Formats - Double Elimination

Cornerman

Cornerman

Cue Author...Sometimes
Silver Member
Just wanted to separate this out. For those that are complaining about the single extended race rather than the "true double elimination" format, can I ask... exactly how many of you (who are complaining) have actually played through a true DE final?

Extended race single set (and worse... shortened single final race) have now been common for... three decades in professional pool? How many more decades do we go before the "it should be true double elimination" complaints stop? Never?

You'll see every format out there... SE, DE, true DE, modified two-stage SE after DE qualifying, Optional bye back DE....

The single race finals isn't uncommon. It's now highly common.
 
Cornerman said:
... The single race finals isn't uncommon. It's now highly common.
Click to expand...

Here's another way to think about it, Freddie. If the player from the losers' side wins the tournament with just a single set in the finals, he always ends up with a better win-loss record for the tournament than did the player from the winners' side. They both have one loss, and the player on the winners' side didn't have an opportunity to win as many matches as his opponent (because he stayed on the winners' side), but a winner from the losers' side has done more work.

For example. If the event had 128 players, the hot-seat winner arrives at the finals with a match record of 7-0. (We'll assume no byes.) If he loses the single-set finals, he ends up with a record of 7-1.

For comparison, here is the final record for someone who wins the event from the losers' side, and had his first loss on the winners' side in the round indicated:

1st round loss -- final record is 13-1
2nd -- 13-1
3rd -- 12-1
4th -- 11-1
5th -- 10-1
6th -- 9-1
7th -- 8-1

"But they both have one loss and should have to play another set to decide it." Well, that's certainly a valid view. But I think many spectators, event employees, and players (particularly if they have to work the next day) have been happy to settle for the single-set finals.
 
Cornerman said:
Just wanted to separate this out. For those that are complaining about the single extended race rather than the "true double elimination" format, can I ask... exactly how many of you (who are complaining) have actually played through a true DE final?

Extended race single set (and worse... shortened single final race) have now been common for... three decades in professional pool? How many more decades do we go before the "it should be true double elimination" complaints stop? Never?

You'll see every format out there... SE, DE, true DE, modified two-stage SE after DE qualifying, Optional bye back DE....

The single race finals isn't uncommon. It's now highly common.
Click to expand...

I understand that it is highly common,but I don't agree with it.
What does the winner of the hot seat match get for being undefeated
going into the finals, NOTHING. To me it's wrong, JMHO
 
rjb1168 said:
I understand that it is highly common,but I don't agree with it.
What does the winner of the hot seat match get for being undefeated
going into the finals, NOTHING. To me it's wrong, JMHO
Click to expand...

I understand the reasoning behind a single-extended race in the final, but it did always bother me a bit that the player on the hot seat doesn't get something for his troubles.

Has anyone ever considered giving the hot seat player some small, nominal advantage? It could be small like the first break or something potentially more valuable like, the hot seat player can win the set by 1 game while the loser's side participant has to win by 2?
 
Cornerman said:
Just wanted to separate this out. For those that are complaining about the single extended race rather than the "true double elimination" format, can I ask... exactly how many of you (who are complaining) have actually played through a true DE final?

Extended race single set (and worse... shortened single final race) have now been common for... three decades in professional pool? How many more decades do we go before the "it should be true double elimination" complaints stop? Never?

You'll see every format out there... SE, DE, true DE, modified two-stage SE after DE qualifying, Optional bye back DE....

The single race finals isn't uncommon. It's now highly common.
Click to expand...

It was a bad idea then, and it still is.

If you feel you must have a single match final, do what the old PPPA Straight Pool
tourneys did - put the field into two flights, winner of flight 1 plays winner of flight 2
a one match finals... Next.

Dale
 
I've never been a fan of true double elimination. Sport should be of relatively determinate length because people have lives to live.

I recall the 2009 Derby City Classic One Pocket final between John Schmidt and Scott Frost. Schmidt owned the hot seat and the match, if memory serves, began in the early evening. I had a dinner reservation for 9:00 but was advised by a couple of the one pocket gurus that I should cancel it. My friend had a 10:00 flight out of Louisville that night and he changed it because he and half the world expected two possibly lengthy sets.

As luck would have it, Schmidt won the first set in under an hour and I'd have made my dinner appointment and my friend would have made his flight. Indeed, the final might have gone very deep into the night (as happened one year in the bank pool event in which the final lasted until nearly 3:00 AM, and I went to bed before the end), but it didn't.

The problem is with double elimination itself. In most events, it means that an undefeated player will meet a one-loss player in the final. At Derby City, in which there is a redraw after every round, the final may consist of two one-loss players. Still, the format is always known before any event begins. Simply put, the hot seat match is a bit less important in standard format events in which true double elimination is not in use, but the contestants know that in advance.

True double elimination can drain me of my enthusiasm as a fan. To be fair, though, Sossei and Dechaine produced a wonderful two set final at the 2014 Ocean States Championship in which Sossei forced a second set and came within a seven-nine combo of going double hill in set two before losing the hotly contested final.

Still, on the whole, I don't think it's fair to viewers (fans, sponsors, cameramen, etc.) to have finals of highly indeterminate length.
 
rjb1168 said:
... What does the winner of the hot seat match get for being undefeated going into the finals ...
Click to expand...

yelvis111 said:
... it did always bother me a bit that the player on the hot seat doesn't get something for his troubles. ...
Click to expand...

The hot-seat winner does get something of value -- the ability to play for the title without winning as many matches as his opponent. [Exception -- if the hot-seat loser makes it to the finals, both players will have won the same number of matches to that point.]
 
When we play the house tournament quarterly final in my pool hall here in Amsterdam we play double KO, the player from the winning side gets a frame head start in the final, not a huge difference, but a slight advantage.

I actually won the thing last weekend. I went to the loser's side in the 3rd round (QF). I had to play 3 more matches before the final, so final was my 7th match. The other guy was only playing his 5th match in the final, dunno whether that's an advantage or disadvantage really?
 
As long as the rules were announced at the beginning of the tournament and everyone agrees, then they should not complain after. If one player don't like the rules then don't play. Who would know who will be contesting in the finals? No one. Rules apply to everyone not just the guys in the finals.
 
I can see arguments for and against.

In American football it is a common practice to ICE the kicker. It is done to unnerve the kicker. Doesn't work very well with the Pros. Having to wait to play the finals can have adverse effects on the hot seat player. Players can lose their momentum or have a slow start and not get or stay in their zone. Pros shouldn't be affected by this much but us bangers can have issues.

Al
 
Just played ref to a private invite tourney with DE. The winners side got a 3 game spot in the final (race to 11 alternate break)... Seemed fair to me...
 
No DE

sjm said:
I've never been a fan of true double elimination. Sport should be of relatively determinate length because people have lives to live.

I recall the 2009 Derby City Classic One Pocket final between John Schmidt and Scott Frost. Schmidt owned the hot seat and the match, if memory serves, began in the early evening. I had a dinner reservation for 9:00 but was advised by a couple of the one pocket gurus that I should cancel it. My friend had a 10:00 flight out of Louisville that night and he changed it because he and half the world expected two possibly lengthy sets.

As luck would have it, Schmidt won the first set in under an hour and I'd have made my dinner appointment and my friend would have made his flight. Indeed, the final might have gone very deep into the night (as happened one year in the bank pool event in which the final lasted until nearly 3:00 AM, and I went to bed before the end), but it didn't.

The problem is with double elimination itself. In most events, it means that an undefeated player will meet a one-loss player in the final. At Derby City, in which there is a redraw after every round, the final may consist of two one-loss players. Still, the format is always known before any event begins. Simply put, the hot seat match is a bit less important in standard format events in which true double elimination is not in use, but the contestants know that in advance.

True double elimination can drain me of my enthusiasm as a fan. To be fair, though, Sossei and Dechaine produced a wonderful two set final at the 2014 Ocean States Championship in which Sossei forced a second set and came within a seven-nine combo of going double hill in set two before losing the hotly contested final.

Still, on the whole, I don't think it's fair to viewers (fans, sponsors, cameramen, etc.) to have finals of highly indeterminate length.
Click to expand...

Well said.

Tennis does just fine without double elimination, as do other sports.
 
Logic!

AtLarge said:
The hot-seat winner does get something of value -- the ability to play for the title without winning as many matches as his opponent. [Exception -- if the hot-seat loser makes it to the finals, both players will have won the same number of matches to that point.]
Click to expand...

Be careful! You're using logic here!
 
AtLarge said:
The hot-seat winner does get something of value -- the ability to play for the title without winning as many matches as his opponent. [Exception -- if the hot-seat loser makes it to the finals, both players will have won the same number of matches to that point.]
Click to expand...
But the "exception" is very often the case. I don't have the stats (you're the stats master, so you probably know the numbers better than any of us), but it's reasonable to guess that more than half the time the hot-seat loser makes it to the finals.
 
Last edited:
jsp said:
But the "exception" is very often the case. I don't have the stats (you're the stats master, so you probably know the numbers better than any of us), but it's reasonable to guess that more than half the time the hot-seat loser makes it to the finals.
Click to expand...

Yup, I'm sure the exception applies quite a bit. And your "reasonable ... guess" is logical, as well. But it may become another research project.:)
 
I used to be really supportive of the true double elimination finals, because it seemed most fair in my mind. After really thinking about it though, I like the extended single race better. Good mix of advantage for the hot seat, and still a somewhat predictable time frame for the match to finish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top