DCC updates

lfigueroa

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Messages
2,559
Some random Derby thoughts:

Greg should be applauded for 25 years of the DCC.

However, all this gnashing of teeth and rending of garments over speeding up the tournament is disengeniuos. The answer has always been in the simple math of the event: too many players, not enough tables. And, whomever talked him into the beyond idiotic "express" rules for 1pocket should be taken out back of the proverbial pool room and have their thumbs broken... figuratively speaking, of course. And honestly, I don't see ever adding an additional day to what already amounts to a death march.

Diamond should also be concerned about a growing and pervasive perception that the DCC is turning into a second tier event. If Jayson's comments can be taken to heart, along with the absence of so many pros who formerly attended, they should take caution going into next year's event. PR-wise, these things most often take on a life of their own and are often difficult if not impossible to reverse once they take root.

So what don't I like about the Derby in its current state: normal Diamond tables upstairs and new Diamond tables in the main tournament room downstairs that were like playing on the moon in zero gravity. My opponent, a highly experienced player said, "I have no idea where the CB is going." And I had to concur. Watch several of the streamed matches you can see the CB getting away from amateurs and pros by several feet. The rails were beyond "lively." No bueno.

The food situation remains abysmal. While I was there I saw no signs of life at the Asian stand, Mexican or pizza joints. Maybe they were staffed later on. None of them rise above shopping mall food court eats but there should be some impetus to offer better food options. I do have to say that if you're willing to spend $100 a steak and $14 for a baked potato the steak house was actually pretty good.

What do I like about the Derby? Seeing old friends from across the country. Frankly, between the scheduling, express rules, goofy tables, marginal hotel and food situation, if I did not live within a four hour drive I would probably never go again.

Lou Figueroa
 

sneakynito

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
820
From
Houston, TX
Interesting comments from some pros.
Sad to see.
Seems like much more tangible changes need to be made instead of just tinkering with rules.

Good problem to have, though. Really speaks to the event that it has managed to outgrow its britches such that they're bursting at the seams.

The upfront costs would be substantial, but I think a well engineered program to run the tourney and an app for the players to interface with would solve a great deal of problems and keep things moving much faster, keep tables utilized more, etc. For something this big that really seems like a must have.

Hopefully they figure something out.


1706502541862.png1706502562924.png
1706502585627.png
 

BrookelandBilly

Verified Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
450
From
Fair Oaks Ranch, Texas
The Action Room streaming was so-so at best. A lot of guys just practicing or showing off. A few big money matches. I’m tired of watching Richie Rich. Did he bring anything to the table other than an oversized Fruit Of The Loom t-shirt. There also should be some kind of dress code to elevate the event. The sport is in a time warp. Back to the future. If horse racing is the sport of kings then pool is the sport of serfs.
 

JPB2

New Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2024
Messages
17
The Action Room streaming was so-so at best. A lot of guys just practicing or showing off. A few big money matches. I’m tired of watching Richie Rich. Did he bring anything to the table other than an oversized Fruit Of The Loom t-shirt. There also should be some kind of dress code to elevate the event. The sport is in a time warp. Back to the future. If horse racing is the sport of kings then pool is the sport of serfs.
Have to disagree here. The action room should not be sanitized/corporatized. I’ve never been to a Derby sorry to say. But at 4:00 am in the action room I don’t expect a dress code. I expect t-shirts and jeans and track suits. TV table in the late rounds I get pros looking decent. The charm of the Derby is that it has both tournaments and after hours play
 

BRLongArm

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
1,929
Pool is like a coin. One side is bright and shiny, tournament driven sport that wants to be accepted as mainstream. Players want to make a living playing tournaments and they can't really do it right now because of the cost of traveling and competing. They cry for more prize money to justify their travel. Matchroom is the champion of this side of the coin. On the other side of the coin, you have action and gambling, with all its allure and pitfalls. Can pool have both sides?

Derby City Classic is at a crossroads. It tries to be all things to all people. It tries to be both sides of the coin. The best players cry that nobody will play them and they can't survive gambling. To them I say, "That's what tournaments are for." To the level of pros below the elite, there is gambling, but no soft action because information is too easy to obtain these days. They aren't quite good enough to win at the elite level, so they are relegated to gambling matches or the regional tournament scene.

Derby City attracts everyone, but they can't satisfy everyone and they run the risk of alienating everyone by not commiting to one side of the coin or the other. You are either a gambler's jamboree or you are a shiny coin offering the greatest tournament in the world. If you are true to your roots, limit the field of your events and cater to the action. If you want to morph into a world class tournament, raise the entry fee, limit the field and increase the prize fund so that the juice is worth the squeeze.

What do you want to be?
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
12,443
From
New Hampshire
Pool is like a coin. One side is bright and shiny, tournament driven sport that wants to be accepted as mainstream. Players want to make a living playing tournaments and they can't really do it right now because of the cost of traveling and competing. They cry for more prize money to justify their travel. Matchroom is the champion of this side of the coin. On the other side of the coin, you have action and gambling, with all its allure and pitfalls. Can pool have both sides?

Derby City Classic is at a crossroads. It tries to be all things to all people. It tries to be both sides of the coin. The best players cry that nobody will play them and they can't survive gambling. To them I say, "That's what tournaments are for." To the level of pros below the elite, there is gambling, but no soft action because information is too easy to obtain these days. They aren't quite good enough to win at the elite level, so they are relegated to gambling matches or the regional tournament scene.

Derby City attracts everyone, but they can't satisfy everyone and they run the risk of alienating everyone by not commiting to one side of the coin or the other. You are either a gambler's jamboree or you are a shiny coin offering the greatest tournament in the world. If you are true to your roots, limit the field of your events and cater to the action. If you want to morph into a world class tournament, raise the entry fee, limit the field and increase the prize fund so that the juice is worth the squeeze.

What do you want to be?
Very well put, but i think it isn't so much the two sides of the coin that are the problem at the Derby -- it is how they are handling the tournament format. The unique "buy back" format is charming, but it really seems to be a big part of the problem. The other parts of the problem are the sheer numbers of entries, and obviously much to the point of all the speed up discussions we are having, let's face it, traditional One Pocket rules can break a tournament will ill-timed super long matches -- which are almost inevitable with this many players in a pro-am mix.

  • So take a look at the basic tournament format (buy back)
  • Limit the number of entries as needed (raising the entry to balance as needed)
  • And for sure have some tools in place to limit problem causing extra long matches
But please don't mess with the mix of tournament and action though, because that would gut the Derby in my opinion.
 

BRLongArm

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
1,929
Very well put, but i think it isn't so much the two sides of the coin that are the problem at the Derby -- it is how they are handling the tournament format. The unique "buy back" format is charming, but it really seems to be a big part of the problem. The other parts of the problem are the sheer numbers of entries, and obviously much to the point of all the speed up discussions we are having, let's face it, traditional One Pocket rules can break a tournament will ill-timed super long matches -- which are almost inevitable with this many players in a pro-am mix.

  • So take a look at the basic tournament format (buy back)
  • Limit the number of entries as needed (raising the entry to balance as needed)
  • And for sure have some tools in place to limit problem causing extra long matches
But please don't mess with the mix of tournament and action though, because that would gut the Derby in my opinion.
The buy back option allows the dead money to play for a cheap price against their heroes. It is unique because the cost of playing is about the cost of spectating. Greg has used this cheap entry to increase the prize fund with dead money and encouraging the fans to be players. Most of the dead money does not buy back and the buy back money is used to finance the Master of the Table and to pay the staff to run these long tournaments. And yes, to make a profit. Are we really opposed to the promoter making a profit? I for one am not.

They are not going to change the format of the event. So limiting the entries is the only real option. As for the last note about limiting long matches, they have taken steps to do that and I didn't hear of any horror stories. The tournaments have taken over the event and severely cramped the action tables because the fields are too big. Would limiting the field to the first 400 paid really kill the event? I highly doubt it. It just means that the entries have to be done earlier than the last minute. Limiting the field would return the action tables back to the gamblers and ensure that the trains run on time and the event doesn't drag on as it has. I don't see another option.

Joe
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
12,443
From
New Hampshire
The buy back option allows the dead money to play for a cheap price against their heroes. It is unique because the cost of playing is about the cost of spectating. Greg has used this cheap entry to increase the prize fund with dead money and encouraging the fans to be players. Most of the dead money does not buy back and the buy back money is used to finance the Master of the Table and to pay the staff to run these long tournaments. And yes, to make a profit. Are we really opposed to the promoter making a profit? I for one am not.

They are not going to change the format of the event. So limiting the entries is the only real option. As for the last note about limiting long matches, they have taken steps to do that and I didn't hear of any horror stories. The tournaments have taken over the event and severely cramped the action tables because the fields are too big. Would limiting the field to the first 400 paid really kill the event? I highly doubt it. It just means that the entries have to be done earlier than the last minute. Limiting the field would return the action tables back to the gamblers and ensure that the trains run on time and the event doesn't drag on as it has. I don't see another option.

Joe
Yes, I am saying still offer the one shot entry, but if the players want to go with the buy back they have to commit from the start. Anyone that wnated to go just one shot would still be able to do that -- I'm not suggesting take that away. Just take the question mark out of who is going to buy back each round, that's all.
 

lfigueroa

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Messages
2,559
The buy back option allows the dead money to play for a cheap price against their heroes. It is unique because the cost of playing is about the cost of spectating. Greg has used this cheap entry to increase the prize fund with dead money and encouraging the fans to be players. Most of the dead money does not buy back and the buy back money is used to finance the Master of the Table and to pay the staff to run these long tournaments. And yes, to make a profit. Are we really opposed to the promoter making a profit? I for one am not.

They are not going to change the format of the event. So limiting the entries is the only real option. As for the last note about limiting long matches, they have taken steps to do that and I didn't hear of any horror stories. The tournaments have taken over the event and severely cramped the action tables because the fields are too big. Would limiting the field to the first 400 paid really kill the event? I highly doubt it. It just means that the entries have to be done earlier than the last minute. Limiting the field would return the action tables back to the gamblers and ensure that the trains run on time and the event doesn't drag on as it has. I don't see another option.

Joe

I thought the same about the dead money not buying back in but the stats guy over at AZ says it’s not true:


Lou Figueroa
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
12,443
From
New Hampshire
I wrote this for Joe in a message but it is fine here too -- my feedback on the speedup mostly:

I thought it was handled well. The fact that Jason was there was definitely a help. Some players of course had more of a learning curve than others, and a kinder reaction than others too, for that matter.

The rules helped, but 4 hours a slot is still pretty long it turns out, because the way it went they still ran a whole day long. I am not sure how much of the end delay had to do with three players being left at the end, all with buy backs -- because that meant 5 rounds instead of potentially two rounds if nobody had a buy back.

My opinion is they need to simplify the speed up rule stages. So the ref doesn't have to make potentially 3 trips to the table with new explanations each time. Either play Grady Rule all the way from the start, or play regular rules 3 hours and then drastic rules at that point. With a waiver possible at the streamed tables if the streamed tables have a shot clock. Viewers actually like a long hard fought match if both players are getting to it, and not Wedging and dinking around or taking forever to shoot.

Scott Frost lost in one of the matches that came down to the 4 hour warning -- but he sold out a crazy shot before the rule actually kicked in I believe, knowing that being a little behind he was doomed at the 4 hour mark.

I don't think the spectators want to watch the Grady rules or anything like that, because of course they confuse even more easily than the players lol, which is why I would say let them play 3 hours standard One Pocket, but then bring the hammer down as necessary if they run over 3 hours.

Honestly every single table pretty much would benefit from a simple shot clock to keep the players shooting, instead on interminably looking things over. But that is impractical unless the players themselves toggle a clock of course. Although, a cadre of volunteers might help, at least on the streamed tales.

The Grady rule itself, although it prevents a wedge, it also in its own way slows down the flow of the game because of the stopping to measure balls, explain the rule changes, and go through the spotting effort, sometimes with critical consequences if there is a ball near the spot that creates a dead ball. That happened in one match I watched -- a big match too, although I am forgetting who the players were, but it was late in the tournament. A ball spotted dead and that ended up being the final turning point in that match.

I also wonder about making the "buy back" something players have to decide on either when they first register to play, or at the latest, when they go to pick up their player card at the start of the tournament. That way people still have the option of buying only the one chance if they want to enter that way, but the TD staff already knows and has in their system every player who has a buy back and who doesn't, from the very beginning of the tournament. So there would be no need to delay draws for the next rounds. Meaning if a table opens up froma quicker than average match, that table can always get an assignment of a "next available" match. I'm not sure what difference that would make, but it would have to be something.

The Derby is still quite a spectacle, and it looked like it had a good turnout both for players and spectators this year, so it seems like it should be working financially for sure. But the bugs it has are bad for publicity obviously, which you are seeing both in the forums and on Facebook. The better they can get at streamlining it, the better!!
 

BRLongArm

Verified Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
1,929
Greg should increase the buy back price, but a percentage will go to the prize fund directly. This will decrease those buy backs that are concerned with the money, and add money to the prize fund directly so that it is a little more democratically distributed. Maybe it decreases buy backs by 10%, but according to At Large, nearly 70% of the players are buying back anyway.
 

baby huey

Verified Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,969
The comments made by all here are excellant. I have one more thought (at least for now) who was in charge? Greg? I didn't see anyone present who could take that role and be the ACTIVE FACE OF THE EVENT? So, what does that mean? To me, it means the folks in charge didn't want ANY CRITISISM. They didn't want to hear it, they didn't want to answer any questions or explain any precedures or answer to tough situations. They jumped way too fast into the Grady Rule and other attempts to keep the status quo. They didn't limit the field to my observations and like last year the nine ball final day was seriously flawed. This event is RIPE for someone to come in and build a better mousetrap in a new location with different management.
 

stevelomako

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2004
Messages
1,330
From
Detroit, MI
I also wonder about making the "buy back" something players have to decide on either when they first register to play, or at the latest, when they go to pick up their player card at the start of the tournament. That way people still have the option of buying only the one chance if they want to enter that way, but the TD staff already knows and has in their system every player who has a buy back and who doesn't, from the very beginning of the tournament.
This is good in theory but doesn’t work out…
So there would be no need to delay draws for the next rounds. Meaning if a table opens up froma quicker than average match, that table can always get an assignment of a "next available" match. I'm not sure what difference that would make, but it would have to be something.
because you still have to wait to find out if a player that’s NOT buying back has won or lost.


I believe part of the allure is the redraw each round instead of the typical tournament chart.
Russian Roulette tournaments have the mystery of “who do I play next?”



There’s simply too many players for the amount of tables.

I dont know why it’s so hard for people to figure out. 🤦🏻‍♂️
 

lfigueroa

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Messages
2,559
Heard one guy say that if he were ahead and his match was coming up on the four hour mark he start taking smoke breaks, "And I don't even smoke," he said.

Lou Figueroa
stupid rules
 

cincy_kid

Verified Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
7,891
From
Cincinnati, OH
I say this every year, but I don't think I will attend again next year. Just too much time in between matches for me. It's hard for me to sit around and watch, I have to be playing (in the tourney or in action), so next year I may opt for the miniDerb if Kyle does it again at Railyards. Higher entry fee, but only 32 players max, so that format suits me much better even as dead money...
 

NH Steve

Administrator
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
12,443
From
New Hampshire
because you still have to wait to find out if a player that’s NOT buying back has won or lost
Yes, they would have to hold aside any matches that had one player with a buyback and one player without a buyback. But if both players had a buyback or neither player had a buyback that part they have figured out. What they do is put a placeholder (or two) in the draw representing those matches. But that could still be a big help!!
 

Kybanks

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2015
Messages
1,150
The Derby to finish on time, or an actual Saturday evening finish, the 9 ball must go back to a race to 7. If you pair 2 average players (550) together in a race to 9 with the 9 on the spot, I'm betting they don't complete the race before the 2 hour mark. Even the top pros take almost 2 hours to complete a race to 9. How many 9 ball matches took 30 minutes or less to complete? I'll wait.
 

gulfportdoc

Verified Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
12,713
From
Gulfport, Mississippi
The DCC has maxed out on the number of players per event, so they can't acquire more money that way. According to the online pro commentary, many of the pros will not attend because the purses are too small to warrant the expenses. If the pros stop coming, so will many of the participants.

The only solution I can see is to raise the entry fee-- certainly the main fee, and see how that affects the buy-backs. Guys are already spending a grand or more, so why not kick up the fee to $250 or $300?
 

lfigueroa

Verified Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2004
Messages
2,559
You limit the entries and reserve a percentage of those for the pros.

Instead of 400, you make it 350. And, you take a hard look at your scheduling to put an end to tables not in play with a target of ending in prime time Saturday night so you get a good crowd. Maybe you get rid of the big foot so you can stream some banks and 1pocket for a change.

But oh, that means less intake on entry fees.

Lou Figueroa
nevermind
 
Top