The simple simple truth

[Jeff sparks]

Steve,

With a 32 man field you can't have 6 groups, as 6 is not a deviser into 32. You can only have 4, 8, 16, or 2 groups.

Also, you do get a head to head tiebreaker with either 4 or 8 groups because with 4 groups you will be playing 3 matches, each match consisting of 7 games, and with 8 groups you will be playing 7 matches, each match consisting of 3 games.

There may be a few little details to be worked out such as what Jeff brought up, but, I think this format has a lot going for it to get us to a nice elimination finals on Sunday, and provides alot of play for everybody and plenty of enjoyment, as well as competition.


P.S. I prefer 4 groups of 8 players because i think it would be better if everyone got to play against 7 other players (playing 3 games each match), rather than just get to play 3 other players (playing 7 games each match). Also, this gives you the option to limit the finals to the 4 group winners and play a Dbl elimination finals (or if you wanted 8 finalists, you could take 2 out of each group).

Best to have 8 on Sunday morning, all in the money... jmo

Could you continue the RR with two groups of 4? Everyone in the group plays 6 games, 12 total games for both groups and plenty of tables, only need 4...

Start early Sunday ( 10:00 AM ) and advance the top two from each 4 player group for a final 4 and play a race to 3, single elimination...

Seems like this would work out well time wise and leave plenty of tables open for matching up and plenty of time to sweat some exciting one pocket by the best players from onepocket.org...

Whatta ya think guys?

 

[LSJohn]

Best to have 8 on Sunday morning, all in the money... jmo

Could you continue the RR with two groups of 4? Everyone in the group plays 6 games, 12 total games for both groups and plenty of tables, only need 4...

Start early Sunday ( 10:00 AM ) and advance the top two from each 4 player group for a final 4 and play a race to 3, single elimination...

Seems like this would work out well time wise and leave plenty of tables open for matching up and plenty of time to sweat some exciting one pocket by the best players from onepocket.org...

Whatta ya think guys?

I nominate you, Cory and darmoose for a committee to hash out details, then put your best ideas to a vote.... choice between your RR and our standard double elim.

 

[mr3cushion]

With a Normal, Conventional RR format, races to 3. And players playing 1 complete round on Thursday evening after the Draw & Calcutta, that would enable Friday's matches, 10 am start, to have 4 rounds, finishing around 8pm. Still some gambling time left!

Leaving ONLY 1 round left to play in the pre-lims on Saturday morning, 10 am start. Taking the TOP 2 in each flight (16), That leaves 4 flights of 4 players on 8 tables to start about 1 pm. The semi's could be over by, 7-9 pm that evening. Giving the knocked out players time for gambling matches-ups!

The finals on Sunday starting at 10 AM could be 4 or 8 finalist in a single-elimination format. On 2 or 4 tables. With ONLY 3 rounds at the most, (8 finalists) the event could be over easily by 6 pm!

Obviously, this time schedule is an approximate, but, pretty darn close, i believe!

P.S. Since it has been mentioned several times that this event is NOT an official 1P org event but, Bogies. It should be treated more as a tournament than social gathering of our group! Since it's Open to ANY senior, (65 or older) and as we saw in this last event, some players NEW to the SS check family, came to play and win! My feeling is, a player in the qualifying rounds should earn their way to play MORE games & matches!

 

[darmoose]

Best to have 8 on Sunday morning, all in the money... jmo

Could you continue the RR with two groups of 4? Everyone in the group plays 6 games, 12 total games for both groups and plenty of tables, only need 4...

Start early Sunday ( 10:00 AM ) and advance the top two from each 4 player group for a final 4 and play a race to 3, single elimination...

Seems like this would work out well time wise and leave plenty of tables open for matching up and plenty of time to sweat some exciting one pocket by the best players from onepocket.org...

Whatta ya think guys?

Jeff,

That's certainly one option. The final 4 playing a race to 3 could take maybe 6-7 hours, so whether you could get another 6 games in (and also maybe have ties to deal with) is a question.


But, with 8 finalists playing a straight elimination on Sunday, you would need three rounds to conclude a single elimination. That would give you the opportunity to have races of substantial length, like maybe to 3 or 4, and would take maybe 9-12 hours.

I'm open to lots of options, i suppose, so long as you don't f*#k with my 2 day RR. :lol:lol (just kidding)

 

[NH Steve]

Steve,

With a 32 man field you can't have 6 groups, as 6 is not a deviser into 32. You can only have 4, 8, 16, or 2 groups.

Also, you do get a head to head tiebreaker with either 4 or 8 groups because with 4 groups you will be playing 3 matches, each match consisting of 7 games, and with 8 groups you will be playing 7 matches, each match consisting of 3 games.

There may be a few little details to be worked out such as what Jeff brought up, but, I think this format has a lot going for it to get us to a nice elimination finals on Sunday, and provides alot of play for everybody and plenty of enjoyment, as well as competition.


P.S. I prefer 4 groups of 8 players because i think it would be better if everyone got to play against 7 other players (playing 3 games each match), rather than just get to play 3 other players (playing 7 games each match). Also, this gives you the option to limit the finals to the 4 group winners and play a Dbl elimination finals (or if you wanted 8 finalists, you could take 2 out of each group).

Of course I realize that with 32 players you cannot divide that into 6 equal groups, but with either 30 or 36 you could. I was not presuming we had to be at 32 players

Your earlier post (that I was responding to) mentioned playing 4 games each match, not 3 or 7. Clearly an odd number of games gains a head to head tie breaker, whereas the 4 you mentioned would not necessarily.

And yes, I think 8 finalists to begin Sunday is ideal. That makes three manageable rounds of single elimination to get to a winner. I would like to see Sunday start with 8 finalists, with any tie breakers taken care of Saturday night.

I like a lot about the RR idea, but I am still not sure that one or two (or 3 or 4) slow players could not still cause a problem -- the problem being these slower players finishing their 21 (or whatever the magic number is) of individual games in their round robin flights within the anticipated time frame. I think even with RR we better have a plan in place to speed games if necessary. And you don't want to penalize innocent players who have only not played certain matches because their opponent simply was not yet available for them to play!

 

[mr3cushion]

Of course I realize that with 32 players you cannot divide that into 6 equal groups, but with either 30 or 36 you could. I was not presuming we had to be at 32 players

Your earlier post (that I was responding to) mentioned playing 4 games each match, not 3 or 7. Clearly an odd number of games gains a head to head tie breaker, whereas the 4 you mentioned would not necessarily.

And yes, I think 8 finalists to begin Sunday is ideal. That makes three manageable rounds of single elimination to get to a winner. I would like to see Sunday start with 8 finalists, with any tie breakers taken care of Saturday night.

I like a lot about the RR idea, but I am still not sure that one or two (or 3 or 4) slow players could not still cause a problem -- the problem being these slower players finishing their 21 (or whatever the magic number is) of individual games in their round robin flights within the anticipated time frame. I think even with RR we better have a plan in place to speed games if necessary. And you don't want to penalize innocent players who have only not played certain matches because their opponent simply was not yet available for them to play!

Steve; since Bogies has 8 tables available, the event could have, 35 players, (7 flights of 5) 36 players, (6 flights of 6),40 players, (8 flights of 5) 42 players, (7 flights of 6).

 

[darmoose]

Of course I realize that with 32 players you cannot divide that into 6 equal groups, but with either 30 or 36 you could. I was not presuming we had to be at 32 players

Your earlier post (that I was responding to) mentioned playing 4 games each match, not 3 or 7. Clearly an odd number of games gains a head to head tie breaker, whereas the 4 you mentioned would not necessarily.

And yes, I think 8 finalists to begin Sunday is ideal. That makes three manageable rounds of single elimination to get to a winner. I would like to see Sunday start with 8 finalists, with any tie breakers taken care of Saturday night.

I like a lot about the RR idea, but I am still not sure that one or two (or 3 or 4) slow players could not still cause a problem -- the problem being these slower players finishing their 21 (or whatever the magic number is) of individual games in their round robin flights within the anticipated time frame. I think even with RR we better have a plan in place to speed games if necessary. And you don't want to penalize innocent players who have only not played certain matches because their opponent simply was not yet available for them to play!

Steve

Yeah ur right, I settled on the 3 or 7 games after deciding that getting a total of 21 games was optimal.:sorry Hadn't thought of it, but I guess you could have something other than 32 players, i just was using that cause we have used that in the past, I think.

I guess we could try to do something about slow play, but I think peer pressure Fri and Sat night from the group having to stay up all night will weigh heavily on slow players. maybe not, who knows?

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

There are a few things that does not appeal to me when staying with the RR format of 21 vs. 14 games and then going to a final 16 of 4 groups of 4.

The 21 game format I would assume is 4 groups of 8 players playing each other 3 games, with the final 8 advancing. To me this keeps you stuck in the same grouping of 8, and that's it. Plus a player does not get to work their way through against other players to advance to the final 8.

Whereas with the same grouping playing 2 games each, 14 games. This now goes into semi final of 16 players in 4 groups of 4 which would be a completely set of new players. You get to play more and different players!

Just pointing this out for those that did not catch this! thanks.

Island Drive, I'll bring my broom stick if you do, that is the only I can match up and have a chance against you experience players! Whitey

 

[Jeff sparks]

There are a few things that does not appeal to me when staying with the RR format of 21 vs. 14 games and then going to a final 16 of 4 groups of 4.

The 21 game format I would assume is 4 groups of 8 players playing each other 3 games, with the final 8 advancing. To me this keeps you stuck in the same grouping of 8, and that's it. Plus a player does not get to work their way through against other players to advance to the final 8.

Whereas with the same grouping playing 2 games each, 14 games. This now goes into semi final of 16 players in 4 groups of 4 which would be a completely set of new players. You get to play more and different players!

Just pointing this out for those that did not catch this! thanks.

Island Drive, I'll bring my broom stick if you do, that is the only I can match up and have a chance against you experience players! Whitey

Of course you realize that 16 players are eliminated now and instead of getting to play 21 games of one pocket, they got to play 14....Good idea for the surviving 16, not so good for the other 16... not only did they miss out on playing other players, they got shorted 7 games... However....

If a second chance tournament was planned, this would be a great way to fill the field at approximately the same time, having little down time...

 

[Jeff sparks]

Steve

Yeah ur right, I settled on the 3 or 7 games after deciding that getting a total of 21 games was optimal.:sorry Hadn't thought of it, but I guess you could have something other than 32 players, i just was using that cause we have used that in the past, I think.

I guess we could try to do something about slow play, but I think peer pressure Fri and Sat night from the group having to stay up all night will weigh heavily on slow players. maybe not, who knows?

Moose,
You may be right about group peer pressure putting added pressure on the slow deliberate style players, but if history tells us anything, it’s that we have had a total of 6 tournaments ( 3 M.O’s ) and ( 3 Seniors ) and in each of these the forward movement of play was slowed each time by a few... So the few had little regard for the whole...

IMO, the format will not change these players styles, their matches, especially when playing an equally skilled player could very well stretch to an unbearable point where something would need to be done... Like Steve suggested, having that something in place, prior to the beginning of the tournament might not completely solve the deliberate play issues we deal with at each tournament, but at the very least, everyone would be made aware of the consequences in advance, whatever they end up being...

 

[crabbcatjohn]

Moose,
You may be right about group peer pressure putting added pressure on the slow deliberate style players, but if history tells us anything, it’s that we have had a total of 6 tournaments ( 3 M.O’s ) and ( 3 Seniors ) and in each of these the forward movement of play was slowed each time by a few... So the few had little regard for the whole...

IMO, the format will not change these players styles, their matches, especially when playing an equally skilled player could very well stretch to an unbearable point where something would need to be done... Like Steve suggested, having that something in place, prior to the beginning of the tournament might not completely solve the deliberate play issues we deal with at each tournament, but at the very least, everyone would be made aware of the consequences in advance, whatever they end up being...

See Post's #1 and #2... It was also a MO tournament BTW.
just sayin this was what this thread was about. Somehow it has digressed into another RR discussion and even forfeiting players or whole groups of players because of one... your bypassing the simple, simple solution...lol. In my view just because a few people are dominating the discussion trying to push varying RR formats doesnt mean as a whole the members even want a RR. You all are acting like it's a done deal. I know I don't prefer it and having slow players play even more games doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

Of course you realize that 16 players are eliminated now and instead of getting to play 21 games of one pocket, they got to play 14....Good idea for the surviving 16, not so good for the other 16... not only did they miss out on playing other players, they got shorted 7 games... However....������

If a second chance tournament was planned, this would be a great way to fill the field at approximately the same time, having little down time...��

Yes I realize this, of course, but as a player deciding to go to the tournament in the first place, I will take 14 games played with a 50/50 chance of advancing to around of 16 whereas I get to play 3 different players, making a total of 10 different players. Plus I can live with being out at 1 or 2 pm of Saturday.

Another plus is at the end of the 14 games then the 4x4 grouping can be adjusted / game to hit a desired finish time on Saturday night, "if you are not on schedule". For instance if you want to finish by 9pm Saturday night then you can go to either 3 games played each or 4 games played each, depending on how much time you have left. Gives great latitude for adjustment that going to 21 does not give you.

Now this is for the MOT with 32 players on 16 tables. To figure the Seniors I would rely on mr3cushion formats with x amount of tables with x amount of players, if in fact the OP.org members even want to go to RR format.

Taking off of Crabbcatjohn's newly post, yes it is amazing that the Seniors pretty much stayed on schedule tell Sunday. And with a few tweaks that Miller and Crabbcatjohn used and suggested then you can work through a normal tournament format! And I for one is always cognoscente of their success, and what a great tournament they successfully pulled off. Thanks Miller and Crabbcatjohn, somehow this snowballed into a RR discussion, but your suggestions are very well taken and received, with good discussions with Steve. And yes no format has been decided for MOT, that is up to the players that attend! Seniors is a different breed. And I agree with you totally we just do not know how long a RR will take, and your suggestive safe guards I would take seriously. Whitey

 

[darmoose]

Moose,
You may be right about group peer pressure putting added pressure on the slow deliberate style players, but if history tells us anything, it’s that we have had a total of 6 tournaments ( 3 M.O’s ) and ( 3 Seniors ) and in each of these the forward movement of play was slowed each time by a few... So the few had little regard for the whole...

IMO, the format will not change these players styles, their matches, especially when playing an equally skilled player could very well stretch to an unbearable point where something would need to be done... Like Steve suggested, having that something in place, prior to the beginning of the tournament might not completely solve the deliberate play issues we deal with at each tournament, but at the very least, everyone would be made aware of the consequences in advance, whatever they end up being...

Jeff,

No doubt about it, slow play could continue to be a problem. I look for things that help hinder that vs things that promote that

Peer pressure is a positive. Playing 21 games, none of which can eliminate you from the tournament is a positive.

I don't see anything in the RR format that would make it worser, except when we get to the elimination rounds for the finals on Sunday.

I would favor some sort of time clock being applied when needed. It could be applied by the group in RR rounds, it could be applied and run by those out of the tournament on Sunday (I think if we can get these final rounds on Sunday completed at a reasonable time there will be more members hanging around to watch, than when things finish up at 4-5 am). Stop watches or smart phones can be used, and the timekeeper is a trusted member who has final say, period.

I also would like to suggest, since the question of what penalty should be applied somewhere, that the penalty be one ball, and the shooter be given a add'tl 30 secs to shoot under maybe a penalty of loss of game ( penalty ball to be assessed after he shoots.

Just some thoughts, open to "argument".

 

[Jeff sparks]

See Post's #1 and #2... It was also a MO tournament BTW.
just sayin this was what this thread was about. Somehow it has digressed into another RR discussion and even forfeiting players or whole groups of players because of one... your bypassing the simple, simple solution...lol. In my view just because a few people are dominating the discussion trying to push varying RR formats doesnt mean as a whole the members even want a RR. You all are acting like it's a done deal. I know I don't prefer it and having slow players play even more games doesn't make sense to me.

How many slow players were in the field at the Memphis 16? Were there any matches that even threatened going long? And what was in place prior to the tournament, had a match actually gone long, that would have gotten the tournament back on schedule?

 

[crabbcatjohn]

I have one more thing to say here and I'm done. These RR tournaments are designed to have the best players win every time. Is that what we want ? They take the underdog totally out of contention. Your also trying to jam up every table for several days while late in a RR the matches might not even make a difference and we won't be able to match up. The other thing I see is there will be a lot of down time for players between matches with no tables available.

 

[crabbcatjohn]

How many slow players were in the field at the Memphis 16? Were there any matches that even threatened going long? And what was in place prior to the tournament, had a match actually gone long, that would have gotten the tournament back on schedule?

Several slow players but not Ike slow. tight tv table, Grady rule installed after 2 hr time limit kept matches on track. This kept the matches under 4 hrs regardless. We felt we could fade a few 3.5 -4 hour matches because the shorter races on the losers made up for it. So the tournament went fast.

 

[Jeff sparks]

Several slow players but not Ike slow. tight tv table, Grady rule installed after 2 hr time limit kept matches on track. This kept the matches under 4 hrs regardless. We felt we could fade a few 3.5 -4 hour matches because the shorter races on the losers made up for it. So the tournament went fast.

What do suppose would have happened to the tournament if you had 4 or 5 Ike’s in your 16? All prominent players with impeccable credentials...

The Grady rule... maybe, maybe not...

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

I have one more thing to say here and I'm done. These RR tournaments are designed to have the best players win every time. Is that what we want ? They take the underdog totally out of contention. Your also trying to jam up every table for several days while late in a RR the matches might not even make a difference and we won't be able to match up. The other thing I see is there will be a lot of down time for players between matches with no tables available.

Very good points! Especially if you go to playing 21 game RR format, the tables would always be tied up. Whereas a shorter 14 game RR format will free up 8 tables on Saturday afternoon, and I say this in regards to MOT with 16 tables.

For Seniors with 8 tables I can see your point exactly, and I stay out of RR conversations in regards to Seniors for I do not have the knowledge to decipher a working format for 8 tables, that others do!

But at the Cal. MOT I was not disappointed that I was out on early Saturday afternoon, for if I played better I would be still in, I had the same chance as anybody, and as you pointed out after getting down to 16 players there are tables open up to match up on. No complaints here! It just when they get down to the rd. of 16 they need to go to a 3/2 format! thanks, Whitey

 

[crabbcatjohn]

What do suppose would have happened to the tournament if you had 4 or 5 Ike’s in your 16? All prominent players with impeccable credentials...

The Grady rule... maybe, maybe not...

I dont care who they are. I paid my money the same as they did if that's what your asking. I watched some of the seniors. Most of those games that went long was because they were up table and they couldn't shoot at their holes.See Grady rule. If you've never played with it, well then I guess you dont know. Grady was a very smart man.

 

[Dennis "Whitey" Young]

I believe the Grady rule is only allowing 4 balls up table. Up table I have learned is past the side pocket. I with much less experience in OP play have always wondered why 4 balls (if I am correct) is optimum. When we were discussing how to speed up the game Steve had suggested 2 balls up table.

I, at the time was bolstering only allowing a player to drive 1 ball up table and not consecutive 2 balls up table. For instance if I drive a ball up table then my opponent may also, but then I am not allowed to then again drive another ball up table, foul loss of point. Darmoose rule the ball would go to the other player! But, this IMO helps stop a player from being the first to drive a ball up table and encourages stack play. And if all balls are up table and you have already driven a ball up table on your last shot then you have to bring a ball back down table. A new thought just now! Wow! That would get players going for their hole!

Another idea I sponsored was to only allow 1 intentional ( a shot that does not legally get rail contact) by each player, then the next shot has to be a legal shot, or it is a foul with option to have ball in hand. This helps eliminate negative progress as Darmoose would put it, as he sponsored moving forward, of course!

Successive intentionals can really prolong a game and a tactic used by the more experience skillful player.

Some of these alternative rules may have very little effect on the overall venue, but then again they could depending on play! Whitey