A plea to CSI regarding SVB vs Ko

[gxman]

If shane plays like he did vs nick, no one on the planet even at their top gear has a chance. Wet break 88% BNR 53%.

If he plays the way he did at the accu-stats event, he could easily lose to Ko.

I think the way the table breaks will be a huge factor. That accustats table breaks much tougher than the greece table. I think shane lost to dennis 10-8. I hope this will be on 4.25" pockets.

 

[Dagwoodz]

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


1

You say here that CSI had something to do with TAR folding. If not by undermining then then explain how?

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[Cornerman]

I think a long race only shows how even or how completely separate the players are.

If it were Race to 21 with Nico/Shane, we would have still known who the better player is.

They say Ko is every bit the player that Shane is. I'd like to see the longer race (to 50) just to see if:

a) they're so close that it's competitive all the way to 50

b) they're not as close as people like to think


Why 50? Completely arbitrary number, but when we're talking about two players who are presumably at the very elite level, then 21 is, IMO, too short for the fans. I don't really care who's better; I want to see the outcome of a race to 50.

The short race or long race isn't what makes it "exciting." It's the players. The players' reported skill level seems to demand a longer race, if they're going to do a head-to-head.

Let's look at that first race to 21 with Shane and Alex. That WAS exciting. And you know what people said? "I wish it were longer." Not because people cared about "He would have beat him in a longer race," but because it was so exciting that watching more would have been uber cool. If it were a blowout, there'd be no reason to ask for more.

Freddie <~~~ wants more

 

[Black-Balled]

I think a long race only shows how even or how completely separate the players are.

If it were Race to 21 with Nico/Shane, we would have still known who the better player is.

They say Ko is every bit the player that Shane is. I'd like to see the longer race (to 50) just to see if:

a) they're so close that it's competitive all the way to 50

b) they're not as close as people like to think


Why 50? Completely arbitrary number, but when we're talking about two players who are presumably at the very elite level, then 21 is, IMO, too short for the fans. I don't really care who's better; I want to see the outcome of a race to 50.

The short race or long race isn't what makes it "exciting." It's the players. The players' reported skill level seems to demand a longer race, if they're going to do a head-to-head.

Let's look at that first race to 21 with Shane and Alex. That WAS exciting. And you know what people said? "I wish it were longer." Not because people cared about "He would have beat him in a longer race," but because it was so exciting that watching more would have been uber cool. If it were a blowout, there'd be no reason to ask for more.

Freddie <~~~ wants more

Right said, Fred.

I also would like to see more battle.

 

[itsfroze]

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.

Fact he did try shorter races:

TAR #23 Oscar vs. Raj ----> Oscar won !6 * 25 * 22
TAR #24 Shane vs. Fransisco ----> Bustamante Won 24 * 25 * 17
TAR #25 Hatch vs. Dechaine -----> Dechaine Won 24 * 25 * 18

 

[Mark Griffin]

One stroke (in particular) and others (in general):

There are things that I know that are privileged information. I will not disclose the numbers of viewership (or other financial data) on any of the TAR matches.

There were complexities that made it difficult at times (dancing around Bonus Ball for instance) yet the expenses would continue.

CSI was the financial partner of TAR - and in time it became apparent the TAR model did not work. We could not seem to increase the viewership to the degree that was necessary.

To insinuate that CSI 'pulled' our sponsorship to sink TAR is total BS. CSI supported TAR for 5 years. It was a financial disaster - yet it was so good for pool. I wish we could have continued but the climate became too sour.

I will also say that I realize you have a 'history' with Ozzy - but you need to leave that at home. And if you have any questions (that are public info) you might want to pick up the phone and call me. I am not big into this 'sniping' on the internet.



I am very happy with Ozzy and his performance. It is easy to not realize that we are juggling 50 things at a time - and perhaps he worded things a little awkwardly (which he apologized for) but he had no malice in his heart. There are MANY issues that are not apparent from the outside view.

Show a little faith in what CSI has done in the past - and for better or worse, the race has to stay at 21. Does that mean we didn't hear you? No it means that too many things were already in place and it could get very tricky to change them.

I will also remind everyone - that a race to 21 is pretty long by US standards. And believe it or not, NOT all the players in these types of matches want long races.

BTW - I agree with others that these challenge matches are a 'side dish'. There will be 3 different challenge matches. There will also be a Pro-Am scotch doubles events.

CSI is proud to be able to bring these types of events. It is a big difference from last year when we had 3 events with a total of 256 entries. That did not work either. We don't have all the answers - but we are trying.

One last thing - I want everyone to know that most of these 'things' that CSI does are not money makers. My goal has been to 'not lose money' - now I need to be a little more careful - since the economy has gotten a little tougher, the cost of mistakes are a little higher.

Thank you,
Try not to flame too much - we try to provide quality stuff. We make mistakes because we are doing something. And to the 'keyboard cowboys' - I am not going to get into an endless debate with anyone that is anonymous. If you wanna talk - call me.

Mark Griffin, CEO
CSI

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

 

[Celtic]

I think a long race only shows how even or how completely separate the players are.

If it were Race to 21 with Nico/Shane, we would have still known who the better player is.

They say Ko is every bit the player that Shane is. I'd like to see the longer race (to 50) just to see if:

a) they're so close that it's competitive all the way to 50

b) they're not as close as people like to think

That is exactly how I feel as well. If the match is tight after 50 these guys are clearly close. 50 is long enough to blend out streaks and spurts and show us closer to the true way these guys compare.

It is pure statistics. The more flips of a perfectly balanced coin the closer you will get to 50/50. 10 flips you might see a blowout, 100 flips you might see 60/40, 1,000,000 flips and you will see very close to 50/50 because streaks balance out.

21 wont let a streak balance out and we wont get a true look at the real way these guys match up. Either of ygese guys can make a race to 21 into a 3-4 turns at the table match if they catch a gear early. That is not going to give us a good overview on how they truly compare either way.

 

[tduncan]

One stroke (in particular) and others (in general):

There are things that I know that are privileged information. I will not disclose the numbers of viewership (or other financial data) on any of the TAR matches.

There were complexities that made it difficult at times (dancing around Bonus Ball for instance) yet the expenses would continue.

CSI was the financial partner of TAR - and in time it became apparent the TAR model did not work. We could not seem to increase the viewership to the degree that was necessary.

To insinuate that CSI 'pulled' our sponsorship to sink TAR is total BS. CSI supported TAR for 5 years. It was a financial disaster - yet it was so good for pool. I wish we could have continued but the climate became too sour.

I will also say that I realize you have a 'history' with Ozzy - but you need to leave that at home. And if you have any questions (that are public info) you might want to pick up the phone and call me. I am not big into this 'sniping' on the internet.



I am very happy with Ozzy and his performance. It is easy to not realize that we are juggling 50 things at a time - and perhaps he worded things a little awkwardly (which he apologized for) but he had no malice in his heart. There are MANY issues that are not apparent from the outside view.

Show a little faith in what CSI has done in the past - and for better or worse, the race has to stay at 21. Does that mean we didn't hear you? No it means that too many things were already in place and it could get very tricky to change them.

I will also remind everyone - that a race to 21 is pretty long by US standards. And believe it or not, NOT all the players in these types of matches want long races.

BTW - I agree with others that these challenge matches are a 'side dish'. There will be 3 different challenge matches. There will also be a Pro-Am scotch doubles events.

CSI is proud to be able to bring these types of events. It is a big difference from last year when we had 3 events with a total of 256 entries. That did not work either. We don't have all the answers - but we are trying.

One last thing - I want everyone to know that most of these 'things' that CSI does are not money makers. My goal has been to 'not lose money' - now I need to be a little more careful - since the economy has gotten a little tougher, the cost of mistakes are a little higher.

Thank you,
Try not to flame too much - we try to provide quality stuff. We make mistakes because we are doing something. And to the 'keyboard cowboys' - I am not going to get into an endless debate with anyone that is anonymous. If you wanna talk - call me.

Mark Griffin, CEO
CSI

Thanks for all you do Mark & CSI!

 

[Poolplaya9]

I think a long race only shows how even or how completely separate the players are.

And a long match that was a best of several shorter sets (three races to 17 or five races to 21) shows it just as well or better AND maintains more excitement.

The short race or long race isn't what makes it "exciting." It's the players.

What makes it exciting is a tight match. Doesn't matter who the players are, if it is a blow out then it loses most of the excitement.

Let's look at that first race to 21 with Shane and Alex. That WAS exciting. And you know what people said? "I wish it were longer."

And it was exciting because it was close. And people wanted more because it was close. But how often does that happen in a race to 100? Literally almost never.

If it were a blowout, there'd be no reason to ask for more.

And agree or disagree, this is one of the reasons Ozzy stated for wanting shorter matches. You have a blow out and you are right there is no reason to see any more. You get a closely contested match (which never happens with long races) and you want to see the rematch. Seems like this might make some good business sense to keep them around races to 21 or so because people then want to see rematch #2, rematch #3, etc. Certainly worth a try at least.

 

[BeiberLvr]

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.

To these two points:

I truly believe that putting up the prize money was at least one of the reasons TAR went down. That, and of course, not getting a ton of paid viewers. Now I totally understand why TAR went that route as it allowed them to set up matches more consistently. No more waiting around for two players to agree on the game. We'll set everything up, pay for your trip, and give you money just for showing up and competing. It's a sweet deal for any player, but tough for TAR to sustain without paid viewers.

As for people not paying to watch a race to 100, I do agree as I'm one of those people. Whenever they would do a race to 100 over 3 days, I was more prone to buying just the final day to see who would win. I'm just speculating, but I think a lot of people were like that. Unfortunately, I don't think TAR's pricing model didn't take that into account. It was $15/day, but that only works when the # of viewers is the same throughout. If the final day is the day that attracts the most viewers, then it should have cost a little more. People aren't going to not watch the final day if the price is a little higher, and it allows you [TAR] to cover losses by the lower # of viewers the first two days.

 

[Poolplaya9]

Fact he did try shorter races:

Fact is your reading comprehension is lacking. Did you not see where I said (and have repeatedly said elsewhere in this thread) he never really explored different formats for any length of time? Yes, shorter races and other formats were tried a couple of times. But they weren't tried on an ongoing basis for any length of time like the races to 100 was. The races to 100 were done enough times, over a long enough period of time, to conclusively prove that people have no interest in buying them. The same cannot yet be said about other formats and so we must find out.

 

[BeiberLvr]

Let's look at that first race to 21 with Shane and Alex. That WAS exciting. And you know what people said? "I wish it were longer." Not because people cared about "He would have beat him in a longer race," but because it was so exciting that watching more would have been uber cool. If it were a blowout, there'd be no reason to ask for more.

What you're overlooking is that there's a greater chance of a blowout in a longer race.

 

[one stroke]

One stroke (in particular) and others (in general):

There are things that I know that are privileged information. I will not disclose the numbers of viewership (or other financial data) on any of the TAR matches.

There were complexities that made it difficult at times (dancing around Bonus Ball for instance) yet the expenses would continue.

CSI was the financial partner of TAR - and in time it became apparent the TAR model did not work. We could not seem to increase the viewership to the degree that was necessary.

To insinuate that CSI 'pulled' our sponsorship to sink TAR is total BS. CSI supported TAR for 5 years. It was a financial disaster - yet it was so good for pool. I wish we could have continued but the climate became too sour.

I will also say that I realize you have a 'history' with Ozzy - but you need to leave that at home. And if you have any questions (that are public info) you might want to pick up the phone and call me. I am not big into this 'sniping' on the internet.



I am very happy with Ozzy and his performance. It is easy to not realize that we are juggling 50 things at a time - and perhaps he worded things a little awkwardly (which he apologized for) but he had no malice in his heart. There are MANY issues that are not apparent from the outside view.

Show a little faith in what CSI has done in the past - and for better or worse, the race has to stay at 21. Does that mean we didn't hear you? No it means that too many things were already in place and it could get very tricky to change them.

I will also remind everyone - that a race to 21 is pretty long by US standards. And believe it or not, NOT all the players in these types of matches want long races.

BTW - I agree with others that these challenge matches are a 'side dish'. There will be 3 different challenge matches. There will also be a Pro-Am scotch doubles events.

CSI is proud to be able to bring these types of events. It is a big difference from last year when we had 3 events with a total of 256 entries. That did not work either. We don't have all the answers - but we are trying.

One last thing - I want everyone to know that most of these 'things' that CSI does are not money makers. My goal has been to 'not lose money' - now I need to be a little more careful - since the economy has gotten a little tougher, the cost of mistakes are a little higher.

Thank you,
Try not to flame too much - we try to provide quality stuff. We make mistakes because we are doing something. And to the 'keyboard cowboys' - I am not going to get into an endless debate with anyone that is anonymous. If you wanna talk - call me.

Mark Griffin, CEO
CSI

First off I only said there was more to it ,, now obviously my thinking was not that far out of line
As for the so called history with "Ozzy " I would hardly call a couple of disagreements with him a history ,, however his comments here also backs my opinion up ,, you can't un ring the bell
Keep in mind this is a forums of opinions whether you like them or not that's what it is

1

 

[leto1776]

Fact he did try shorter races:

TAR #23 Oscar vs. Raj ----> Oscar won !6 * 25 * 22
TAR #24 Shane vs. Fransisco ----> Bustamante Won 24 * 25 * 17
TAR #25 Hatch vs. Dechaine -----> Dechaine Won 24 * 25 * 18

Wow, three times out of over 30 events. What a great sample size to draw conclusive evidence from :roll eyes:

 

[Poolplaya9]

As for people not paying to watch a race to 100, I do agree as I'm one of those people. Whenever they would do a race to 100 over 3 days, I was more prone to buying just the final day to see who would win. I'm just speculating, but I think a lot of people were like that.

I agree with you, I think a lot of people were like that, they weren't going to watch 3 days, only 1 day, and figure the best day to watch is the last day. Except you and the rest of them never ended up buying that third day either. When one guy was up substantially on the other guy (which was 95% of the time) you didn't bother to buy that last day after all because it was an anticlimactic foregone conclusion as to what would happen and there was no excitement left.

 

[one stroke]

I think a long race only shows how even or how completely separate the players are.

If it were Race to 21 with Nico/Shane, we would have still known who the better player is.

They say Ko is every bit the player that Shane is. I'd like to see the longer race (to 50) just to see if:

a) they're so close that it's competitive all the way to 50

b) they're not as close as people like to think


Why 50? Completely arbitrary number, but when we're talking about two players who are presumably at the very elite level, then 21 is, IMO, too short for the fans. I don't really care who's better; I want to see the outcome of a race to 50.

The short race or long race isn't what makes it "exciting." It's the players. The players' reported skill level seems to demand a longer race, if they're going to do a head-to-head.

Let's look at that first race to 21 with Shane and Alex. That WAS exciting. And you know what people said? "I wish it were longer." Not because people cared about "He would have beat him in a longer race," but because it was so exciting that watching more would have been uber cool. If it were a blowout, there'd be no reason to ask for more.

Freddie <~~~ wants more

I agree the race is too short ,, however hypothetically thinking it might just be the trailer to the movie ,, the appetizer to the main corse ,, the loser no doubt going to want a rematch along with the viewers

1 stroke > just trying to rationalize the insanity

1