ABP may be fixing games and tournaments

akaTrigger said:
Really? It was obvious who he was talking to. His post made sense what you were talking about, so of course it was the OP.
Click to expand...

The post came after mine, and I thought since he did not quote a post, I thought I would ask who he meant. Thanks for pointing it out to me that it was so crystal clear to you, akaTrigger. We call can't be as smart as you. :smile:
 
JAM said:
The post came after mine, and I thought since he did not quote a post, I thought I would ask who he meant. Thanks for pointing it out to me that it was so crystal clear to you, akaTrigger. We call can't be as smart as you. :smile:
Click to expand...

I never implied I was smart. I just think you were assuming too much that he was talking about you.
 
IMO if you want to eliminate Savers or Splits (aka choppers) all you have to do is write post dated checks. Ironic huh?

What the players do after they are paid is their business.
 
akaTrigger said:
I never implied I was smart. I just think you were assuming too much that he was talking about you.
Click to expand...

Well, I was trying to be polite in my reply to you.

I don't feel I was assuming too much.

Is there a reason why you feel it important to point it out on this thread to me?
 
Sounds like someone is ready to start fight, cry that everyone gangs up on them then stops posting for 3 months (under that account) until they think everyone forgot about it.
 
cleary said:
Sounds like someone is ready to start fight, cry that everyone gangs up on them then stops posting for 3 months (under that account) until they think everyone forgot about it.
Click to expand...

WOAH WOAH WOAH, Who was that direct at?!?!?! I'm offended!
 
JAM said:
Well, I was trying to be polite in my reply to you.

I don't feel I was assuming too much.

Is there a reason why you feel it important to point it out on this thread to me?
Click to expand...

You think your reply to me was polite?

I suppose I deserved it for being shocked you thought his response was toward you and so I stated my opinion/response.
 
akaTrigger said:
You think your reply to me was polite?

I suppose I deserved it for being shocked you thought his response was toward you and so I stated my opinion/response.
Click to expand...

Well, thank you for letting me know that you think I was wrong to ask the question, and that it shocked you.

Yes, I was trying to be polite, but sometimes words written in black and white and be misinterpreted.
 
DogsPlayingPool said:
... My idea of having the two best players in the final is more about the two guys who are playing best that week. The two guys playing best that week are probably more logically identified with no seeding.
Click to expand...

From a competition standpoint, the fundamental purpose of a tournament is to identify and reward the entrants who are playing best during that tournament. So I agree with you about that as an objective.

But I differ with your conclusion that this objective is better met without seeding than with it. Without seeding, guys playing far better than others in the event are subject to being eliminated sooner, simply because of the draw. This effect is most egregious in single-elimination events, where the person playing second-best of all the entrants can be gone after one round, simply because he drew the person playing best. I do recognize that a double-elimination event reduces the need for seeding.
 
Last edited:
I have a question for Shawn. What do you think about the players who make savers with each other and do not tell their backers? It's pretty easy to agree to a chop in the finals of a major tournament, lose that set, and then NOT tell your backer that you actually made more than 2nd place prize money. Thoughts?
 
Jam and akaTrigger are on a level of communication nearing impossible for many posters on this forum.
 
Excellent points, Dogs Playing Pool...

I am going to give a green rep to Dogs Playing Pool for a well thought out reply to my post. I agree with most of what he said, and he said it well in a non-confrontational way. This is how we are supposed to discuss things on a forum. If we were all completely right then there would only be single post threads.
 
hunger strike said:
I am going to give a green rep to Dogs Playing Pool for a well thought out reply to my post. I agree with most of what he said, and he said it well in a non-confrontational way. This is how we are supposed to discuss things on a forum. If we were all completely right then there would only be single post threads.
Click to expand...

Back at you, slick. ;) I've not really taken a stance on this yet but have made posts in a couple of threads both for and against to get replies to help me figure it out.

I'm starting to like the idea I mentioned a few posts ago about putting all the pros together in the top half of the bracket and let them seed it to their hearts content; and blind draw all the amateurs into the bottom half. But I'm sure someone will post a reply to this that will have me rethinking it. :D

AtLarge said:
From a competition standpoint, the fundamental purpose of a tournament is to identify and reward the entrants who are playing best during that tournament. So I agree with you about that as an objective.

But I differ with your conclusion that this objective is better met without seeding than with it. Without seeding, guys playing far better than others in the event are subject to being eliminated sooner, simply because of the draw. This effect is most egregious in single-elimination events, where the person playing second-best of all the entrants can be gone after one round, simply because he drew the person playing best. I do recognize that a double-elimination event reduces the need for seeding.
Click to expand...

I see your point but most events are double elimination. But to the extent it would still be a problem, what about my idea of grouping all the pros in the top half of the bracket and letting them seed their section of the bracket?
 
hunger strike said:
I don't want to just argue with you to be starting something. I really want you to think about this. You say the cream rises to the top. If a lower eschelon player got some rolls and beat a better player, wouldn't that be just as likely to happen earlier or later in tourney rounds? Without seeding, the only positive for the weaker player who, all things being equal, would have ultimately lost anyway, would be to get a few legit wins early on so that they could say they placed at say 5th rather than 11th. But creating a more level playing field is for amateurs and leagues. So is handicapping. Pro tournaments are to see who is best and also who is not. Seeding is common in sports that are more commercially successful than pool. This makes it more likely to have later, televised matches feature more watchable cream-of-the-crop players. We want that as fans. Luke 13:30 says the first shall be last and the last shall be first. That would be a perfect name for a handicapped league team. But pros are not handicapped. The best need to be featured, period. So if pros decide they want seeding, let them have what they want. If someone thinks they got shafted by seeding, he can always do what a famous gambler once did. He can play the tournament winner for the prize money after the cameras go away; and when someone wants him to list his titles, he can draw an arrow and say..... "I beat HIM."
Click to expand...

I agree, I don't want to argue 'just to argue'.

But if I choose to drop $500 to play in the US Open, then I have the same costs involved as the 'pros' when it comes to travel, lodging, food, etc.
So why should a pro get a potential advantage by being able to play "lesser skilled players" early on ?

If pool were more mainstream, then I might reconsider my earlier post. But at this point, not many outside of the game know anyone other than Jeanette Lee is. And the ones that do, recognize her by her ethnicity.

I think Dogs hit the nail on the head :
DogsPlayingPool said:
If the pros had an all professional tour and wanted to seed the events, go at it, no problem. They can do whatever they think is in the best interests of their tour. There have been so many replies against seeding by these very amateurs and lower level players that it seems clear that many would not enter events if the pros were seeded, and this would only lower the available prize funds. So what is good for tennis, a sport with outside money and no need for the dead money entries, is not necessarily right for professional pool as long as they are relying on amateur entries to support the prize fund..
Click to expand...

There's not seeding at this event now. Why change it if it ain't broke ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top