A plea to CSI regarding SVB vs Ko

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
It's not that it necessarily shows the better player, but it BETTER shows who's playing best.

There is never a definitive best player, but a longer race better showcases it versus a shorter race.

I agree that a longer race has a better chance of showing who the better player was that day. I have never disagreed with this. What I disagree with is the claim that it always shows who the best player is as many are saying.

My point is and has always been that although the longer races make it more likely you can determine who the best player is (but certainly don't guarantee it will be conclusive), that doesn't help put money in the pocket of the streamer when very few people are buying the long race streams for whatever reasons. And if nobody is buying them, we lose streams altogether. We already lost TAR because it doesn't work. I don't want it to get to where there are no streams left to watch.

And it is likely that some of the people who did not buy long races would in fact buy shorter races because there are a lot of negatives to long races. Long races are usually blow outs that are a bore fest after about 1/3 of the way through the match--no excitement left. Some people don't want to buy something they can't watch all of just like most people wouldn't buy only one quarter of a football game. And there are many other negative issues with long streams as well. Long races have pretty much one good positive (that they better determine who is playing best that day) but a TON of negatives.

So you can have long races that better determine the better player but with little excitement and few people buying them for a variety of reasons. Or you can have medium races with tons of excitement that still do a pretty good job of determining the better player and that don't have all those other negatives that kept many people from buying the long races. Seems like it should be worth a try to me, especially when you consider that we already conclusively know that people just don't want to buy the long race format.

And what may be the best all around for everybody (because EVERYBODY gets what they want) is long matches that consist of a best of several shorter races, like say best of three races to 17, or best of five races to 21. It does as good a job (better actually for several reasons) as a long race in determining who was playing better that day. It keeps the excitement the entire time. It comes with a lot more pressure on the players. Every game always means something. Both players will always be giving 100%. Blowout bore fests are less likely. People that can't watch the whole match may still buy just one of the races because there is a beginning and end to it, and because that race means something.
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
Just how many other "guys" have problems comprehending what you are actually trying to say, given your lack of skills with punctuation and grammar? Probably many.
I think I write pretty decently and I think most would agree. Anybody that has trouble following what I say is someone who has trouble following logic or trouble reading in general.

Furthermore, if you could take your head out of your ass long enough to get your facts straight(improbable), you'd know SHANE won the rematch.
We were discussing the Shane/Alex match that YOU linked to. In your own link it clearly states that Alex won that one. This is a serious question, not a personal attack? Are you drunk? Nothing wrong with that and many have gotten on here a time or two in a "condidtion". Just want to give you the benefit of the doubt. And below is the link you posted that we were discussing that clearly shows Alex won this one.
http://anitokid.blogspot.com/2008/05/alex-pagulayan-wins-against-shane-van.html

If you think, which you probably do because you..well, that races to 9 in an open tournament don't favor a better player then there is no hope for you.
Talk about not being able to word things well...this makes little sense. But to clear up my position, ALL races of any length always favor the better player. And the longer the race, the more it favors the better player. This does not however mean that a long race always conclusively showed who was playing better at that time.

I will be avoiding this thread from hereon out due to the fact you are an ass and I have no time for the likes of you.
No, I'm just someone that admittedly has a low tolerance for two things.
1) People who don't take the time to comprehend what they read.
2) People that don't use logic in their thinking process.
You nailed both of them.
 

Jaden

"no buds chill"
Silver Member
short and long are ambiguous...

Well then, it's a good thing a race to 21 isn't a short race.

You have to use the terms relative to something.

A race to 21 is SHORTER than a race to 35 or 50, so it does not BETTER show who the better player is...

JAden
 

one stroke

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I agree that a longer race has a better chance of showing who the better player was that day. I have never disagreed with this. What I disagree with is the claim that it always shows who the best player is as many are saying.

My point is and has always been that although the longer races make it more likely you can determine who the best player is (but certainly don't guarantee it will be conclusive), that doesn't help put money in the pocket of the streamer when very few people are buying the long race streams for whatever reasons. And if nobody is buying them, we lose streams altogether. We already lost TAR because it doesn't work. I don't want it to get to where there are no streams left to watch.

And it is likely that some of the people who did not buy long races would in fact buy shorter races because there are a lot of negatives to long races. Long races are usually blow outs that are a bore fest after about 1/3 of the way through the match--no excitement left. Some people don't want to buy something they can't watch all of just like most people wouldn't buy only one quarter of a football game. And there are many other negative issues with long streams as well. Long races have pretty much one good positive (that they better determine who is playing best that day) but a TON of negatives.

So you can have long races that better determine the better player but with little excitement and few people buying them for a variety of reasons. Or you can have medium races with tons of excitement that still do a pretty good job of determining the better player and that don't have all those other negatives that kept many people from buying the long races. Seems like it should be worth a try to me, especially when you consider that we already conclusively know that people just don't want to buy the long race format.

And what may be the best all around for everybody (because EVERYBODY gets what they want) is long matches that consist of a best of several shorter races, like say best of three races to 17, or best of five races to 21. It does as good a job (better actually for several reasons) as a long race in determining who was playing better that day. It keeps the excitement the entire time. It comes with a lot more pressure on the players. Every game always means something. Both players will always be giving 100%. Blowout bore fests are less likely. People that can't watch the whole match may still buy just one of the races because there is a beginning and end to it, and because that race means something.
I think CSI had more to do with TAR folding than viewership of long races


1
 

CreeDo

Fargo Rating 597
Silver Member
vvvvvvvv This statement isn't exactly true ! vvvvvvvvv

"For the record, someone winning by 10 racks only happened ONCE in TAR's history."

Sorry, I didn't phrase that well.
What I was trying to say is, someone winning by 10 racks or LESS has only happened once.

In other words, the skill gap between players usually isn't so insanely close
that you're almost never going to get a hill-hill match, or even a 100-90 match.
Usually it's more like 100-85, or even 100-80.

If Shane's better than Ko Pin Yi at 10 ball, even by a small margin, then Shane is
better than 75% to win this 'short' race to 21.

75% is fine with me. I don't need the better player to be a 99% favorite. That's boring.
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
I think CSI had more to do with TAR folding than viewership of long races

Well Justin from TAR repeatedly over the years said that he wasn't really making money doing the TAR matches and that if viewership didn't increase he would have to stop doing it at some point. Then at the end he said he had to stop because there wasn't enough viewers/money to be able to continue. But go ahead and call him a liar if you want to.

The thing is you don't even have to take his word for it. If you ever bought any of the matches you know how many viewers there were. If you didn't, go pull up the threads about the matches, somebody usually mentions how many viewers there were. You will see that the viewer numbers were pathetic (and he did a really good job doing what he did so that wasn't the cause). Then do the math on what he was making. Then subtract equipment, travel, and other expenses. Now is the number you have left enough to live on and pay your rent/mortgage and other bills? If it isn't you can only do that for so long before you have to throw in the towel, and that is what he did.
 

Mark Griffin

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
One Stroke-

Please explain what this comment means?
I think you are 'slightly misleading' what the facts are - but I might not be reading what you said properly. So could you please explain?

As you know, I am quite familiar with TAR and what did or did not work.

I have intentionally stayed out of this thread because I wanted to see how things shook out. It is interesting and I will post my thoughts over the next day or so.

There is a LOT of assumptions being stated as fact - and as usual, I encourage a civil discussion on the topic.


Mark Griffin
702-719-7665 work



I think CSI had more to do with TAR folding than viewership of long races


1
 

one stroke

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
One Stroke-

Please explain what this comment means?
I think you are 'slightly misleading' what the facts are - but I might not be reading what you said properly. So could you please explain?

As you know, I am quite familiar with TAR and what did or did not work.

I have intentionally stayed out of this thread because I wanted to see how things shook out. It is interesting and I will post my thoughts over the next day or so.

There is a LOT of assumptions being stated as fact - and as usual, I encourage a civil discussion on the topic.


Mark Griffin
702-719-7665 work

Than by all means state the facts ,, because from where I sit it seems far to coincidental that TAR folds and now he's working for you

1
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
One Stroke-

Please explain what this comment means?
I think you are 'slightly misleading' what the facts are - but I might not be reading what you said properly. So could you please explain?

As you know, I am quite familiar with TAR and what did or did not work.

I have intentionally stayed out of this thread because I wanted to see how things shook out. It is interesting and I will post my thoughts over the next day or so.

There is a LOT of assumptions being stated as fact - and as usual, I encourage a civil discussion on the topic.


Mark Griffin
702-719-7665 work

Mark don't you know by now that assumption and speculation followed closely by unfounded accusation fuels the majority of threads on AZB? Facts, research, and investigation are BORING. People will spend hours arguing over made up bullshit that they have no clue about rather than to spend ten minutes educating themselves about the facts.

That is a curious aspect of humanity that confronted with access to all the world's information, including your phone number and Justin's, they would rather WILLFULLY put out a completely fabricated opinion based on nothing more than whatever silly or stupid thought they have bubbling in their mind instead of to simply ask you or Justin about it so as to get the straight story from the source.

No, instead it's far more FUN for them to cause a bunch of shit by flinging theirs around.

Don't expect a rational explanation here, can't be one from an ignorant and malicious mind.
 

BeiberLvr

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You have to use the terms relative to something.

A race to 21 is SHORTER than a race to 35 or 50, so it does not BETTER show who the better player is...

JAden

But you have to draw the line somewhere.

If a race to 100 shows who the better player is more efficiently than a race to 21, then a race to 200 shows who the better player is more efficiently than a race to 100.

Where does it end?

The fact is, that yes a longer race will showcase the better player for that match (not necessarily overall), but it doesn't need to be to 100 or even 50.
 

one stroke

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Well Justin from TAR repeatedly over the years said that he wasn't really making money doing the TAR matches and that if viewership didn't increase he would have to stop doing it at some point. Then at the end he said he had to stop because there wasn't enough viewers/money to be able to continue. But go ahead and call him a liar if you want to.

The thing is you don't even have to take his word for it. If you ever bought any of the matches you know how many viewers there were. If you didn't, go pull up the threads about the matches, somebody usually mentions how many viewers there were. You will see that the viewer numbers were pathetic (and he did a really good job doing what he did so that wasn't the cause). Then do the math on what he was making. Then subtract equipment, travel, and other expenses. Now is the number you have left enough to live on and pay your rent/mortgage and other bills? If it isn't you can only do that for so long before you have to throw in the towel, and that is what he did.

What was the viewership of the last TAR match ,, i can't imagine it being a full time job
Don't you think some where along the lines he thought of a shorter race or asked others what they thought or do you simply think he said ,, you know what , I'm doing what's best for my bottom line


1
 

one stroke

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Mark don't you know by now that assumption and speculation followed closely by unfounded accusation fuels the majority of threads on AZB? Facts, research, and investigation are BORING. People will spend hours arguing over made up bullshit that they have no clue about rather than to spend ten minutes educating themselves about the facts.

That is a curious aspect of humanity that confronted with access to all the world's information, including your phone number and Justin's, they would rather WILLFULLY put out a completely fabricated opinion based on nothing more than whatever silly or stupid thought they have bubbling in their mind instead of to simply ask you or Justin about it so as to get the straight story from the source.

No, instead it's far more FUN for them to cause a bunch of shit by flinging theirs around.

Don't expect a rational explanation here, can't be one from an ignorant and malicious mind.

And here I thought you were saving all your writings for your version on how you got thumped for 10 g ,, I guess that was just another one of my assumptions

1
 

Dagwoodz

the dude abides...
Silver Member
Than by all means state the facts ,, because from where I sit it seems far to coincidental that TAR folds and now he's working for you

1

It's more logical to think that TAR closed shop and Mark asked Justin to come on board to work for him. To think that CSI undermined TAR is naive and insulting to the parties involved.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
 

one stroke

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
It's more logical to think that TAR closed shop and Mark asked Justin to come on board to work for him. To think that CSI undermined TAR is naive and insulting to the parties involved.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

I never said anyone undermined anyone


1
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
Than by all means state the facts ,, because from where I sit it seems far to coincidental that TAR folds and now he's working for you

1
Go up a few to post #266 to see some facts. Not that you ever had any use for facts...
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
Somewhere, there may be a guy who is the best runner at a race length of 100 miles. Perhaps he feels he a better distance runner than the world's top marathoner, who runs just 26.2 miles when competing.

Thing is, though, that the running distance of 100 miles is fundamentally trivial and has never had anything to do with measuring excellence in the sport of distance running. The race would be long, boring, and unwatchable, which, by the way, is how I find 10-ball races to 100 to be.

Nobody trains for 100 mile races and, similarly, nobody save one, regularly trains for races to 100 in 10-ball. There's really no reason to do so, as pool excellence is, and always has been measured, by one's ability to knock off champion after champion.

The field in this year's US Open 10-ball is stronger than that found at any of the Bigfoot/Fatboy Challenges at the Derby. Winning that event will take sustained excellence, the kind that defines the greatest champions. In assessing the play of Shane and Ko, I'll be watching their efforts in the CSI US Open 10-ball event far more than in their head to head race.

I see the head-to-head match as a side dish, certainly not as the main course.

Hate to disagree with you Stu. Ultrarunning is in fact a sport and they have distances up to 100 miles.

https://www.ultrarunning.com/features/what-is-ultra-running/

I don't think Shane ever really trained for the race to 100 format. I think Justin and Chad thought it would be cool to have a series of these challenges because everyone, players included always talked about how longer races would settle who's best between any two given players.

Prior to TAR coming along the only long race we had on video was the Efren/Earl battle. So it's really been one big experiment all the way. And most of them have been epic. Even the ones where one player has ran away with it have been epic because they showed exactly what they were intended to show, who has the skills to prevail over distance and who doesn't?

Take this back to the eternal women vs. men debate. I have seen Kelly Fisher play perfect pool, occassionally. I have seen Shane play perfect pool frequently.

If they played races to three Kelly would win a decent number of them. If they played races to 100 Kelly will win exactly zero of them. That's just how the stats will play out because Shane is the better player and the longer the race the more that the mistakes hurt the weaker player.

Or to put it another way, I can and have beaten several top players in races to five. Make it a race to ten and my chances of winning go to nearly zero. Go to fifteen and they stay at zero. So the race length is clearly a factor. What length is the question.

I think a race to 21 is a pretty good test among top players. I also think that the Mosconi cup races to five or seven are pressure from the beginning and have their place. But it's clear from the Nico/Shane match that beating a guy in the Mosconi cup in a race to five doesn't in any way mean you are the better player. But beating a guy in a long race means clearly you are the better player. In my opinion that is.
 

filluptieu

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
race to 21 is good. Ko has no chance of winning going past that... even though I have $$$ on Ko. GO KO!
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
What was the viewership of the last TAR match ,, i can't imagine it being a full time job
Don't you think some where along the lines he thought of a shorter race or asked others what they thought or do you simply think he said ,, you know what , I'm doing what's best for my bottom line

What you are missing is that even if it wasn't a full time job it kept him from being able to have a full time job so it became his full time job by default. How many employers do you know that are going to let you have off 3-11 days once a month or so whenever you need them so you can travel and do the TAR streams? And I bet there was a lot more hours involved than you think. Work didn't stop the moment the stream ended you know. Do you realize how much work and hours were involved outside of just the time you were actually live on the air streaming?

As for his thought process on the shorter races and why he didn't do more of them. Well in my opinion this was one of the areas where he messed up by not exploring that more. He has clearly stated that his hands were tied to a certain extent by what the players wanted (Bartrum pretty much refused to do anything but a race to 100 for example) and I believe him. However, I think he could have pushed back a lot harder to try some other formats than he did. Particularly once he switched to the more exhibition style where he was putting up all the prize fund plus expenses for both players.

But regardless, why he didn't do it is immaterial really. The fact is he never really explored different formats for any length of time so we simply don't know if they would have pulled more paying viewers. Which takes us full circle back to the main point. Long races are proven failures in pulling paying viewers. We should try shorter races, or long matches that are best of several shorter races and see if they will do better. We don't know if we don't try, don't you agree? All we know right now is that not many people will pay for races to 100.
 
Top