Most of the matches in our area are either played at someone's house or in private social clubs where the table is usually free. For the cases where the table isn't free, the two players have to agree on what to do. They can split the table time/drop or have loser pays, winner pays or whatever. If they can't agree on anything the person that chose the table would either have to choose a different location or pay the table time him/herself.
Challenge Ladder Pool Leagues
- Thread starter rookiepsu
- Start date
Most of the matches in our area are either played at someone's house or in private social clubs where the table is usually free. For the cases where the table isn't free, the two players have to agree on what to do. They can split the table time/drop or have loser pays, winner pays or whatever. If they can't agree on anything the person that chose the table would either have to choose a different location or pay the table time him/herself.
This is much like some online gaming challenge ladders that I use to participate in 15-20 years ago. I like the idea.
I would want to see a few changes to the system though.
1.) Allow you to formally challenge anyone on the ladder above you (excluding top 5, see #4), not just the person right above you. This gives players more opportunity to play more matches, win more money and the players will naturally fall into a good pecking order much quicker.
2.) Eliminate the “committee” and all players come in “ranked” as the next slot open. So if I am the 101 person to sign up, then I come in at 101. Good players will advance quickly and lower skill players will fall quickly, provided #1 and #3 are done.
3.) Open match entry. If I go somewhere and run into someone (or some people) and we agree to play we should be able to play and submit the results manually and immediately. With the loser submitting and the winner confirming the results. You can have a spot for players to enter a witness/submit video to settle any disputes about the match. This will allow you to play as many ladder matches against as many people as you want a night, provided that the previous one was entered and confirmed before you go onto the next. Again this gives players more opportunity to play more matches and win more money.
4.) Restrict who can formally challenge the top 5 players to only the person below them to prevent the top players from constantly being unavailable to challenges of other top players. These guys would still be able to play and accept matches in the open match entry method mentioned in #3 and rankings will be affected just as any other challenge if they lose to someone below them.
5.) Inactivity of players causes them to lose a rank after X days/weeks or whatever.
6.) Players may not play each other nor submit results of playing each other more than once within 24 hours. This applies to both official challenges and open match entries.
7.) If you get enough players break it out between 8, 9 and 10 ball. You can do this for any and all formats as long as you get enough players to play in them.
I would want to see a few changes to the system though.
1.) Allow you to formally challenge anyone on the ladder above you (excluding top 5, see #4), not just the person right above you. This gives players more opportunity to play more matches, win more money and the players will naturally fall into a good pecking order much quicker.
2.) Eliminate the “committee” and all players come in “ranked” as the next slot open. So if I am the 101 person to sign up, then I come in at 101. Good players will advance quickly and lower skill players will fall quickly, provided #1 and #3 are done.
3.) Open match entry. If I go somewhere and run into someone (or some people) and we agree to play we should be able to play and submit the results manually and immediately. With the loser submitting and the winner confirming the results. You can have a spot for players to enter a witness/submit video to settle any disputes about the match. This will allow you to play as many ladder matches against as many people as you want a night, provided that the previous one was entered and confirmed before you go onto the next. Again this gives players more opportunity to play more matches and win more money.
4.) Restrict who can formally challenge the top 5 players to only the person below them to prevent the top players from constantly being unavailable to challenges of other top players. These guys would still be able to play and accept matches in the open match entry method mentioned in #3 and rankings will be affected just as any other challenge if they lose to someone below them.
5.) Inactivity of players causes them to lose a rank after X days/weeks or whatever.
6.) Players may not play each other nor submit results of playing each other more than once within 24 hours. This applies to both official challenges and open match entries.
7.) If you get enough players break it out between 8, 9 and 10 ball. You can do this for any and all formats as long as you get enough players to play in them.
That would all be up to the operator(s) of the individual area. I would highly recommend against having everyone come in at the bottom of the list, however, because they will be stealing money all the way to their true position, which would be no fun for those at the bottom. But the idea behind all of this is very flexible and can be adapted to whatever each area wants to do.
As your rules stated, nobody has to play and can forfeit the spot without money changing hands during a formal challenge. Those that want to take on the challenge may do so at their own financial risk.
Your "committee" is not going to know everyone and is probably only going to know the strong players to begin with thus you have accomplished nothing but seeded the top players whom are going to settle into their spots quickly and probably not play very much once there.
I just view a committee as a unnecessary administrative procedure that is not going to ultimately contribute to the order of the ladder beyond the initial seating of the top area players. Thus it is a waste of administrative time and resources. If the committee actually did their job well, then very rarely would players move up/down and thus the challenges would fade away rather quickly as the players are where they should be and are most likely to remain.
Your "committee" is not going to know everyone and is probably only going to know the strong players to begin with thus you have accomplished nothing but seeded the top players whom are going to settle into their spots quickly and probably not play very much once there.
I just view a committee as a unnecessary administrative procedure that is not going to ultimately contribute to the order of the ladder beyond the initial seating of the top area players. Thus it is a waste of administrative time and resources. If the committee actually did their job well, then very rarely would players move up/down and thus the challenges would fade away rather quickly as the players are where they should be and are most likely to remain.
I hope that's true, because I'd much rather focus on playing pool and building out the website further, than spend time doing committee things. Unfortunately, there is a good bit that comes up that some sort of administrative figure needs to be involved in, beyond just initially ranking a player. We use the committee to settle disputes, decide if one party was responsible for a challenge match not taking place on time and issuing forfeits, enforcing rules and making administrative changes to the website. I would say that our committee only knowing the top players in the area is inaccurate. Most of the players on our ladder play or have played in other leagues in the area, so we are able to assess their skills fairly well between the 5 of us. Again, this was our personal choice to have a 5-member committee but there is nothing forcing anyone else from doing the same.
Also, in a single race-to-8 there is a lot of volatility and short-term luck at play that could cause a lesser player to beat the person directly above them on a ladder of any size, especially a 55+ person ladder like we're running. And people get better and worse at pool all the time. If I were to come in at, say, 20 on the ladder and think that the person above me is slightly better than me. I'm going to try to get better to beat the person above me. I'm not going to resign myself to being #20 for the rest of my existence 
Understood. Ultimately you do it the way you feel is best but I can tell you the more time you have to spend administering the league the less likely it is going to last and the more it is going to cost everyone involved.
I faced the same challenge with gaming ladders. I would say you should have some kind of either public or private rating system that you can use for players that simply don't play and players that report people not playing to track abuse of both. Have a reporting option of the opponent not showing. The opponent then is notified and has 1 day to respond or is marked for the lose. Time will show those that don't show and those that do and you can punish them however you see fit.
Then you can treat the matches as not played, nobody moves but both of those people have a "mark". Or if one of them has proof of what they agreed to and that they were there then treat it as a win for them and other gets the "mark".
2 things that were very useful were:
1.) All communications were done through the website. So when a challenge was made, it was emailed through the system. When they accepted, it was per a reply to the email that went to the system and the challenger. With this you can see what is going on between players and see who is trying to play and who is not.
2.) Loser was responsible for reporting the match results to the website. Rarely is someone going to report a loss when they did not lose. If someone did not report their loss, then a dispute can be made that would involve the "committee".
I faced the same challenge with gaming ladders. I would say you should have some kind of either public or private rating system that you can use for players that simply don't play and players that report people not playing to track abuse of both. Have a reporting option of the opponent not showing. The opponent then is notified and has 1 day to respond or is marked for the lose. Time will show those that don't show and those that do and you can punish them however you see fit.
Then you can treat the matches as not played, nobody moves but both of those people have a "mark". Or if one of them has proof of what they agreed to and that they were there then treat it as a win for them and other gets the "mark".
2 things that were very useful were:
1.) All communications were done through the website. So when a challenge was made, it was emailed through the system. When they accepted, it was per a reply to the email that went to the system and the challenger. With this you can see what is going on between players and see who is trying to play and who is not.
2.) Loser was responsible for reporting the match results to the website. Rarely is someone going to report a loss when they did not lose. If someone did not report their loss, then a dispute can be made that would involve the "committee".
Thanks for the input, it is appreciated. The way we're working things right now is a challenge is made through the website, and an email is sent to both players involved. From there, they move to our facebook group and the challenger posts a thread of the challenge to playerB. They then hash out the details and agree on a time/place and that's ultimately posted to the facebook group as well. Long-term, all of this communication will happen in the website. Right now, it's working well enough to focus my time on other areas.
There is no "I don't accept the challenge". If you don't accept, they take your spot. And if the match doesn't take place within the 10-day window, we look over the facebook thread to see what happened. Most often, it's just a conflict of schedules and we'll extend the challenge window. Sometimes a player simply doesn't respond to multiple attempts of contact. In those cases, it's a forfeit and the other player wins. But there are no matches entered without a match taking place. All match locations and times are public, and more often than not there are people there watching. If someone doesn't show up for a match, and they don't give advance notice to reschedule, they forfeit and have to pay the league minimum to the other player ($20) for gas/time, or they're off the list. That hasn't happened yet, but I'm sure it will come up at some point.
There is no "I don't accept the challenge". If you don't accept, they take your spot. And if the match doesn't take place within the 10-day window, we look over the facebook thread to see what happened. Most often, it's just a conflict of schedules and we'll extend the challenge window. Sometimes a player simply doesn't respond to multiple attempts of contact. In those cases, it's a forfeit and the other player wins. But there are no matches entered without a match taking place. All match locations and times are public, and more often than not there are people there watching. If someone doesn't show up for a match, and they don't give advance notice to reschedule, they forfeit and have to pay the league minimum to the other player ($20) for gas/time, or they're off the list. That hasn't happened yet, but I'm sure it will come up at some point.
Legal question. Someone contacted me telling me that they feel that the site I'm running locally is illegal, and asked me to "please not try to go national with this." My understanding of the local laws (PA) surrounding this are: In PA (at least), billiards is specifically designated as a game of skill, where one can master the skill/become proficient at it, and therefore "betting" on it between 2 (or many) players is legal. Further, the "Side Action" portion that we have running, I feel, are similarly based on "skill" rather than chance. Much the same reason that Daily Fantasy betting is legal in most states (because you're using statistics and choosing individual players based on that, and therefore it is skill rather than chance), I would say that the side action on this would also be legal. Me/the site...no one...is taking any rake or cut from any bet, be it between the 2 players or on any side bet. I would say that both aspects of this would be legal in nearly every US state. But I'm far from a legal expert. Thoughts? Anyone out there that could provide any input on this or direct me somewhere where I could find out for sure would be appreciated.