race to 25 2 out of 3 sets

[JCIN]

In a race to 100, with a 20 game lead knockout rule, Shane would have knocked out Cory Duel, Earl Strickland, Alex P(1st time they played) Donny Mills, Mika...and everyone else...and never had to go all the way to 100 wins to win the match

I agree that a race to 100 with a deadline set at so many games ahead could be more exciting. We talked about that many times over the years but it never came to be.

The thing with a race to 100 is that it takes between 20 and 24 hours usually to finish. Thats just too much for many people. If we do anything in the near term it will be to go to race to 21, 2 out of 3 sets. The days of the grinding 8-10 hour days our gone IMO unless some huge ground swell of demand comes out of nowhere.

 

[Mark Griffin]

TAR format

Not going to get into any arguments BUT any person getting involved in ANY kind of 'business' on a TAR match will never play in any CSI or TAR event again.

Why everyone thinks some one is stupid enough to do that s beyond me.

And the kicker is - the guilty player could be threatened with disclosure at any time. Sure looks like a bad decision to me.

Mark Griffin

Yes you are right. When they not betting anything it all fun and games. I can assure you with this format there will be savors made if there haven't been already.

 

[Banks]

Race to 100? Who wants to sit through a 25-inning baseball game just so that the 'better' team is almost guaranteed a win? If pool wants the attention to grow itself, it has to be watchable. Medium(if you can call them that) races make it at least more interesting to watch, because the outcome is determined a little more by who is playing well *right now*.

 

[derekdisco]

I don't know if it was mentioned or not, don't feel like reading every response, but I'm gonna have to disagree a lil bit with my fat friend. I don't believe that the better player always wins in a super long race, only because if either player gets out to a big early lead, the player that's trailing almost always goes into give up/tilt mode. To me that doesn't mean that the player that's ahead is "better".

I have a cool Idea though, and I'm known for great ideas. Have 2 world class champions matched up, but each player doesn't know who his opponent is. The race is to 100 or 15-20 ahead. Both players are isolated in a booth that is in another room and are to never know how many games their opponent has won, they are only let out when it is their turn to shoot or to piss. This way they can't go into give up mode, or get pissy because of a lucky roll by the other player or by slow play. And they will assume that they're always in the lead, so they'll give their 100% best effort at all times.

No one steal my idea. I will answer any questions you guys have.

 

[Johnnyt]

I don't know if it was mentioned or not, don't feel like reading every response, but I'm gonna have to disagree a lil bit with my fat friend. I don't believe that the better player always wins in a super long race, only because if either player gets out to a big early lead, the player that's trailing almost always goes into give up/tilt mode. To me that doesn't mean that the player that's ahead is "better".

I have a cool Idea though, and I'm known for great ideas. Have 2 world class champions matched up, but each player doesn't know who his opponent is. The race is to 100 or 15-20 ahead. Both players are isolated in a booth that is in another room and are to never know how many games their opponent has won, they are only let out when it is their turn to shoot or to piss. This way they can't go into give up mode, or get pissy because of a lucky roll by the other player or by slow play. And they will assume that they're always in the lead, so they'll give their 100% best effort at all times.

No one steal my idea. I will answer any questions you guys have.

Save the seeds (if any) from that $hit you're smoking. You will be a millionare in 6 months. Johnnyt

 

[derekdisco]

Save the seeds (if any) from that $hit you're smoking. You will be a millionare in 6 months. Johnnyt

Listen son, a lot of good players play like dogs when they're matched up in a tourny against a big name. At least with my format, you can just assume you're playing Larry lunch-meat every round.

 

[Johnnyt]

The TAR format is for twp champions to do battle. Niether of the two should give a ball or games on the wire. If that is needed by pno a player to make it close to even we're not watching two true top champion. 21 or 25 game sets are plenty to find the best that day...because that is all it is no matter the number of sets or games with two very top player. They were/are the best for that set. Johnnyt

 

[derekdisco]

The TAR format is for twp champions to do battle. Niether of the two should give a ball or games on the wire. If that is needed by pno a player to make it close to even we're not watching two true top champion. 21 or 25 game sets are plenty to find the best that day...because that is all it is no matter the number of sets or games with two very top player. They were/are the best for that set. Johnnyt

I like my isolation chamber Idea but throw in another Idea I have that'll make the break shot neutral. If playing 10 ball, you take the cue ball, and all 10 balls and put them into a bucket. Shake them all around then toss them onto the table like the globetrotters used to do when they'd trick the crowd and throw out confetti.

JonnyT, I'm trusting you not to steal my ideas bro.

 

[Johnnyt]

I like my isolation chamber Idea but throw in another Idea I have that'll make the break shot neutral. If playing 10 ball, you take the cue ball, and all 10 balls and put them into a bucket. Shake them all around then toss them onto the table like the globetrotters used to do when they'd trick the crowd and throw out confetti.

JonnyT, I'm trusting you not to steal my ideas bro.

Your idea is VERY safe from me. Johnnyt

 

[JCIN]

I don't know if it was mentioned or not, don't feel like reading every response, but I'm gonna have to disagree a lil bit with my fat friend. I don't believe that the better player always wins in a super long race, only because if either player gets out to a big early lead, the player that's trailing almost always goes into give up/tilt mode. To me that doesn't mean that the player that's ahead is "better".

I have a cool Idea though, and I'm known for great ideas. Have 2 world class champions matched up, but each player doesn't know who his opponent is. The race is to 100 or 15-20 ahead. Both players are isolated in a booth that is in another room and are to never know how many games their opponent has won, they are only let out when it is their turn to shoot or to piss. This way they can't go into give up mode, or get pissy because of a lucky roll by the other player or by slow play. And they will assume that they're always in the lead, so they'll give their 100% best effort at all times.

No one steal my idea. I will answer any questions you guys have.

Probably take me a week or two to build the isolation booths. Ima put a bucket in there so we only have to let em out to shoot.

To save on money they will have to use the same bucket to break with.

 

[dom_poppa]

Race to 100 would suck.....let's say the match goes hill/hill, that is almost 200 games that both players would play. Also, if one guy gets in a big lead, you can forget about it. Time to ask for money back for the PPV.

Race to 21 or 25, 3 sets, is good enough. If it goes hill/hill on all sets you are going to only see a max of almost 150 games. Also, the player that is losing can always be fresh for the next set instead of calling it a day.

21 is a good number to play too. That's enough games to bring out the best and short enough where fatigue and lost interest won't factor in.

I have played races to 50 and trust me both players will lose interest and it will go back and forth....it doesn't pick up steam till the end and that's when both guys are serious. It's mind boggling that anyone would even want to race to 100. Scratch that.

2 out of 3 sets is perfect.

 

[derekdisco]

Probably take me a week or two to build the isolation booths. Ima put a bucket in there so we only have to let em out to shoot.

To save on money they will have to use the same bucket to break with.

Hmmmmm I like where your head is at. Brings a whole new meaning to the term pissbreak. I like it!

 

[dom_poppa]

Would you consider the thought that there was some bets made and the players had a deeper interest than the setup money.JA has always been a get it all when you can headhunter.not to many team up to call him out to play a even game.

bill

It would not surprise me one bit because these two guys and others tried to form an association boycotting the US Open.

Let's just say that there were some multiple bets made by various people and depending if the money was laid on Shane or JA that they could possibly throw the match. I mean they didn't invest a dime into this match.

Split the 4k...2k a piece for being there and split whatever money that bookies were raking in.

Didn't someone mentioned that the final score was actually tied with all sets combined?

I wonder if pool is sanctioned or commissioned by any governing body to monitor these matters. Heck, all major sports monitor these activities.

AZ members were betting hundreds of dollars who's to say there wasn't thousands of dollars floating around while this match was going on.

I can assure many members on AZ, myself included, would act together if bigger opportunities came knocking. It's just the nature of the beast with this game. Pool players have always been a tight knit, they get closer as you rank up higher. It's how it is at pool rooms, the good players hang with the good players and the decent hangs with the decent.

These guys are a selective few who are the top dogs...the 1 percent. Why not eat...got nothing to lose in these TAR matches. These matches are just exhibitions anyways....it's not like it's going to be on their resume, that they lost or beat Player A.

When you look at these guys' resumes...major tournaments are listed and not an exhibition match.

 

[RackOnTour]

Hello?

I don't know if it was mentioned or not, don't feel like reading every response, but I'm gonna have to disagree a lil bit with my fat friend. I don't believe that the better player always wins in a super long race, only because if either player gets out to a big early lead, the player that's trailing almost always goes into give up/tilt mode. To me that doesn't mean that the player that's ahead is "better".

I have a cool Idea though, and I'm known for great ideas. Have 2 world class champions matched up, but each player doesn't know who his opponent is. The race is to 100 or 15-20 ahead. Both players are isolated in a booth that is in another room and are to never know how many games their opponent has won, they are only let out when it is their turn to shoot or to piss. This way they can't go into give up mode, or get pissy because of a lucky roll by the other player or by slow play. And they will assume that they're always in the lead, so they'll give their 100% best effort at all times.

No one steal my idea. I will answer any questions you guys have.

Less than 2 weeks ago I posted this thread -
Possible TAR format addition.
Even gave props to the originators.

Think I'll go eat worms... :idea:

 

[TATE]

Personally towards the end I really began to hate the race to 100. Depending on the particular match it can be almost impossible to watch all the way through.

I agree. The current format is a lot better - especially when it reaches a 3rd day.

 

[Island Drive]

I agree that a race to 100 with a deadline set at so many games ahead could be more exciting. We talked about that many times over the years but it never came to be.

The thing with a race to 100 is that it takes between 20 and 24 hours usually to finish. Thats just too much for many people. If we do anything in the near term it will be to go to race to 21, 2 out of 3 sets. The days of the grinding 8-10 hour days our gone IMO unless some huge ground swell of demand comes out of nowhere.

Great Tennis match finals can and have lasted into the five hr timeframes, in one sitting & people will watch, do laundry, but still watch. By doing a Colorado Express type Tennis format (it's only because of McChesney/Texas Express that I've kept using this term ), your not only showing players skills in one day and the match is building and Building in excitement, but the idea of a pool player having to be in great shape will come into play, especially towards the end of a long match (maybe we can finally make the public realize, these guys are athletes). You've got breaks only between sets, and if needed a tiebreaker. Allot of players that play this long, will start playing better and better, that's another benefit.

You got the first Nascar part right, just too much second half, watching a car race for three days, plus it wears out the production crew.
It's time....

It could be neat if the TAR room had two tables, one with the balls already racked for the next game, could speed matters up allot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Hungarian]

Listen son, a lot of good players play like dogs when they're matched up in a tourny against a big name. At least with my format, you can just assume you're playing Larry lunch-meat every round.

Leisure Suit Larry?

 

[risky biz]

I am as far from an expert on promotions as you can get. What I do know is what I have heard from customers in aggregate over the years. The vast majority of people I have talked to tolerated the race to 100 format because it was basically the only game in town to see top guys play long sets for a decent amount of money.

Personally towards the end I really began to hate the race to 100. Depending on the particular match it can be almost impossible to watch all the way through. When a guy is way behind after two days its an exercise bordering on masochism. The guy behind just has to come in to take his beating and the guy in front just has to keep the wheels from falling off.

There were some good matches and I am glad we did most of them but like anything that attempts to grow and improve you make changes over time based on experience and customer feedback. Many players really like the race to 100. Thats why we did so many of them. The problem for us is that if it doesnt sell its an exercise in futility no matter how much players or backers like it.

I had one player last week not involved in the match come up to me and ask when he was going to play and immediately go into a long explanation of why it had to be an ahead set with all kinds of provisions built in to remove any luck and so on. I stopped him mid-sentence and said "I understand what you are saying. You can go play that way any time you want in a pool room somewhere but if you expect people to actually pay to watch you play you have to give them what they want not what you want."

The "underdog" has a pretty good record in TAR matches which in my mind doesnt prove a whole lot except maybe the perception of who is a favorite and who is a dog is not all that accurate in the first place.

If enough people want us to make changes we will. We are not married to any format. We did spend a lot of time and talk to a lot of people to come up with what we have now. Considering we have done a grand total of two of them we will probably stick with it at least a little while longer. There will be bugs and we will work them out. End of the day TAR will do what the majority of customers say they want.

So the experts are the paying customers. Hope 'watchez' is reading this.

Glenn's 'knockout' idea would have eliminated this:
"When a guy is way behind after two days its an exercise bordering on masochism. The guy behind just has to come in to take his beating and the guy in front just has to keep the wheels from falling off."

 

[cleary]

"experts" would READ what I posted first...and understand it would be over at 20-0....but I guess you MISSED that part...must be your reading comprehension that needs some practice

 

[jwilliams]

I say keep the format as is, or at least something close.

It's a lot easier for me to justify, dedicating 5 hours or so a day for an entire weekend to watch, as opposed to the whole weekend itself (as in a race to 100)...especially, when it's usually apparent after the first day who is going to win.

99 times out of a 100 the better player "that weekend" is going to win 3 separate races to 25 spread over 3 days. The sets are long enough to even out the roll's, but short enough to allow for nice comebacks.

As an aside, since Bartrum thinks that these races are to short and that they allow for an underdog to win, I say let's prove it...throw him in the ring against any or all of these guys (Archer,SVB, Alex, Bustamante, etc.) in this format and let's see who wins.

I'm sure he's not scared, and I'd definitely pay to see it!

Either way...thanks for all of the hard work!

I agree that a race to 100 with a deadline set at so many games ahead could be more exciting. We talked about that many times over the years but it never came to be.

The thing with a race to 100 is that it takes between 20 and 24 hours usually to finish. Thats just too much for many people. If we do anything in the near term it will be to go to race to 21, 2 out of 3 sets. The days of the grinding 8-10 hour days our gone IMO unless some huge ground swell of demand comes out of nowhere.