CSI 10 ball

Poolplaya9 said:
There is nothing wrong with this system whatsoever. Your personal preference is to see a system where there cannot be a tie in win loss records where you then have to go to the next category tie breaker. But that is just your personal preference. There is nothing wrong or unfair in the least about how CSI is determining who wins the grouping. It is all very logical and just and makes absolute sense. It just isn't the format of your personal preference.
Click to expand...

In "your" personal preference...
 
Poolplaya9 said:
There is nothing wrong with this system whatsoever. Your personal preference is to see a system where there cannot be a tie in win loss records where you then have to go to the next category tie breaker. But that is just your personal preference. There is nothing wrong or unfair in the least about how CSI is determining who wins the grouping. It is all very logical and just and makes absolute sense. It just isn't the format of your personal preference.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion ,, I certainly don't see it that way ,, one group could be much harder than another ,, and your only taking one player ,, Ko could have been on his way back after beating 2 of the worlds best while losing once ,, it's been said time and time again a double elimination longer race tournament offers the best chance of having the best player standing in the end ,,
This falls way short of that ,, it a good exhibition though


1
 
one stroke said:
That's your opinion ,, I certainly don't see it that way ,, one group could be much harder than another ,, and your only taking one player ,, Ko could have been on his way back after beating 2 of the worlds best while losing once ,, it's been said time and time again a double elimination longer race tournament offers the best chance of having the best player standing in the end ,,
This falls way short of that ,, it a good exhibition though


1
Click to expand...

I agree with double elimination but they cant even get a double elimination tournament right. They have to tweak it to where a guy who played great can be eliminated after one loss.
 
Celtic said:
In "your" personal preference...
Click to expand...

Huh? I assume you meant to say "it's your personal preference". We all have personal preferences, including me (and no, this format isn't my personal preference). But you are trying to call something unfair just because you don't like it when there is nothing unfair about it. You are obviously entitled to your own preferences of what you like, but you aren't entitled to insinuate that something is unfair when it absolutely is.

-The guy that has the best match win/loss record wins the grouping.
-In the event of a tie, the guy that won the match between the two tied players is the winner of the group.
-If more than two people had tied, then whoever had the highest overall games won percentage wins the grouping.

If you really don't think those tie breakers are absolutely logical and fair then please explain why they are not logical. I see total logic in it, even though if it isn't my preference.
 
(((Satori))) said:
I agree with double elimination but they cant even get a double elimination tournament right. They have to tweak it to where a guy who played great can be eliminated after one loss.
Click to expand...

The intent obviously is to be a great exhibition and that's their intention





1
 
Darn.

I love Efren as much as anyone, but i was looking forward to seeing the match that really matters AKA Morra vs Ko
 
one stroke said:
That's your opinion ,, I certainly don't see it that way ,, one group could be much harder than another ,, and your only taking one player ,, Ko could have been on his way back after beating 2 of the worlds best while losing once ,, it's been said time and time again a double elimination longer race tournament offers the best chance of having the best player standing in the end ,,
This falls way short of that ,, it a good exhibition though
Click to expand...

How does any of this have anything whatsoever to do with how CSI is determining who the winner of a group in the first round is, because that is what Celtic posted about and that is what I responded about.

As I noted in my last response to you, it doesn't have anything to do with that whatsoever. It is a completely different topic. You are talking about the tournament format as a whole, as in do you like round robin's where there are multiple groups and do you think that type of overall format is fair. So what is your opinion about how CSI is determining how the winner of each group in round one is chosen, because that is what we were discussing and you haven't given your opinion about that yet.

To address your totally different topic of whether or not round robins are ok if they have multiple groupings, well as I also mentioned in my last post to you they are good but certainly not perfect. One group can be stronger than another as you point out, and there is certainly some unfairness about that and luck or chance is involved. But in double elimination tournaments every single person has a different opponent, and some opponents are stronger than others and that is all based on chance/luck also, so how is that any different? At least here there are groups of people for whom things are exactly equal in the first round. In a double elimination event nothing is ever the same or equal for even two people, much less for a group as it is in the first round here.
 
Celtic said:
Where did I say it was "unfair"? I think it is a terrible format, I never used the word "unfair" at all, that is all you.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what you said, although you didn't use the word. If you are not saying it is unfair, then what exactly is the problem with it (aside from it not being your viewing preference)?
 
Celtic said:
And everyone else in that bracket has some way to win. At this point that group is a joke, each guy has to win their match and then is a coin flip to get through based on the other matches result.

Not a single person in the Efren and Co. group are actually masters of their own destiny, not one of them can actually go out and "win" their way out of the bracket, they ALL have to hope on luck on the other match
Click to expand...
Isn't your problem with "coin flip to get through" and "not being a master of their own destiny" the fact that you don't think those things are fair (even though neither of those statements are true in reality...)?
 
Celtic said:
I don't think the word "exactly" means what you think it means...
Click to expand...

You didn't answer the question. If you don't think it is unfair, then what exactly is the problem that you have with it? You slam it like it has some serious flaws aside from just your personal viewing preference.
 
4-0 Souquet up.

4-1 John Morra.

If this keeps up, then John Morra gets the tie breaker over little Ko.
 
Poolplaya9 said:
You didn't answer the question. If you don't think it is unfair, then what exactly is the problem that you have with it? You slam it like it has some serious flaws aside from just your personal viewing preference.
Click to expand...

As I said, if SVB can "win" his bracket over Ko when both have a 2-1 match result AND Ko beat SVB then it is messed up.

You have "who beat who" as the first tie breaker.

BUT

If a third person causes a three way tie then the first tiebreaker suddenly becomes void and you go to the most games won.

When you look strictly at Ko vs SVB then SVB lost in his bracket against Ko. Kiamco did nothing but play spoiler in the match had he beaten Thorsten, the whole Thorsten vs Kiamco match was a joke and neither of those players were playing for much BUT that match was ultimately as much of a decider on who went through in that bracket as the SVB vs Ko match was.

If you think that is completely fine then we simply disagree on this, I think it was a moronic way to decide things.

Do I think it was "unfair" though? Ko could have avoided the whole thing by simply winning the match vs Kiamco and going 3-0 and not having any of the stupidity of the tie breakers come into play so no, I would not go that far. It would still be idiotic though to see a guy go through over another guy who he technically "lost" the first tie breaker against but he got in on a back door due to another guy forcing a 3-way tie.

In the Orcullo vs Chang tie breaker it worked out, because while Dennis and Chang had the same end score at 2-1 Dennis flat out beat CHang in their heads up match and the 1st tie breaker prevailed.

In the SVB/Ko bracket Ko would have done the EXACT same thing that Dennis did in his bracket but because of the way other matches went he would have lost to the guy he beat in the round robin.

It is "NOT" consistent. It should be.
 
gxman said:
If this keeps up, then John Morra gets the tie breaker over little Ko.
Click to expand...

Someone needs to tell Efren to look over to the other table.

If Morra wins that match then Efren would go through as long as he beats Ralf.

As it looks right now, Efren is playing THE match that puts him into the final 4.

<edit> actually it would go to 3 way tie, and games won in losses between the 3 I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top