoming player breaks yes. W-L record used to determine top 8. No need to track ball count, too much work. I think unlimited chips would be the best way to go for two straight days, but we could do a “cut” early evening maybe. That’s a lot of play that you get for your money! Maybe a 10am-12pm day 1, and a 10am-11pm day 2, with a cut at 6pm, taking the top 1/2 of the field. This would allow people on the bubble more opportunities.
I think you would need a reasonable game limit too -- total games per player for those two days -- something based on a reasonable allowance per game (such as 30-45 minutes) and the planned reasonable duration of the day (deducting for lunch breaks lol) x the tables available, divided by the number of players you have. That way, unless you are simply too slow in too many matches, everyone should play in an equal number of games. That gives you more of an equal opportunity to advance based on your play, won-loss. But you might need ball counts as a back-up to break ties. Or you would probably need tie-breakers to be played either late Saturday or early Sunday (I'd say late Saturday -- the main goals after all are no more late Sundays, and lots of competition and comraderie!!)

And the main thing is it would not open the door to the Corey Deuel break (or other dramatic changes of approaches to the game) just to rack up as many wins as possible. I suppose you could still get a couple late night games like that if you had a player on the cusp of the final 8 but who needs to squeeze their final games in before your cut-off time. But I think if you make it an unlimited and ultimately variable number of games, you are putting in place a system that would encourage that kind of thing.
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,663
If everyone plays (or at least has a very reasonable opportunity to play) the same number of games/matches, then it makes it much easier to fairly determine which 8 players advance to the final 8 playoff.

If it is a random number of games, but you go with wins as the first determinant, then you would be systemically building in a push to rush to wins at all costs.

If you go with won/loss percentage as the first determinant instead, you could definitely get players stalling who have a nice winning percentage -- why play more games??

It seems to me you need to have a number of games played that everyone is going to, to protect integrity. But again, I could be missing something (or several things lol).
 

youngstownkid

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
1,540
The simple simple truth

I think you would need a reasonable game limit too -- total games per player for those two days -- something based on a reasonable allowance per game (such as 30-45 minutes) and the planned reasonable duration of the day (deducting for lunch breaks lol) x the tables available, divided by the number of players you have. That way, unless you are simply too slow in too many matches, everyone should play in an equal number of games. That gives you more of an equal opportunity to advance based on your play, won-loss. But you might need ball counts as a back-up to break ties. Or you would probably need tie-breakers to be played either late Saturday or early Sunday (I'd say late Saturday -- the main goals after all are no more late Sundays, and lots of competition and comraderie!!)

And the main thing is it would not open the door to the Corey Deuel break (or other dramatic changes of approaches to the game) just to rack up as many wins as possible. I suppose you could still get a couple late night games like that if you had a player on the cusp of the final 8 but who needs to squeeze their final games in before your cut-off time. But I think if you make it an unlimited and ultimately variable number of games, you are putting in place a system that would encourage that kind of thing.

No need to worry about lunch breaks. Everyone goes on the waiting list at some point, so they can use that break accordingly. If someone isn’t around when they get called back up, no problem, we just won’t cross their name off and whenever they get back, they can get put on the next available table. I think you’re overthinking the fast play problem. If someone is on the bubble they just need to win three games, not necessarily win them fast. If they’re a little below the bubble and running out of time then they can handle that however they want, and if they want to spread em...then go for it. It’s not really a problem.
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,663
One more question -- it seems to me that you would have to enforce somehow, getting your name back into the list. Otherwise you could have smart players paying attention to who is about to be available, so they could avoid tougher competition, or to conversely land on an easier table (if they are trying to rack up wins). Or, per your post below, they could take a convenient dinner break, lol.

How do you manage that kind of gamesmanship?
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,663
I mean don't get me wrong, a chip tourney sounds like a blast!! But it also sounds like something that is geared toward fun, and not necessarily geared toward the mildly degenerate seasoned One Pocket gamblers that do in fact probably make up a good chunk of our friendly group :D:D:D

I love the idea, but I do think we should think ahead to what method would be fairest and least prone to changing our game, and/or subtle "maneuvering" by smart players -- and I am not talking about great shot moves!!
 

youngstownkid

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
1,540
The simple simple truth

If everyone plays (or at least has a very reasonable opportunity to play) the same number of games/matches, then it makes it much easier to fairly determine which 8 players advance to the final 8 playoff.



If it is a random number of games, but you go with wins as the first determinant, then you would be systemically building in a push to rush to wins at all costs.



If you go with won/loss percentage as the first determinant instead, you could definitely get players stalling who have a nice winning percentage -- why play more games??



It seems to me you need to have a number of games played that everyone is going to, to protect integrity. But again, I could be missing something (or several things lol).

I just don’t see the problem you’re seeing. You don’t like the idea of someone playing fast? Winning is what matters, and we’re talking 2 days, so there’s plenty of chances. Let’s keep it simple until s problem really presents itself. I just don’t see a way of beating the system.
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
8,663
I'm kind of feeling like this chip tourney idea is starting to take me right back to the RR idea, but single games in the RR. That avoids all those little potential pitfalls, and only leaves us back with the initial issue -- slow players lol :D:D:D
 
Top