SBE Shenannigans

9andout

9andout

Gunnin' for a 3 pack!!
Silver Member
I was looking through the Amateur Open results and found a surprise.
One score didn't match what I saw.
I watched in person "Player A" lose to another player but still advance.
I've since heard it was because "Player B" had a conflicting Pro match coming up.
This reminds me of when (Soquet?) had to catch a flight and they put Shane back in.
...
I believe "Player B's" next opponent should have gotten the forfeit, and the one who lost should not have advanced. He also went on to cash. What about all the other players who lost in that round?
I was not in the tournament and don't have any other vested interest. But I was there to see him lose firsthand.
Turned out it was good for her to skip the next match though. She went on to win the Pro event.
 
B

bbb

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
9andout said:
I was looking through the Amateur Open results and found a surprise.
One score didn't match what I saw.
I watched in person "Player A" lose to another player but still advance.
I've since heard it was because "Player B" had a conflicting Pro match coming up.
This reminds me of when (Soquet?) had to catch a flight and they put Shane back in.
...
I believe "Player B's" next opponent should have gotten the forfeit, and the one who lost should not have advanced. He also went on to cash. What about all the other players who lost in that round?
I was not in the tournament and don't have any other vested interest. But I was there to see him lose firsthand.
Turned out it was good for her to skip the next match though. She went on to win the Pro event.
Click to expand...
an amateur won the pro event???
or a pro played the amateur event????
something besides who should advance seems fishy
 
Black-Balled

Black-Balled

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
9andout said:
I was looking through the Amateur Open results and found a surprise.
One score didn't match what I saw.
I watched in person "Player A" lose to another player but still advance.
I've since heard it was because "Player B" had a conflicting Pro match coming up.
This reminds me of when (Soquet?) had to catch a flight and they put Shane back in.
...
I believe "Player B's" next opponent should have gotten the forfeit, and the one who lost should not have advanced. He also went on to cash. What about all the other players who lost in that round?
I was not in the tournament and don't have any other vested interest. But I was there to see him lose firsthand.
Turned out it was good for her to skip the next match though. She went on to win the Pro event.
Click to expand...
Sounds consistent to me. As though the procedural reaction to match conflicts had been considered and made Policy.

No foul. Keep.shooting.
 
WoodyMPW

WoodyMPW

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
9andout said:
I was looking through the Amateur Open results and found a surprise.
One score didn't match what I saw.
I watched in person "Player A" lose to another player but still advance.
I've since heard it was because "Player B" had a conflicting Pro match coming up.
This reminds me of when (Soquet?) had to catch a flight and they put Shane back in.
...
I believe "Player B's" next opponent should have gotten the forfeit, and the one who lost should not have advanced. He also went on to cash. What about all the other players who lost in that round?
I was not in the tournament and don't have any other vested interest. But I was there to see him lose firsthand.
Turned out it was good for her to skip the next match though. She went on to win the Pro event.
Click to expand...

So you're saying Tkach beat Russian Kenny, she then withdrew and they let Kenny move on?
 
Black-Balled

Black-Balled

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
bbb said:
an amateur won the pro event???
or a pro played the amateur event????
something besides who should advance seems fishy
Click to expand...

And? Happens every year, someone slips thru.

This is clearly addressed as well...something to the effect of "SBE cannot be aware of all players. If you have concerns about a player...contact____".
 
hang-the-9

hang-the-9

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
9andout said:
I was looking through the Amateur Open results and found a surprise.
One score didn't match what I saw.
I watched in person "Player A" lose to another player but still advance.
I've since heard it was because "Player B" had a conflicting Pro match coming up.
This reminds me of when (Soquet?) had to catch a flight and they put Shane back in.
...
I believe "Player B's" next opponent should have gotten the forfeit, and the one who lost should not have advanced. He also went on to cash. What about all the other players who lost in that round?
I was not in the tournament and don't have any other vested interest. But I was there to see him lose firsthand.
Turned out it was good for her to skip the next match though. She went on to win the Pro event.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, the person that was beat was just beat by a person quitting anyway so there is that to think about. How would you feel if someone beat you for $100 then tore up the money instead of using it for anything useful? And if the person that was beat went on to win more, well then he was winning those matches so still deserving to continue through. I think it depends on from who's point of view you are looking at things. When you miss, you and your friends are sad, but your opponent and his friends are happy. Just need to look at things from all sides.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mvp
CreeDo

CreeDo

Fargo Rating 597
Silver Member
I'm sure it would just lead to even more arguing and tragedies, but maybe they
should switch to going by Fargo rating, instead of
"did they ever cash in (random USA tournament)?"

Their policy for players outside of the USA is basically the honor system.

"If you are from outside the USA and recognized or generally considered as a professional in your home country,
you may be disqualified if this is brought to our attention. Please respect the amateur status of this event."

Kind of makes the policy pointless. Would anyone recognize Li-Si Yu before he cashed his check?
 
GideonF

GideonF

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Black-Balled said:
And? Happens every year, someone slips thru.



This is clearly addressed as well...something to the effect of "SBE cannot be aware of all players. If you have concerns about a player...contact____".
Click to expand...



I don’t think she “slipped through”. If Alex Olinger and the like are amateurs (or was when he won it), she’s an amateur in their definition, IMO
 
hang-the-9

hang-the-9

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
GideonF said:
I don’t think she “slipped through”. If Alex Olinger and the like are amateurs (or was when he won it), she’s an amateur in their definition, IMO
Click to expand...

I think the cut off for SBE Open event was a 720 Fargo rating or something, which is in the Open / low rank pro range. I think a bit too high since the average Fargo rating is 550. They should cut that down a bit like they do with Seniors and Super Seniors and Womens. Why lump all the younger males into one giant bowl when women and 55+ get their own tournaments?

550 vs 650 or 700 is not a very close match at all. They should do an under 600 and an over 600 or something in that area. Or do what the BCA open did, just average out the ratings of the entries and stick them in two brackets based on over/under rating from that.

1,000 players, average is 600, 599 and under go one way, 600 and up go the other way.
 
F

FeelDaShot

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
hang-the-9 said:
I think the cut off for SBE Open event was a 720 Fargo rating or something, which is in the Open / low rank pro range. I think a bit too high since the average Fargo rating is 550. They should cut that down a bit like they do with Seniors and Super Seniors and Womens. Why lump all the younger males into one giant bowl when women and 55+ get their own tournaments?

550 vs 650 or 700 is not a very close match at all. They should do an under 600 and an over 600 or something in that area. Or do what the BCA open did, just average out the ratings of the entries and stick them in two brackets based on over/under rating from that.

1,000 players, average is 600, 599 and under go one way, 600 and up go the other way.
Click to expand...

That defeats the whole idea of it being an amateur open. In your case, someone with a 599 rating is the favorite to win their tourney. Meanwhile someone with a 650 in the other bracket is a serious underdog.

At that point, it's the same as a handicapped tournament and it gets into all of the BS involved with improperly handicapping players.

Also, in my area of the country, no one uses fargo ratings or reports tournament results. So, I don't have a rating. That either means I'll no longer be able to play or they will start guessing at peoples ratings which is not going to work at all.
 
J

jrctherake

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
CreeDo said:
I'm sure it would just lead to even more arguing and tragedies, but maybe they
should switch to going by Fargo rating, instead of
"did they ever cash in (random USA tournament)?"

Their policy for players outside of the USA is basically the honor system.

"If you are from outside the USA and recognized or generally considered as a professional in your home country,
you may be disqualified if this is brought to our attention. Please respect the amateur status of this event."

Kind of makes the policy pointless. Would anyone recognize Li-Si Yu before he cashed his check?
Click to expand...

Would many recognize him? Nope.

Would many recognize "his game"....hmmm, hell yes!

Players like that can't push the breaks hard enough to keep from being recognized at the after playing a match or so....
 
Chili Palmer

Chili Palmer

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Icon of Sin said:
She let him take the win...

Something like this happens every year.
Click to expand...

Does that mean she won the match but let him win the match? I'm confused. If they finished the match and she won she moves on THEN forfeits and Russian Kenny should not have been let back in. If she forfeits the match mid-match that's a different story.
 
K

Koop

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
FeelDaShot said:
That defeats the whole idea of it being an amateur open. In your case, someone with a 599 rating is the favorite to win their tourney. Meanwhile someone with a 650 in the other bracket is a serious underdog.

At that point, it's the same as a handicapped tournament and it gets into all of the BS involved with improperly handicapping players.

Also, in my area of the country, no one uses fargo ratings or reports tournament results. So, I don't have a rating. That either means I'll no longer be able to play or they will start guessing at peoples ratings which is not going to work at all.
Click to expand...

I agree. It's the amateur open. Put a ceiling on it and if you don't like your odds then don't sign up. Seems simple enough.
 
S

SBC

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
GideonF said:
I don’t think she “slipped through”. If Alex Olinger and the like are amateurs (or was when he won it), she’s an amateur in their definition, IMO
Click to expand...

There were at least 50 better than her in the open.
 
CreeDo

CreeDo

Fargo Rating 597
Silver Member
hang-the-9 said:
I think the cut off for SBE Open event was a
720 Fargo rating or something, which is in the Open / low rank pro range.
I think a bit too high since the average Fargo rating is 550.
Click to expand...

oh, I didn't realize they already had a Fargo cutoff. I missed that.

I agree, 720 is too high. 700 is a more reasonable border between pro and amateur.
Kristina is still right on the edge as a 702, but she's the women's eurotour champ,
is a predator sponsored pro, and has a run 123 balls. If it walks like a duck
and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

John Schmidt talked a bit about the definition of pro in a recent ABR interview,
https://www.poolpodcasts.com/tag/john-schmidt/

And he said... "if you ever have run 100 a balls in your life, I would say you're a pro caliber player.
Maybe a weak pro, but definitely pro caliber."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top