Dump the between round buy ins?

"T" · Feb 4, 2009

One of the constraints in scheduling matches at DCC is waiting for the round to close so losers (often myself! lol) have enough time to buy back in if we want.

I ran some numbers on the 2008 results (it's all I have so far) and in all three events, between 55% to 60% of the field buys in at some point in the tournament.

Really, how many of these buy ins are last minute decisions?

If we required folks that wanted buy ins to purchase them before each event, we wouldn't need to wait for a round to completely close before starting the next one.

Also, at the beginning of each event, the organizers would know EXACTLY how many matches there would be and the matches could be scheduled far more easily.

How critical is it to have between round buy ins?

Any thoughts are appreciated!

ragbug74 · Feb 4, 2009

Unless I am misunderstanding what you are proposing, this is the way I see it. Even with "pre-bought" buybacks, you would still have to wait for the finish of each round to do the draw for the next round because you never know who will get bumped out until they either win or lose in that round. For example, if you have a match between a player with a buyback and a player without, you will either have one of them in the next round or both, depending on the outcome of their match. Usually by the time a round is being completed, there are only a few matches left going on. During this time, they make repeated announcements informing people to get their buybacks in if they are going to do so. They may have to wait 5 minutes or so past the end of the last few matches that are completed in a round to allow the losers of those few last matches to buyback, but I don't think it's holding the redraw up by any significant amount of time.

"T" · Feb 4, 2009

ragbug74 said:
Unless I am misunderstanding what you are proposing, this is the way I see it. Even with "pre-bought" buybacks, you would still have to wait for the finish of each round to do the draw for the next round because you never know who will get bumped out until they either win or lose in that round. For example, if you have a match between a player with a buyback and a player without, you will either have one of them in the next round or both, depending on the outcome of their match. Usually by the time a round is being completed, there are only a few matches left going on. During this time, they make repeated announcements informing people to get their buybacks in if they are going to do so. They may have to wait 5 minutes or so past the end of the last few matches that are completed in a round to allow the losers of those few last matches to buyback, but I don't think it's holding the redraw up by any significant amount of time.

For example, you have 400 players in round one. That's 400 slots. You randomly assign all 400 slots two to a table and start the round. If 60% of the entrants have purchased a buy back, based on past statistics, you will need about 300 slots for the second round. Add some more slots if you want to be extra careful. When a match is completed in round one, you randomly assign the winner one of the second round 300 slots and if the loser has a buy back, you randomly assign the loser one of the second round slots. As the 1st round nears completion, you already have more than half the field randomly matched up for the 2nd round and it's just a matter of scheduling a time and table. Any unfilled slots can be randomly distributed out once the 1st round is completed.

Make sense?

LA toolman · Feb 4, 2009

Good Idea T.I think this way you could actually begin the second round before the first is completed.

oneballeddie · Feb 5, 2009

Rounds Already Overlapped

T said:
One of the contraints in scheduling matches at DCC is waiting for the round to close so losers (often myself! lol) have enough time to buy back in if we want.

I ran some numbers on the 2008 results (it's all I have so far) and in all three events, between 55% to 60% of the field buys in at some point in the tournament.

Really, how many of these buy ins are last minute decisions?

If we required folks that wanted buy ins to purchase them before each event, we wouldn't need to wait for a round to completely close before starting the next one.

Also, at the beginning of each event, the organizers would know EXACTLY how many matches there would be and the matches could be scheduled far more easily.

How critical is it to have between round buy ins?

Any thoughts are appreciated!

Waiting on the last round to finish (with ample added time for buybacks) before drawing and starting the next round is no longer a requirement. New software was introduced into this year's tournament that permits overlapping of rounds with firmly scheduled times for the draw, start of play, and close of buybacks. Unfortunately there were so many problems trying the new software for the first time the feature was not well advertised or utilized in this year's tournament. However, you may have noticed that rounds 4,5,6,7 in One Pocket were indeed overlapped, and that each event and the tournament as a whole ended right on schedule.

I think the ability to decide whether or not to buy back in during the course of your tournament is absolutely critical to the unique format and success of DCC. It keeps the initial entry fee low and it lets you make the decision based on how far you are and how well you are playing. I really hope they keep the format for next year. Just my opinion!

chelseagrinder · Feb 5, 2009

Standard tournament brackets

Why not run the event with tournament brackes, double elimination, like many tournaments. If they want to seed top 64 etc fine. This also allows the possibility of assigning match times which would really improve the flow and overall experience.

"T" · Feb 5, 2009

oneballeddie said:
Waiting on the last round to finish (with ample added time for buybacks) before drawing and starting the next round is no longer a requirement. New software was introduced into this year's tournament that permits overlapping of rounds with firmly scheduled times for the draw, start of play, and close of buybacks. Unfortunately there were so many problems trying the new software for the first time the feature was not well advertised or utilized in this year's tournament. However, you may have noticed that rounds 4,5,6,7 in One Pocket were indeed overlapped, and that each event and the tournament as a whole ended right on schedule.

I think the ability to decide whether or not to buy back in during the course of your tournament is absolutely critical to the unique format and success of DCC. It keeps the initial entry fee low and it lets you make the decision based on how far you are and how well you are playing. I really hope they keep the format for next year. Just my opinion!

Hello Ed!

I know this is something very important to you that you have spent a great deal of time working on the scheduling aspect of the derby. I'm really glad you chimed in!

First of all thanks for at least getting the concept of starting the rounds before the last one was finished off the ground. I did notice that and that's why I was even more puzzled.

If the software was working enough to allow the rounds to begin before others ended, what happened to scheduling the times?

I don't think anyone will mind if I hijack my own thread.

I'm leading up to something with getting rid of the between round buybacks, but that can wait a moment, thanks!

"T" · Feb 13, 2009

T said:
Hello Ed!

If the software was working enough to allow the rounds to begin before others ended, what happened to scheduling the times?

Beuller?

1pocket · Feb 13, 2009

oneballeddie said:
Waiting on the last round to finish (with ample added time for buybacks) before drawing and starting the next round is no longer a requirement. New software was introduced into this year's tournament that permits overlapping of rounds with firmly scheduled times for the draw, start of play, and close of buybacks. Unfortunately there were so many problems trying the new software for the first time the feature was not well advertised or utilized in this year's tournament. However, you may have noticed that rounds 4,5,6,7 in One Pocket were indeed overlapped, and that each event and the tournament as a whole ended right on schedule.

I think the ability to decide whether or not to buy back in during the course of your tournament is absolutely critical to the unique format and success of DCC. It keeps the initial entry fee low and it lets you make the decision based on how far you are and how well you are playing. I really hope they keep the format for next year. Just my opinion!

One correction, both the One Pocket and the Banks ended a day later than their scheduled final dates. I guess the 9-ball ended on time, but aw shucks, I missed it

The buy back and round-by-round draw adds a certain special character to the DCC. The headaches with the software add nothing but trouble. I hope they can work out the software problems, keep the buy back and round-by-round draw, and eventually get better with the scheduling aspect, to reduce the forfeits and the player tension that gets focused on the tourney staff.

jay helfert · Feb 13, 2009

chelseagrinder said:
Why not run the event with tournament brackes, double elimination, like many tournaments. If they want to seed top 64 etc fine. This also allows the possibility of assigning match times which would really improve the flow and overall experience.

This would in fact be the ideal situation. But the buy-backs serve as a revenue source to fund the Master Of The Table award and also defray the 50K in added money. It has always worked that way at DCC. Good, bad or indifferent, that is the way it is. From what I've heard there is a good chance that there will be additional money added to the One Pocket and Banks next year to make them equivalent to the 9-Ball. I may have to actually "get in stroke" one time before heading to Louisville. :wink:

I thought that the tournament staff did an excellent job with the circumstances they are faced with. I cannot imagine how they run an event of this nature and make it work at anything close to a schedule. My hat is off to Paul Smith, Bill Stock, Bonnie Jones et al. I don't think I could do it. I wouldn't want to even try.

What I noticed though was that the tournament desk was rarely too crowded and everyone who had a question got taken care of promptly. The staff did a remarkable job of keeping everyone appeased and keeping the event on course. AMAZING is all I have to say about that.

"T" · Feb 14, 2009

Definitely keep the buy back, but pay for it at the beginning of the event.

If anything, I would expect a few more people to buy them?

I agree that the folks working there were great. But in my humble opinion, they work far harder than they need to.

The reason I brought this up is that in order to succesfully schedule the match times, you need to be able to accurately forcast the demand on the tables. The two most obvious challenges to me seem to be the unpredictable length of the one pocket matches and the activities surrounding the between round buy backs. (The one pocket match length seems by far the larger challenge)

The percentage of people who purchase buy backs is so consistent between events, that I wonder how many people really haven't decided in advance anyways?

oneballeddie · Feb 14, 2009

1pocket said:
One correction, both the One Pocket and the Banks ended a day later than their scheduled final dates. I guess the 9-ball ended on time, but aw shucks, I missed it

The buy back and round-by-round draw adds a certain special character to the DCC. The headaches with the software add nothing but trouble. I hope they can work out the software problems, keep the buy back and round-by-round draw, and eventually get better with the scheduling aspect, to reduce the forfeits and the player tension that gets focused on the tourney staff.

Yes you are correct that both Banks and One Pocket ended later than the the times published in the tournament flyer. That flyer was created with "goal times" rather than with the forecasting software I was referring to. On Friday, the forecasting software said Banks with 399 players would end Tuesday at 5:30PM. All in all the event completed right on plan Saturday nite and even early compared to some prior years.

I agree with you completely that the round-by-round draw and the optional buyback are what make the DCC unique and attractive to players of all calibre.

oneballeddie · Feb 14, 2009

Scheduled Times at DCC

T said:
Hello Ed!

I know this is something very important to you that you have spent a great deal of time working on the scheduling aspect of the derby. I'm really glad you chimed in!

First of all thanks for at least getting the concept of starting the rounds before the last one was finished off the ground. I did notice that and that's why I was even more puzzled.

If the software was working enough to allow the rounds to begin before others ended, what happened to scheduling the times?

I don't think anyone will mind if I hijack my own thread.

I'm leading up to something with getting rid of the between round buybacks, but that can wait a moment, thanks!

Nah, don't give up on it. The ability to make your buyback decision based on how far you are, how well you are playing, etc. is much more attractive than having to decide if you want to buyback when you are filling out your entry forms. I expect buyback revenue, and therefore payouts, would fall drastically if they go to a "pay-in-advance" format. If anything, I think they should consider putting in as many buybacks as you want - but that's "whole nother" dialogue.

The purpose of the new software was (and is!) to ELIMINATE ALL THIS CONFUSION about when the draws are, when the rounds start. when buybacks close, and when and where your match will be. This feature of the software actually worked - but was rarely used because of other problems in the software (mea culpa) and inadequate training.

Imagine going to Derby City and seeing everything scheduled in advance:
tournaments, draws, rounds, buyback close, and, once the draw is done, individual match times and tables. It could be done...

oneballeddie · Feb 14, 2009

Say that again!

jay helfert said:
This would in fact be the ideal situation. But the buy-backs serve as a revenue source to fund the Master Of The Table award and also defray the 50K in added money. It has always worked that way at DCC. Good, bad or indifferent, that is the way it is. From what I've heard there is a good chance that there will be additional money added to the One Pocket and Banks next year to make them equivalent to the 9-Ball. I may have to actually "get in stroke" one time before heading to Louisville. :wink:

I thought that the tournament staff did an excellent job with the circumstances they are faced with. I cannot imagine how they run an event of this nature and make it work at anything close to a schedule. My hat is off to Paul Smith, Bill Stock, Bonnie Jones et al. I don't think I could do it. I wouldn't want to even try.

What I noticed though was that the tournament desk was rarely too crowded and everyone who had a question got taken care of promptly. The staff did a remarkable job of keeping everyone appeased and keeping the event on course. AMAZING is all I have to say about that.

Jay, it is incredible how well the TD's dealt with the stress. Not only do they manage a scheduling nightmare but also they deal with a continuing barrage of questions, demands, complaints, hostility, special requests, etc. etc. Add flaky software to that? I spent some time on the platform working the software issues and was amazed at how professionally they dealt with it. Bravo Paul, Ken, Rick, Bill, and Bonnie!

chelseagrinder · Sep 8, 2009

Double elimination PERIOD

just figure out the cost for a double elimination and leave it at that.
there is no elegance in having the buy back as it simply adds unncessary waits and delays.
Let's play pool.

chicagomike · Sep 10, 2009

How bout if coordinators plan it and chart it as a double elimination event..once a player loses he has a minimal amount of time to buy back in. His match is already scheduled and on the board due to it being planned as a double elimination event. If he fails to buy back in the alotted time, it is an automatic forfeit and his opponent progresses to the next round.

pooladdict · Nov 14, 2009

chicagomike said:
How bout if coordinators plan it and chart it as a double elimination event..once a player loses he has a minimal amount of time to buy back in. His match is already scheduled and on the board due to it being planned as a double elimination event. If he fails to buy back in the alotted time, it is an automatic forfeit and his opponent progresses to the next round.

I am not so sure thats a good idea. Losing and facing Efren may interfer with your decision process:grin-square:

chicagomike · Dec 2, 2009

pooladdict said:
I am not so sure thats a good idea. Losing and facing Efren may interfer with your decision process:grin-square:

That's true...I hope they come up with a solution.

"T" · Dec 2, 2009

Ah yes, the old thread has sprung back to life!

Personally, I think more of the fence sitters would buy in earlier if they had to and thus increase the overall revenue and make predicting the scheduling easier, but I also understand the history and tradition points as well.

It also seems that they are using an agreeable method for starting rounds before completely finishing the last ones. Hopefully some of the computer glitches are solved and things will go better.

This is by far my most favorite event to attend and so please don't interpret any criticism as bashing. I estimate costs and schedule projects of all types from large project construction work to administrative program changes for a living and my gut gets in knots when I see a lot of people waiting all at once in limbo for extended periods of time. Having said that, there are a lot more people who have been doing this for a longer time who know a heck of a lot more about this than I do.

Scheduling and administering and event like this is a monster and the folks there a working miracles just to get all these many matches in with the amount of tables and the amount of time that they have. I will say though that anything that simplifies their job will help the scheduling stay on track, and that was the original premise of the thread.

I'll be there this year looking forward to a great time!

RGunth · Dec 2, 2009

BuyBack

How about the option of paying for a BuyBack when you pay your entry?
That way all the brackets would be drawn and play times established for everyone.
I like the idea of giving the lose side the forfeit if there is no buy back for that player.
This would speed things up and not cause all the stress on the TD.
This is my 4th year going to DCC and the 3 previous years they said that all the bugs were worked out of the software. I suppose it will be the same this year, "We thought we had it fixed!"

Best regards,

Dump the between round buy ins?

Son of Da Poet

Next NYTimes Best-Seller!

Son of Da Poet

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

Son of Da Poet

Son of Da Poet

Steve Booth

Shoot Pool, not people

Son of Da Poet

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

Play with an Ed Young cue

no doubt about it

Play with an Ed Young cue

Son of Da Poet

Registered