Any thoughts on bca vegas

sixpack said:

If it's the player I noticed I checked his Fargo while I was watching his match ( a few days after it happened) and he had gone up to 755. Now I see he's back to 726.

Click to expand...

I’m talking about Jesus. I watched him play a little. Shouldn’t have been allowed to play, but there were plenty of people in that tournament who can beat him in a race to 7.

easy-e said:

I’m talking about Jesus. I watched him play a little. Shouldn’t have been allowed to play, but there were plenty of people in that tournament who can beat him in a race to 7.

Click to expand...

Yes. Same guy.

hang-the-9 said:

$4 sodas and waters, while in the same hotel they are at least $1 cheaper. No idea who thought that up, why not just charge the same prices as the rest of the place which is already marked up 400%?

Click to expand...

Hey 9,

The convention centers at all the Caesar's Casino's are independently operated. The door nazi's do not work for The Rio. All the food and drink is offered by the concession holder. Their return on investment is directly tied to the prices they charge. Sad situation.

Lyn

BRussell said:

Yes it was a short race, but honestly, with discussion allowed it was probably the right length race. My gold singles races to 6 were shorter than the gold scotch doubles races to 4/3. I think I'd just prefer no talking and longer races. The rule that the non-shooting player has to stay at their seat didn't really change things. The ones who would benefit most from a no-discussion rule is the women! Jeezus the way some guys/boyfriends/husbands wanted to mansplain every flipping' shot...

I understand the pro event being at Griff's. It's only 5 minutes away and they provide a free shuttle. I do wish they would work on the seating there. If you're not right in the front row around the table, you can't really see, and you're just jockeying around the guy's big head in front of you to see a piece of the table. I was right in front for the 10-ball, and it was great. I was one row back for the 8-ball, and I wished I hadn't gone. I'm sure bleachers are a pain but even just one small three-row, 15' set would probably double the amount viewing seats available.

Click to expand...

I agree that the relatively new(2 years) rule to allow discussion/ talking between Scotch Doubles partners while at the table is ridiculous. It was intended to speed up play, but has had the opposite effect. Now most of the time the better player constantly dictates to their partner what shot or safety to play and how to shoot it - often taking way too long to decide what to do. There is very little advantage anymore in having an experienced partner that knows what to do in crucial situations.

I'm elated to read a decent, constructive, informative thread on AzBilliards with not flaming or mean-spirited remarks.

It's the AzB "regulars" that make this forum great. Hail, hail, the gang's all here! :smile:

Thanks to all for the contributions to this thread. For those of us who did not attend, it is an excellent read! :smiling-heart:

mikepage said:

Here is my recap on the issue

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAHSzYwzFUI

Click to expand...

Thanks for the input Mike. While the established players have increased from 31% to 54% from last year, that still leaves 46% unestablished.
For players that used to wait all year for this particular event to have a chance at competing with guys across the country, it's a shame to have an opponent that is not rated correctly.
If a new guy moves to Tucson Az, I can watch him play for about 45 minutes to an hour and get his Fargo within 25 points of where he/she should be. We have weekly tournaments that they can play and get established fairly quickly.

It just seems weird that all over the country and Canada, these guys continue to show up with rating lower than they should and cash deep in their divisions. These guys are definitely pool players that play many hours to get as good as they are. How is it, there area has little to no input?

The other thing we have done for years with new players or unestablished players locally. We let them play in our tournament but tell them it will be at the highest rating. If they are a road play that is unknown(very rare) it seems justified. If they are actually a lower rated player we can adjust their rating. Either way, it is done to protect the local players from being shafted by an under-rated player.
CSI could make unestablished players play 50 points higher than their low robust rating. This would eliminate all this sand-bagging. It would also encourage players to get games into Fargo and have an honest rating. A win/win for everybody involved.

I know the system isn't perfect and there will always be a couple guys slipping through the cracks. For those, CSI could handle them similar to the Taiwanese players that thought the OPEN division was the trophy division a couple years back. Just my thoughts.....

Nice venue.
Nice tournament.
Great tables.
Fargo still weak.
No Super Senior Div.

I will return.

randyg

goettlicher said:

Nice venue.
Nice tournament.
Great tables.
Fargo still weak.
No Super Senior Div.

I will return.

randyg

Click to expand...

Why Randy, are you really that old?

Adding another division would only slice the pie even thinner. Beside, isn't Fargo the be all, end all? Anyway, if I was old enough to play Super Seniors .........

Lyn

banditgrrr said:

2017.........2018
163...........119..............8 ball platinum
384...........309..............8 ball gold
374...........306..............8 ball silver
100.............71..............9 ball platinum
297...........208..............9 ball gold

Click to expand...

uh-oh. There is trouble in these numbers.

yelvis111 said:

This is an interesting point.

I took a closer look at the ratings of those who cashed in the mixed 8-ball singles events to see how their Fargo ratings were affected by their finish in their respective tournaments, and the results were eye opening.

First of all, I believe the ratings cutoffs were:

Division - Minimum/Maximum
Bronze - No minimum/463
Silver - 464/534
Gold - 536/625
Platinum - 626/720

I'm least sure of the maximum Gold Fargo rating, but I'm fairly sure it was within 10 points of 625.

They paid out to 32nd place in the Bronze division. Of those 32, 21 finished with a Fargo rating at 463 or under. 7 out of the top 16 finished with Fargo rating of 463 or under. It gets grim when you look at the top 8, in which only 1 player finished with a Fargo rating under the cutoff of 463. Every one of the top 4 finishers in the Bronze division finished with a Fargo rating above 463.

They paid out to 96th place in the Silver division. Of those 96, 71 finished with a Fargo rating at 535 or under. 17 out of the top 32, but only 3 out of the top 16 finished at 535 or under. ZERO of the top 8 finished with a Fargo rating at 535 or under.

They paid out to 96th place in the Gold division. Of those 96, a whopping 88 finished with a Fargo rating at 625 or under. 26 out of the top 32, and 11 out of the top 16 finished at 625 or under. 5 out of the top 8, and 3 out of the top 4 finished under 625.

15 out of the top 16 finishers in the Bronze and Silver divisions ended up with Fargo rating above the established cutoff. Silver in particular seems to be poorly handicapped with 13 out of the top 16, and EVERY player in the top 8 finishing with a rating above the cutoff.

Take it as you will.

Pax,

Taek

Click to expand...

Why not disqualify them. ?

Paul Schofield said:

uh-oh. There is trouble in these numbers.

Click to expand...

There was a policy change from last year to this year about who is eligible for these events. Last year you could not play league and just pay an extra fee to get in. This year you couldn't. I don't know how big this is, but my understanding was they expected a drop in these numbers.

I wish BCAPL luck in finding the right format and schedule to bring the attendance up.

Moving the tournament to March might bring back those that are not attending due to the July heat.

However, the tournaments are going to lose folks with kids in school. Scheduling the tournament for the first week of March puts it right in front of spring break. A lot of families take trips and plan activities for spring break. For the players, It will be difficult to take off work for a week for the pool tournament, come home and then take the family on vacation.

I imagine that I am not going to be the only pool player with a job, and kids in school, that will not attending the tournament when it gets moved to March.

lorider said:

Why not disqualify them. ?

Click to expand...

Rider,

There is a statement on the entry form about changes in your Fargo between entering and the beginning of play. Think BCAPL "turned its head" not to see this problem developing. Entries were already way, way down. Still think it is all about the sanction and registration fees. JMHO.

Lyn

mikepage said:

There was a policy change from last year to this year about who is eligible for these events. Last year you could not play league and just pay an extra fee to get in. This year you couldn't. I don't know how big this is, but my understanding was they expected a drop in these numbers.

Click to expand...

Mike,
They did have a change in the policy. In recent years, CSI player members were able to play in the same singles brackets as the league players. This changed this this year so that the CSI player members play in their own bracket. This bracket is pretty much unlimited Fargo Rate/Open. Take my wife for example. She has a fargo rate less than 300. In the women's CSI members division, anyone with a rating less than 720 can play. As expected, a lot of the folks with the low Fargo Rate are not going to enter as all they are doing is paying 20 bucks a game to get beat.

http://www.playcsipool.com/uploads/7/3/5/9/7359673/pr170906.pdf

yelvis111 said:

This is an interesting point.

I took a closer look at the ratings of those who cashed in the mixed 8-ball singles events to see how their Fargo ratings were affected by their finish in their respective tournaments, and the results were eye opening.

First of all, I believe the ratings cutoffs were:

Division - Minimum/Maximum
Bronze - No minimum/463
Silver - 464/534
Gold - 536/625
Platinum - 626/720

I'm least sure of the maximum Gold Fargo rating, but I'm fairly sure it was within 10 points of 625.

They paid out to 32nd place in the Bronze division. Of those 32, 21 finished with a Fargo rating at 463 or under. 7 out of the top 16 finished with Fargo rating of 463 or under. It gets grim when you look at the top 8, in which only 1 player finished with a Fargo rating under the cutoff of 463. Every one of the top 4 finishers in the Bronze division finished with a Fargo rating above 463.

They paid out to 96th place in the Silver division. Of those 96, 71 finished with a Fargo rating at 535 or under. 17 out of the top 32, but only 3 out of the top 16 finished at 535 or under. ZERO of the top 8 finished with a Fargo rating at 535 or under.

They paid out to 96th place in the Gold division. Of those 96, a whopping 88 finished with a Fargo rating at 625 or under. 26 out of the top 32, and 11 out of the top 16 finished at 625 or under. 5 out of the top 8, and 3 out of the top 4 finished under 625.

15 out of the top 16 finishers in the Bronze and Silver divisions ended up with Fargo rating above the established cutoff. Silver in particular seems to be poorly handicapped with 13 out of the top 16, and EVERY player in the top 8 finishing with a rating above the cutoff.

Take it as you will.

Pax,

Taek

Click to expand...

Did you get these Fargo ratings from the BCA entry lists, which have their locked-in Fargo ratings used to place people, or did you get these by looking them up after the tournament? Because, by definition if you do well in the tournament your Fargo rating will go up. To place in a big tournament like that, you’re probably playing 50-100 games, and for a lot of people that’s a big chunk of your games in the system.

In any case, you need to compare it not to perfection, but to what it was before Fargo was used. And now that the Fargo league mngmt system is being released, you’ll have a lot fewer mystery people coming from the leagues.

BRussell said:

Did you get these Fargo ratings from the BCA entry lists, which have their locked-in Fargo ratings used to place people, or did you get these by looking them up after the tournament? Because, by definition if you do well in the tournament your Fargo rating will go up. To place in a big tournament like that, you’re probably playing 50-100 games, and for a lot of people that’s a big chunk of your games in the system.

In any case, you need to compare it not to perfection, but to what it was before Fargo was used. And now that the Fargo league mngmt system is being released, you’ll have a lot fewer mystery people coming from the leagues.

Click to expand...

Good points.

Another thing worth mentioning is that for lower level players who don't play all that frequently - practicing to get ready for Vegas and then being completely immersed in pool while they are there can really, really elevate their game.

cardiac kid said:

Why Randy, are you really that old?

Adding another division would only slice the pie even thinner. Beside, isn't Fargo the be all, end all? Anyway, if I was old enough to play Super Seniors .........

Lyn

Click to expand...

I just feel like I have earned the right to play in the Super Seniors.

I play against the Kids all the time. The first couple of days is ok, then my age shows up.

randyg

goettlicher said:

I just feel like I have earned the right to play in the Super Seniors.

I play against the Kids all the time. The first couple of days is ok, then my age shows up.

randyg

Click to expand...

Nobody works harder than you and Scott at that event.

BRussell said:

Nobody works harder than you and Scott at that event.

Click to expand...

So true...

We'll see Randy and his foursome (e.g Jerry Breisteth...) in Fargo in a couple weeks

--the real deal...