How much longer must we endure this insane format CSI is pushing

[sjm]

Or maybe that 9 ball is just more popular and more professionally presented by Matchroom.

While it's true that Matchroom presents pool more professionally, with better venues, better playing arenas, better tables, and better commentators, I think that 9 ball being more popular is the bigger issue, and the reason is worth considering.

Why Nine ball is more popular
When it comes to rotation pool, 9-ball is the game that the world knows, but the simplicity of following may be its biggest selling point. Nobody understands better than Matchroom that giving the public a game that is incredibly simple to follow is fundamental to selling it. Matchroom already succeeded with snooker, which is even easier to follow than nine ball, and people who don't play it watch it because it's so easy to follow.

That's why nine ball is and will remain more popular than ten ball, which asks viewers to accept a) call shot, b) money ball doesn't count on the break, and c) choice to pass or play after opponent pockets a ball unintentionally, all of which are foreign to them. Nobody suggests that ten ball played this way isn't a great test of cueing skills (of course it is!), but the game as played caters to the diehard fan, not the casual player or the non-player.

What Might Happen
Could the viewing public learn to love this version of ten ball? It's certainly possible, but I think the Bonus Ball experiment validated that people neither want nor have the patience to learn a new flavor of professional pool, no matter how interesting that flavor is, and Bonus Ball was both interesting and incredibly challenging).

I've been hearing from pro players for twenty-five years that ten ball was going to replace nine-ball as the primary competitive brand of rotation pool. It hasn't happened yet. It's not impossible, but it seems unlikely. I still see awfully few people in the poolroom that ever play ten ball and there are many who have never even heard of ten ball. When we start seeing a lot of people playing the version of ten ball being sold in the CSI/Predator series (meaning two short races with a spot shot shootout tiebreaker), we'll know that this kind of pool is catching on. We shall see.

 

[FastManners]

That’s notnit

It’s to get more matches on the board with higher variance for the sports books to mop up the stupid money willing to pay huge vig on dumb bets.

That’s all it’s about.

Nothing to do with pool fans

It’s all about making money through sports books

Best
Fatboy <———knows about gambling

I didn't think any legal bookmaker in the US was taking bets on pool? it would be great if that had now changed.

 

[Icon of Sin]

I hate the format too... but I'm watching it... it's better then nothing I guess.

 

[Positively Ralf]

Why don't they just play Express Ten Ball rules, first to 11 with winner breaks across the board? !, 2 and 3 racked in the corners with the ten in the middle? I bet more people will get into that format and it would be as fast as regular nine ball.

And yes, I do watch but the reason i turn it off is because there are too many commercials. It makes me wander to something else.

 

[VVP]

While it's true that Matchroom presents pool more professionally, with better venues, better playing arenas, better tables, and better commentators, I think that 9 ball being more popular is the bigger issue, and the reason is worth considering.

Why Nine ball is more popular
When it comes to rotation pool, 9-ball is the game that the world knows, but the simplicity of following may be its biggest selling point. Nobody understands better than Matchroom that giving the public a game that is incredibly simple to follow is fundamental to selling it. Matchroom already succeeded with snooker, which is even easier to follow than nine ball, and people who don't play it watch it because it's so easy to follow.

That's why nine ball it is and will remain more popular than ten ball, which asks viewers to accept a) call shot, b) money ball doesn't count on the break, and c) choice to pass or play after opponent pockets a ball unintentionally, all of which are foreign to them. Nobody suggests that ten ball played this way isn't a great test of cueing skills (of course it is!), but the game as played caters to the diehard fan, not the casual player or the non-player.

What Might Happen
Could the viewing public learn to love this version of ten ball? It's certainly possible, but I think the Bonus Ball experiment validated that people neither want nor have the patience to learn a new flavor of professional pool, no matter how interesting that flavor is, and Bonus Ball was both interesting and incredibly challenging).

I've been hearing from pro players for twenty-five years that ten ball was going to replace nine-ball as the primary competitive brand of rotation pool. It hasn't happened yet. It's not impossible, but it seems unlikely. I still see awfully few people in the poolroom that ever play ten ball and there are many who have never even heard of ten ball. When we start seeing a lot of people playing the version of ten ball being sold in the CSI/Predator series (meaning two short races with a spot shot shootout tiebreaker), we'll know that this kind of pool is catching on. We shall see.

I could only present my opinion as a pool player. I prefer to play 9 ball because I suck and I depend on a lot of luck aka slopping. When I am watching PROFESIONALS play I want to see a game free of luck so I much prefer call shot 10 ball and under the most difficult conditions possible such as tight pockets.
Anyway from what I heard and seen on YouTube, 10 ball seems to be the game of choice in the Philippines. 9 ball might be more popular in the USA, but I am not sure what it will be for a worldwide audience.

We need to have surveys/studies before we can come up with definitive conclusions. For example, my wife does not play pool but whenever she watches pool she can recognize slops and she does not think it's fair to the other player. Another thing is that she loves one pocket especially if someone like Efren is playing. So the assumption that "difficult games" are more harder sell to an audience does not bear true for my sample of 1.

 

[ctyhntr]

Why don't they just play Express Ten Ball rules, first to 11 with winner breaks across the board? !, 2 and 3 racked in the corners with the ten in the middle? I bet more people will get into that format and it would be as fast as regular nine ball.

And yes, I do watch but the reason i turn it off is because there are too many commercials. It makes me wander to something else.

Commercials are there so the sponsors paying for the production can showcase their products. Talking with one of the vendors here, he told me the IPT matches often ran over their allotted time, forcing the networks to cut the show. This format is designed to fit 90 minutes-120 minute time slot. The format is being tweaked, and refined. As others pointed out, the golden break no longer counts as a win.

 

[Fatboy]

I didn't think any legal bookmaker in the US was taking bets on pool? it would be great if that had now changed.

Not in the US, likely never.

The gaming lobby is strong here and in the land of the free-we ain’t all that free, when it comes to betting.

Best
Fatboy

Remember Matchroom is in the UK where books are walk up windows are(were) very common everywhere and mobile apps now-I haven’t looked in the last few years for betting windows since covid. Point is sport betting is super common in the UK.

The more matches the better. High variance formats even more action. If that’s what it takes to get the players paid-happy days for them.

The rail birds will just have to learn to like the format. It’s not about the audience or pool fans. It’s about the book and the size of the handle. That’s it.

 

[MitchAlsup]

On this tour, however, everybody carrying a Fargo of under 750 is practically dead money and that seems too tough a standard for this fan.

Why do you think this is that way ?

 

[Fatboy]

It’s actually a brilliant format for the books.

More matches on the board, more bets, bigger handle.

All that with very little increase in costs. The Mcup has very few matches, other pool tourneys have very few matches and they are very lopsided in the early rounds.

Fatboy vs Neils lololol who’s betting on that? And the price they would have to lay would be crazy. Who’s going to bet on me? And who’s going to lay 90-1 and bet on Neil’s? Bad action. But race to 4 alt break I’m not a 90-1 dog.

This format levels the lines tk make most any match bet-able.

But round robin race to 5 alt break they get a zillion matches and they are mostly coin flips. Nothing better for a book.

They can’t run this format with snooker.

The only way this fails is if the books don’t get enough action

This format has ZERO TO DO WITH POOL. And the rail birds can’t see it. Wake up!!!!!!!


Fatboy <——-knows what’s really going on.

Remember pool fans are never going to spend the money on pool the gamblers will loose in the books with the way they price the bets. So who’s more important? Pool fans or gamblers?

That should wake up some people. If ya can’t see that one, I feel bad for you. It’s about money. Not pool.

Too bad we can’t get a taste of that here in our books. Hmmmm

 

[Fatboy]

A thoughtful and well-considered post for sure. I am always torn on this, and I think I'd feel differently if this wasn't the only major professional tour in America right now. Some of me agrees with you, and I'm not bothered too much if the dead money makes next to nothing in prize money. On this tour, however, everybody carrying a Fargo of under 750 is practically dead money and that seems too tough a standard for this fan.

Just as you observe, as a showcase for the most elite, this tour works. As a developmental ground for those with reasonable hope of becoming pro level players, it doesn't deliver. Most of the aspiring pros will lose money consistently on this tour, and I don't think this is good for our sport.

Despite the presence of two rock solid regional tours in the Mezz Tour and the Joss Tour, America lacks a true training ground for emerging talent. Pro basketball in America has its developmental "G" league and its summer league, and there are pro leagues all over the world, and all of these offer an income to participants. Pro football has the practice squads and even the Candian football league where those with dreams of playing in the NFL can develop their skills while still earning an income.

When we had the America-based Professional Billiards Tour (PBT) in the 1980's and 1990's, many hopefuls could afford to chase the dream of reaching professional level while making some income in the process. Those two decades probably produced more great American pro players than any others in the history of our game, including future hall of famers Buddy Hall, Johnny Archer, Nick Varner, Mike Sigel, Kim Davenport, Allen Hopkins, Earl Strickland, and Jim Rempe, and the presence of the PBT in America had much to do with it.

Yes, the elite deserve all the money they are making, but part of our sport's future is dependent on making sure that the path to becoming a pro is a reasonable one.

Stu

With all due respect if a gambler can get a good price on a bet on a sub 750 Fargo rated player, that gambler isn’t dead money. It’s great action and that player is a big asset to the book.

That’s why this format is a books dream. It equalizes a lower rated players chance to win a match. Puts a match on the board. Both great for the book.

Look at the last MR event the top 5-6 guys had about the same record 75-80% wins Albin won, but the top 6-5 players had about the same record. All real close which is great for betting.

In a normal tourney only 1 of 128 goes undefeated unless true double elimination. A 80% win rate means you win your first 5 matches and went 2 and out. So you were only on the board 7 times to bet on.

With this format everyone is on the board for how ever many matches they play, which is a lot more than 6-7-8 times.

Then factor in Fargo ratings and current record in a active tourney it’s like the Racing Form at the track for gamblers to make picks with current information/ that sells action itself. What’s better than that from a betting perspective.?

It’s all about the books not about pool or the players.

Horse racing isn’t about the horse, the poor horse is just a name to identify a bet. Win or lose on to the next race.

If this doesn’t work. Watch the prize pools dry up again.

Nobody from MR is going to announce “hey guys we figured out how to put more money into pool, shorten the race, rob more addicted gamblers at the books and raise prize pools a little”. Not a press release, but that’s what’s happening

The rail birds will get used to the short form format, the players really don’t have a choice. MR and CSI are the real winners.

The old format of pool race to 11 double elimination didn’t have enough matches to bet on.

My very best
Fatboy

 

[sjm]

Why do you think this is that way ?

I think it's partly attributable to how hard it is for a player carrying a 700 Fargo to beat a player carrying a Fargo of 800 in a shootout. Yes, it can be done and has been done, but it's not the crapshoot many suggest.

It would be easier for the weaker player to win a one rack playoff. FYI, the format in the Challenge of Champions for over 20 years was two short sets, and if those sets were split, a one rack tiebreaker with lag for break.

This format involves a lot of shootouts. Some say that 40% of the matches are decided by shootout, but I have no idea what the real number is. Las Vegas Open champion Wiktor Zielinski had to win three different shootouts on his way to the title. Wisconsin Open Champion Alex Kazakis had to win by shootout in all four of his Stage 2 matches.

The 700 Fargo trying to beat an 800 Fargo, more often than not, will need to win both sets to win a match, and that's not easy to do. This format makes it super-tough for a Cinderella to break through, and for them to make a very deep run, they'll have to win several shootouts. It's not happening to this point. Even the 750 has very tough action here, but a better shot than a 700. This format, because it breaks ties with ball pocketing alone, gives an edge to the straighter shooters that is greater than the edge they have in other events.

Mike Page's analysis says the weaker player's chance is equal to what it would be in a straight race to 8, and you don't get Cinderella stories in race to eight events (the World Pool Masters, for example, has a race to 8 format, and the last four standing in the 2021 edition, with Fargo in parentheses, were Kazakis (806), SVB (829), Kaci (817), and Filler (831). That's an awfully difficult party for a Cinderella to crash.

Unfortunately, with the most top-heavy payout structure I've ever seen a tour employ, Cinderellas need a deep run to cash a check that exceeds their expenses in these events.

 

[Positively Ralf]

Commercials are there so the sponsors paying for the production can showcase their products. Talking with one of the vendors here, he told me the IPT matches often ran over their allotted time, forcing the networks to cut the show. This format is designed to fit 90 minutes-120 minute time slot. The format is being tweaked, and refined. As others pointed out, the golden break no longer counts as a win.

I'm very well aware how it works, but it feels that there are just too many shown during matches.

 

[FastManners]

Not in the US, likely never.

The gaming lobby is strong here and in the land of the free-we ain’t all that free, when it comes to betting.

Best
Fatboy

Remember Matchroom is in the UK where books are walk up windows are(were) very common everywhere and mobile apps now-I haven’t looked in the last few years for betting windows since covid. Point is sport betting is super common in the UK.

The more matches the better. High variance formats even more action. If that’s what it takes to get the players paid-happy days for them.

The rail birds will just have to learn to like the format. It’s not about the audience or pool fans. It’s about the book and the size of the handle. That’s it.

Thats what I thought. I doubt whether betting on the Pro Billiard Series is a thing in the UK, so I am not sure why the format would be put in place for betting purposes or how that could possible benefit CSI. I could be missing something though.

For reference sake, I am English, but live in the US, so I am pretty up to speed with betting practices in both countries.

 

[sjm]

That’s why this format is a books dream. It equalizes a lower rated players chance to win a match.

I haven't seen any evidence for this claim. In fact, I'd say the evidence is abundant that it's just the opposite. This format doesn't equalize anything.

During the IPT in 2006, all we heard was "just wait, when the bookmakers get involved with this, it will take off." Never happened.

I have probably made 150 different trips to England in my life, and I've spent my share of time at both Ladbroke's and William Hill in London. There's not much action on pool in either and there never has been. Other than during the World Pool Championship and the Mosconi Cup, I've never seen pool odds listed anywhere inside a London book making shop.

Assuming the betting public has an appetite for wagering on pool is pure speculation. We shall see.

 

[Cameron Smith]

H

I haven't seen any evidence for this claim. In fact, I'd say the evidence is abundant that it's just the opposite. This format doesn't equalize anything.

During the IPT in 2006, all we heard was "just wait, when the bookmakers get involved with this, it will take off." Never happened.

I have probably made 150 different trips to England in my life, and I've spent my share of time at both Ladbroke's and William Hill in London. There's not much action on pool in either and there never has been. Other than during the World Pool Championship and the Mosconi Cup, I've never seen pool odds listed anywhere inside a London book making shop.

Assuming the betting public has an appetite for wagering on pool is pure speculation. We shall see.

i know Mike posted a video on this before. Although it sound convincing, I’d love to see the data sets that were being used. I don’t think a 700 player has a better shot at beating SVB in this format per se.

But it’s hard for me to believe there isn’t a slightly increased chance of a, for example, 775 player beating a 820 player. Even if it’s just by a few percentages. Just the fact that you can lose in the overall game count but still win the match via shootout. But then, maybe shootout acts as a correction and ensures that the better player still gets the win. I dunno, I feel like I see more upsets but that could easily be selection bias.

 

[skip100]

Here's a recap of the math. Let's say you have a 100-point gap in ratings, corresponding to 2-to-1 odds for a single game.

The win probability for a single race to 8 would be 91% for the higher-rated player.

Now let's think about the CSI format with multiple races to 4. The win probability for a single race to 4 is 83% for the higher-rated player, meaning:
- HR wins 2 sets in a row, 68% of the time
- LR wins 2 sets in a row, 3% of the time

This leaves a 29% chance of there being a shootout. If we assume the higher-rated player continues to have a 2-to-1 edge, then the win probability is 68% + (29% * 2/3) = 88%. This is essentially the same as the 91% for a race to 8.

If you think the shootout is in fact completely random, then the win probability for the higher-rated player drops to 83%. But I don't think you'd get much action on, say, Brandon Shuff (730) straight-up against Josh Filler (830) in a shootout.

 

[sjm]

H

i know Mike posted a video on this before. Although it sound convincing, I’d love to see the data sets that were being used. I don’t think a 700 player has a better shot at beating SVB in this format per se.

But it’s hard for me to believe there isn’t a slightly increased chance of a, for example, 775 player beating a 820 player. Even if it’s just by a few percentages. Just the fact that you can lose in the overall game count but still win the match via shootout. But then, maybe shootout acts as a correction and ensures that the better player still gets the win. I dunno, I feel like I see more upsets but that could easily be selection bias.

The underdog doesn't have a better shot here. Mike has posted that the underdog has exactly the same chance as if they played a race to eight. I don't think this format gives the 775 Fargo player a better shot to beat an 820 than in a straight race to eight, but the underdog will often manage to force a shootout in this format. The problem is that they'll still have tough action in the shootout itself.

Let's see if anyone under 800 wins one of these "two race with shootout tiebreaker" events this year. In the first three, the winners were Gorst (823), Kazakis (806), and Zielinski (805). There are three of these events left, and I think we'll see more of the same.

 

[Straightpool_99]

Personally, I don't care about the maths of this. I care about pool matches being decided by other factors than pool. Coin tosses, javelin throws, 100m sprints... I watch pool to see some pool being played, not spot shots, trick shots or anything of that nature. If I wanted to see the same stupid setup over and over, I'd watch bowling or target shooting. But I don't.

 

[Fatboy]

I haven't seen any evidence for this claim. In fact, I'd say the evidence is abundant that it's just the opposite. This format doesn't equalize anything.

During the IPT in 2006, all we heard was "just wait, when the bookmakers get involved with this, it will take off." Never happened.

I have probably made 150 different trips to England in my life, and I've spent my share of time at both Ladbroke's and William Hill in London. There's not much action on pool in either and there never has been. Other than during the World Pool Championship and the Mosconi Cup, I've never seen pool odds listed anywhere inside a London book making shop.

Assuming the betting public has an appetite for wagering on pool is pure speculation. We shall see.

I’m betting it is!

Lol let’s see. I’m in the UK 4-6 times a year, except the last couple. That’s changing next month. Yay

IPT and Stanley Ho was all a fantasy of KT’s was never any meat on the bone. That was a airball.

Best
Eric

 

[Cameron Smith]

The underdog doesn't have a better shot here. Mike has posted that the underdog has exactly the same chance as if they played a race to eight. I don't think this format gives the 775 Fargo player a better shot to beat an 820 than in a straight race to eight, but the underdog will often manage to force a shootout in this format. The problem is that they'll still have tough action in the shootout itself.

Let's see if anyone under 800 wins one of these "two race with shootout tiebreaker" events this year. In the first three, the winners were Gorst (823), Kazakis (806), and Zielinski (805). There are three of these events left, and I think we'll see more of the same.

I understand this, but I still would be interested in seeing the data to get a better understanding of how it works. I’m not math guy so I know I could be completely wrong in all my assumptions.

It makes sense that this would in theory be just like a race to 8, but the interesting wrinkle is that you can win 4-7 or something like that. I’m interested in how the shoot out influences the match outcome in these scenarios.

What is the probability of the better player winning a shootout and how does it compare to the probability of them winning a game or even a race to 4 set.