The Derby City Draw: A Proposed Solution

oneballeddie

oneballeddie

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
To All Pool Fans!

I think the Derby City Classic is the 'best of the best' pool tournaments in the world. And if you've been there you know that waiting around for the draw - and trying to figure out when you play - can be agonizing. Despite this issue the tournament grows every year and I hope it continues to prosper forever.

Well, here's a proposed solution to the waiting problem. I call it The Dynamic Derby Draw. It's fair, it's random, it assures every round starts on schedule, and it includes an option for scheduled matches.

Greg Sullivan, Mark Griffin and I have had several discussions about the Dynamic Derby Draw, and we'd like your feedback. We're inviting the pool world -- fans, vendors, spectators -- and most of all the players to go through the demo and give us your feedback.

Should the Derby City Classic go to scheduled matches in 2009?

I admit to not being the world's greatest programmer so I apologize up front for any bugs and quirks in the demo. If you have any questions or would like a guided tour please contact me and we'll walk through it together.

The demo is at www.pooltournamentmanager.com.

There's a feedback form at the bottom where you can vote on it. Thanks again for taking a look!

Regards,
Ed Scott
February 3, 2008
 
Last edited:
This is pretty cool. The concept of starting to pair up the next round before the current round is closed out makes sense as long as there is no advantage to any player and it looks like you've figured out a way to accomodate this.

How would announcing the table assignments play into this?
 
Table Assignment in the Dynamic Draw

Da Poet said:
This is pretty cool. The concept of starting to pair up the next round before the current round is closed out makes sense as long as there is no advantage to any player and it looks like you've figured out a way to accomodate this.

How would announcing the table assignments play into this?
Click to expand...

Poet,

Thanks for the positive feedback.

Your question about table assignment is a very good one since the demo does not make it clear how this is done. After the draw 90% of the matches are ready to go. But several tables may still be in use. As you can see in the demo by sorting the draw by Table number (just click on the Table column header) tables in use are not assigned to the first session, but then appear in the second and subsequent sessions. This simple approach relies on the (possibly flawed) assumption that the matches running late will wind up before the first set of matches in the next round themselves finish. But this might not be true. I can think of a couple of better approaches and will take this as a challenge for the next version of the demo.

Thanks again for the constructive input!

Ed
 
Thanks, it always good to see folks putting effort into improving things!

Having gone through what you have presented again, and seeing the flat response here, :rolleyes: maybe there has to be a simpler way of presenting this concept? It's pretty exhausting going through it all, but then again, maybe that's the only way it can be presented, I don't know.

There is a tricky balance of interests issue here. Starting things on time would certainly be a step in a good direction.

I think paying folks basically want a guaranteed minimum time they have till their next match starts so they can chill out. Even waiting for an hour or so for the match in front of them to finish is not a big deal.

It's a great event and a lot of fun and with a little tweaking, it can be better!
 
Last edited:
I Agree

Da Poet said:
Thanks, it always good to see folks putting effort into improving things!

Having gone through what you have presented again, and seeing the flat response here, :rolleyes: maybe there has to be a simpler way of presenting this concept? It's pretty exhausting going through it all, but then again, maybe that's the only way it can be presented, I don't know.

There is a tricky balance of interests issue here. Starting things on time would certainly be a step in a good direction.

I think paying folks basically want a guaranteed minimum time they have till their next match starts so they can chill out. Even waiting for an hour or so for the match in front of them to finish is not a big deal.

It's a great event and a lot of fun and with a little tweaking, it can be better!
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right. It's like having to sit through a Texas Instruments presentation on how good their DLP chips are designed. All I care about is how good the picture looks! And I wouldn't be interested in hearing about how I can still get along with my old CRT set...

Scheduled matches at Derby City would probably make a lot of players a lot happier. Probably reduce some of the shouting and threats of violence I've heard too when somebody misses their match!
 
A Simpler Explanation of What the New Draw Means

Throughout the Derby City Classic firm starting times for every round and match would be posted. Here's an example of the schedules that would be displayed on the big screens in the tournament room, on the TV's upstairs in your hotel room, and on the internet for those staying at other hotels:
 

Attachments

  • TV2.jpg
    TV2.jpg
    78.5 KB · Views: 431
And the Master Schedule for the Tournament

For some reason the other screen shot didn't show ... maybe it's too wide ...

You can get to it quickly in the demo with four clicks: GO -> SKIP THIS -> SKIP THIS -> GO

You can start the demo here
 
Last edited:
Seeing those times up there looks great!

Ya got me thinking. lol

You know, it might be more appropriate to call them post times rather than start times. Kind of fitting for an event in the Derby city. :D

If a match doesn't start at the exact time it's scheduled, then the originally scheduled start time is not really the start time any longer.

Post time and start time should not be confused with each other. If you check in with your table, and you find that the matches are starting say 45 minutes later than post, I think people will accept that a lot easier than if they find out that the matches are starting 45 later than their "start" time. It's a subtle symantic thing maybe, but scheduling a tournament this size is going to be a work in progress to some degree and if you call them post times, you can schedule the times a little more agressively without players having too high of an expectation to actually play their match exactly at the time scheduled.

Ideally, no one should expect anything more than that matches will not start before a certain time. Even if a few tables are running two hours past post, knowing that is still much much better than the info provided now.

Again nice work!
 
Post Times

Da Poet said:
Seeing those times up there looks great!

Ya got me thinking. lol

You know, it might be more appropriate to call them post times rather than start times. Kind of fitting for an event in the Derby city. :D

If a match doesn't start at the exact time it's scheduled, then the originally scheduled start time is not really the start time any longer.

Post time and start time should not be confused with each other. If you check in with your table, and you find that the matches are starting say 45 minutes later than post, I think people will accept that a lot easier than if they find out that the matches are starting 45 later than their "start" time. It's a subtle symantic thing maybe, but scheduling a tournament this size is going to be a work in progress to some degree and if you call them post times, you can schedule the times a little more agressively without players having too high of an expectation to actually play their match exactly at the time scheduled.

Ideally, no one should expect anything more than that matches will not start before a certain time. Even if a few tables are running two hours past post, knowing that is still much much better than the info provided now.

Again nice work!
Click to expand...

I like the notion of calling them post times. You're right that having a guarantee your match cannot start before a given time is a lot better than finding out it already started!

Question: Did the 2008 Derby use the hourly sessions approach? I remember in the midst of the pandemonium of 2007 Scott Smith tried a new idea of starting each session on the hour. So if you were 28-3 and the round started at 8:00PM you knew your match was on table 28 but could not start before 11:00PM. I thought that was a big improvement. Did they keep it in?
 
oneballeddie said:
... Should the Derby City Classic go to scheduled matches in 2009? ...
Click to expand...
Yes it should, if for no other reason than to make the 14.1 and 1-P challenges easier to enter.

But I have a different proposal. It has the advantage of letting people know within about an hour when they are going to start play. Once you start, you play four straight matches unless you lose. If you lose in your first four matches, you can buy back until a 1024-place chart is filled.

Each event is in two phases: the prelims and the finals. The prelims take two days. Entrants are divided up into groups of 16. Each group of 16 plays out a single-elimination mini-tournament. The winner of the group of 16 goes onto the finals chart and will play on the third day of the event. All of the losers in a group can buy back if they want, and are placed in new 16-player mini-tournaments.

The finals are a simple 64-player (max) single-elimination tournament. All of the players who make it onto the finals board are in the money. If the board does not fill up, the players who qualified first get any byes.

As far as scheduling, all you have to do is keep track of which group (of 64) is starting and know that it takes about 15 or 20 minutes to start each group. If you are group 26 and group 10 is starting, you have about a 4-hour wait. Once you start playing in your group of 16, you finish without a break. You might have to wait a little for one of the other matches to finish, but there's no searching for players since they will all be finishing matches in the same area.

With this kind of buy-back, there is also no waiting for people to decide whether they want to buy back or not. Also, if you lose, you can go have dinner and then buy back if you feel like it. It would even be possible to let players enter late since they would just go into the pool of buy-backs. If someone wants to buy back more than once, that's OK too, since they are starting at the start each time.

We have used this form of buy-back in tournaments in this area and it gets a lot of play done in a short time without a lot of waiting around, unlike double elimination.
 
I have heard through the grapevine that Greg is considering 2 different proposals to address this issue.

#1 - MORE TABLES.

#2 - Divide players into groups; then play round-robin in the groups to determine who advances (sounds similar to BJ's description above). When your group starts, you just play continuously until completed.
 
Personally, I don't think folks had a problem with the wait so much as the fear of missing their match unless they were glued to the screen in the main tournament room and checking in with their table every 15 minutes.

It seemed to me that it was tough enough getting all the players in the first round in the 9 ball tourney to play at least one match in the first day. If you go to groups, the way it was outlined, it sounds like you will have a good percentage of people that will not play a match on the first day of the first round.

If you're only playing in one event, going through hell traveling across the country only to find that you will have to wait an extra day after getting there might not be too popular with a lot of folks.
 
Da Poet said:
... It seemed to me that it was tough enough getting all the players in the first round in the 9 ball tourney to play at least one match in the first day. If you go to groups, the way it was outlined, it sounds like you will have a good percentage of people that will not play a match on the first day of the first round.

If you're only playing in one event, going through hell traveling across the country only to find that you will have to wait an extra day after getting there might not be too popular with a lot of folks.
Click to expand...
If you have fewer than 512 entrants, everyone gets to play the first day. The reason you can play so many in one day is that there is no wasted time on the tables -- all tables can be kept full all the time. Also, you can make a preliminary draw a week ahead of the tournament (or whenever the late entry period starts) so people can know about when their (first) group plays.

Also, while it might not be good for the hotel, there is no reason special cases couldn't be placed into the second day of prelims, maybe for a small extra charge. The disadvantage of playing late is that you have no chance for a bye on the final 64-spot board.

Since new entries might be accepted up until about 7PM on the second day of play, I suppose you could just take a chance and show up late, hoping the board of 1024 hadn't filled.

The 1024-entry scenario assumes about 60 tables available. I've heard that many tables or even more is doable in the hypothetical new venue. With enough tables, there's no reason you couldn't do a 2048-entry tournament with this kind of buy-back format.
 
Bob Jewett said:
If you have fewer than 512 entrants, everyone gets to play the first day. The reason you can play so many in one day is that there is no wasted time on the tables -- all tables can be kept full all the time. Also, you can make a preliminary draw a week ahead of the tournament (or whenever the late entry period starts) so people can know about when their (first) group plays.

Also, while it might not be good for the hotel, there is no reason special cases couldn't be placed into the second day of prelims, maybe for a small extra charge. The disadvantage of playing late is that you have no chance for a bye on the final 64-spot board.

Since new entries might be accepted up until about 7PM on the second day of play, I suppose you could just take a chance and show up late, hoping the board of 1024 hadn't filled.

The 1024-entry scenario assumes about 60 tables available. I've heard that many tables or even more is doable in the hypothetical new venue. With enough tables, there's no reason you couldn't do a 2048-entry tournament with this kind of buy-back format.
Click to expand...


How much time do you estimate for each match from the start of one match to the start of the one after? (9 Ball DCC Race to 7 )
 
Clarification

Bob Jewett said:
But I have a different proposal. It has the advantage of letting people know within about an hour when they are going to start play. Once you start, you play four straight matches unless you lose.
Click to expand...


Interesting format idea. But I didn't understand how about an hour's notice is an advantage over scheduled matches where you know exactly when you will play hours in advance. Also, playing 4 matches back to back could enervate an old dog like me. I like the opportunity to rest between matches, maybe watch a few other matches or shop cues, etc.
 
Da Poet said:
How much time do you estimate for each match from the start of one match to the start of the one after? (9 Ball DCC Race to 7 )
Click to expand...
At 9 ball, a race to 7 averages an hour. If you figure that you want to play 480 matches each day of the qualifiers (to finish 512 entries), and do it in 12 hours, that's 40 tables. But I think you want to figure for the one pocket, which might take an hour and a half on average, so you would like to have 60 tables. Alternatively, you could play for more than 12 hours (10AM to midnight?) but that's hard on the staff. Also, if you don't end up with 1024 total entries (originals plus buy-backs) you don't need as long.
 
oneballeddie said:
Interesting format idea. But I didn't understand how about an hour's notice is an advantage over scheduled matches where you know exactly when you will play hours in advance. Also, playing 4 matches back to back could enervate an old dog like me. I like the opportunity to rest between matches, maybe watch a few other matches or shop cues, etc.
Click to expand...
If matches start exactly on schedule, you necessarily have tables open with nobody on them. If you have extra tables, that's OK, but if you want to have as much play as possible on the tables you have, you need to keep all of them busy. With the same number of tables, you will be playing much later into the night with exactly scheduled matches.

Also, you only have to play four straight matches if you win the first three. An alternative format has only two or three straight matches but then you have the problem of reconvening the players left in the group a second time, and that wastes time.
 
Bob Jewett said:
If matches start exactly on schedule, you necessarily have tables open with nobody on them. If you have extra tables, that's OK, but if you want to have as much play as possible on the tables you have, you need to keep all of them busy. With the same number of tables, you will be playing much later into the night with exactly scheduled matches.

Also, you only have to play four straight matches if you win the first three. An alternative format has only two or three straight matches but then you have the problem of reconvening the players left in the group a second time, and that wastes time.
Click to expand...

I don't think the main objective with what OneballEddie is proposing is to create hard start times. The best part of what he has done is that he has come up with a plan to get the tournaments started on time without compromising the fundamentals of the existing format.

As we were kicking around earlier, perhaps a "Post Time" could be used to simply indicate the time that the player should be ready to start. These can be scheduled aggressively, perhaps a half hour before the table would be projected to be ready. Again, staying with the current format.

The thing is also that when it gets right down to it, this format change doesn't sound like a lot of fun. Hearding players through like cattle eliminating more of them sooner, I just don't know. It's fun to come down and at least enjoy that first full day because you're in the tournament, no matter what. You lose you can buy back in, no problem. Gives you a reason to hang around.
 
Table Utilization v. Match Time Certainty

Bob Jewett said:
If matches start exactly on schedule, you necessarily have tables open with nobody on them. If you have extra tables, that's OK, but if you want to have as much play as possible on the tables you have, you need to keep all of them busy. With the same number of tables, you will be playing much later into the night with exactly scheduled matches.
Also, you only have to play four straight matches if you win the first three. An alternative format has only two or three straight matches but then you have the problem of reconvening the players left in the group a second time, and that wastes time.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree that in all formats there will be a trade off between maximizing table utilization at the expense of player convenience. If we give players certain post times - i.e. guarantee that no match will start before its post time - then we will have open tables at various points in the tournament. Reliable post times means you have estimated the average match length and, when matches end early, the table is open until the next scheduled match. This loss of table utilization extends the overall length of the tournament depending on how conservatively you estimated match length. On the other hand, if you underestimate match length then matches will still be underway when you want to start the next session. This creates a backlog of matches that also extends the overall length of the tournament. But in this latter case there is an added cost of inconvenience to the players waiting for their turn at the table. Unfortunately the current draw method maximizes player inconvenience while also failing to maximize table usage. It's great for maximizing table usage in the early part of a round but then breaks down at the end of every round waiting for a few late matches.

This is what I've tried to address with a "predictive draw". We get to pick between the player convenience of reliable post times and the amount of table under-utilization during a round. This choice is made by how aggressively or conservatively you estimate the time between matches and set your post times. Plus, we no longer have the situation at the end of a round where all the tables (and players) become idle waiting for the last match to complete. The next round proceeds on schedule.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top