A plea to CSI regarding SVB vs Ko

Celtic

AZB's own 8-ball jihadist
Silver Member
That is the whole point. Somebody needs to try it and see.

No, seriously... Please tell me you are not that oblivious as to think the only reason pool is not hugely popular today is because of long race matches...

You do realize short match pool has had HUGE chances to make their mark, with huge prize purses and the top players in the world playing short matches all on television. And it did not work, people did not tune in, the tournaments folded.

The problem with this sport are not the length of the races, we have tried all sorts of various length of races and all have had the same crappy results. Sorry but if you truly think that the length of races is what holds pool back from making it big you are clueless.
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
I apologize if someone already brought this up but...

I think Alex might disagree that 21 is long enough...

http://anitokid.blogspot.com/2008/05/alex-pagulayan-wins-against-shane-van.html

If it had been a race to 90 Alex would have lost. Same if it had been a race to 50. And If it had been a race to 110 he might have lost too. He might have lost if it had been a race to 101. You statement doesn't really have logic behind it because the winner was decided solely by chance in the sense that whoever happened to have been ahead when they hit 100 won. Had the race been even slightly shorter, or longer, the outcome could have been very different. There was nothing conclusive about this win whatsoever.
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
No, seriously... Please tell me you are not that oblivious as to think the only reason pool is not hugely popular today is because of long race matches...

You do realize short match pool has had HUGE chances to make their mark, with huge prize purses and the top players in the world playing short matches all on television. And it did not work, people did not tune in, the tournaments folded.

The problem with this sport are not the length of the races, we have tried all sorts of various length of races and all have had the same crappy results. Sorry but if you truly think that the length of races is what holds pool back from making it big you are clueless.

Holy crap people sure know how to take things out of context and start a totally new and unrelated subject. Get some reading comprehension man.

I never said anything will make pool hugely popular. I was talking solely about PPV matches and not about pool in general. And I never even said that PPV matches would get hugely popular with shorter races either. In fact I have repeatedly been crystal clear and explicit all along in saying it might not make any difference at all.

Again, this is about trying to get more than 200 people to buy a PPV match, not about saving pool or making it bigger than football or about what you will be having for Christmas dinner this year. I was clear that short races might not work either, but there is nothing to lose in trying it, because people damn sure weren't buying the long race PPV's. Come on man, put your reading comprehension goggles on so you can join in and discuss the same things we are discussing. Wow.
 

pescadoman

Randy
Silver Member
If it had been a race to 90 Alex would have lost. Same if it had been a race to 50. And If it had been a race to 110 he might have lost too. He might have lost if it had been a race to 101. You statement doesn't really have logic behind it because the winner was decided solely by chance in the sense that whoever happened to have been ahead when they hit 100 won. Had the race been even slightly shorter, or longer, the outcome could have been very different. There was nothing conclusive about this win whatsoever.

You're correct. There is no logic in the statement that whoever wins the last game of the set is the winner. :thumbup:

It would make much more sense to flip a coin.

My buddy beat Efren in the only game of 8 ball they ever played. Does that make him better than Reyes? RIGGGGHT

The longer race will ALWAYS show the better player on that day/days. Shane was better for most of that race, NOT all of it.

ALEX WON AFTER BEING BEHIND BY WHAT MOST THOUGHT INSURMOUNTABLE ODDS. Pretty conclusive for a logical person, and one of the greatest comebacks in pool history. You're right though, if they raced to 21 he wouldn't have won...but..........THAT'S THE POINT OF WANTING TO SEE A LONGER RACE..
 
Last edited:

leto1776

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Logistics?

So how would those of you favoring the longer (because let's get real, 21 is already a long race) race purpose CSI work out the logistics? Take into account, you now are more likely to have a 2 day event, now have to work around tournaments, and let's not forget, this is longer these guys (the players) now have to spend in Vegas, which is costing them money.
 

JumpinJoe

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
So how would those of you favoring the longer (because let's get real, 21 is already a long race) race purpose CSI work out the logistics? Take into account, you now are more likely to have a 2 day event, now have to work around tournaments, and let's not forget, this is longer these guys (the players) now have to spend in Vegas, which is costing them money.

That don't make much sense. I don't think going to 35 or 50 calls for another day. And if it did, I highly doubt they would care about paying for a room for an extra day when they are going to be betting on the side.

But no doubt 35 is a one day match. And 50 is most likely one day. And when the players are gambling, why would they not have some say so in the race.
 

SakuJack

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I don't understand the American obsession with long races. If you lose a race to 21 then you more than likely lost to the best player on the day. Anything over that is overkill, in my opinion, and when you're going to the likes of 50 or 100 then it's more about the better endurance player - in the same way that a race to 9 or less is more about the better pressure player.
 

Jaden

"no buds chill"
Silver Member
Not quite...

So how would those of you favoring the longer (because let's get real, 21 is already a long race) race purpose CSI work out the logistics? Take into account, you now are more likely to have a 2 day event, now have to work around tournaments, and let's not forget, this is longer these guys (the players) now have to spend in Vegas, which is costing them money.

a race to 21 is hardly a long race. I play multiple races to 11 or 13 practically every time I play.

Don't forget, Shane just finished a race to 50 in a little over 4 hours.

Jaden
 

easy-e

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Thanks easy-e, I knew exactly what match he was referring to, as I own both.

The best match of all time line he used was Justin's way of selling the shorter match,
the better match was by far the race to 100, that was my point.

I was lucky enough to be on site for both of those matches. I'm not sure I'd agree that the race to 100 was the "better match by far", but that's just my opinion. I remember that race to 21 pretty well. Everyone in the room was excited for each and every game. They ALL mattered. I suppose one could be better, while the other was more exciting. Maybe that's where the hang-up is.
 

spartan

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
That don't make much sense. I don't think going to 35 or 50 calls for another day. And if it did, I highly doubt they would care about paying for a room for an extra day when they are going to be betting on the side.

But no doubt 35 is a one day match. And 50 is most likely one day. And when the players are gambling, why would they not have some say so in the race.
Correct. People forget that in many tournaments the 2 finalists play from last 16 until final which is 4 matches of races to maybe 11 racks which is like race to 50
If they can play in 1 day race to 50 can be played in 1 day also. SVB v Ko will be closer match than SVB v Nick with probably 5 to 10 racks separating them so we talking 90 to 95 racks played. Using shot clock and ref should bring each rack down to less than 5.5 to 6 mins per rack so at most 10 hours including breaks. Do 1 morning and 1 afternoon/evening session. Doing it over 2 days also lessens viewer interest and most will only buy 2nd day


Don't forget, Shane just finished a race to 50 in a little over 4 hours.

Jaden

SVB v Nick is a no contest with SVB totally dominant 26 BNR. Besides Nick's dry breaks, he gave BIH when he messed up short kicks, could not get out with few BIH and his safety game was more like open game. When it is like a no contest and one player is very domainant, average per min can be so low 4 mins. If it is evenly matched player, the average per rack will be much higher like 5 to 6 mins
 

CreeDo

Fargo Rating 597
Silver Member
Fun stat time.

Let's say hypothetically two players are pretty close.
They play 100 races, each set is to 100.
One of them wins almost every race, but he only wins by an average of 10 racks.

So another way of putting it is, let's imagine one player is 10% better than the other.

The underdog's mathematical chances of winning:
A race to 1: 40%
A race to 21: 9.6%
A race to 100: 0.2%

So even with two players who are fairly close, a race to 21 makes the better player
an overwhelming favorite. Over 90% to win. That's "fair enough".
For the record, someone winning by 10 racks only happened ONCE in TAR's history.

Now you tell me, which of those three options would you want as a spectator?
Race to 1, the better player can easily lose. Sucks for him, and you don't get your money's worth.
Race to 21, there's at least a small one-in-ten chance, which adds a lil excitement.
Race to 100, the underdog's chance is effectively 0, what's the point?

Apply it to players who are even closer, like a 5% difference in skill.
it becomes 45%, 26%, 7.8%

I dunno about you, but I still like the middle number there.
A 1-in-4 chance for the underdog to pull it off? That sounds exciting.
A less than 1 in 10 chance? That sounds kind of dull.

Stop worrying about making sure the race is long enough for Shane to get paid.
Stop worrying about "fair" for five minutes. Shane's making six figures. Shane is fine.
Think about what will make for an exciting, entertaining match for you, the viewer.
 

itsfroze

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Fun stat time.

Let's say hypothetically two players are pretty close.
They play 100 races, each set is to 100.
One of them wins almost every race, but he only wins by an average of 10 racks.

So another way of putting it is, let's imagine one player is 10% better than the other.

The underdog's mathematical chances of winning:
A race to 1: 40%
A race to 21: 9.6%
A race to 100: 0.2%

So even with two players who are fairly close, a race to 21 makes the better player
an overwhelming favorite. Over 90% to win. That's "fair enough".
For the record, someone winning by 10 racks only happened ONCE in TAR's history.

Now you tell me, which of those three options would you want as a spectator?
Race to 1, the better player can easily lose. Sucks for him, and you don't get your money's worth.
Race to 21, there's at least a small one-in-ten chance, which adds a lil excitement.
Race to 100, the underdog's chance is effectively 0, what's the point?

Apply it to players who are even closer, like a 5% difference in skill.
it becomes 45%, 26%, 7.8%

I dunno about you, but I still like the middle number there.
A 1-in-4 chance for the underdog to pull it off? That sounds exciting.
A less than 1 in 10 chance? That sounds kind of dull.

Stop worrying about making sure the race is long enough for Shane to get paid.
Stop worrying about "fair" for five minutes. Shane's making six figures. Shane is fine.
Think about what will make for an exciting, entertaining match for you, the viewer.

vvvvvvvv This statement isn't exactly true ! vvvvvvvvv

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

TAR # 1 Shane vs. Cory -----> Shane won 100-70
TAR # 2 Shane vs. Earl ----> Shane won 100-63
TAR # 4 John Morra vs. Justin Bergman ---> Bergman won 100-79
TAR # 5 Chris Bartrum vs. Mike Dechaine ---> Bartrum won 100-83
TAR # 6 John Schimdt vs. Jason Kirkwood --> Schmidt won 100-88
TAR # 7 Chris Bartrum vs. Steve Moore -----> Moore won.... 100-66
TAR #10 Dennis Hatch vs. Darren Appleton ----> Hatch won 100-83
TAR#16 John Morra vs. Oscar Domingue > Dominguez won 100-79
TAR #17 Shane vs. Donny --------------------> Shane won .......100-82
TAR #19 Shane vs. Mika -----------------------> Shane won.......100-80
TAR #20 Shane vs. Earl ------------------------> Earl won...........100-83
TAR #21 Shane vs. Alex -----------------------> Shane won .......100-84
 
Last edited:

hang-the-9

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The only way to find out for sure who the better player is, have them play once a week for a year, races to 11 are fine then. Whoever wins overall by over 10% (that will probably be enough to rule out freak things like being really unlucky with layouts), is the better player. Playing once to 21 or 50 or 100 won't do much. The other guy can win a week later in the same game.
 

BeiberLvr

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Typically in a very long race, there's only pressure on one player. The player that's behind.

In a "shorter" race like 21, the pressure is always on both players. Mistakes are greater, and you'll rarely see one player coast.

Also, anyone that thinks one long set between these two will determine the better player isn't thinking clearly.
 

jay helfert

Shoot Pool, not people
Gold Member
Silver Member
Look guys, it's a pool match and that's not an exact science. When Tiger was the best player, did he win every tournament? :D Well maybe it seemed like he was winning all the time, because he was winning 8-10 times a year. But with 40+ events he was winning a healthy percentage, but certainly not all by any means. Is there a dominant player in golf today? NO! Is there a dominant player in pool today? No, not really even if Shane dominates here. When all the top foreign guys are here, it's quite a bit tougher for Shane, i.e. Dennis O. winning the U.S. Open One Pocket from him. It will not be easy for Shane to win one, let alone two, of the upcoming U.S. Open events in Vegas with the strong fields they have assembled.

My point being that not Shane or anyone else can be expected to beat another great player match after match. And that my friends is a proven fact! Shane has lost several long challenge matches - to Dennis, Francisco, Earl and Alex for starters. But this is what makes a Race to 21 so compelling. Ko can win! This is a horse race between two thoroughbreds and it should be a good one. More than long enough to test them both. A race does not have to be a marathon to be compelling! That's my point. And whoever loses could win the next time they play. This could be the start of another great series of matches like we had with Shane and Alex. In this respect pool is like boxing, they can go at it over and over to try to find out who's best. And even then there may be some debate about who ultimately prevailed. One time it's one guy and on another day it's someone else. Ain't pool cool!
 
Last edited:

Bigtruck

Capt Diff Lock
Gold Member
Silver Member
Tell em Jay.

Look guys, it's a pool match and that's not an exact science. When Tiger was the best player, did he win every tournament? :D Well maybe it seemed like he was winning all the time, because he was winning 8-10 times a year. But with 40+ events he was winning a healthy percentage, but certainly not all by any means. Is there a dominant player in golf today? NO! Is there a dominant player in pool today? No, not really even if Shane dominates here. When all the top foreign guys are here, it's quite a bit tougher for Shane, i.e. Dennis O. winning the U.S. Open One Pocket from him. It will not be easy for Shane to win one, let alone two, of the upcoming U.S. Open events in Vegas with the strong fields they have assembled.

My point being that not Shane or anyone else can be expected to beat another great player match after match. And that my friends is a proven fact! Shane has lost several challenge matches - to Dennis, Francisco and Alex for starters. But this is what makes a Race to 21 so compelling. Ko can win! Got it?
 

iusedtoberich

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
A few people are suggesting that there will be additional money wagered on this match between Shane and Ko, besides the exhibition money. Is this just a guess, or is there some inside information? I'm kind of guessing there won't be extra money wagered by either side, but that is just my pure guess.
 
Top