ABP may be fixing games and tournaments

Mickey Qualls said:
I agree, I don't want to argue 'just to argue'.

But if I choose to drop $500 to play in the US Open, then I have the same costs involved as the 'pros' when it comes to travel, lodging, food, etc.
So why should a pro get a potential advantage by being able to play "lesser skilled players" early on ?

If pool were more mainstream, then I might reconsider my earlier post. But at this point, not many outside of the game know anyone other than Jeanette Lee is. And the ones that do, recognize her by her ethnicity.

I think Dogs hit the nail on the head :


There's not seeding at this event now. Why change it if it ain't broke ?
Click to expand...

Seeding is more negotiable than proof of prize money. You have a point, but it is minor when compared to the request about the prize money.

Hopefully Barry just scales back his expenses, ups ticket prices and requires past champions to pay entry fees, this way the US Open stays an icon, the players get to showcase at the US Open and fans and vendors can enjoy the open.

Focusing on details that are negotiable is just spinning the wheels of a car in place, you won't get anywhere. Unless you push for the big issues, like the prize money problem Barry failed to solve properly the past few years.

So far Barry hasn't stated what is non-negotiable terms are.
 
Last edited:
Dam..live and let them live. A person like me pays his $500 and
draws a champion because of seeding in the 1st round...Well dam I might not win the open lol This is ridiculous IMO. It is none of my business what kind of deal is struck. They are going to play hard regardless. I think many
are bashing just because they can. We don't pay salaries,they have to win
their pay. JMHO
 
DogsPlayingPool said:
... what about my idea of grouping all the pros in the top half of the bracket and letting them seed their section of the bracket?
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't want that. Do you really mean to put all the "pros" (however that is defined, which would be a problem in itself) in the top half of a 256-person flow chart and the "amateurs" in the bottom half (or the other way around)? That would assure at least 3rd place for an "amateur," when probably dozens of pros were playing better pool during the event. That would really make the event into a pro-am (even more than it is now), with a $10,000 guarantee (last year's 3rd place prize) for an "amateur."

The dilemma here, as you have noted in earlier posts, is that the U.S. Open prize fund depends so heavily on "dead money" from amateurs. In my ideal world, these people wouldn't even be in the event. It would be a smaller field with stringent qualification standards (and a large prize fund!). But that's not the way it is. Still, I want to view it as essentially a professional-level event, with others playing for fun, or bragging rights, or some small chance of making a few bucks. From that standpoint, I'm not concerned about an amateur's $500 entry fee giving him a completely equal chance in the draw with everyone else (i.e., no seeding). I'd favor seeding 32 players, which would put one of the seeds into each group of eight players (with a field of 256). The other players would be drawn randomly into the other 224 spots. A problem in the current state of pool affairs, of course, would be how to fairly determine who the seeded 32 players are and what their seeding positions should be.
 
AtLarge said:
No, I wouldn't want that. Do you really mean to put all the "pros" (however that is defined, which would be a problem in itself) in the top half of a 256-person flow chart and the "amateurs" in the bottom half (or the other way around)? That would assure at least 3rd place for an "amateur," when probably dozens of pros were playing better pool during the event. That would really make the event into a pro-am (even more than it is now), with a $10,000 guarantee (last year's 3rd place prize) for an "amateur."

The dilemma here, as you have noted in earlier posts, is that the U.S. Open prize fund depends so heavily on "dead money" from amateurs. In my ideal world, these people wouldn't even be in the event. It would be a smaller field with stringent qualification standards (and a large prize fund!). But that's not the way it is. Still, I want to view it as essentially a professional-level event, with others playing for fun, or bragging rights, or some small chance of making a few bucks. From that standpoint, I'm not concerned about an amateur's $500 entry fee giving him a completely equal chance in the draw with everyone else (i.e., no seeding). I'd favor seeding 32 players, which would put one of the seeds into each group of eight players (with a field of 256). The other players would be drawn randomly into the other 224 spots. A problem in the current state of pool affairs, of course, would be how to fairly determine who the seeded 32 players are and what their seeding positions should be.
Click to expand...

You are correct it would not be right to have the pros and amateurs playing separated all the way through the event. Obviously a re-draw would be needed at some reasonable point. I'm just wondering if something like that might be workable to give the pros the seeding they want and the amateurs the fair chance they want.

I sort of agree with you in a way. I consider myself a serious player but when it comes to a tournament with professionals, especially one as significant as the US Open, I'm not in it for the money, but rather the experience. And playing a set against Efren or Mika in a serious competition would be a dream experience in my view. In a way I'd rather go two and out to those two guys than make it say four rounds but lose to two unknown "A" players or shortstops. At the Swanee earlier this year I went about as far as a friend of mine did, but he drew Alex and I was kind of jealous of him (really I was happy for him because he was happy about it too). From that standpoint, seeding seems good to me because every amateur, including me, would have an equal chance of getting a match against a known pro, especially if you can last even just a couple of rounds. But I also realize that this isn't the goal for many other serious amateur players. From the posts I've read on this board it seems to me many of them want a fair shake along with everyone else to get as far in the tournament as they can, and because of this they don't like seeding. I understand that too.
 
DogsPlayingPool said:
You are correct it would not be right to have the pros and amateurs playing separated all the way through the event. Obviously a re-draw would be needed at some reasonable point. I'm just wondering if something like that might be workable to give the pros the seeding they want and the amateurs the fair chance they want.

I sort of agree with you in a way. I consider myself a serious player but when it comes to a tournament with professionals, especially one as significant as the US Open, I'm not in it for the money, but rather the experience. And playing a set against Efren or Mika in a serious competition would be a dream experience in my view. In a way I'd rather go two and out to those two guys than make it say four rounds but lose to two unknown "A" players or shortstops. At the Swanee earlier this year I went about as far as a friend of mine did, but he drew Alex and I was kind of jealous of him (really I was happy for him because he was happy about it too). From that standpoint, seeding seems good to me because every amateur, including me, would have an equal chance of getting a match against a known pro, especially if you can last even just a couple of rounds. But I also realize that this isn't the goal for many other serious amateur players. From the posts I've read on this board it seems to me many of them want a fair shake along with everyone else to get as far in the tournament as they can, and because of this they don't like seeding. I understand that too.
Click to expand...

When some friends of mine and I were toying with the idea of starting a tour (what young ambitious pool player hasn't), our idea was for events to have a 'pro' side and an 'amateur' side, i.e. two separate brackets. The pro side would have a higher payout and ranking points, but the twist was at the end, the amateur bracket champ would have a shot to 'knock off' the pro in a single race to 9 (or so) for $XXXX to be king of the hill.

We also thought that it might be interesting to have the pro side on 4 1/2 X 9s and the Amateur side on barboxes, with the king of the hill match on a barbox.

~rc
 
Is seeding like getting a handicap in the event? The better players get a chance to draw a lesser skilled player? And the lesser skilled player has a better chance to draw a better player? Isn't that bass ackwards? Sounds like a handicapped tourney to me. Not an open tourney.:scratchhead:
 
ososlow said:
Is seeding like getting a handicap in the event? The better players get a chance to draw a lesser skilled player? And the lesser skilled player has a better chance to draw a better player? Isn't that bass ackwards? Sounds like a handicapped tourney to me. Not an open tourney.:scratchhead:
Click to expand...

Exactly. My take of the pro players 'seeding' request is that they don't want to lose to unknowns. And seeding means that there are less matches they need to play to get into the money.

Anyone, pro or otherwise, that lays out $500 for entering, PLUS hotel & transportation, must think they have a real chance of winning the tournament. Many of the unknowns are just as capable of running racks as the pros are.
So why should a pro like, say, Shane Van Boening purposely get a pass when someone like, say, Dave Grau has to play from the first round ? They both paid the same entry fee. They both have the same expenses out of pocket. Why the favoritism ?
 
Mickey Qualls said:
Exactly. My take of the pro players 'seeding' request is that they don't want to lose to unknowns. And seeding means that there are less matches they need to play to get into the money.

Anyone, pro or otherwise, that lays out $500 for entering, PLUS hotel & transportation, must think they have a real chance of winning the tournament. Many of the unknowns are just as capable of running racks as the pros are.
So why should a pro like, say, Shane Van Boening purposely get a pass when someone like, say, Dave Grau has to play from the first round ? They both paid the same entry fee. They both have the same expenses out of pocket. Why the favoritism ?
Click to expand...

Because it is self serving. They want more...more ...more.
 
Mickey Qualls said:
Exactly. My take of the pro players 'seeding' request is that they don't want to lose to unknowns. And seeding means that there are less matches they need to play to get into the money.
Click to expand...

there are not less matches with seeding normally-they just place players in different brackets.
 
Mickey Qualls said:
Exactly. My take of the pro players 'seeding' request is that they don't want to lose to unknowns.
Click to expand...

Actually, 'seeding' INCREASES the chance of losing to an 'unknown'.
The pros don't want to draw each other early.
Seeding SEPARATES them in the draw.
 
Seeding

I respect what Shawn Putnam and others have said about the benefits of seeding, and I agree with some of that but I have to say all things considered, I am against seeding in tournaments.

If I was a promoter or a top pro I might think differently, but as a neutral observer and a fan of pool I am against it.

Mostly because I believe all tournaments should be pure competition with everyone playing under the same set of rules. A tough or an easy draw should have the same chance for everyone and should only be the result of a random draw. I also think the draw should be done publicly and in such a way so that everyone knows it could not have been tampered with. A big ping pong ball thing like the lotto uses or something like that.
 
From a personal (selfish) perspective I like the idea of seeding. If I was entering a pro tournament it would give me more of a chance to play against a big fish, which is one of the main reasons I enter higher level tournaments.

I recognize that the only thing that will help me raise my game is to play better players in a competitive environment.

- long time lurker, first time poster.
 
JAM said:
I have a friend, one I haven't hung out with in a long while and who reads this forum from time to time, who is addicted. He is prescribed Ambien, but his tolerance is not good anymore. He needs three and four times the dosage to affect him. Poor guy has ringing of the ears, and this is his only escape. He pays BIG BUCKS for Ambien on the Internet, because his prescription always runs out after a week.

Ambien is dangerously addictive. Actually, the best way to fall asleep every night soundly is exercise each and every day. It works. Unfortunately, I always find an excuse not to do it. :embarrassed2:
Click to expand...

Try watching one pocket! a real long balls uptable bunting match!

works like a charm when im horizontal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JAM
Chop chop

manwon said:
I have no idea if they do this at the Pro-Level but it is very common in local events at least in my local area. It has been going on for years and still is as we speak. Now while the dollar amount are certainly different the concept is exactly the same and all most anyone playing on regular basis in local events know that it is happening.!!

JIMO
Click to expand...

Chopping pots started in 1845, the year Brunswick began making tables! Very common nowadays also. As far as players chopping, that's their business. Calcuttas open a new can of worms but can be negotiated and also quite common. I speak of smaller tourneys mostly as most big events are played out. Hell you can't go home till the tourneys over so let's get out of here, I got to go to work tomorrow. You rail birds need to make your bets on early matches cause who knows where the nose goes when the doors closed!?
 
Just try seeding at a few events and see how it works out. People have to be open-minded enough to try, instead of not supporting the idea because they got scared they wouldn't be getting a fair chance.

If it doesn't work people can boycott the idea like a Barry event.
 
uwate said:
Try watching one pocket! a real long balls uptable bunting match!

works like a charm when im horizontal.
Click to expand...

LOLOLOLOL! :D

I actually may be one of the rare few who enjoys sweating one-hole games, especially if I'm in with one side of the match! Either way, it's like a chess game, and I can't wait to see what moves will be made. I do like watching one-pocket games better than rotation pool.

There's nothing sweeter than seeing an opponent miss and pulling for your horse as he runs the rest of the balls out in perfect rhythm for the almighty win! :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top