Solutions for small-scale local one pocket tournaments

[Oikawa]

For small (8-32 players) one pocket tournaments at a local scale (think 300-700 fargo players, very small price pool of like 100€ to winner or smth), what methods are out there for maximizing the odds of the tournament finishing in reasonable time?

Compared to other games like rotation or 8-ball, the variance in length of a frame is much greater.

Some methods for countering this I can think of would be:

- Max match time triggering some sort of shootout with current score taken into account somehow.
- Very short race length, bo3 or even bo1 but with bo1 break winner has a massive advantage. Any known ways (rule changes) for reducing advantage of breaking for a bo1?
- Shot clock, but doesn't really stop slow play from safeties and a never-ending movement game, especially between two weak players.
- No double elimination at all, less games in total with straight cup.
- Modifying the game somehow e.g. 9 balls instead of 15, but this is very unpleasant for many who wish to play the game as close to the original as possible.

I don't see a informal rule of "please play agressively/fast" doing much good, so I'm looking for clear, concrete, objectively fair ways of dealing with this.

 

[Island Drive]

Short Rack one pocket.... using 11 balls.
Rack a ten ball rack, place the eleventh ball in line with the head ball on the bottom.

 

[straightline]

Play to a game clock. Play every rack to the last ball. All fouls ball in hand. The scores are total balls per time period. These totals determine advancement as well as cash.
I throw this out when it comes up for no other reason it seems than I thunk it.

 

[Island Drive]

Talk to Long Arm John on the one pocket . org site.... been holdin' these for awhile.

 

[lfigueroa]

For small (8-32 players) one pocket tournaments at a local scale (think 300-700 fargo players, very small price pool of like 100€ to winner or smth), what methods are out there for maximizing the odds of the tournament finishing in reasonable time?

Compared to other games like rotation or 8-ball, the variance in length of a frame is much greater.

Some methods for countering this I can think of would be:

- Max match time triggering some sort of shootout with current score taken into account somehow.
- Very short race length, bo3 or even bo1 but with bo1 break winner has a massive advantage. Any known ways (rule changes) for reducing advantage of breaking for a bo1?
- Shot clock, but doesn't really stop slow play from safeties and a never-ending movement game, especially between two weak players.
- No double elimination at all, less games in total with straight cup.
- Modifying the game somehow e.g. 9 balls instead of 15, but this is very unpleasant for many who wish to play the game as close to the original as possible.

I don't see a informal rule of "please play agressively/fast" doing much good, so I'm looking for clear, concrete, objectively fair ways of dealing with this.

First off, your max number of entrants should be governed by the number of tables available — nothing slows things up like too many players and not enough tables, ie DCC.

Second, there’s nothing wrong with putting the fear of god in the players by giving them the John Lavin (owner/TD of Chicago’s Red Shoes) pre-1pocket tournament speech which basically goes: slow play will not be tolerated; you know where your hole is so shoot at it; I am the sole arbiter of what constitutes “slow play.”

Third, uses rules that cut down on balls owed: fouls cancel each other out; four fouls constitutes loss of game.

Fourth, start your event on time and don’t hold it up for late comers; get matches going the second a table is available.

You could also go races to three on the winners side and to two on the losers and the finals a single race to three or four.

Lou Figueroa

 

[iusedtoberich]

Race to 2, single elimination. Try that and see how it goes. Double elimination takes forever in 9 ball, don't even attempt it in one pocket. One pocket tournaments rarely draw a lot of players. I doubt you'd get 16 at a local small event. Are you in Europe?

 

[freds]

I'm playing in one next month; 16 players, 8 tables. R3 winners, 2 losers side.

Only modification to the game is that there's a *2* hour time limit; if reached, whoever is ahead wins. If tied, next ball made wins (or foul loses.)

I think the first time they're trying it out, will see how it goes but at least it will finish on time. Playing on unmodified Gold Crowns (don't know which but <5), so reasonable pockets should help move things along.

It will be fun.

PS Wait! I have no intention of starting a discussion of intentional slow playing. And I don't think it will happen, it's a friendly $100/entry event, not big $

 

[JPB2]

Race to 2, single elimination. Try that and see how it goes. Double elimination takes forever in 9 ball, don't even attempt it in one pocket. One pocket tournaments rarely draw a lot of players. I doubt you'd get 16 at a local small event. Are you in Europe?

We were going to have that format recently but it didn’t get going and we didn’t play. Not enough players whereas other formats have drawn more. This is a smaller area but one pocket exists here now and apparently it wasn’t as big say 5 years ago. Anyway, I think the entry was too high for the prospect of being out in 2 games and some stayed away. I was still going to be dead money, but wasn’t excited about the format. When few players showed up I proposed a round robin but we didn’t do it. I think we would have had a better turnout with a lower entry fee; I think that format will be entry fee sensitive.

With a small field and/or enough tables, I think a round robin format like 3 cushion tournaments might work. If you had 4 or 5 in your group and played 3 or 4 race to 2 matches it might be good. I’m not sure. I think people would pay a higher entry fee. I don’t know how long it would take but if you could keep people playing in the prelim stage and keep the matches moving reasonably I think it could work. If you have enough tables for each group to have at least 2 tables I like to think it would work. OP mentioned 8-32 players. Let’s say you got 10. Two 5 player groups, each player gets 4 prelim matches. With 4 tables each group has 4 players playing and one sitting. Then top players have a final match. I’m not a TD. Would that work?

 

[lfigueroa]

We were going to have that format recently but it didn’t get going and we didn’t play. Not enough players whereas other formats have drawn more. This is a smaller area but one pocket exists here now and apparently it wasn’t as big say 5 years ago. Anyway, I think the entry was too high for the prospect of being out in 2 games and some stayed away. I was still going to be dead money, but wasn’t excited about the format. When few players showed up I proposed a round robin but we didn’t do it. I think we would have had a better turnout with a lower entry fee; I think that format will be entry fee sensitive.

With a small field and/or enough tables, I think a round robin format like 3 cushion tournaments might work. If you had 4 or 5 in your group and played 3 or 4 race to 2 matches it might be good. I’m not sure. I think people would pay a higher entry fee. I don’t know how long it would take but if you could keep people playing in the prelim stage and keep the matches moving reasonably I think it could work. If you have enough tables for each group to have at least 2 tables I like to think it would work. OP mentioned 8-32 players. Let’s say you got 10. Two 5 player groups, each player gets 4 prelim matches. With 4 tables each group has 4 players playing and one sitting. Then top players have a final match. I’m not a TD. Would that work?

I did a RR a few months ago and it went well — players liked getting a lot of play for their dough.

With eight guys and starting at like 9 you can be done by early evening. With 16 (and enough tables) you can have two flights and be done by late evening. Late enough players will split it.

Lou Figueroa

 

[middleofnowhere]

I'm playing in one next month; 16 players, 8 tables. R3 winners, 2 losers side.

Only modification to the game is that there's a *2* hour time limit; if reached, whoever is ahead wins. If tied, next ball made wins (or foul loses.)

I think the first time they're trying it out, will see how it goes but at least it will finish on time. Playing on unmodified Gold Crowns (don't know which but <5), so reasonable pockets should help move things along.

It will be fun.

PS Wait! I have no intention of starting a discussion of intentional slow playing. And I don't think it will happen, it's a friendly $100/entry event, not big $

While I don't think the matches will take 2 hours, what kind of accurate timing device are you going to use?

 

[iusedtoberich]

We were going to have that format recently but it didn’t get going and we didn’t play. Not enough players whereas other formats have drawn more. This is a smaller area but one pocket exists here now and apparently it wasn’t as big say 5 years ago. Anyway, I think the entry was too high for the prospect of being out in 2 games and some stayed away. I was still going to be dead money, but wasn’t excited about the format. When few players showed up I proposed a round robin but we didn’t do it. I think we would have had a better turnout with a lower entry fee; I think that format will be entry fee sensitive.

With a small field and/or enough tables, I think a round robin format like 3 cushion tournaments might work. If you had 4 or 5 in your group and played 3 or 4 race to 2 matches it might be good. I’m not sure. I think people would pay a higher entry fee. I don’t know how long it would take but if you could keep people playing in the prelim stage and keep the matches moving reasonably I think it could work. If you have enough tables for each group to have at least 2 tables I like to think it would work. OP mentioned 8-32 players. Let’s say you got 10. Two 5 player groups, each player gets 4 prelim matches. With 4 tables each group has 4 players playing and one sitting. Then top players have a final match. I’m not a TD. Would that work?

I don't think one hole players like one hole tournaments, period. We had a 5k added one hole event in Philadelphia 2 years ago. Open, I think $100 entry range. It was well advertised, well run, in the biggest room in town, known for gambling one hole players. This town has one hole players through and through. I think 19 players signed up. The TD joked at the players meeting to just split the 5k with everyone and go home. Needless to say the TD never had another one. He lost his shirt on that, paying out the added money and hardly anyone one showed up. (He did pay the full added amt)

 

[freds]

While I don't think the matches will take 2 hours, what kind of accurate timing device are you going to use?

Don't know, I'm not running it; but I'm guessing some kind of clock?

Sorry.

I mean, I guess it's possible somebody could be lining up a shot to go up 1 ball with 5 seconds left in the match clock...but not something I'll be worried about.

 

[PoolPlayer4]

Clock doesn't work because slow play isn't what usually leads to long matches. If that's the issue the TD can light a fire under them. Most of the time it is tight matches involving at least one player who is a really good mover, 2 players who are better movers than they are shooters, or 2 players who are just weaker players generally. I'd say the second scenario is the most frequent cause. EDIT: Overly tight pockets can contribute to these, but I personally prefer tighter pockets for 1P (not tighter than 4 1/4). But they definitely can slow the entire tournament.

2 hours time limit for race to 3 is too short in my view. A quarter of matches, probably more, would exceed that. And it just changes the game. 5 games in 2 hours isn't realistic to force on everyone. At the International they used a 3 hour time limit. Warning at 2:30. At 3:00 whoever is ahead wins or next to score if tied on games and balls. It seemed to work well.

I'd never play in a single elimination one pocket tournament because I just want more play for my money than that. I draw the best player and I'm out in a quick 3-0? No thanks. I'm also not a big fan of R2 on losers side for the same reason - amount of play for my money, but I don't have as big of an objection to that.

I agree that a big part of it is the TD doing their job. Start on time, don't let tables sit empty, monitor matches and get ahead of it if they're going long, don't have too many players for the number of tables, don't expect that a 16 player tournament will be over in the time of a 9 ball tournament, etc.

Haven't tried short rack but it sounds interesting from following the discussion about the weekly Buffalo's tournament Joe Long is sponsoring. I also haven't seen a RR but would love to play in one, as Lou said, provided you have enough tables for the number of players.

 

[middleofnowhere]

Don't know, I'm not running it; but I'm guessing some kind of clock?

Sorry.

I mean, I guess it's possible somebody could be lining up a shot to go up 1 ball with 5 seconds left in the match clock...but not something I'll be worried about.

I wasn't being sarcastic or funny. It would be an issue keeping correct time on multiple tables all different starting times. You may need a time keeper for every table.

 

[lfigueroa]

Clock doesn't work because slow play isn't what usually leads to long matches. If that's the issue the TD can light a fire under them. Most of the time it is tight matches involving at least one player who is a really good mover, 2 players who are better movers than they are shooters, or 2 players who are just weaker players generally. I'd say the second scenario is the most frequent cause. EDIT: Overly tight pockets can contribute to these, but I personally prefer tighter pockets for 1P (not tighter than 4 1/4). But they definitely can slow the entire tournament.

2 hours time limit for race to 3 is too short in my view. A quarter of matches, probably more, would exceed that. And it just changes the game. 5 games in 2 hours isn't realistic to force on everyone. At the International they used a 3 hour time limit. Warning at 2:30. At 3:00 whoever is ahead wins or next to score if tied on games and balls. It seemed to work well.

I'd never play in a single elimination one pocket tournament because I just want more play for my money than that. I draw the best player and I'm out in a quick 3-0? No thanks. I'm also not a big fan of R2 on losers side for the same reason - amount of play for my money, but I don't have as big of an objection to that.

I agree that a big part of it is the TD doing their job. Start on time, don't let tables sit empty, monitor matches and get ahead of it if they're going long, don't have too many players for the number of tables, don't expect that a 16 player tournament will be over in the time of a 9 ball tournament, etc.

Haven't tried short rack but it sounds interesting from following the discussion about the weekly Buffalo's tournament Joe Long is sponsoring. I also haven't seen a RR but would love to play in one, as Lou said, provided you have enough tables for the number of players.

Slow play is a true problem, particularly at 1pocket -- some guys think it is their birthright to take all the time in world to select and shoot their shot.

True story: not too long ago I'm playing a guy in a tournament (if it had been a money match I would have unscrewed and said "fuk you." Anywhos, this guy is taking so long that a guy on the rail -- who is *renown* for his slow play says, "They say I'm slow -- this guys gives me 10-7 and the break when it comes to slow play." He was right.

At one point the guy, after staring at the table forever, goes to his case and pulls out something like an energy bar, and walks around the table chewing his cud, eventually getting around to shooting his shot digestion well under way.

There are guys out there that simply have no couth and can potentially screw up an entire event and TDs need to be prepared to deal with these kinds of guys.

Lou Figueroa

 

[PoolPlayer4]

Slow play is a true problem, particularly at 1pocket -- some guys think it is their birthright to take all the time in world to select and shoot their shot.

True story: not too long ago I'm playing a guy in a tournament (if was a money match a would have unscrewed and said "fuk you." Anywhos. This guy is taking so long that a guy on the rail -- who is *renown* for his slow play says, "They say I'm slow -- this guys gives me 10-7 and the break when it comes to slow play." He was right.

At one point the guy, after staring at the table forever, goes to his case and pulls out something like an energy bar, and walks around the table chewing his cud, eventually getting around to shooting his shot, digestion well under way.

There are guys out there that simply have no couth and can potentially screw up an entire event and TDs need to be prepared to deal with these kinds of guys.

Lou Figueroa

Not saying they don't exist. I'm just saying that particular problem should be addressed by the TD, not by rule changes. And, I see that a lot less than simply styles that lead to long matches. That can be addressed with rules as long as they don't turn it into a different game.

 

[lfigueroa]

Not saying they don't exist. I'm just saying that particular problem should be addressed by the TD, not by rule changes. And, I see that a lot less than simply styles that lead to long matches. That can be addressed with rules as long as they don't turn it into a different game.

I totally agree.

But I made a judgement call in that I felt I would get zero relief from the TD, who was clearly more into making MMA style intros for his local crew than paying attention to the matches. Different TD, I might make a different call and appeal.

A strong TD, like John Lavin, and the slow play comes to an immediate halt and/or the offending player gets DQ’d.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Bob Jewett]

Try a chess/game clock. There are various possible penalties for running out of time. There are several modes in modern chess clocks that make them more suitable for pool. This has been discussed before.

 

[highkarate]

The only fair way to do it is lag for the break, race to 2 or 3, no loser side (or maybe 2 winners side 1 losers side). I love one pocket but the tournaments are brutal. It’s not a tournament game. I like bobs chess clock idea but what you gain in time you’re gonna lose with people arguing over forgetting to start the clock etc

 

[straightline]

Clearly one hole as it is loved wont do. Take a cue from cornhole - which actually draws. Put the thing in the hole. They will come.

Cumulative ball count. I believe that's what drives APA - not up on that I could be wrong. Still not a bad idea.
Anyway, strong chance of grass roots interest in what it's always been. Making shots. Playing position.