Us 10 ball Why the single elimination finals?

[jbart65]

Just another confusing part of pool that limits the potential audience in my view.

I have watched hundreds of hours of pro pool since getting back into the game in 2022. I still am not entirely sure as to how double elimination works tourney to tourney.

The MR format I think I get. And I like it. Kind of like group play in the World Cup. One loss does not eliminate you. But I was confused last weekend by the formats in LV ...

 

[sjm]

not the same as actually playing in a match against people. Theres no possible way you can swing it as it doesn’t favor the player coming from the loser side.

I'm really struggling to understand why you see this as a problem. Every player knows the format at the beginning of an event. Your observation is that the hot seat may hold less value in this format, to which I say so what. Switching to single elimination midtournament has been done for over twenty years in most major events. Isn't it just as true at any stage of any event that a guy who just won 9-0 and finished an hour ago has a slight disadvantage playing a guy who just finished winning 9-8? Is that unfair or is it the nature of the beast?

On AZB, it seems every week I read a tournament summary that indicates players forgoing the final and chopping the money. No end of players can't be bothered to even play out a one set final. At least in the real events, the final gets played.

 

[maha]

to slow down the splitting at the end you have the t.d. give the first prize and second out along with the tax form for that prize and the money also.

 

[skogstokig]

Just another confusing part of pool that limits the potential audience in my view.

I have watched hundreds of hours of pro pool since getting back into the game in 2022. I still am not entirely sure as to how double elimination works tourney to tourney.

The MR format I think I get. And I like it. Kind of like group play in the World Cup. One loss does not eliminate you. But I was confused last weekend by the formats in LV ...

hmm? if you're thinking about the predator world 10b, they have the same as MR and many others, double elim funneled into single elim.

 

[maha]

if you want double elimination then make the sets very short. this way each has a second chance and also gets to play two different players and doesn't get wiped out if he draws the top pro.
the very late rounds can be one long set.

as far as the time, do it like many local tournaments do. as soon as a table breaks two are choose randomly and start immediately on the open table. keep the games moving.

a tournament isnt there to find out who is the best in the world. we know that already. it is to find out who will do best today and be awarded the prize money under the conditions presented..

 

[trob]

I'm really struggling to understand why you see this as a problem. Every player knows the format at the beginning of an event. Your observation is that the hot seat may hold less value in this format, to which I say so what. Switching to single elimination midtournament has been done for over twenty years in most major events. Isn't it just as true at any stage of any event that a guy who just won 9-0 and finished an hour ago has a slight disadvantage playing a guy who just finished winning 9-8? Is that unfair or is it the nature of the beast?

On AZB, it seems every week I read a tournament summary that indicates players forgoing the final and chopping the money. No end of players can't be bothered to even play out a one set final. At least in the real events, the final gets played.

Maybe you haven‘t been in the hot seat enough Lol what do you mean so what. Why would you make things even in the finals when obviously the guy who hasn’t lost deserves to have an advantage. Why the hell even have a double elimianation then.

and your comparison isn’t the same .. one is just a shit happens in an event the other is ententioanly taking away the advantage that the player deserves for not losing in a double elimination event.

Again I’ll go back to if you ask the guy coming from the 1 loss side does he want to play 1 long race or have to beat someone twice he will say 1 race every single time for a reason.

 

[sjm]

the advantage that the player deserves for not losing in a double elimination event.

We'll have to drop this discussion amicably. It's this upon which we disagree. I don't agree that the owner of the hot seat deserves an advantage and you do. You are most definitely entitled to your opinion.

Still, at almost every significant event, when they switch to single elimination, they offer no advantage to those who've gotten there undefeated. You see this as unfair and I don't. Everyone who gets there is on equal footing. If a player that lost a match beats an undefeated player, the undefeated player is eliminated.

Yes, there are a few outliers, the most obvious being Derby City, where a player carrying a loss into the final must double dip an undefeated player to win the event. It happened this year when Josh Filler had to beat Pijus Labutis twice in the final of the 9ball.

As a player, you can pick your spots and play in the events that have a format more to your liking, but if you don't like switching to single elimination at any point deemed appropriate and pre-announced by the event producers, you'll have to sit out most of the significant events on the world pool calendar.

 

[maha]

some have a hard time understanding that it is fair for all when starting. so fair for all when ending as each had the same chance of ending up in the situations that occur.
even if they played races to one it would be fair for all. fluctuations would mean the top players may not win as often but not unfair.

 

[jay helfert]

True double elimination has become a bit of a dinosaur in our sport, and thankfully so. It's not unfair to have a single extended race, as all players know that earning the hot seat means less in this format.

As for the fans, a final of such indeterminate length is always a bother. The fact that there was only one match played total is irrelevant, as format must be disclosed in the players meeting before every event. It can't be changed mid-tournament.

A single Race to Eleven would have been fine. A Race to Thirteen in Ten Ball is a bit too long. More of a slog than a race!

 

[trob]

I don’t have a hard time understand

some have a hard time understanding that it is fair for all when starting. so fair for all when ending as each had the same chance of ending up in the situations that occur.
even if they played races to one it would be fair for all. fluctuations would mean the top players may not win as often but not unfair.

I don’t have a hard time understanding anything. It more doesn’t make sense then not being fair. The players knowing what they signed up for at the beginning of the tournament is beside the point. They are going to play either way. They are pro’s trying to keep the lights on so they are going to play in just about any format you throw out there. It just doesn’t make sense to me to reward the guy that already lost by him getting to only beat the guy once in the final.
Again my argument that you or no one can win or disagree with is simple. If you ask the person coming from the one loss side would you rather play 1 long race or have to beat him twice. They will say 1 long race Every. Single. Time lol It’s hard to beat someone twice and it should be.. because you were on the losers side having already lost once.

 

[Sheldon]

A person who (might have) gotten an easy draw, and played quite a few less matches than the person who might have lost their first match and battled through the entire loser bracket somehow DESERVES to have an advantage in the final?

 

[nicksaint26]

I don’t have a hard time understand

I don’t have a hard time understanding anything. It more doesn’t make sense then not being fair. The players knowing what they signed up for at the beginning of the tournament is beside the point. They are going to play either way. They are pro’s trying to keep the lights on so they are going to play in just about any format you throw out there. It just doesn’t make sense to me to reward the guy that already lost by him getting to only beat the guy once in the final.
Again my argument that you or no one can win or disagree with is simple. If you ask the person coming from the one loss side would you rather play 1 long race or have to beat him twice. They will say 1 long race Every. Single. Time lol It’s hard to beat someone twice and it should be.. because you were on the losers side having already lost once.

The guy from the losers side probably had to win twice as many matches to get to the finals so I’d say single elimination is more than fair for the finals.

 

[The_JV]

I have a different take on the different points of view.

I believe some are under the idea that DE is design meant to provide players a "second chance". I don't believe it is. I believe it's meant to provide the event the opportunity to have the best two competitors play in the final. Although I'm not the guy to determine the odds, but it's a strong possibility that the best two players in any event will match up well before the final. DE provides the chance for that (2nd best) player to make it to the final, and the event is better for it.

I think the reality here is that DE has been billed for years in pool rooms around North America as the format to provide players with a second life for their entry fee. Value for the dollar if you will. However, if you embrace the concept of it being a tool to have the best 2 reach the final, then the idea of a DE final format is moot. You don't need it, because what you're attempting to accomplish has already happened.

The modified double is no different. Once you've gotten down to the last 32 in a strong field. All the caff has been removed from the wheat and the resulting contests should all be at the level you want for a compelling competition.

 

[The_JV]

Again my argument that you or no one can win or disagree with is simple. If you ask the person coming from the one loss side would you rather play 1 long race or have to beat him twice. They will say 1 long race Every. Single. Time lol It’s hard to beat someone twice and it should be.. because you were on the losers side having already lost once.

This really depends on the players...

If I got a series of bad rolls that booted me to the loser's side early on, and I know I have an advantage over the hot seat. Then I want the single long race.

If I'm a dog in the finals against a superior opponent. The I definitely want the 2 short races.

Long races ALWAYS favour the stronger player.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... I believe it's meant to provide the event the opportunity to have the best two competitors play in the final. ,,,

These days "the best two" is not so important. Pool doesn't have a Federer-Nadal situation and there are a dozen or more players who make fine finalists.

 

[Atorontopoolplayer]

We'll have to drop this discussion amicably. It's this upon which we disagree. I don't agree that the owner of the hot seat deserves an advantage and you do. You are most definitely entitled to your opinion.

Still, at almost every significant event, when they switch to single elimination, they offer no advantage to those who've gotten there undefeated. You see this as unfair and I don't. Everyone who gets there is on equal footing. If a player that lost a match beats an undefeated player, the undefeated player is eliminated.

Yes, there are a few outliers, the most obvious being Derby City, where a player carrying a loss into the final must double dip an undefeated player to win the event. It happened this year when Josh Filler had to beat Pijus Labutis twice in the final of the 9ball.

As a player, you can pick your spots and play in the events that have a format more to your liking, but if you don't like switching to single elimination at any point deemed appropriate and pre-announced by the event producers, you'll have to sit out most of the significant events on the world pool calendar.

Only thing I disagree with here is the A side not having an advantage when it goes to single elimination at 32 or 16 or whatever many players.
Since the B side will draw into A side the odds of getting an easier match up on the A side is higher and gives a possible advantage

 

[sjm]

Only thing I disagree with here is the A side not having an advantage when it goes to single elimination at 32 or 16 or whatever many players.
Since the B side will draw into A side the odds of getting an easier match up on the A side is higher and gives a possible advantage

Yes, on this point I must stand corrected.

 

[maha]

also gives an advantage to those on the A side to get a weaker opponent and those on the B side as well. it really evens out. you cant take specific parts and make a general interpretation of unfairness.

and the reason to play the loser must win two sets in a row in the final instead of a long one is to keep the advantage of the winners side being a
3 to 1 favorite if they are equal players. that seems fair.

and an undefeated player should not be eliminated by a single loss to a defeated one as they both would have one loss. that would be unfair.

 

[nine_ball6970]

Which is more important? The players or the fans? The players put up the money to play these tournaments along with travel expenses and everything else. I think there would be less participants if the whole tournament was single elimination because weaker players may not think it is worth the trip if they are more likely to play only one match and be done. You could say they shouldn't be in the tournament anyway but as long as players are putting up their own entries you need some dead money to make the prize pool worth playing for.