Tournament/gambling idea

Luxury

Luxury

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Has anyone ever heard of a tournament or gambling session where the rule is that if player A runs a 7 pack and out or whatever the set length is then player B gets a chance to break and run 7 consecutive racks and as soon as he fails to break and run a rack the set is over?

Seems fair and would prevent everyone from having to listen to a grumblefest. It wouldn't cut much into the schedule as it is so rare that both players would run that many racks.

I won't go into how it would go if they both run all the racks now.
 
Luxury said:
Has anyone ever heard of a tournament or gambling session where the rule is that if player A runs a 7 pack and out or whatever the set length is then player B gets a chance to break and run 7 consecutive racks and as soon as he fails to break and run a rack the set is over?

Seems fair and would prevent everyone from having to listen to a grumblefest. It wouldn't cut much into the schedule as it is so rare that both players would run that many racks.

I won't go into how it would go if they both run all the racks now.
Click to expand...

That rule was used during Derby City Classics 2009. They never needed it though:grin-square:
 
Most likely it would not affect the schedule at all, since most normal matches will end 7-5, 7-4, and include safeties etc.

A match like this will be 7-0 when the other player gets his chance, and none of the games that have been played and will be played will consist of safeties or push-outs, just run-outs.

But, if it should happen that both players run out the set and the score is 7-7, who wins?
 
Sudden death: player a wins lag in sudden death. Breaks and fails to run out. Whoever wins that game wins the match. If player a breaks and runs then player b breaks next rack and as soon as he misses it's over like college football overtime. ( player a put up a better offense during his break)

If they both break and run then you keep going like you just restarted sudden death where whoever wins a non-break n run rack takes it.

I have no idea how derby city had it planned. If I ever run a tourney I will try this.
 
like Grady sais.....We all should practice the lag!

I understand your idea, but it sounds a little too much like not keeping score in little kids soccer games, or an event where everyone gets a trophy.....just too PC for me. The match starts with the lag......lose the lag and you very well could lose the set.

Break the balls bad in 14.1 and you could sit for 150....thats just the nature of the beast IMO.

Along the same line.....WTF is with guys playing a long set, and saying you gotta win by 2?...I just don't get that one.
 
Gerry said:
like Grady sais.....We all should practice the lag!

I understand your idea, but it sounds a little too much like not keeping score in little kids soccer games, or an event where everyone gets a trophy.....just too PC for me. The match starts with the lag......lose the lag and you very well could lose the set.

Break the balls bad in 14.1 and you could sit for 150....thats just the nature of the beast IMO.

Along the same line.....WTF is with guys playing a long set, and saying you gotta win by 2?...I just don't get that one.
Click to expand...

The coin flip though.
 
kinda like the "Must win by . . . " play

Gerry,

Playing a race to a certain number assures a fairly long race will be played and "must win by . . ." insures after a very tough battle by both players the winner has to win by more than one shot. Although it is exciting for the viewers, it's a heart breaker for the player to play for many hours and then lose by sometimes one shot. I like race to eleven, two ahead. Race to twenty-one, three ahead. Race to 100, maybe five or seven ahead.

Just my thoughts. Of course you would almost have to cap it somewhere with sudden death after so many games or some matches would never end. Maybe 25% more than the original "race to" number.

Hu



Gerry said:
like Grady sais.....We all should practice the lag!

I understand your idea, but it sounds a little too much like not keeping score in little kids soccer games, or an event where everyone gets a trophy.....just too PC for me. The match starts with the lag......lose the lag and you very well could lose the set.

Break the balls bad in 14.1 and you could sit for 150....thats just the nature of the beast IMO.

Along the same line.....WTF is with guys playing a long set, and saying you gotta win by 2?...I just don't get that one.
Click to expand...
 
In local bar tourney race to 2 I think it's a good idea too. It's always a coin flip then and I think it would prevent a lot of anguish after a guy has sat for an hour just to be eliminated due to a coin flip. Let him shoot till he misses then he won't cry and he's more likely to come back next week.

It would definitely make for some exciting pool too. Which we really need.
 
I dunno how the players would like it, probably no objections because it's fairly rare. As a fan I think I'd be pretty excited to see this. I agree that pool is not always fair and we don't need to give anyone a special chance, but this is so uncommon it'd be less about charity for the loser and more about a sort of head to head challenge to see who has the best break'n'run game under pressure. The idea that someone has to break and run 7 or lose is great to sweat and you can't deny that they deserved the chance if they pull it off.

And anyway if the whole set of a tournament can be run out without the other guy shooting, that tells me the length of the set was too short. Those races to 7 in pro 9b events are a joke. So this would sort of be a correction for that problem.
 
If I'm not mistaken at one time in 3-c tournaments , if you did not get the brake and you lost the match , you were allowed to try and tie the match by setting up a brake shot and running out ( e. g. - you lost 50 - 41 ) you need to run 9 to tie the match. I don't think they play this way now .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top