Ultimate pool brackets and results
- Thread starter miramachine
- Start date
Definitely some interesting financials.
It's ONLY a rule in the tie breakers, not the regular games/matches.
3-4 each got 20k
5-8 each got 10k
9-16 each got 3k
17-32 each got 1k
not too shabby!
Good catch. Now I'm even more curious about the payouts and various arrangements.
What about the other open/shootout events?
They had printed payout sheets available at the event, I never look at them. I believe the Open paid 20k for first and 10k for second. The Shootout probably paid 5k or so for first. The women's shootout didn't have a very big prize pool at all but I don't believe they charge an entry fee for that.
Well, sort of. If an event has "unusual" rules -- out of the ordinary and maybe one some of the players have never encountered before -- in my view it is no good to just say, "You should have read the rules. They are available on-line." The tournament management should make sure that there is a good chance that all players understand the special rules. Was there an effort by the tournament management to make sure the special rules got disseminated?
Agree Bob. When you take every normal pool rule and turn them upside down, a players meeting should be MANDATORY to attend if you are playing.
I have no idea if they warn pro players new to UPL. In my experience in the league they did try to cover the rules. It seemed to me they are proud of them and went into some detail explaining most of them. The frozen ball rule is a bizarre and IMO bad rule. They didn’t hide it though and did explain it. Some rules they didn’t cover well. Others they explained more than once. They have a lot of rules. Somehow I missed the loss of game foul for handing the cue ball from the ball return to my opponent after a scratch. But the opponent didn’t call me on it and for once the rule about only the opponent calling fouls was observed, so we played on and only got the lecture/ explanation after the match. As I said, I never took to their rules or format.
JABSolstice
Well-known member
Except Gerson had won the event...twice. He should have known the rules.
In their own country, it's a standard rule. They are not from these parts.
If the situation has never come up when he was around, he would have no way of even knowing that it might be an issue. His English is spotty enough that he needs an interpreter to do interviews, so I could see how he both didn't know and couldn't possibly have known he didn't know something.
I played UPL for quite a while before I learned that rule...through watching the tournaments on youtube, not from my actual league sessions.
Last edited:
The only justification I can imagine for the rule is to minimize arguments. Frozen/close balls is the source of probably 80-90% of arguments I see in league--what's a double-hit, when can I hit it straight on, if I jack up isn't it ok, no even through the cue ball shot down table at the same speed as the object ball it wasn't clear what happened, etc, etc. By having a draconian unforgiving rule on the matter it at least simplifies one aspect of the game (the frozen OB issue). The very close but not frozen issue is still there, though.
Yeah, I'm trying to justify it, but it's still ridiculous.
i guess it makes sense, the tie breaker is a six ball sprint
i believe that in fast shot clock pro snooker, the players always wait for all balls to stop before they shoot
Actually, it is a standard rule in the UK, where Ultimate Pool is from. It originally comes from snooker and it went into UK eight ball a long time ago because it all they knew. The rule is absolutely traditional to them.