Latest activity

Latest activity

 Social Media Forum list

Single Elimination vs Double Elimination in pro pool

J
insidesp.in said:
There were 9 upsets in the first 2 rounds of the Arizona
Click to expand...
My statement about two or three upsets in Arizona referred to the first round, when 128 players were reduced to 64. So your count of 9 upsets in the first two rounds does not apply in regard to my original statement.

It's also a mistake to go by Fargo ratings alone. Eye test and recent results/form are telling, too.

For example, Marc Bijsterbosch has been very erratic the past few years and not nearly as good as his Fargo suggests. If I recall correctly, his Fargo has fallen lately. Shuff, on the other hand, has improve steadily the past few years and of course was playing on native soil. He had home-court advantage, so to speak, and little wear and tear from travel to the U.S.
'
In my view, the only real upsets in Arizona in the first round were:

1)Wiktor Zielinski (831) losing to a fast-improving Walter Laikre (754)
2)Max Lechner (817) losing to Johnny Archer (750)
3)Eklent Kaci (830) losing to Sun Yi Hsuan (778)

Other matches that you might consider an upset, but I don't:

Omar Al Shaheen (789) losing to Andri Januarta (774)
Marc Bijisterbosch (785) losing to Brandon Shuff (756)
Dimitris Loukatos (777) losing to Lin Ta Li (705)

Also, Vitaly Patsura was a no-show vs Michael Bundy.
Click to expand...

U.S. OPEN 2026, Frisco, Texas, August 25-30

O
sjm said:
Agreed. We do it because we enjoy it, but comparison across generations is a very inexact science, arguably even a pointless pursuit.

Ultimately, when we look for the greatest, we look for who succeeded against their contemporaries most consistently. While, as you note, it's about more than trophies, what all the super-greats have in common is excellence in the high pressure situations at the majors. By generation, Greenleaf dominated his peers the most, then it was Mosconi, then Lassiter, then Sigel. More recently, it has been Shane and now it is Josh. These are the players that have mass-produced titles at the majors, especially at World Championship events.

In the end, there's no real way to compare a Filler to a Sigel. Each mass-produced major titles against the players he faced and has a resume that is mind-blowing. Best is to just appreciate both of them for what they achieved.
Click to expand...
You didn't mention Earl.
Click to expand...

Revolutionize Tournament Structure

D
muskyed said:
I think a lot of these dragged out schedules are because of agreements with the hotels and casinos on increased room stays as most require players to stay at the host hotels.
Click to expand...
I agree. I think what I am trying to do is fill the hotel with 192 guys for a few days, then 128 for a few days, then a diminishing number thereafter. No matter what, you must have people checking out a leaving long before the tournament ends no matter what.

But yeah, there certainly are "you must stay at the host hotel to play" rules as negotiated parts of the tournament/host contract.
Click to expand...

Revolutionize Tournament Structure

D
Let's get beyond Single or Double Elimination.
Keep the tournament at 256 players to create the maximum prize pool through entry fees.
Limit the number of days the top professionals have to be on site.

I am creating rounds of play, with the top 64 (seeded players) receiving a bye through round one, so they are not on site for the first few days.

Round 1 — Involving 192 unseeded players who we can describe as locals, high amateurs, guys willing to spend a buck for experience​


  • 192 unseeded players are placed in 64 groups of 3
  • Round robin: each player plays 2 matches
  • 1 player advances from each group
  • Guarantees everyone two matches
  • If each player in a group is 1-1, the first tie breaker is games won minus games lost. If that is tied for two players, then head-to-head result breaks the tie between players with the same games won/lost differential.
  • 64 Unseeded Group Winners Advance to Round Two

So you have:


64 Seeded players now joining 64 Round 1 winners = 128 players


Round 2 — 128 players, Seeded Players are now on Site​


  • 32 groups of 4, each with two Seeded and two Unseeded players
  • Seeded Players are balanced (1 with 64, 2 with 63, 3 with 62, etc.) and joined by two Unseeded Players
  • Each group plays a round robin
  • Each player plays 3 matches
  • Only the group winner advances from each group (see below)*
  • Similar tie-breaking process as Round One
  • 32 players advance

Round 3 — Single-Elimination Bracket​


Then you can go into a traditional 32-player knockout, single-elimination tournament. Players are seeded into the bracket based on pre-tournament rankings. If player #1 gets out of his group, he is guaranteed to play the lowest seeded of the other 31 to advance. If there are several unseeded players that advance out of the second round groups (unlikely but possible), the #1 seed gets the player with the lowest Fargo rate. (In other words, the best players get the easiest path.)

Only the top 32 get paid, compressing money toward the top and making it more likely that top players can earn something of a living.

*I admit that advancing one person from the Round Two groups is debatable. It could be that two advance, making the single-elimination bracket (Round 3) a 64-player bracket, with payment to the top 64.
Click to expand...

Where do I hit the Q ball to make this down to the bottom left hand corner

J
SHORTY WRIGHT said:
When the two balls are touching, you cannot push through a ball. It’s a foul …
Click to expand...
No, it isn’t. Unless you are playing bad rules like UPL. Or more commonly with players ( and as we’ve seen recently, referees) who don’t know the rules. Most rule sets allow this. There have been some recent threads on this.
Click to expand...
Load more

Filter

Back
Top