Single vs double elim differences, my personal experience

hang-the-9

hang-the-9

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Since the US Open did this, I do think that there is a pretty big difference in what may be the outcome of an event.

This weekend I played in a charity handicapped TAP tournament for someone in a league that passed away to help the family. They split funds to top two finishers and the charity.

They had 40 players, first 2 rounds were double elim, then went to single, with alternate break. I lost my second match 7-2 to a good player, I missed maybe 2 balls, he ran out or played good safe every time.

But since that was double elim I was still in it. Next round or two in, that 7 lost to a 3 because he hung up a few 9 balls. So this 7, who was probably the best player in the event got kicked out, even though both he and I were at 1 loss. I was still in it, and ended up getting to finals (I was a 6 playing mostly 3s and one 5).

If that event was double elimination that other guy would have probably also been in the finals or possibly would have beaten me on the way, we really were the two top shooters there. The only reason, in my opinion, that he did not get to the end was due to a few shots he left for a 3 to tap in, and single elimination, but because he had a bit of misfortune in playing a low handicap and leaving him a few easy games, he went home and I split the finals for $200 each. Half of which I donated back, although the guy I split with did not LOL. I thought he would follow my example but nope, just grabbed his $200 and left. :frown:
 
Last edited:
Bob Jewett

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
It's possible to calculate the chance that the best player will win a tournament based on the format. If you consider double versus single elimination, I'm pretty sure double gives the strongest player the better chance, but only if the match lengths are the same. If you require each format to take an equal amount of time, the matches in the single elimination tournament will be about twice as long a race.

With FargoRate, you could go through the calculation assuming one 800 player and fifteen 700 players in the tournament. Race to 6 for the double elimination and race to 11 for the single. Or something like that.
 
JessEm

JessEm

AzB Goldmember
Silver Member
Good on you for donating some back to the charity! I personally don't hold anything against someone who doesn't, though...

To your post, I get the sense you're sympathetic toward the guy who only lost once and was out, because you feel he's a better player who should've been in the finals... Well, I submit to you that A.) He knew what he was getting into before he started. B.) The handicapping system worked the way it's supposed to. C.) In the US Open, SVB only lost once and was out, while both players in the finals also had losses.

Have a good one! And congrats.
 
sjm

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
hang-the-9 said:
Since the US Open did this, I do think that there is a pretty big difference in what may be the outcome of an event.

This weekend I played in a charity handicapped TAP tournament for someone in a league that passed away to help the family. They split funds to top two finishers and the charity.

They had 40 players, first 2 rounds were double elim, then went to single, with alternate break. I lost my second match 7-2 to a good player, I missed maybe 2 balls, he ran out or played good safe every time.

But since that was double elim I was still in it. Next round or two in, that 7 lost to a 3 because he hung up a few 9 balls. So this 7, who was probably the best player in the event got kicked out, even though both he and I were at 1 loss. I was still in it, and ended up getting to finals (I was a 6 playing mostly 3s and one 5).

If that event was double elimination that other guy would have probably also been in the finals or possibly would have beaten me on the way, we really were the two top shooters there. The only reason, in my opinion, that he did not get to the end was due to a few shots he left for a 3 to tap in, and single elimination, but because he had a bit of misfortune in playing a low handicap and leaving him a few easy games, he went home and I split the finals for $200 each. Half of which I donated back, although the guy I split with did not LOL. I thought he would follow my example but nope, just grabbed his $200 and left. :frown:
Click to expand...

Good post.

Double elimination will give the top guys a little more room for error. So would best three games out of five in the Super Bowl, but who'd watch? The World Series was once best of nine, but common sense prevailed and it was reduced to seven.

American fans who'd barely had a taste of a two stage events with single elimination down the stretch were given a treat at the US Open. The last fifteen matches were all win or go home, and they were electrifying because of it. This is how a really big event should be run.

As you note, double elimination until the end may often change the result, and when noone's watching, it's fine, but in major events with fans watching, the pool product needs to be made as exciting as possible, and at the US Open, they nailed it.
 
hang-the-9

hang-the-9

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
JessEm said:
Good on you for donating some back to the charity! I personally don't hold anything against someone who doesn't, though...

To your post, I get the sense you're sympathetic toward the guy who only lost once and was out, because you feel he's a better player who should've been in the finals... Well, I submit to you that A.) He knew what he was getting into before he started. B.) The handicapping system worked the way it's supposed to. C.) In the US Open, SVB only lost once and was out, while both players in the finals also had losses.

Have a good one! And congrats.
Click to expand...

Well the issue was that he was out only because he lost later that I did. I think the fact that it went to single elim after first two rounds had an affect on the outcome of the tournament. It's not so much that we all knew the rules, or about handicapping, just that the rules affected the outcome not so much the player skill or even the handicap. Not even pool rules like a foul or 9 on the break, but a change in format to allow someone to lose early, but not late.

Yes it was done to shorten time, and to make sure that everyone played twice, but at the same time it was not a trivial change and I think it affected who won.

I guess my point is that this type of rule can have a large affect on who the winner is, more so than any breaking or other rules.
 
Paul Schofield

Paul Schofield

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Question: Does anyone know of other sports that utilize double-elimination particularly at the upper levels?
 
hang-the-9

hang-the-9

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
sjm said:
Good post.

Double elimination will give the top guys a little more room for error. So would best three games out of five in the Super Bowl, but who'd watch? The World Series was once best of nine, but common sense prevailed and it was reduced to seven.

American fans who'd barely had a taste of a two stage events with single elimination down the stretch were given a treat at the US Open. The last fifteen matches were all win or go home, and they were electrifying because of it. This is how a really big event should be run.

As you note, double elimination until the end may often change the result, and when noone's watching, it's fine, but in major events with fans watching, the pool product needs to be made as exciting as possible, and at the US Open, they nailed it.
Click to expand...

Funny you said Superbowl, I am pretty sure Jodan said in an interview he thought Brady was better than him as far as championships go since in Football you have one game to play and win or lose to get the wins, and basketball you have a bunch of games.

I do think the US Open format was well done, and actually Mike Dechaine said on Sunday in another charity event we were at, that he did not mind single elim, but he did not like not being able to check the rack first or have some random people as refs.

Point of my post is that it is not a trivial thing to go from double to single elim. Single all the way through, or double all the way through is one thing, but changing it, I think can change the end result. Of course this is really speculation because who can really predict or say what may have been, but going by logic, there seems to be a non-trivial change to the result. With all the players being just a single scratch or a fluke away from winning or losing (of course no one we know hehe), any change in format is big.
 
C

Cashman

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
sjm said:
Good post.

Double elimination will give the top guys a little more room for error. So would best three games out of five in the Super Bowl, but who'd watch? The World Series was once best of nine, but common sense prevailed and it was reduced to seven.

American fans who'd barely had a taste of a two stage events with single elimination down the stretch were given a treat at the US Open. The last fifteen matches were all win or go home, and they were electrifying because of it. This is how a really big event should be run.

As you note, double elimination until the end may often change the result, and when noone's watching, it's fine, but in major events with fans watching, the pool product needs to be made as exciting as possible, and at the US Open, they nailed it.
Click to expand...

Agreed completely. The single elimination ratchets up the tension even more then normal. I hope more tournaments move towards incorporating some type of single elim into their draw. I know a lot of players don’t think it’s fair, but in this case I think the needs of the sport and spectator should trump the players opinion.

The only small change I’d make in the US Open format, would be to make the payouts a little shallower, but also pay a bonus for “winning” stage 1. So the 8 players who make it to the last 16 undefeated would get a say $1000-1500 prize. Kind of smooth out the unfairness factor.
 
hang-the-9

hang-the-9

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Paul Schofield said:
Question: Does anyone know of other sports that utilize double-elimination particularly at the upper levels?
Click to expand...

I don't think single or double elim is the point of my post, but rather changing from one to the other in the middle of the same event. I am not even taking sides really one way or the other, but pointing out that changing rules in middle of the event would make the simple fact of one person losing a game early and one person losing a game later mean hugely different things. Both lost a game, but the person that messed up early is getting a reprieve, while the person that played better (in theory at least) longer, is punished more for messing up later.
 
Bob Jewett

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
I did the calculation for 16 players with one player 50 Fargo rating points better than the other 15 players. Race to 6 for double elimination and race to 12 for single.

Chance the best player will win the event:
Double elimination 35.5%
Single elimination 40.8%

If you reduce the single elimination match race you get the following reductions to the best player's chances:

38.7% race to 11, single elimination
36.5% race to 10, single elimination
34.3% race to 9, single elimination

This says that if you have a fixed amount of time to run the event, and your main goal is to find the best player, single elimination with longer matches is better at finding the best player than double elimination.
 
hang-the-9

hang-the-9

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Bob Jewett said:
I did the calculation for 16 players with one player 50 Fargo rating points better than the other 15 players. Race to 6 for double elimination and race to 12 for single.

Chance the best player will win the event:
Double elimination 35.5%
Single elimination 40.8%

If you reduce the single elimination match race you get the following reductions to the best player's chances:

38.7% race to 11, single elimination
36.5% race to 10, single elimination
34.3% race to 9, single elimination

This says that if you have a fixed amount of time to run the event, and your main goal is to find the best player, single elimination with longer matches is better at finding the best player than double elimination.
Click to expand...

I think this is the wrong example, to get this done properly you would have the same races, say to 9 or 11 in both types of events, not a double elim being played with half the games per match. You can't compare one or the other evenly when you change more than one variable. You don't compare how fast cars are by running two 1/4 mile and two 1/2 mile and then just run the 1/4 mile race best 2 out of 3. When you get to 1/2 mile other types of gearing makes a difference, drag due to higher speeds will make a difference, tires may make a difference vs just initial bite to 1/4 mile.
 
Bob Jewett

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
hang-the-9 said:
I don't think single or double elim is the point of my post, but rather changing from one to the other in the middle of the same event. I am not even taking sides really one way or the other, but pointing out that changing rules in middle of the event would make the simple fact of one person losing a game early and one person losing a game later mean hugely different things. Both lost a game, but the person that messed up early is getting a reprieve, while the person that played better (in theory at least) longer, is punished more for messing up later.
Click to expand...
I assume the format was announced before the draw. If so, the format was fair for all players. Sure, you might consider an early loss less important since you get another chance, but everyone has that same extra chance.

The main reason for such a format is to have a little more play for everyone so they are happier about getting in the event. I think a better solution is to play single elimination and have a consolation single-elimination tournament of the first-round losers. Everyone gets to play at least two matches and the tournament ends sooner assuming you have enough tables.
 
Bob Jewett

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
hang-the-9 said:
I think this is the wrong example, to get this done properly you would have the same races, say to 9 or 11 in both types of events, not a double elim being played with half the games per match. You can't compare one or the other evenly when you change more than one variable. You don't compare how fast cars are by running two 1/4 mile and two 1/2 mile and then just run the 1/4 mile race best 2 out of 3. When you get to 1/2 mile other types of gearing makes a difference, drag due to higher speeds will make a difference, tires may make a difference vs just initial bite to 1/4 mile.
Click to expand...
The variable I kept constant was the total time required for the event. I think that's the right way to look at it since the most important constraint practically is the time available.
 
hang-the-9

hang-the-9

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Bob Jewett said:
The variable I kept constant was the total time required for the event. I think that's the right way to look at it since the most important constraint practically is the time available.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you would need to look at that as the main factor. Which it may very well be. But I was looking at it from the point of the final result, not for a time limit, and not just single vs double elim, but an event when early it's double and later it's single, such as the US Open and other events, including this one I played on Sat.

So in order to reach one goal, time limit, you make the what SHOULD be the point of the event different, which is to get the winner on even ground for all.
 
Last edited:
sbpoolleague

sbpoolleague

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
hang-the-9 said:
I don't think single or double elim is the point of my post, but rather changing from one to the other in the middle of the same event. I am not even taking sides really one way or the other, but pointing out that CHANGING RULES in middle of the event would make the simple fact of one person losing a game early and one person losing a game later mean hugely different things. Both lost a game, but the person that messed up early is getting a reprieve, while the person that played better (in theory at least) longer, is punished more for messing up later.
Click to expand...

I totally disagree that the rules were changed. When you set and publicize a tourney's format, then THOSE are the tournament rules. Every player knows the rules before they pay their entry fee. Every spectator knows the rules before they watch. The rules of this event were NOT changed in the middle of the event. Every player knew that single elim was coming.

Personally I think that this modified single/double elim format is wonderful. It is a great way to maximize race lengths (what players REALLY want) and keep your tourney within time constraints.
 
hang-the-9

hang-the-9

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
sbpoolleague said:
I totally disagree that the rules were changed. When you set and publicize a tourney's format, then THOSE are the tournament rules. Every player knows the rules before they pay their entry fee. Every spectator knows the rules before they watch. The rules of this event were NOT changed in the middle of the event. Every player knew that single elim was coming.

Personally I think that this modified single/double elim format is wonderful. It is a great way to maximize race lengths (what players REALLY want) and keep your tourney within time constraints.
Click to expand...

Yes the event rules were known, but that does not change the fact that going from double to single elimination has a pretty good chance of changing who the winner may have been. I don't mean something like SVB or any other player would have had a 50% higher chance, but something more than 10% I would say, if not more.

It may not be too hard to figure out what the difference is, how many major event winners have done it with one loss vs undefeated? Over 10, 20 years of data that should be a pretty good % to see what the difference may have been. I know that a few have won big events when they lost their first match even.

Again, I am not saying one way or the other is best, or that they changed the rules on the players in secret, just that the fact of going to single when it started out as double has a good chance to change who the winner is, which is a bit like stacking the deck for those that may have had a loss but got that loss early vs someone that lost later. The major tournaments change rules a lot, races length changes, rules of the games change, I mean would we have a good amount of player names changed in the history books if our older events had single elim rounds.
 
Last edited:
sjm

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
sbpoolleague said:
I totally disagree that the rules were changed. When you set and publicize a tourney's format, then THOSE are the tournament rules. Every player knows the rules before they pay their entry fee. Every spectator knows the rules before they watch. The rules of this event were NOT changed in the middle of the event. Every player knew that single elim was coming.

Personally I think that this modified single/double elim format is wonderful. It is a great way to maximize race lengths (what players REALLY want) and keep your tourney within time constraints.
Click to expand...

Exactly right. The rules were not changed. The format was made public before the event started. Everyone knew what it would take to reach the single elimination stage, and everyone knew that it would take four straight victories to win the title once they got there.

America is behind the times in not having adopted this format, used in WPA events such as the World 9-ball Championships, the China Open and the All Japan Chaqmpionships, and also in all Eurotour events, sooner. The rest of the world has figured out that single elimination is what makes pool exciting in the late rounds. Now that America has had a sampling of this wonderful tournament methodology, we can only hope to see it more often in these American parts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top