Players dropping out of the Matchroom/Predator CLP

All this hubbub over a patch is stupid when the event is called the Predator tournament, it's played on the Predator tour, there are Predator logos all over the screen, there are Predator balls on the table, and Predator is mentioned ad nauseam by the announcers. Is that really not enough? Will anyone be confused about which brand is sponsoring the event?

It's better for them to have Shane Van Boening in the tournament with a Cuetec logo on his shirt because he's the country's most popular player and that means more eyeballs for the 38 plugs people will hear and see for Predator while watching his match.
 
I'm don't have a degree in mathematics or whatever this "value added" would be under, I just know what 2 of us are saying is correct


Not unless you’ve made an agreement with the person you’re flipping with to split the third party’s $10 regardless of who wins the flip - which is referred to as a saver.

Otherwise, the winner wins $20 instead of $10 and the loser still loses the same $10 he would’ve lost if the third-party never made the offer. Am am I missing something here?

The bet thing is absurd. If the first loser loses 100% of the flips, he is out 100% of what he bet.
But he was playing(flipping) for 150%($15) of what he bet($10)
 
I'm don't have a degree in mathematics or whatever this "value added" would be under, I just know what 2 of us are saying is correct


But he was playing(flipping) for 150%($15) of what he bet($10)
I see that as less tangible than walking into the bank with a bunch of trophies.

It is unrealized income for the loser. By definition...not earned.
 
The logical fallacy is in equating expected value with direct compensation for services rendered.

Yes, adding money to a prize pool increased expected value. But the question at hand was whether the players are "compensated" for wearing the patch. They are not. Direct compensation would require that every player who wears the patch be compensated with some non-zero dollar figure in exchange for services rendered (wearing the patch).

Regardless, the tournament stood by its decision and some players stood by theirs and we move on. Given that this tournament will not be quite what it could have been otherwise, I hope that the tournament organizers learn that asking players to wear patches that clearly compete with their current endorsement agreements is a bridge too far. I hope that they leverage every available and non-controversial means to promote their brand and leave the players, their clothes, and their images out of it.
 
Listen a rising tide lifts all boats....unless it's pool and every other day some son of a bitch pulls the drain plug.

And people wonder why pool goes nowhere.


Here is someone who gets it! Predator NEEDS competitors! Yes, you heard me right, Predator needs competitors who make similar products to what they make. That is exactly how a marketplace is created for that product, by giving customers choices as to which product they want to buy/use. Take a look around sometime at all the car dealerships lined up on the same street. Or all the restaurants in the same section of a large mall. That is not done by accident! We need competition to build our market, plain and simple. Predator makes outstanding products that attract a large customer base in the billiard industry, but if they were the only product our sport would fail to grow. We absolutely need an open marketplace that has many competing businesses to grow our sport. Look at how many cuemakers there are today and compare that to fifty years ago. In other words, as the number of companies in the billiard world grows, our sport grows right along with it. Competition is good for the marketplace!

What I'm saying is basic Economics and failure to understand that could ultimately be the downfall of a company like Predator. It is a feather in their cap to sponsor a major tournament, but to put in predatory (yes that is the right word) practices when it comes to other player sponsors is a mistake imo. One that could be costly to them in the long run. I believe there are some pretty sharp people in charge at Predator and they need to put their thinking cap on before going forward on this course. What the powers that be at Predator need to understand is that the same people who are buying Cuetec, Meucci, Joss and other products now, are also their customers now and in the future. And that my friends is the bottom line.
 
Last edited:
Well. just when you tot he was out, he is in. Billy is latest addition. Darren and Roberto Gomez also added. Hate to say this but is MR/Predator desperately bottom fishing now to get to 19 players cos the top guns pulled out :ROFLMAO:

bt.jpg
 
On the Matchroom.pool site, on the page for Championship League, it still works for me, and these are the players listed:

Group 1
Albin Ouschan
Chris Melling
Chris Robinson
Eklent Kaci
Joshua Filler
Kelly Fisher
Niels Fiejen

Group 2
David Alcaide
Mieszko Fortunski
TBC
TBC
TBC
TBC
TBC

Group 3
Billy Thorpe
Darren Appleton
TBC
TBC
TBC
TBC
TBC

Group 4
Kristina Tkach
Naoyuki Oi
TBC
TBC
TBC
TBC
TBC

Group 5
Marc Bijsterbosch
Roberto Gomez
TBC
TBC
TBC
TBC
TBC

Group 6
Alex Kazakis
Casper Matikainen
TBC
TBC
TBC
TBC
TBC

Group 7
Jasmin Ouschan
Denis Grabe
TBC
TBC
TBC
TBC
TBC

Pretty thin pickings there/ Where are all the players?
 
Pretty thin pickings there/ Where are all the players?

It's an invitational 19 player round robin. There are no more spots.

The four invitees who withdrew were replaced pretty quickly. When the OP originally posted this, the replacements had already been found.

For this week long event it's an interesting field. I'm looking forward to how this tournament works out.

I wonder if once the pandemic is over, if they'll try a larger version of this (with similar funding)?
 
The logical fallacy is in equating expected value with direct compensation for services rendered.

Yes, adding money to a prize pool increased expected value. But the question at hand was whether the players are "compensated" for wearing the patch. They are not. Direct compensation would require that every player who wears the patch be compensated with some non-zero dollar figure in exchange for services rendered (wearing the patch).

Regardless, the tournament stood by its decision and some players stood by theirs and we move on. Given that this tournament will not be quite what it could have been otherwise, I hope that the tournament organizers learn that asking players to wear patches that clearly compete with their current endorsement agreements is a bridge too far. I hope that they leverage every available and non-controversial means to promote their brand and leave the players, their clothes, and their images out of it.
But it appears the compensation is in the same format as the value the players provide by wearing the host-mandated patch: exposure.

The players are still allowed to display their sponsor's items, albeit not on the left boobies, so the players' sponsors do get exposure...
 
Here is someone who gets it! Predator NEEDS competitors! Yes, you heard me right, Predator needs competitors who make similar products to what they make. That is exactly how a marketplace is created for that product, by giving customers choices as to which product they want to buy/use. Take a look around sometime at all the car dealerships lined up on the same street. Or all the restaurants in the same section of a large mall. That is not done by accident! We need competition to build our market, plain and simple. Predator makes outstanding products that attract a large customer base in the billiard industry, but if they were the only product our sport would fail to grow. We absolutely need an open marketplace that has many competing businesses to grow our sport. Look at how many cuemakers there are today and compare that to fifty years ago. In other words, as the number of companies in the billiard world grows, our sport grows right along with it. Competition is good for the marketplace!

What I'm saying is basic Economics and failure to understand that could ultimately be the downfall of a company like Predator. It is a feather in their cap to sponsor a major tournament, but to put in predatory (yes that is the right word) practices when it comes to other player sponsors is a mistake imo. One that could be costly to them in the long run. I believe there are some pretty sharp people in charge at Predator and they need to put their thinking cap on before going forward on this course. What the powers that be at Predator need to understand is that the same people who are buying Cuetec, Meucci, Joss and other products now, are also their customers now and in the future. And that my friends is the bottom line.
See above.

I believe predator said other patches were allowed. It's only requirement of the players was that they display specific patch in specific location.

Am I mistaken in this recollection?
 
You have a good memory. I hope mine's as good, but some of it is a blur. I'll take my best shot, recognizing I may get a detail or two wrong..

Although it wasn't the only issue, the conflict with Bonus Ball was an impediment for some of the players, despite the fact that the Ultimate 10-ball dates were known months in advance. Some who had signed on to Bonus Ball, despite having no scheduling conflict, boycotted the Ultimate 10-ball merely as an act of solidarity or, possibly, due to guidelines in the Bonus Ball Player's contract. This doomed a new and enthusiastic event producer who added a huge amount of money in his event, whose name I think was Badi Nazzat, to failure and both his event and his appetite for further investment in pro pool disappeared.

Years before, some similar issues had arisen with the IPT and player contracts and conflicting events. Kevin Trudeau went to great lengths to share that he had no intention of working with the WPA. Years later, our sport has yet to outgrow some of the conflicts that arise when players operating under the WPA umbrella play in events that coincide with WPA events. What the IPT and Bonus Ball had in common was that they ran independent of the WPA process.

This issues pertaining to playing in competing events is a big one again now, as prominent players have sometimes played in Chinese 8-ball events even if those events coincide with events on the WPA calendar. What Bonus Ball, the IPT and those that run Chinese 8-ball events have in common is that they run/ran independently of the WPA process. While WPA contends that these are conflicting events, many disagree, and pool needs to figure this issue out.

In the end, the difficulty has been getting the players and the organizations to work together so that attractive new events have every chance to succeed financially. As we see in the event being discussed in this thread, there are other potential impediments that need working out. It's less about who is at fault and more about removing some of the obstacles to the growth of the sport. At a moment in our sport's history when few are investing in production of pool events, the stage needs to be set in a way that doesn't make such investment less attractive.
My memory of the whole fiasco is based on spending lots of time (probably too much, lol) on here, back then. And it was a fiasco. The premise was good, but the complete lack of willingness to work around established events seemed really counter to actually growing the sport as a whole, and it stuck with me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sjm
See above.

I believe predator said other patches were allowed. It's only requirement of the players was that they display specific patch in specific location.

Am I mistaken in this recollection?

Yes, the players had to wear the event logo, but could wear two more patches.

It's not clear if the criticism of the event logo came from the players, or their cue sponsors.

Maybe this is an inevitable consequence of having tournament title reside within the same industry that is sponsoring players. When Kamui, Simonis, etc., start sponsoring tournaments as well as sponsoring individual players, we'll see more of it.

This seems all overblown. Some players withdrew. Other players stepped forward. The tournament continues.
 
See above.

I believe predator said other patches were allowed. It's only requirement of the players was that they display specific patch in specific location.

Am I mistaken in this recollection?

Predator was not consistent in this matter. They changed their "patch" policy when faced with opposition from certain players. Either way, it was a bad look for them. I stand by the statements I made in post #185. To restrict or diminish their competitors who also sponsor players, with an unfair patch policy is not in the best interest of our sport.
 

Predator was not consistent in this matter. They changed their "patch" policy when faced with opposition from certain players. Either way, it was a bad look for them.
Gotcha.

And there are certainly timing consequences of changing position. There may not have been sufficient time for parties with an interest to consider their positions again.

Seems like a simple matter to us, though we really don't know what is going on in the nitty gritty of it.
 
Gotcha.

And there are certainly timing consequences of changing position. There may not have been sufficient time for parties with an interest to consider their positions again.

Seems like a simple matter to us, though we really don't know what is going on in the nitty gritty of it.
Lawyers always starting trouble...

Hopefully it will all work out in the end.
 
Pretty thin pickings there/ Where are all the players?
I have a tough time understanding how you play a round robin with an odd number of players - 19 and an odd number of groups - 7?

Even stranger than that is that one group has 7 players and the other six groups have 2 players each. Can someone who understands please explain this to me?
 
I have a tough time understanding how you play a round robin with an odd number of players - 19 and an odd number of groups - 7?

Even stranger than that is that one group has 7 players and the other six groups have 2 players each. Can someone who understands please explain this to me?

Day ONE: Group One has their round robin, then semi-finals and then a finals.

Players 1st through 6th get cash prizes.
The winner of Group One goes to the Winners Group.
Players 2-6 go to Group 2 and join two new players.
Player 7 is eliminated.

Day TWO: Repeat this with Group 2.
More cash prizes.

After seven days, you end up with 7 group winners. They have their Winners Group competition on day eight.

It will be interesting to see how it all works out. With races to five, anyone capable of running a table could win.
 
Last edited:
I have a tough time understanding how you play a round robin with an odd number of players - 19 and an odd number of groups - 7?

Even stranger than that is that one group has 7 players and the other six groups have 2 players each. Can someone who understands please explain this to me?


It is a strange format that greatly favors the players who start in the first group of seven.
 
Back
Top