2014 US Open 9-Ball Championship: 128-player field, $1,000 entry fee

[realkingcobra]

How many are around, you think people will travel to find a 5 X 10 to take this test, lol

Good luck getting a lot of test takers, and this test idea only holds up and money is
only generated if lots of people take the test.

This approach using a 5 x 10 isn't a good start, with that.

Only a way to push trying to sell Diamond 5 x 10, sorry.

Well, all I can say is...what ever works...oh, that's right, nothing is working already. With that statement, "do nothing, and NOTHING is guaranteed to happen" Pool has been played for how long now?...and we still DON'T have a Professional format for the worlds Pro's to play in?

 

[watchez]

The 5 x 10 is a waste on multiple levels.

 

[realkingcobra]

The 5 x 10 is a waste on multiple levels.

Of course it is...for all those that can't play, but then again, why does anyone have to be able to play to play against a Pro...when all you need is an entry fee paid, then you can play whom ever you draw to play against...wow, that's an incredible idea, POOL is off to a running start

 

[itsfroze]

Well, all I can say is...what ever works...oh, that's right, nothing is working already. With that statement, "do nothing, and NOTHING is guaranteed to happen" Pool has been played for how long now?...and we still DON'T have a Professional format for the worlds Pro's to play in?

That's funny, where did you read anyone say do nothing ?
I in fact said the idea is good, just not on 5 x 10 tables.

What ever works, I agree, and I am saying I think it has a
chance of working on 41/2 x 9 tables, other wise, it doesn't
in my opinion. Nowhere did I say or imply, do nothing.

 

[itsfroze]

Quote:
Originally Posted by watchez View Post
The 5 x 10 is a waste on multiple levels.

Of course it is...for all those that can't play, but then again, why does anyone have to be able to play to play against a Pro...when all you need is an entry fee paid, then you can play whom ever you draw to play against...wow, that's an incredible idea, POOL is off to a running start

Nice spin you try to put on what watchez meant.

Then again if the pros can't separate themselves from the amateurs on a 41/2 x 9
maybe there not pros.

 

[AtLarge]

... With these rules, matches would run 3 hours max, 30 minute break, then start again. A 64 player event would be finished with the determined winner in 20 1/2 hours of play and breaks.

Certainly not all tournament venues would have 32 tables. With fewer tables, it would take longer. With 8 tables, e.g., it would be 34 1/2 hours.

 

[realkingcobra]

Quote:
Originally Posted by watchez View Post
The 5 x 10 is a waste on multiple levels.



Nice spin you try to put on what watchez meant.

Then again if the pros can't separate themselves from the amateurs on a 41/2 x 9
maybe there not pros.

Flip side of that coin is, if the amateurs can't test very well on a 5'x10'...maybe they have no business getting into the same tournaments as the Pro's just to provide prize money in the pay outs, because that really is the sole purpose for letting them play against the Pro's, and why rules have been changed to faver the lesser skilled players...in order to give them their money's worth. :thumbup:

 

[Island Drive]

$2,000 nut

Here's my copy/past feelings from another US Open thread:

If that's the case, bunk beds should be set up. WOW....I feel a miscue here. What made the open so great, most players (the ones that pay the overhead for the Great Players) could save a Grand for room and board and play, all the well knowing they'd most likely go out in two or three rounds. But to double up the entry............here we go again.

US "Open your wallet"???? The amateurs is what truly made this venue what it ''was''....entry fee now is Five times what it was in the early nineties....If this change is what is needed, time will tell.

They shoulda' just made the entry $600 per player.

 

[realkingcobra]

Certainly not all tournament venues would have 32 tables. With fewer tables, it would take longer. With 8 tables, e.g., it would be 34 1/2 hours.

That's why locations wishing to host a Pro event would have to meet certain requirements first, because I'm not talking about hosting Pro events in casinos...when there are so many pool rooms around the world that would do the job needed for the Pro events:thumbup:

 

[itsfroze]

It's obvious that 41/2 x 9 is the way to go.

How many 5 x 10 tables are around, you think people will travel to find a 5 X 10 to take this test, lol

Good luck getting a lot of test takers, and this test idea only holds up and money is
only generated if lots of people take the test.

On 5 x 10 tables that's not going to happen.





Originally posted by realkingcobra:
"That's why locations wishing to host a Pro event would have to meet certain requirements first,
because I'm not talking about hosting Pro events in casinos...when there are so many pool rooms
around the world that would do the job needed for the Pro events"
----------------

Also this idea that there are many Pool rooms around where there is sufficient room to
have a pro tournament with 32 tables and plenty of room for spectators and that doesn't
even include any room for vendors, just doesn't hold up.
In fact it's hard to even think of a couple.

 

[realkingcobra]

It's obvious that 41/2 x 9 is the way to go.

How many 5 x 10 tables are around, you think people will travel to find a 5 X 10 to take this test, lol

Good luck getting a lot of test takers, and this test idea only holds up and money is
only generated if lots of people take the test.

It'll take less time in years to fix pool, than the number of years it's been screwed up. Nothing happens over night, and I don't feel casino's are the right format for hosting Pro Events, that being said, it wouldn't take to long to get a few hundred 5'x10's on the market world wide, Diamond already has taken orders for 2 going to Moscow and 1 somewhere in Germany. Building the tables and getting them delivered is the smallest part of this equation, so focus on the bigger picture.

 

[AtLarge]

... Race to 21, with a 3 hour time limit per match...can only be extended for breaking a tie. ...

If a match went hill/hill, that would imply they'd have to average less than 4 1/2 minutes per game. Very few pro 10-ball matches are played at that pace now, even ones with a time clock.

 

[realkingcobra]

If a match went hill/hill, that would imply they'd have to average less than 4 1/2 minutes per game. Very few pro 10-ball matches are played at that pace now, even ones with a time clock.

So, what you're saying is that there couldn't be a winner at the end of 3 hours?...how about who ever is ahead at the ding of the bell is called the winner? I guarantee you, you'd see a lot faster games being played as the clock ticks down....knowing the end is in sight. Pool matches need a time frame, EVERY other sport has a time frame that I know of....why NOT pool tournament matches? Think about it for a minute, no more standing around waiting on a match to start, because you'd know to the minute when it starts, hours in advance. And, the tournament would end exactly when it's suppose to end...on time, every time, from the projected start time, so there'd be no need for all night matches taking place, which by the way would open up a lot of time for mini tournaments....and GAMBLING, seeings how the tables would be free for the rest of the night, until play resumes the next morning...or day, whatever.

 

[watchez]

Of course it is...for all those that can't play, but then again, why does anyone have to be able to play to play against a Pro...when all you need is an entry fee paid, then you can play whom ever you draw to play against...wow, that's an incredible idea, POOL is off to a running start

Has nothing to do if someone can play or not. Why would you showcase a game on a table that no one else in the world plays on? Why would you put the pro game on a table that most up and coming pool players don't have access to? Or a table that 99.9% of the pool rooms don't want, can't afford and don't have the space for? Coat racks at Walmart are much cheaper than buying a 10 foot table from Diamond for people to lay their coats on.

I watched the 5 x 10 matches at The Derby. To a tee, almost every player that g0t off the table when he was approached by his buddies after the match complained about it.

Hopefully you can figure out how to use your mastery of being a pool table mechanic to convert any 5 x 10 tables that are out their to a 4 1/2 x 9, including the ones sitting in the Diamond warehouse collecting dust.

And Pro events in pool rooms? Which ones are left that have the size to hold such an event to have room for the spectator attendance needed so they can at least break even (which they were before they started).

 

[itsfroze]

BIg Picture For Who?

I am looking at the big picture and:

This test idea only holds up and money is
only generated if lots of people take the test.

On 5 x 10 tables that's not going to happen.



Or are you thinking about the big picture for Diamond ?

 

[realkingcobra]

I am looking at the big picture and:

This test idea only holds up and money is
only generated if lots of people take the test.

On 5 x 10 tables that's not going to happen.



Or are you thinking about the big picture for Diamond ?

There are soooooooo many ways pool rooms can make money on a 5'x10' Diamond you'd be suprised. There is a way to reach out to every top pool player on this planet and get the best of the best together for the largest payout's ever paid in a world championship...and all without venders or anyone else offering to pay for a little square footage so they can sell their wares and take home the money. What would you say if I could run a 4,096 best of the best ppol players in the world using two weekends to play everyone off for a world champion in 10 ball, and have pay outs of more than $640,000 to the final 256 players left in the event....once a year?...and that's just for the world 10ball championship title.

 

[AtLarge]

So, what you're saying is that there couldn't be a winner at the end of 3 hours?...how about who ever is ahead at the ding of the bell is called the winner? I guarantee you, you'd see a lot faster games being played as the clock ticks down....knowing the end is in sight. Pool matches need a time frame, EVERY other sport has a time frame that I know of....why NOT pool tournament matches? Think about it for a minute, no more standing around waiting on a match to start, because you'd know to the minute when it starts, hours in advance. And, the tournament would end exactly when it's suppose to end...on time, every time, from the projected start time, so there'd be no need for all night matches taking place, which by the way would open up a lot of time for mini tournaments....and GAMBLING, seeings how the tables would be free for the rest of the night, until play resumes the next morning...or day, whatever.

Glen, I do agree with the objective of having pre-determined starting times for matches and not playing on into the wee hours. But I think that can be achieved with a shot clock and proper scheduling.

My earlier post was to let you know that a 3-hour limit might be too short for a race to 21 in that it could force a pace of play that is faster than the natural pace of even today's fastest players. I view that as undesirable. Yes, we need to eliminate grievously slow play, but I wouldn't want to impose time limits that dramatically change the nature of the play near the end of a close match played at a decent pace.

Here are some numbers.

• For the Steinway Classic 10-Ball event played last August on 9-footers, I tracked 11 of the streamed matches. No shot clock was used. The average game length was 5.5 minutes. Strickland was in 6 of those 11 matches, Van Boening was in 4 of them, Jason Shaw was in 2 of them. Those are 3 of the quickest players.

• At the DCC Bigfoot Challenge two months ago, I tracked all 16 matches. They used a 40-sec. time clock on the 10-foot table. The average game length was 6.3 minutes. The range was 4.6 minutes per game to 8.4 minutes per game. [I'd expect the averages to be a bit higher on a 10-footer than on a 9-footer.]

I could pull out lots of other results, but they will show the same thing -- averages considerably longer than 4.4 minutes per game (180 ÷ 41).

 

[realkingcobra]

Glen, I do agree with the objective of having pre-determined starting times for matches and not playing on into the wee hours. But I think that can be achieved with a shot clock and proper scheduling.

My earlier post was to let you know that a 3-hour limit might be too short for a race to 21 in that it could force a pace of play that is faster than the natural pace of even today's fastest players. I view that as undesirable. Yes, we need to eliminate grievously slow play, but I wouldn't want to impose time limits that dramatically change the nature of the play near the end of a close match played at a decent pace.

Here are some numbers.

• For the Steinway Classic 10-Ball event played last August on 9-footers, I tracked 11 of the streamed matches. No shot clock was used. The average game length was 5.5 minutes. Strickland was in 6 of those 11 matches, Van Boening was in 4 of them, Jason Shaw was in 2 of them. Those are 3 of the quickest players.

• At the DCC Bigfoot Challenge two months ago, I tracked all 16 matches. They used a 40-sec. time clock on the 10-foot table. The average game length was 6.3 minutes. The range was 4.6 minutes per game to 8.4 minutes per game. [I'd expect the averages to be a bit higher on a 10-footer than on a 9-footer.]

I could pull out lots of other results, but they will show the same thing -- averages considerably longer than 4.4 minutes per game (180 ÷ 41).

Right, and I agree with you, but the race to 21 is only the ending number if the players actually reach it before the time runs out, I'm not planning on a lot of the players reaching that game count to win,in fact I'd expect to see most win at the ding of the bell. The reason for the race to 21 is to almost make sure everyone is at the tables in play for 3 hours, so that everything ends on time, and starts on time...as in NO early outs unless a player gets a win by an early knockout with a 10 game spread. Also, no one can predict the final score before the match starts, so guess what, betting on the final score just got a lot harder:grin:

 

[itsfroze]

PIE IN THE SKY

If you think you are going to get rooms to put in
5 x 10 tables that will get used a couple times a year.

1) They don't have the room, and the room they have
they want 41/2 x 9 tables or even smaller.

2) They aren't going to spend the money.

3) They don't want a table (especially one that big)
that is going to sit around and not be used.

BOTTOM LINE

Why don't you just come out and say you are just trying to
push Diamond 5 x 10 tables, as you really haven't given any
and there really isn't any, good reason to use them.

Not to mention there are good reasons why 41/2 x 9 should be used.

 

[realkingcobra]

PIE IN THE SKY

If you think you are going to get rooms to put in
5 x 10 tables that will get used a couple times a year.

1) They don't have the room, and the room they have
they want 41/2 x 9 tables or even smaller.

2) They aren't going to spend the money.

3) They don't want a table (especially one that big)
that is going to sit around and not be used.

BOTTOM LINE

Why don't you just come out and say you are just trying to
push Diamond 5 x 10 tables, as you really haven't given any
and there really isn't any, good reason to use them.

Not to mention there are good reasons why 41/2 x 9 should be used.

You really have no idea what I'm talking about...do you...LOL Trust me, I've explained my plans to Jaden...and he would certainly dissagree with you 100%:thumbup: