CSI 10 ball

This match is horrific.

5-1 for Ralf, Efren is in a coma. Ralf must have blown a duck 9 or 10 to go to 6-0, he had a perfect shot on a simple 9 with easy shape.

Not sure how the other match is going, the announcers talked earlier about what they thought their responsibilities were and keeping us apprised on the progress of the other match seems to have slipped their mind. Morra was running away with it though.

And just as I whine they switched to it, 5-3 for Morra, Ko is coming back.

Please, please stay on this match with Ko. If he wins he is 3-0 and he goes through, it is a WAY more important match.
 
Last edited:
Poolplaya9 said:
How does any of this have anything whatsoever to do with how CSI is determining who the winner of a group in the first round is, because that is what Celtic posted about and that is what I responded about.

As I noted in my last response to you, it doesn't have anything to do with that whatsoever. It is a completely different topic. You are talking about the tournament format as a whole, as in do you like round robin's where there are multiple groups and do you think that type of overall format is fair. So what is your opinion about how CSI is determining how the winner of each group in round one is chosen, because that is what we were discussing and you haven't given your opinion about that yet.

To address your totally different topic of whether or not round robins are ok if they have multiple groupings, well as I also mentioned in my last post to you they are good but certainly not perfect. One group can be stronger than another as you point out, and there is certainly some unfairness about that and luck or chance is involved. But in double elimination tournaments every single person has a different opponent, and some opponents are stronger than others and that is all based on chance/luck also, so how is that any different? At least here there are groups of people for whom things are exactly equal in the first round. In a double elimination event nothing is ever the same or equal for even two people, much less for a group as it is in the first round here.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is one bracket can be easier than another not by luck of the draw but the swipe of the pen. ,, the fact that Ko could lose because he lost more games to the worst player in the group and he could have had a big margin against the 2 better players that would mean absolutely nothing in a first head to head tiebreaker ,,
Yes it's the same for everyone yet it's not the same at the same time .
Will it bare out the best player better than a double elimination probably not as the best player could easily be sent packing early where in a double elimination can redeem himself on the B side

1
 
Celtic said:
If a third person causes a three way tie then the first tiebreaker suddenly becomes void and you go to the most games won.

It would still be idiotic though to see a guy go through over another guy who he technically "lost" the first tie breaker against but he got in on a back door due to another guy forcing a 3-way tie.
Click to expand...
On the one hand I see your point, and on the other hand I don't think most games won is all that bad of a decider either if it goes to that. A pretty good argument could even be made for most games won being the first decider of who wins the group, and the win/loss record being the tie breaker if only thinking in terms of what best determines the better player. Now is that what I want? No, it wouldn't be my preference, but I guess I don't have as big of a problem with a three way tie forcing the games won to be the decider since I think it was the next most fair and logical tie breaker in line to use. I mean what else are you going to do if there is a 3 way tie? I know your answer is don't have round robins to begin with, but a lot of this would be a non issue if you just had larger groups (4 is too small) because there wouldn't be so many ties.

Celtic said:
the whole Thorsten vs Kiamco match was a joke and neither of those players were playing for much...
Click to expand...
This in my opinion is by far the biggest problem with round robin events and dwarfs the other issue mentioned above. At a certain point when it becomes mathematically impossible for a player to advance out of their group, there is now no incentive left to keep the player "honest" and keep them from trying to manipulate who else in the group does or does not advance by deciding how hard they are going to play their remaining matches (or maybe even losing matches on purpose). The second biggest problem is that the groups are too small allowing for way too many ties. The third biggest problem is that only one person is advancing out of the group. The problem with the fairness of tie breakers is way further down the list somewhere in my opinion.

That said, double elimination tournaments have issues that are just as big. The truth is that all the formats have massive flaws. Each format has things about it that are better than other formats, and each has things about it that are worse than other formats. The closest to perfect (in terms of the number of flaws, although the two flaws it has are huge) is a true round robin with everybody in one group, but it just isn't practical for large fields, and you still have the issue of people who mathematically no longer have a chance to cash losing games on purpose to help their buddies.
 
Last edited:
one stroke said:
What I'm saying is one bracket can be easier than another not by luck of the draw but the swipe of the pen. ,, the fact that Ko could lose because he lost more games to the worst player in the group and he could have had a big margin against the 2 better players that would mean absolutely nothing in a first head to head tiebreaker ,,
Yes it's the same for everyone yet it's not the same at the same time .
Will it bare out the best player better than a double elimination probably not as the best player could easily be sent packing early where in a double elimination can redeem himself on the B side

1
Click to expand...

And what I was saying is that it had nothing to do with what we were discussing. We were discussing is the methods that CSI is using to determine how they will determine the single individual winner out of one single group in the first round. See post 219 for further detail. You were always talking about the fairness of round robins as a whole and how one group might relate to the next etc.

That's not to say that you can't discuss a different topic than we were. Of course you can. It is just that I think you were trying to discuss the same topic and didn't realize that you were actually on a different topic. It would be like if we were discussing our favorite number, and one person said 7, and the next said 13, and then you said your favorite number was "blue". It is not a problem if you wanted to change the topic to colors, but it is a problem when blue was actually your answer to the favorite number discussion. Hope that made sense, and no offense intended.
 
Poolplaya9 said:
On the one hand I see your point, and on the other hand I don't think most games won is all that bad of a decider either if it goes to that. A pretty good argument could even be made for most games won being the first decider of who wins the group.
Click to expand...

On that we can agree. I think that totally should have been the first decider and the second decider should have then went to who beat who.
 
Poolplaya9 said:
And what I was saying is that it had nothing to do with what we were discussing. We were discussing is the methods that CSI is using to determine how they will determine the single individual winner out of one single group in the first round. See post 219 for further detail. You were always talking about the fairness of round robins as a whole and how one group might relate to the next etc.

That's not to say that you can't discuss a different topic than we were. Of course you can. It is just that I think you were trying to discuss the same topic and didn't realize that you were actually on a different topic. It would be like if we were discussing our favorite number, and one person said 7, and the next said 13, and then you said your favorite number was "blue". It is not a problem if you wanted to change the topic to colors, but it is a problem when blue was actually your answer to the favorite number discussion. Hope that made sense, and no offense intended.
Click to expand...

the fact that Ko could lose because he lost more games to the worst player in the group and he could have had a big margin against the 2 better players that would mean absolutely nothing in a first head to head tiebreaker ,,

I guess I'm the only one who understands me :rolleyes:

1
 
I'm anticipating a Ko/Ko final! I think Pin Yi is going to have a tougher time with Dennis than little Ko will have with the winner of round D.
 
Not a cakewalk by any means but I think little Ko would be more of a favorite over Shaw than big Ko would be against Dennis.
 
Poolplaya9 said:
On the one hand I see your point, and on the other hand I don't think most games won is all that bad of a decider either if it goes to that. A pretty good argument could even be made for most games won being the first decider of who wins the group, and the win/loss record being the tie breaker if only thinking in terms of what best determines the better player. Now is that what I want? No, it wouldn't be my preference, but I guess I don't have as big of a problem with a three way tie forcing the games won to be the decider since I think it was the next most fair and logical tie breaker in line to use. I mean what else are you going to do if there is a 3 way tie? I know your answer is don't have round robins to begin with, but a lot of this would be a non issue if you just had larger groups (4 is too small) because there wouldn't be so many ties.


This in my opinion is by far the biggest problem with round robin events and dwarfs the other issue mentioned above. At a certain point when it becomes mathematically impossible for a player to advance out of their group, there is now no incentive left to keep the player "honest" and keep them from trying to manipulate who else in the group does or does not advance by deciding how hard they are going to play their remaining matches (or maybe even losing matches on purpose). The second biggest problem is that the groups are too small allowing for way too many ties. The third biggest problem is that only one person is advancing out of the group. The problem with the fairness of tie breakers is way further down the list somewhere in my opinion.

That said, double elimination tournaments have issues that are just as big. The truth is that all the formats have massive flaws. Each format has things about it that are better than other formats, and each has things about it that are worse than other formats. The closest to perfect (in terms of the number of flaws, although the two flaws it has are huge) is a true round robin with everybody in one group, but it just isn't practical for large fields, and you still have the issue of people who mathematically no longer have a chance to cash losing games on purpose to help their buddies.
Click to expand...

I think round robin is a good tournament format, but like you said here the groups are too small. The thing is, for a round robin to really be effective, the objective needs to be to get the best overall ranking in the group, rather than just to get the top spot in order to advance to the next round. A large round robin where players are incetivized to do their best throughout the tourney (either through payout structure, or some kind of ranking points, or whatever) would be great.

Problem is, round-robin with 1 guy advancing from a 4-man group is pretty close to effectively being double elimination, except some players will be eliminated after only one loss based on tiebreakers. I think double elimination would be better than the format being used for CSI, and I say that despite not being a big fan of double elim. They could also go WPC-style and do the groups in double-elim as opposed to round robin, and then still do single elim for the final four. Either of these formats would be about the same number of matches overall as what they are doing with the round robin groups, but would be cleaner without the tiebreakers and the meaningless matches.
 
banditgrrr said:
I'm anticipating a Ko/Ko final! I think Pin Yi is going to have a tougher time with Dennis than little Ko will have with the winner of round D.
Click to expand...

Lil Ko is impressive first whitewash 3-0 in group stage. Ko/Ko final would be awesome - they can bill it Double KO or first sibling final

benny-the-blade said:
Shaw, if he advances, will be no cakewalk for Lil Ko.
Click to expand...
There are no easy opponents in this field but Shaw would be easier opponent for Lil Ko than Buste :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top