The simple simple truth

jtompilot

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
3,876
Jeff; They don't have to play a lot faster, just as long as the group as a, 'Whole' keeps close to pace with the time schedule! faster matches than 2.5 hrs. will most likely offset the longer ones!

The main thing is, "You have continuous play on ALL 8 tables!"
Ok, let me ask this. Let’s just suppose the two slowest players are in the same group of 8 and everyone plays every player two games. It will take at least two days just for this one group. Then these two guys advance and you need two more days just to handle it. Finals on the fifth day:(

Doesn’t sound like a fix to me
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,563
YOUR words, NOT mine! RR: 4 flights of 8, with 5 matches per player. Each match is 2 games (not a race to 2, just 2 games

3c,

Have you lost your mind? Or are you on drugs?

F**K, now I have to assume you can't even read. Why don't you tell us where you found those words of mine.:lol:lol
 

mr3cushion

Suspended
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
6,062
3c,

Have you lost your mind? Or are you on drugs?

F**K, now I have to assume you can't even read. Why don't you tell us where you found those words of mine.:lol:lol
A little of both!

Your correct, it was Cory!

I only have one eye now, so it is difficult to read at times.

But, YOU still don't have a clue about the efficiency of RR format!
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,563
Ok, let me ask this. Let’s just suppose the two slowest players are in the same group of 8 and everyone plays every player two games. It will take at least two days just for this one group. Then these two guys advance and you need two more days just to handle it. Finals on the fifth day:(

Doesn’t sound like a fix to me
JTP,

That would be the absolute perfect situation. You are assuming these two would win the group or qualify out of the group. But my suggestion was if the group did not finish its RR games by the end of Saturday they would not send a qualifier t the finals.

Perhaps it would be justice for the group to see that the RR games were not completed, and so these two would go nowhere.
 

Jeff sparks

Verified Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
2,930
Jeff,

What you say is certainly possible. Each group will want to complete their rounds in order to place a qualifier into the elimination rounds on Sunday. Each group can play as long as they need to on Friday and Saturday to accomplish this. Each group will provide some friendly pressure on any slow players in their group if things get too bad, don't you think.

And, if it should happen that a group can't complete their rounds (highly unlikely I think), it will be clear who caused it, which can't be a bad thing, can it?

I also think that because the RR games do not eliminate anyone who loses a game, there is less probably that players will slow down s much as they did in Houston, I could be wrong?
The main reason I really like the RR format is the fact that it gives all entrants more play time and for the less skilled players who come from all corners of the USA, a chance to meet and play a larger number of different players...

Moose,
I believe you have a good grasp on how the RR format will play out, everything, including your explanation of the format is exactly how I understand it...

Everyone already knows who the deliberate players are, they are self evident, and it’s possible I suppose that they would feel more pressure to complete their match when involved in a group, but from what I’ve seen in the past, maybe not...

I truly wish there was a way to avoid this issue of slow deliberate play, but I understand thats how they learned to play and at this point, adding another day to the tournament seems to be the best solution for solving the time issue...
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,563
A little of both!

Your correct, it was Cory!

I only have one eye now, so it is difficult to read at times.

But, YOU still don't have a clue about the efficiency of RR format!
Bill,

Sorry bout your eye. I fully understand the efficiency of a RR format in a limited time frame. I am an advocate of RR.

Our differences are simply you are following up after the RR with a more complicated elimination tournament that starts on Saturday (2nd day). I am suggesting the RR goes on for two days (21 games per player) and the elimination rounds be only on Sunday(last day) and involve only 4 or 8 players.:)
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,563
The main reason I really like the RR format is the fact that it gives all entrants more play time and for the less skilled players who come from all corners of the USA, a chance to meet and play a larger number of different players...

Moose,
I believe you have a good grasp on how the RR format will play out, everything, including your explanation of the format is exactly how I understand it...

Everyone already knows who the deliberate players are, they are self evident, and it’s possible I suppose that they would feel more pressure to complete their match when involved in a group, but from what I’ve seen in the past, maybe not...

I truly wish there was a way to avoid this issue of slow deliberate play, but I understand thats how they learned to play and at this point, adding another day to the tournament seems to be the best solution for solving the time issue...
Jeff,

Thanks for the kind comments. I like the RR very much, especially the part about giving every player 21 games garanteed, and then a chance to move on to the finals on Sunday.

The simpler we can design the format the easier and better it will run. The part about the group managing it's own time, and being able to play as long as it takes on Fri and Sat, I think works well.

I am not the fastest player by any means, but I know if the group completing its RR games hinged on me, I would feel alot of pressure to speed up and not be the "goat":eek:
 

mr3cushion

Suspended
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
6,062
No worries, I'm dealing with it.

My proposal figures the TOTAL playing time on 8 tables for 3 days is 25-30 hrs.
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,563
No worries, I'm dealing with it.

My proposal figures the TOTAL playing time on 8 tables for 3 days is 25-30 hrs.
Just curious. How can you estimate the time, when in all the posts I have read I could not find a reference to how many games a match would consist of?
 

lll

Verified Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
14,788
fwiw
i played in a 16 man 1p tourney peter had a while back
had a round robin and then semis and finals if i remember correctly
one day event
for me i liked the idea i got to play 3 matches instead of 2
so for someone like me who doesnt expect to get to the finals
getting a chance to play against more players would be a plus
 

mr3cushion

Suspended
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
6,062
Just curious. How can you estimate the time, when in all the posts I have read I could not find a reference to how many games a match would consist of?
Same as last week, ALL matches for the entire tournament are races to 3. That's the reason why I allowed 2.5 hrs. per match. Pre-lims, semi-finals & finals.
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,563
Same as last week, ALL matches for the entire tournament are races to 3. That's the reason why I allowed 2.5 hrs. per match. Pre-lims, semi-finals & finals.
Ahhh. I see, wish that had been made clearer from the get go.

So, in your senario players are garaunted a min of 9 games in the RR amd can only get a max of 15 should all their matches go hill/hill.

So, why wouldn't you favor what I am talking about where players are garaunted 21 games no matter what?

If you are allowing 2.5 hrs and it could go 5 games, it looks like about 30 mins per game being budgeted and 15 hrs to complete. If we play my version and allow 30 minutes per game it would come out to 10.5 hrs. Of course we could both be off should the matches go a bit differently than planned, no?
 

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
1,347
Wow you guys have really been working over the RR. I am more than a little surprised.
mr3cushion's knowledge of RR play can not be denied, for that has been and always been the format for 3 cushion billiards play.
I am going to stick to the MOT which has 16 tables & 32 players.
He always suggests 8 groups of 4 players. There is a good reason, it goes quicker than 4 groups of 8.

Example; 8 groups of 4 players -playing on 2 tables - 2 games against ea. player is a total of 6 games and 3 rds. Ea. rd. @ 45 min./game = 1-1/2 hr. x 3 rds. = 4-1/2 hrs.
4 groups of 8 is 7 rds. x 1-1/2 per rd. = 10-1/2 hrs. 14 games total against 7 players playing on 4 tables.
--------------
So we go to 4 games played against each player in the 8 groups of 4 then it doubles to 9 hrs. of play, with 12 games played against 3 players. Still quicker.
3 games played against ea. player = 9 games in 6 hrs. 45 min.
5 games ea.=15 games/player = 11 hrs. 15 min.
--------------
either way we are now down to 16 players left. I hope I am correct mr3cushion on your position of 8 groups of 4 players, and this clears up some confusion! It did for me, because until I sat down and did the math I thought that there was no difference in how groups were formed.
--------------
If you go to races of 3 then of course many matches will not go to the full count! I have not worked on this scenario, but one would think it would be less time than 5 games ea.
---------------
the times calculated as best case scenarios, but if you have safe guards in place for slow matches then it might stay reasonably on time. Players do need breaks of course. Whitey
 

mr3cushion

Suspended
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
6,062
Ahhh. I see, wish that had been made clearer from the get go.

So, in your senario players are garaunted a min of 9 games in the RR amd can only get a max of 15 should all their matches go hill/hill.

So, why wouldn't you favor what I am talking about where players are garaunted 21 games no matter what?

If you are allowing 2.5 hrs and it could go 5 games, it looks like about 30 mins per game being budgeted and 15 hrs to complete. If we play my version and allow 30 minutes per game it would come out to 10.5 hrs. Of course we could both be off should the matches go a bit differently than planned, no?
I did mention races to 3 in, "MY" original thread, Solving the time issue! And in the solutions thread!

If a player WINS or comes in 2nd in the event, they will play, 7 or 9 matches! Depending whether the Finals have 4 players or 8, single-elimination!
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,563
Wow you guys have really been working over the RR. I am more than a little surprised.
mr3cushion's knowledge of RR play can not be denied, for that has been and always been the format for 3 cushion billiards play.
I am going to stick to the MOT which has 16 tables & 32 players.
He always suggests 8 groups of 4 players. There is a good reason, it goes quicker than 4 groups of 8.

Example; 8 groups of 4 players -playing on 2 tables - 2 games against ea. player is a total of 6 games and 3 rds. Ea. rd. @ 45 min./game = 1-1/2 hr. x 3 rds. = 4-1/2 hrs.
4 groups of 8 is 7 rds. x 1-1/2 per rd. = 10-1/2 hrs. 14 games total against 7 players playing on 4 tables.
--------------
So we go to 4 games played against each player in the 8 groups of 4 then it doubles to 9 hrs. of play, with 12 games played against 3 players. Still quicker.
3 games played against ea. player = 9 games in 6 hrs. 45 min.
5 games ea.=15 games/player = 11 hrs. 15 min.
--------------
either way we are now down to 16 players left. I hope I am correct mr3cushion on your position of 8 groups of 4 players, and this clears up some confusion! It did for me, because until I sat down and did the math I thought that there was no difference in how groups were formed.
--------------
If you go to races of 3 then of course many matches will not go to the full count! I have not worked on this scenario, but one would think it would be less time than 5 games ea.
---------------
the times calculated as best case scenarios, but if you have safe guards in place for slow matches then it might stay reasonably on time. Players do need breaks of course. Whitey
Whitey,

Your first inclination was indeed, correct. On a time spent/ game played basis (or what is commonly known as "per capita" basis) it makes no difference whether you play 4 groups of 8, or 8 groups of 4. In each and every scenario you outlined above the game time came out to be 45 mins, so obviously as you add more games it takes more time proportionately. Mathematically, so long as you are multiplying numbers, it ,makes no difference what order you put them in.

In my proposed RR format I allow the overall time available to dictate the number of games each player can play with each other player in his group in order to maximize the garaunted games all players will get. If you think there is less time available you decrease the number of games played, it's that simple.

It makes no difference to me whether you play 4 groups of 8, or 8 groups of 4. I still think either way we can get 21 games into the time frame.

The RR covers all play on Fri and Sat. The finals elimination rounds are on Sunday only.

:)
 

Dennis "Whitey" Young

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2017
Messages
1,347
Darmoose, I do believe my last post is significant and there is a great difference between 4 groupings with 8 players vs. 8 groupings with 4 players. And as I pointed out the 8 groupings with 4 players goes faster!
Its a trade off do you want to play more players taking longer or less players taking less time and still get in more games than a 3/3 format. And I believe this depends greatly on your tournament and whether you have a two day or three day tournament.

If I was doing a two day tournament say with 16 players on 8 tables, I as a TD would look very closely at one of the options, and it would not be 2 groupings of 8, it would take to long. For me, going into a RR of 3 games played against 3 players = 9 games @ 7 hrs. playing time would be perfect with starting play @ noon Sat. I'll take my 50/50 chance that I'll come out of the grouping and advance. Top 2 out of 4 advance. And if I do not make it, I am not exhausted and can match with plenty of free time left that first day!
This mere's the Miller/Crabbcatjohn tournament! If they have 8 tables to play on.

I researched the Seniors bracket and there was 23 matches that went 3/2, 21 matches that went 3/1 and 19 matches that went 3/0. numbers may not be totally accurate. Therefore the avg. match is somewhere around 3/1.

So when mr3cushion suggests race to 3 then this is the avg. you may expect. Which coincides with playing 8 groupings of 4 x 4 games ea. And the time it takes in that example.
At this point I have not evaluated your Darmoose suggestion, and I am not advocating going to either 4 groupings of 8 or 8 groupings of 4, I am just pointing out some points for discussion. Whitey
 

unoperro

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
1,438
You guys are putting effort into the solutiin and the RR sounds good. Remember no matter the format 5+ hour matches eff everything up;)
 

darmoose

Verified Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
1,563
Darmoose, I do believe my last post is significant and there is a great difference between 4 groupings with 8 players vs. 8 groupings with 4 players. And as I pointed out the 8 groupings with 4 players goes faster!
Its a trade off do you want to play more players taking longer or less players taking less time and still get in more games than a 3/3 format. And I believe this depends greatly on your tournament and whether you have a two day or three day tournament.

If I was doing a two day tournament say with 16 players on 8 tables, I as a TD would look very closely at one of the options, and it would not be 2 groupings of 8, it would take to long. For me, going into a RR of 3 games played against 3 players = 9 games @ 7 hrs. playing time would be perfect with starting play @ noon Sat. I'll take my 50/50 chance that I'll come out of the grouping and advance. Top 2 out of 4 advance. And if I do not make it, I am not exhausted and can match with plenty of free time left that first day!
This mere's the Miller/Crabbcatjohn tournament! If they have 8 tables to play on.

I researched the Seniors bracket and there was 23 matches that went 3/2, 21 matches that went 3/1 and 19 matches that went 3/0. numbers may not be totally accurate. Therefore the avg. match is somewhere around 3/1.

So when mr3cushion suggests race to 3 then this is the avg. you may expect. Which coincides with playing 8 groupings of 4 x 4 games ea. And the time it takes in that example.
At this point I have not evaluated your Darmoose suggestion, and I am not advocating going to either 4 groupings of 8 or 8 groupings of 4, I am just pointing out some points for discussion. Whitey
Whitey,

I appreciate your efforts to try to come up with the optimum format for our MOT. There are many possibilities and variables, none are necessarily right or wrong, but one will best fit the circumstances and the time frame as we define it.

Let me clarify a couple of things:

The more accurately you can predict the number of games in each match between any two players, the better you can control the time it takes to play out the RR. Therefore, playing a race to 3 (which could go 3, 4, or 5 games) for example is less predictable and less accurate than just saying upfront that each match will consist of 4 games, period. You don't have to have a winner in each individual match, as the group winner will be decided by total wins/losses for the whole RR.

There is NO value to playing a race in the RR matches, and doing so makes the entire RR less predictable.

So, now that the above is understood, it is a matter of deciding how many hours of play do you want to plan for, and what is the avg. allowed time to play a game. So, let say we want to play for about 15 hours, and we have 32 players and 16 tables to play on.

With 32 players we are either going to have 4 groups of 8, or 8 groups of 4. With 16 tables, everybody will get to play all at once.

If each game is to take 45 minutes, then each player can get about 20 games in the 15 hours.

With 4 groups of 8, there would be 7 matches played by each player in each group, so 7 matches x 3 games equaling 21 games would be close to optimum.(15.75 hours)

With 8 groups of 4, there would be 3 matches played by each player in each group, so 3 matches x 7 games equaling 21 games would be close to optimum.(15.75 hours)

By playing a specific number of games in each match, rather than a "race", we can eliminate all the variables, except the avg time to play a game by any given player.

This is the best approach and plan for a well timed RR, whether it is going to be a one day or a two day RR.

The only decisions to be made after the above is how many qualifiers advance to an elimination finals, and what you want that to look like, none of which have anything to do with the RR portion of the tournament.

Good luck:)
 
Last edited:

LSJohn

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
7,763
Did you misspeak earlier when you said races to two? There could be three games in races to two...
Yes, you are correct.

Sorry, and sorry I didn't see your "correcting" post sooner. I overlooked it somehow until now.

There would probably be 3 games in close to half the matches in race-to-two, which is what I had in mind. That would be 25% more games ---> 56 more ---> 280 total.

Mah bayad.

Top two players from each RR group could play a single elim race to 2 in 4 rounds ... approximately 6-8 hours.

The way I envision it, it would comfortably finish early evening on day three, if starting late afternoon on day one. I may be missing something. (Cory has run something like this. I probably should be asking him some of these things instead of theorizing.)
 
Last edited:

LSJohn

Verified Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
7,763
The more accurately you can predict the number of games in each match between any two players, the better you can control the time it takes to play out the RR. Therefore, playing a race to 3 (which could go 3, 4, or 5 games) for example is less predictable and less accurate than just saying upfront that each match will consist of 4 games, period. You don't have to have a winner in each individual match, as the group winner will be decided by total wins/losses for the whole RR.

There is NO value to playing a race in the RR matches, and doing so makes the entire RR less predictable.
Yes you are so right. Very good!

So, now that the above is understood, it is a matter of deciding how many hours of play do you want to plan for, and what is the avg. allowed time to play a game. So, let say we want to play for about 15 hours, and we have 32 players and 16 tables to play on.

With 32 players we are either going to have 4 groups of 8, or 8 groups of 4. With 16 tables, everybody will get to play all at once.

If each game is to take 45 minutes, then each player can get about 20 games in the 15 hours.

With 4 groups of 8, there would be 7 matches played by each player in each group, so 7 matches x 3 games equaling 21 games would be close to optimum.(15.75 hours)

With 8 groups of 4, there would be 3 matches played by each player in each group, so 3 matches x 7 games equaling 21 games would be close to optimum.(15.75 hours)

By playing a specific number of games in each match, rather than a "race", we can eliminate all the variables, except the avg time to play a game by any given player.

This is the best approach and plan for a well timed RR, whether it is going to be a one day or a two day RR.

The only decisions to be made after the above is how many qualifiers advance to an elimination finals, and what you want that to look like, none of which have anything to do with the RR portion of the tournament.

Good luck:)
Moose, I haven't even tried to double-check your calculations but your explanation is the best I've seen in all the threads on the subject of the format/time issue.

You 'da MAN
 
Top