MD 14.1 format suggestion?

fish on · Jun 30, 2009

I think that there should be a loser bracket or wildcard or tiebreaker to make it fairer!!!
some players with a higher win 6-1 or ball count 760-165 for this event as Bob maidhof did were outed!
He was eliminated because he lost to Dave Dada by 9 balls
Bob made a mistake on his last break shot or he would have advanced!!
thx for the event:frown:

Kevin Lindstrom · Jun 30, 2009

fish on said:
I think that there should be a loser bracket or wildcard or tiebreaker to make it fairer!!!
some players with a higher win 6-1 or ball count 760-165 for this event as Bob maidhof did were outed!
He was eliminated because he lost to Dave Dada by 9 balls
Bob made a mistake on his last break shot or he would have advanced!!
thx for the event:frown:

Typically in 14.1 when you make a mistake you end up paying for it. Sounds just like that is what has happened here.

Steve Lipsky · Jun 30, 2009

fish on said:
I think that there should be a loser bracket or wildcard or tiebreaker to make it fairer!!!
some players with a higher win 6-1 or ball count 760-165 for this event as Bob maidhof did were outed!
He was eliminated because he lost to Dave Dada by 9 balls
Bob made a mistake on his last break shot or he would have advanced!!
thx for the event:frown:

Fish,

I believe, as you do, that changes are in order. I love the opening day round robin, as it gives lots of play, but it may have outlived its usefulness. In the first few years of this tournament, the level of play was so lopsided that it was, ironically, the most fair way to do things - the alternative of randomly throwing everyone into a double-elimination bracket could have made one bracket super tough and all the others virtual cakewalks.

This is the first year where most of the field was very strong. As such, the need for round robins (and the associated seeding) was lessened. The reason that round robins can still work well with the World Championships is because they have the time (6 day tournament) to then move all the winners into the modified double-elimination bracket. Since this Maryland tournament doesn't have that kind of time, the only alternatives for Day 2 are the second round robin (which clearly had its flaws) and the single-elimination brackets (with its associated one-and-out problems).

None of this is to say that the round robin system isn't desirable in some ways. It provides some great matchups for the fans, and in at least some cases, allows a player to have a bad match and still advance unscathed. (The flip side to that is a player can have a great match and receive no credit for it.)

Danny Barouty had suggested to me before the event that he'd rather we just had a double-elimination, matches to 150, tournament. I told him he was nuts, that you'd never be guaranteed this much play in a double-elim format. I guess I'm a believer now, though. I did the math on the ball differentials and it's possible I finished in as poorly as 9th place (we still don't have official final placings which is kind of odd).

[Edit - I just looked at azb.com and it seems I did come in 9th.]

Btw Fish, Bob outscored his opponents 766 to about 250, not 165

.

- Steve

selftaut · Jun 30, 2009

How about this. Depending on the number of tables available. My modified version of triple elim.

1- 40 player limit, the top 16 from the previous year have an invite, the rest of the field is first come first serve basis.

2 - $150 entry, with 2 buy backs at $50 each. 100 point games the first 5 rounds and 125 points there after.

3 - The first round "only" the 16 invites get seeded away from each other. If not all top 16 from last year are present then the available seeds are picked by Peter. The seed format is a incentive bonus for next year as well.

4 - Random draw into the chart after the top 16 from the previous year are seeded.

5 - The next round is random redraw with "no" seeded players. Players who lost the first round have 2 buy backs and can use the option or drop out.

6 - Continue the redraw after each round until all buy backs and drop outs are gone.

7 - Rounds are scheduled every 2 hours for 100 point matches and 2 1/2 hours for the 125 matches, if a match is still going on at 2 1/2 hours then they are put on a 20 second shot clock, penalty choosen by TD.

8 - Optionally you could get down to 2 players and declare a 1 game final for the 2 remaining even if a player has a buy back left, this would be used only if time was a factor.

LOTS of pool! Its fair. Best players that weekend will rise.

In this format it is very likely that after the 4th round approx. half the field will be gone, this if there are 20 tables available, taking up about 8 hours. So if play started at 10am then by 6pm on the first day about 20 players would remain, and some with only 1 buy back left most likely. I would run 1 more round that evening after a food break for a total of 5 rounds on the 1st day. If there are less then 20 tables available then it will take longer of course. If there are 16 tables available only, then my recomendation would be to limit the field to 32 to make it work.

The second day would be fireworks! With some dangling with 1 buy back left!

fish on · Jun 30, 2009

You also had a bad out with a 6-1 record and you beating the winner Harriman!
great shooting tough way to get eliminated!!!
No whinners on here just straight shooting facts and opinions
nice to see 14.1 have a little attention!!!
I went by numbers on AZ and Bob Maidhof had 400-49 sat
and 366-201 sunday ball total of 766-250 for event and not making finals!!
if az posting is correct!

Steve Lipsky said:
Fish,

I believe, as you do, that changes are in order. I love the opening day round robin, as it gives lots of play, but it may have outlived its usefulness. In the first few years of this tournament, the level of play was so lopsided that it was, ironically, the most fair way to do things - the alternative of randomly throwing everyone into a double-elimination bracket could have made one bracket super tough and all the others virtual cakewalks.

This is the first year where most of the field was very strong. As such, the need for round robins (and the associated seeding) was lessened. The reason that round robins can still work well with the World Championships is because they have the time (6 day tournament) to then move all the winners into the modified double-elimination bracket. Since this Maryland tournament doesn't have that kind of time, the only alternatives for Day 2 are the second round robin (which clearly had its flaws) and the single-elimination brackets (with its associated one-and-out problems).

None of this is to say that the round robin system isn't desirable in some ways. It provides some great matchups for the fans, and in at least some cases, allows a player to have a bad match and still advance unscathed. (The flip side to that is a player can have a great match and receive no credit for it.)

Danny Barouty had suggested to me before the event that he'd rather we just had a double-elimination, matches to 150, tournament. I told him he was nuts, that you'd never be guaranteed this much play in a double-elim format. I guess I'm a believer now, though. I did the math on the ball differentials and it's possible I finished in as poorly as 9th place (we still don't have official final placings which is kind of odd).

[Edit - I just looked at azb.com and it seems I did come in 9th.]

Btw Fish, Bob outscored his opponents 766 to about 250, not 165 .

- Steve

Triple Jump · Jun 30, 2009

Thanks for the suggestions.

For those of you that were at the tournament, I am the guy who was at the computer keeping track of all of the scores.

You all have brought up some good points that I will be discussing with Peter as we look forward to next year's tournament.

The format I would like to see is the round robin from saturday remaining in tact, followed by a double elimination for the 16 players who advance. This would require starting the tournament on Friday afternoon and making it a 3-day event. Steve (or any other players from the event reading this) do you think that players would have a problem with expanding to 3 days?

I talked to a couple of the players about this at the tournament, but unfortunately, I only talked to full time pool players who don't have to worry about a day job. They were both in favor of the 3 day event, but I'd like to get opinions of players who do have day jobs.

Dave

Chris_Lynch · Jun 30, 2009

It would be much harder to get a good size field with a 3 day event I think. I like the possibility of seeding the tourney and having it be double elimination with races to 125 or 150. With the format and draw the way it was this year I knew I was eliminated before I played my 3rd match. Might as well be double elim.

Rich R. · Jun 30, 2009

I wasn't one of the tournament players, but, as an avid fan/spectator, I would like to stick my two cents in here.

I like the round robin segments of the tournament. From a fan's perspective, I get to see many more match ups that are both interesting and fun to watch. Again, this is from a fan point of view. It may or may not be good for the players.

A third day would be great, if the players with day jobs would be able to make it. As it was, this tournament must have been absolutely gueling for the players. A third day would be better for everyone, except maybe the room owner.

Regardless of the format, the suggestions I would make is to start on time and hold players to a predetermined number and length of time outs. As Bobby posted in another thread, Zion Zvi was extremely late for the Sunday rounds. It seemed like they held up everything, waiting for him to arrive. When he did arrive, it was obvious that he wasn't quite awake and he proceeded to take an extremely long time out, against Bobby, and several other shorter time outs. I don't know if it affected the outcome of the match, but I'm certain that it had to have some affect on Bobby's game. I think this was dead wrong and totally unacceptable. He was not the only player taking multiple breaks during matches and I think this really slowed things down. There has to be some control. The tournament should be a contest of pool, not endurance.

Chris_Lynch · Jun 30, 2009

I agree that since the matches are all scheduled that the players should have to be responsible for being there or go on a clock and forfeit if they don't show.

I played Harriman my first match and it was scheduled for 12:00pm and he was nowhere to be found when we were started at 12:30pm. It was almost 1:00 by the time we got going.

There should be some announcing tables and matches going on so everyone knows. It may be the only tournament I have ever played in where I never heard a match called out by a TD the whole day. I'm sure they can fix that for next year.

A rigid dress code would be nice too. It was mentioned in every e-mail dress shirts only and there were too many players to count wearing polos and one player even wearing a t-shirt. I like the upscale dress code for events but it stinks if it's not enforced as it is a disadvantage to the player adhering to dress code if others are not.

InLine · Jun 30, 2009

I'm with Chris, Danny and Steve on the time aspects of this format, that there is no time on a weekend for more than a double elimination tournament. Well possibly a triple elimination if you put a cap on the number of entrants.
The fairness issue for for the unseeded players could be taken care of the weekend ahead of the main event. Let the top players there advance to the State Final the following week or whenever.
This State championship was marred by trying to do too much in too little time. The Worlds, given 6 days was a bit unbearable for the players. Leave the round robins for the unseeded players, let them battle it our for a spot in the final event. Then you can have a reasonable tournament, with space and time for everybody. My thinking may be clouded by my age though, if only I were 16 again. Still it was a good tournament and a great effort by all.

InLine · Jun 30, 2009

I'm with Chris, Danny and Steve on the time aspects of this format, that there is no time on a weekend for more than a double elimination tournament. Well possibly a triple elimination if you put a cap on the number of entrants.
The fairness issue for for the unseeded players could be taken care of the weekend ahead of the main event. Let the top players there advance to the State Final the following week or whenever.
This State championship was marred by trying to do too much in too little time. The Worlds, given 6 days was a bit unbearable for the players. Leave the round robins for the unseeded players, let them battle it our for a spot in the final event. Then you can have a reasonable tournament, with space and time for everybody. My thinking may be clouded by my age though, if only I were 16 again. Still it was a good tournament and a great effort by all.

Steve Lipsky · Jun 30, 2009

Triple Jump said:
For those of you that were at the tournament, I am the guy who was at the computer keeping track of all of the scores.

You all have brought up some good points that I will be discussing with Peter as we look forward to next year's tournament.

The format I would like to see is the round robin from saturday remaining in tact, followed by a double elimination for the 16 players who advance. This would require starting the tournament on Friday afternoon and making it a 3-day event. Steve (or any other players from the event reading this) do you think that players would have a problem with expanding to 3 days?

I talked to a couple of the players about this at the tournament, but unfortunately, I only talked to full time pool players who don't have to worry about a day job. They were both in favor of the 3 day event, but I'd like to get opinions of players who do have day jobs.

Dave

Hi Dave. First, thanks for all your work on this tournament over the years.

I'll try to respond more in depth tomorrow, but I would not be in favor of the 3 day event. The extra day off work isn't too much of a problem; certainly have time to plan ahead for that. I'm more concerned about the extra night in the hotel. For someone traveling alone, a 3 day tournament can easily become an $800 weekend once the entry fee is included. Even with a partner it's a $600 trip.

If the money were the same as this year (which was pretty sporty, mind you), you'd have to come in 3rd/4th to make just a bit of profit. Tough action as the saying goes.

Finally, on the topic of lateness and dress code violations - I guess I was very lucky, as not only didn't I face any of it, I didn't even see any of it. To my albeit unobservant eye, I thought the players were all in proper dress. And I definitely didn't see any of Zion's or Danny's lateness (not saying they didn't happen, I just didn't see it).

If everyone's stories are correct about Zion (and I have no reason to believe they're not), I'm confused about one thing - he was definitely there during the 90 minute photo session we had to endure, lol, before Sunday play. So how was he late to the first match, which presumably started immediately after that?

- Steve

Steve Lipsky · Jul 1, 2009

selftaut said:
How about this. Depending on the number of tables available. My modified version of triple elim.

1- 40 player limit, the top 16 from the previous year have an invite, the rest of the field is first come first serve basis.

2 - $150 entry, with 2 buy backs at $50 each. 100 point games the first 5 rounds and 125 points there after.

3 - The first round "only" the 16 invites get seeded away from each other. If not all top 16 from last year are present then the available seeds are picked by Peter. The seed format is a incentive bonus for next year as well.

4 - Random draw into the chart after the top 16 from the previous year are seeded.

5 - The next round is random redraw with "no" seeded players. Players who lost the first round have 2 buy backs and can use the option or drop out.

6 - Continue the redraw after each round until all buy backs and drop outs are gone.

7 - Rounds are scheduled every 2 hours for 100 point matches and 2 1/2 hours for the 125 matches, if a match is still going on at 2 1/2 hours then they are put on a 20 second shot clock, penalty choosen by TD.

8 - Optionally you could get down to 2 players and declare a 1 game final for the 2 remaining even if a player has a buy back left, this would be used only if time was a factor.

LOTS of pool! Its fair. Best players that weekend will rise.

In this format it is very likely that after the 4th round approx. half the field will be gone, this if there are 20 tables available, taking up about 8 hours. So if play started at 10am then by 6pm on the first day about 20 players would remain, and some with only 1 buy back left most likely. I would run 1 more round that evening after a food break for a total of 5 rounds on the 1st day. If there are less then 20 tables available then it will take longer of course. If there are 16 tables available only, then my recomendation would be to limit the field to 32 to make it work.

The second day would be fireworks! With some dangling with 1 buy back left!

Kev,

I have very little experience with triple-elimination. If you really feel that it can be done in 2 days, I'm all for it. It sounds like a good format, removing a lot of luck from the draw; I'm just concerned about time.

- Steve

selftaut · Jul 1, 2009

Steve Lipsky said:
Kev,

I have very little experience with triple-elimination. If you really feel that it can be done in 2 days, I'm all for it. It sounds like a good format, removing a lot of luck from the draw; I'm just concerned about time.

- Steve

Steve,

I am pretty sure it can be done in 2 days as long as you play 100 points in the first day 5 rounds and have enough tables to have everyone in the tournament playing at once. If 40 players then you need 20 tables, 32 players needs 16 tables etc....also the schedule would have to be strictly adhered to and no players wondering off, only 1 time out per player per match of 5 minutes as well.

This is the same format used at the DCC for the events except it has 1 more buy back thrown in, making it a triple elim format. Players can decide not to throw more money in and drop out at anytime instead of putting up the entire 250, so money wise its a bit more attractive to enter, but most will use both buybacks. Every round there is a redraw, it really does make it exciting! Another thing that happens often is there is a odd number of players at the redraw and someone gets a bye for that round, which is not a bad thing in 14.1 rest wise if you are so lucky to grab a bye.

I will sit down later tonight and do the exact math on it to make sure.

And I like seeding the previous years top 16 in the opening round.

Kev

selftaut · Jul 1, 2009

Just looked around to see how many tables are available at Big Daddy's before an in debt analysis of a triple elim format. From what I could gather there are 15 9ft tables. Not enough to run 40 or even 32 players in a triple elim in 2 days, it would take 3 days. In order to get it done in 2 days every player would need to play every round at the same time and not stagger rounds for different times, so max would be 30 players which I am sure they don't want to do.

Steve Lipsky · Jul 1, 2009

Rich R. said:
I wasn't one of the tournament players, but, as an avid fan/spectator, I would like to stick my two cents in here.

I like the round robin segments of the tournament. From a fan's perspective, I get to see many more match ups that are both interesting and fun to watch. Again, this is from a fan point of view. It may or may not be good for the players.

A third day would be great, if the players with day jobs would be able to make it. As it was, this tournament must have been absolutely gueling for the players. A third day would be better for everyone, except maybe the room owner.

Regardless of the format, the suggestions I would make is to start on time and hold players to a predetermined number and length of time outs. As Bobby posted in another thread, Zion Zvi was extremely late for the Sunday rounds. It seemed like they held up everything, waiting for him to arrive. When he did arrive, it was obvious that he wasn't quite awake and he proceeded to take an extremely long time out, against Bobby, and several other shorter time outs. I don't know if it affected the outcome of the match, but I'm certain that it had to have some affect on Bobby's game. I think this was dead wrong and totally unacceptable. He was not the only player taking multiple breaks during matches and I think this really slowed things down. There has to be some control. The tournament should be a contest of pool, not endurance.

I hate to belabor the point, lol, but can anyone who was there solve this mystery for us? Did Zion go somewhere after showing up on Sunday morning? He was definitely there before the matches began. But he was apparently very late for his first match, which started immediately after I saw him? I'm not disputing that he was late... I'm just wondering where the hell he went, and why he was allowed to leave, lol.

Sorry, this is driving me crazy. I'll ask him when I see him but I don't know when that will be...

- Steve

Rich R. · Jul 2, 2009

Steve Lipsky said:
I hate to belabor the point, lol, but can anyone who was there solve this mystery for us? Did Zion go somewhere after showing up on Sunday morning? He was definitely there before the matches began. But he was apparently very late for his first match, which started immediately after I saw him? I'm not disputing that he was late... I'm just wondering where the hell he went, and why he was allowed to leave, lol.

Sorry, this is driving me crazy. I'll ask him when I see him but I don't know when that will be...

- Steve

Steve, I didn't see him there early. From what I saw, I think he came in very late with Ralph, the guy acting as one of the referees. If I'm not mistaken, this is what also held up the photo session. They were ready to get the group together for the photo when they realized that Zion wasn't there yet. At that point, the players were told to practice for another 10 or 15 minutes while waiting.
When they got around to starting the matches, Zion was there and he started playing against Bobby. Soon after that, he took a very long break.
This is the way I remember it, but I could have missed something.

Steve Lipsky · Jul 2, 2009

Rich R. said:
Steve, I didn't see him there early. From what I saw, I think he came in very late with Ralph, the guy acting as one of the referees. If I'm not mistaken, this is what also held up the photo session. They were ready to get the group together for the photo when they realized that Zion wasn't there yet. At that point, the players were told to practice for another 10 or 15 minutes while waiting.
When they got around to starting the matches, Zion was there and he started playing against Bobby. Soon after that, he took a very long break.
This is the way I remember it, but I could have missed something.

Thanks Rich. So his match didn't start any later than anyone else's. But as soon as it did start, he took a long break. Got it...

Rich R. · Jul 2, 2009

Steve Lipsky said:
Thanks Rich. So his match didn't start any later than anyone else's. But as soon as it did start, he took a long break. Got it...

Steve, just to be clear, his match didn't start any later than anyone else's, but IMHO it was him being late that made everyone late to start. I'm sure things wouldn't have started exactly on time anyway, but it appears they waited for Zion before taking pictures or starting anything. They could have been much closer to the scheduled start time if he had been there on time.

MD 14.1 format suggestion?

fish on

AzB Silver Member

Kevin Lindstrom

14.1 Addict

Steve Lipsky

On quest for perfect 14.1

selftaut

straight pool nut

fish on

AzB Silver Member

Triple Jump

New member

Chris_Lynch

I play pool

Rich R.

AzB Silver Member

Chris_Lynch

I play pool

InLine

Registered

InLine

Registered

Steve Lipsky

On quest for perfect 14.1

Steve Lipsky

On quest for perfect 14.1

selftaut

straight pool nut

selftaut

straight pool nut

Steve Lipsky

On quest for perfect 14.1

Rich R.

AzB Silver Member

Steve Lipsky

On quest for perfect 14.1

Rich R.

AzB Silver Member