Great News For Tournament Operators

[JB Cases]

just read the rules, looks great. Can I suggest that the balls don't need to be moved anywhere? Spin the racks and push it up to the spot. Since the breaker gets to shoot anyway after the break and cannot win on the brea it doesn't matter if the one ball is at the top nor where the money ball is. Make it truly random and smash the balls.

 

[Paul Schofield]

just read the rules, looks great. Can I suggest that the balls don't need to be moved anywhere? Spin the racks and push it up to the spot. Since the breaker gets to shoot anyway after the break and cannot win on the brea it doesn't matter if the one ball is at the top nor where the money ball is. Make it truly random and smash the balls.

The concept is to keep everything that requires pool skills: control the cue ball, control the 1-ball, get a good spread. At the same time, get rid of everything that is problematic.

 

[Paul Schofield]

I look at these "No conflict rules" two ways : as a player and as a room owner.

As a player I have played in multiple events put on by Paul Scofield of Gold Crown Billiards in Erie. He has one of the largest followings for a quarterly event I've been to, not to mention its ran in a timely fashion. 64 players+ and turning some down...

The no conflict rules really are what they say they are. In every event I have played in there I have yet to see an argument about the rack (balls not touching/pattern racking/tilting/etc), the break, or people with animosity towards each other. Having the above mentioned things taken away there isn't reason for two players to get into a heated debate which takes a turn for the worst. Everyone has what they want : a fair opportunity in a game that allows each player the same amount of chances. Alternate break, rack your own, shoot again after the break, these are all things players want in every tournament they play in. What more could a player ask for? Everyone wants to shoot after the break. When a player loses a match one of the worst reasons is " I wasn't making balls on the break and it was crushing me". This makes it possible for each player to have the same amount of opportunities as his opponent. If you can't break and run out....Thats your fault!

The "No Conflict Rules" gives off an overall positive vibe to the room and you can feel it throughout the players. It may seem a bit awkward at first but we have grew to love it and everyone who has played comes back...Theres a reason why this tournament continues to grow...


Now that I have given my personal opinion as a player Ill give it to you straight as a room owner:

As owner of Steel City Billiards in Pittsburgh, Pa I have ran a few double elimination tournaments and they have ran well. The problem came about with long matches and we were only racing to 7. Opponent racks the balls and the breaker isn't happy. The correct balls aren't touching and the breaker is unsatisfied. The racker continues to finger the balls and re rack and re rack. This becomes tedious and frustrating for both breaker and racker. In the midst of this the clock is ticking for everyone and this holds up the rest of the tournament. Now the breaker feels as if the racker is intentionally toying with his mind. Aside from the subtraction of time I really like how theres no negative feelings amongst the players towards each other. With the rules people have a positive experience and they will come back. Negativity is contagious and it takes one guy to complain about anything from the rack, break, or people trying to get him. Why not adopt something that is smooth and allows players a fair chance at each others throats!

I hope this helps some room owners and players get a glimpse at what Paul is doing. I don't know how he comes up with this stuff but he's on to something. Give it a try. Whats the worst it could do...make you have a growing tournament? :wink:

Good post Shane. There is nothing like an experienced review.

 

[Paul Schofield]

I watched some of the US OPen on PPV (good job Pat). This is our showcase event. I see pattern racking, ball manipulation, re-racking 5-10 times almost every rack and sometimes upwards of 15-20. The 9 is good on the break but no one checks the rack. Three balls must break the head string unless the player hits the balls with proper velocity. This rule is very mushy. Who decides that, when, and what's the penalty?

My point is that the racking and breaking rules are still unresolved business.

On the second matter: I have a triple elimination chart. Later, when I get time, I will talk about it and post a picture of it.

 

[Paul Schofield]

Twenty-six years ago I ran a triple-elimination tournament at Gold Crown Billiards in Erie, PA. I pulled the results out of my files and posted them below for entertainment purposes. The format was not good. Everything was wrong with it. I won't even begin to explain all the problems there were. I have kept an open file on the triple-elimination concept all these years. There are some triple-elimination formats that can be found on the Internet. None of them are worth pursuing.

Once a year since 1986, I would sit down for 4 or 5 hours and try to solve the triple-elimination puzzle to no avail. It's fun to think about these things. Then 2011: got it. The chart is big. I have not figured out how to get it on here. I will though.

 

[Paul Schofield]

Here it is: 64 player Triple Elimination (no byes anywhere)

 

[GoBilliards]

Here's my guess at a modified double elimination.
After each round in the winners bracket, the losers drop into a bracket that is all their own. Nobody ever drops into their bracket. This creates a new bracket after each winners bracket round which avoids feeding the same losers bracket continually with new players, which is why they end up playing so many times in a standard format.

Here's a 16 player example to save typing!

After the first round there are two 8 player brackets.
After the second round, there are three 4 player brackets.
After the third round, there are four 2 player brackets.
After the fourth round, there are 4 players left, three of which have one loss.
They play out from here.
If I'm correct, an undefeated winner would play one less game than the second place finisher. If the eventual winner had two win twice, the two finalists would have played the same amount of games.

Is this how it's done?

After the 4th round there would be 5 players left. unless the loser of the winners bracket was eliminated wiyh 1 loss.

 

[bigshooter]

I've been in and out of the game for 30 years and I think the rules are great.

Pool players are a bunch of bi7chy little girls for the most part, everyone whines about rules, money, equipment etc. Then when someone tries to be a part of the solution they get blasted here on AZ.. lots of whining but no solutions.

More power to you!

 

[Paul Schofield]

Some thoughts on triple-elimination: I am not a fan of double-elimination, even my modified format. There reaches a point where there are too few players left with too many rounds to be played. The tournament just drags on too long. Single-elimination is the time honored format for sport competitions in the US and is by far the most exciting. The tournament gets to finals fast. For pool tournaments, one and done does not work. Pool players want a big play for their time, travel, and money, therefore we do not use SE.

The triple-elimination satisfies player's one demand in that the players get a bigger play. On the other hand, TE is the same as DE only worse: Too many rounds left with too few players. I will probably never use it.

The No Conflict Rules are big winner and I will continue to use them.

 

[Paul Schofield]

Over this past weekend, we ran our 5th tournament with the modified double-elimination format. Check out the link for results. This was also the 13th tournament with the "No Conflict Rules".

The tournament filled with 64 players (had to take our phone off the hook and turn players away). Nearly $8000 in prizes and Calcutta. There were no byes. There was not even one repeat match. It went smoothly. The event took 12 hours and 35 minutes (race to 7/6). The format saves about 3 hours. It is hard to say exactly but I estimate the "No Conflict Rules" save at minimum, another 3 hours. This tournament flew.

Most importantly, it is easy to see that the players really enjoy this quarterly event.

 

[Paul Schofield]

Take a minute and look at the construction of a standard double elimination chart. I look at each match like it is a crossroad:

This is a for a 64 Man standard double-elimination winners bracket

The 1st round is one tough crossroad. Win here and the path to finals is 5 wins. Lose here and the path is 10 wins!

The next round is the same but worse for a loser. Win here and the path to finals is 4 wins. Lose here and the path is 9 wins!

The next round is more of the same. Win here and the path to finals is 3 wins. Lose here and the path is 7 wins!

It goes on. Win the next match and you are only 2 wins away from finals. Lose and your are going to have to win 5 straight.

To summarize standard double elimination: Lose, and the penalty is that to reach finals, you will have to win more than 2X as many matches than you would have, had you won. IMO, this is just too punishing. Standard double elimination is pool's time honored format for our competitions. Think through it and it just does not seem legitimate, right, fair (pick your adjective). Look at it long enough and it looks hokey. It is no wonder that no major sport uses it. Why must we always do what we have always done? Who says this is the right way? There certainly is a better way.

The modified format is working very well. It's not perfect. Those who have tried it have had success. It’s faster. It’s more equitable. It’s easily understood. Anyone is welcome to try it out.

 

[El-ahrairah]

At this point, slightly more work than it's worth.:yeah:

Yeah. It must be a great system, because it just completely jumped the shark in a mere 18 posts. "It will have you absolutely uninterested before you ever see it!"

The mention of Buffalo Hunter recaptured my interest, but Ron Popeil quickly smashed it again with the 'set it and forget it' brackets.

 

[Paul Schofield]

I've been in and out of the game for 30 years and I think the rules are great.

Pool players are a bunch of bi7chy little girls for the most part, everyone whines about rules, money, equipment etc. Then when someone tries to be a part of the solution they get blasted here on AZ.. lots of whining but no solutions.

More power to you!

I think it is the nature of the animal. It is probably true in all sports. I remember Marge Shott, the owner of the Cincinnati Reds, once called her players "million dollar babies" during a baseball strike. (she also made a very similar ignorant racist comment). I don't have any problem getting blasted. It comes with the territory of new ideas.

 

[sfleinen]

Be careful who you quote or use as reference to support your stance

I think it is the nature of the animal. It is probably true in all sports. I remember Marge Shott, the owner of the Cincinnati Reds, once called her players "million dollar babies" during a baseball strike. (she also made a very similar ignorant racist comment). I don't have any problem getting blasted. It comes with the territory of new ideas.

Paul:

The problem is that Marge completely nullified any substantive truth of her "million dollar babies" comment by her ignorant racist comments. (And notice that's plural -- there wasn't just one.) She basically nuked her own reputation with those dumb, inane comments. So any "substance" or truth to her babies comment has no weight to it whatsoever -- noone pays any attention to quotes by Marge Shott. They're worthless, even *if* one or two of them -- e.g. concerning the elitist attitude of players -- have some truth to them.

Be careful who you quote or use to support your endeavors. You could've picked a much better example than Marge Shott.

-Sean

 

[Paul Schofield]

Paul:

The problem is that Marge completely nullified any substantive truth of her "million dollar babies" comment by her ignorant racist comments. (And notice that's plural -- there wasn't just one.) She basically nuked her own reputation with those dumb, inane comments. So any "substance" or truth to her babies comment has no weight to it whatsoever -- noone pays any attention to quotes by Marge Shott. They're worthless, even *if* one or two of them -- e.g. concerning the elitist attitude of players -- have some truth to them.

Be careful who you quote or use to support your endeavors. You could've picked a much better example than Marge Shott.

-Sean

You missed with that one. Marge Shott was the perfect example. She was closed minded, ignorant, and stubborn. She did not listen to anyone. She had no credibility. I like to hear other opinions and ideas. I welcome them. I am inspired by them. My comments were not to give credence to Marge Shott but were to liken her quote to "bi7chy little girls". I do not see the players that way.

 

[Paul Schofield]

We just keep doing what we do. The results speak for themselves. We ran our 13th quarterly tournament with the "No Conflict Rules". The event is a one day $40 entry fee tourney. The field filled a week in advance with 64 players. We could have easily had 128. The phone rang off the hook for the prior week with players wanting in. The Calcutta hit just under $8000. This is not bad for a one day event. Here are the RESULTS.

The modified chart worked like a charm. The race to 7W/6L tournament was completed in 13 hours and 35 minutes. The rules and the chart work. Combined, they make for a successful affair.

As one player put it "No racking and breaking drama makes for a good tournament."

Get the balls racked/broke and shoot what you break. What's the big deal?

 

[AtLarge]

Paul -- Please explain the meaning of "Break Count Average" and "Number of Break Counts."

 

[Paul Schofield]

I am going to try to come up with a visual comparison of standard double elimination chart and the modified format.

 

[Island Drive]

You are exactly right. I am not going to go through the stats and bore anybody with the logic. I will just say this: It just feels right to play and shoot what you break.

The No Conflict Rules make pool faster and more fun.

Paul....Your rules too me are like the words in a great song, but until someone actually Sings/Plays....the words, you/they have NO idea how much it would be enjoyed....unless the words were put to music/play. The music of our game, ''the song'' is the sounds of people having fun, or not, or complaining. The document you have created....no conflict....can ONLY be heard, felt and realized when played. Because we are so entrenched in the thoughts we have about our game, anything new Must be sung to see if its enjoyable. The words to the song Graceland by Paul Simon, have much more impact if you hear it played. They were created and realized during the height of Apartheid days in Africa.

 

[Island Drive]

All these rule manipulations are just a sad symptom of what's wrong with pool now days. Folks will tolerate just about anything to get a tourney with added money I guess. If you fund it, they will come.

Here's what I find telling. Five pages of discussion here over several weeks and not a single person who has participated in these things has come forward to stick up for the format. I guess it's like riding a moped.

Yeah, but having been involved with motorcycles All my life, Mopeds have changed quite a bit since the first chain drive models. Some are conical hub, variable speed belt drive that can climb hills from a dead stop, but the older ones you have too pedal from a dead stop on a hill. See ya on the hill as I'm passing you by while your peddling...