Derby City Format Question

S

sliprock

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Quote from article here at azbilliards...

"Archer drew Mika Immonen who is not at the event, and then drew him again in the next round after the re-draw. Varner drew Niels Feijen who is also not at the event twice. "

I understand how Archer and Varner were fortunate enough to draw a no-show in a particular round. What confuses me is that the format shouldn't allow anyone to draw the same no-show in another round. The format at the DCC is single elimination, with the option to buy back in once. If a particular person is a no-show, then his or her first scheduled match should be considered a loss. I guess I'm confused as to how these guys made it into the other draw when they weren't even at the event to re-buy. I wonder what gives.

I know that if I were Shannon Daulton, I'd be raising Hell. He draws Efren and Jose back to back, while Archer and Varner are getting byes form people that shouldn't even be in the draw.
 
Scott Smith is prone to manipulate the draw in favor of certain players and also table assignments too, as this similar scenario has taken place many times before, just on a different scale. As soon as they find a table that Archer is breaking well on, they’ll keep him on that table too, under the guise of a feature table match. This goes with certain other players too. There's definitely is a clique of players that get special treatment at tournaments. Its the best invisible hustle there is. There is no overseeing men's organization to keep things fair for all players so unfortunately there is no cure. . .and they feed like bloated ticks off all the calcutta and tournament money.
 
canwin said:
Scott Smith is prone to manipulate the draw in favor of certain players and also table assignments too, as this similar scenario has taken place many times before, just on a different scale. As soon as they find a table that Archer is breaking well on, they’ll keep him on that table too, under the guise of a feature table match. This goes with certain other players too. There's definitely is a clique of players that get special treatment at tournaments. Its the best invisible hustle there is. There is no overseeing men's organization to keep things fair for all players so unfortunately there is no cure. . .and they feed like bloated ticks off all the calcutta and tournament money.
Click to expand...

Ouch! Helluva first post!

Hope it isn't true-

-pigo
 
Canwin sounds pretty bitter. His credibility has to be seriously suspect given that he's hiding behind a code name and has no history.

On the other hand Scott may or may not be 100%, I don't know, but I do know that he gets hired to direct tournaments a LOT and that says something to me about his credibility.

I think Mike or whoever wrote that story got it wrong somehow as Mika was certainly there...I watched him get beat in the 9 ball by Daulton 7-5.
 
Scott is not doing the draws in Derby City. They have a computer there with custom software written specifically for this event.

They had problems last year and went back to hand drawing the brackets, but my impression is that they are doing it all my computer this year.

There have been many complaints about the draw. Players redrawing each other, players drawing each other in the different divisions, etc.

Mike
 
JimS, Its not just Scott. I've witnessed the same thing at the Glass City, US Open, etc. Its just a fact. If you don’t think it happens, I can’t help you. See for yourself. Its my opinion based on my observation and experience. You can either agree or disagree but lets not get bogged down by silly things like hiding behind a code name and first time poster, (that’s a bit dramatic) and has nothing to do with what I’m saying. Lets stick with the discussion if there is to be one. Would I be more credible if I posted as SteveO, MikeB, or SamR? canwin
 
How does the draw work? I have a tourny that icall"last man standing" put allnames in box draw two names they play short race, winner goes back in box loser goes by, by. but you run only one match at a time. STICK p.s. you could just shoot one match an win the cheese, luck nof the draw.
 
Quote JimS

I've only been to one pro event, The Buddy Hall Classic in his hometown of Metropolis Il a couple years back. Sounds knowledgeable to me. . ...
 
AzHousePro said:
Scott is not doing the draws in Derby City. They have a computer there with custom software written specifically for this event.

They had problems last year and went back to hand drawing the brackets, but my impression is that they are doing it all my computer this year.
Click to expand...

Mike,

You are correct. It was done by computer. And very quickly. I don't think Scott would have had time to manipulate the draw. After all the buy-backs are in, the draw if almost instantaneous. I don't know how the table assignments were doled out but I didn't see any players play consecutive matches on any one table.

I have no info concerning any other tournament but there was no hanky-panky at this one from what I could see.
 
Wally, No offense, but those who look don’t always see. . Not that it had any bearing on the tournament, but J. Lee played many, if not all her matches on 1 table in a portion of the tournament and one right after the other too. I’ve never seen so many consecutive matches in a row. They played her there until she lost. There wasn’t a calcutta in this tournament was there? If there was, you’d might likely see what I’m talking about. Its very subtle yet unmistakable in the right situation.
I watched the last matches of the Glass City Open. Harriman was about to play Archer in the final. I asked someone if Archer had played on this table Scott had assigned for the final before. The answer was, Oh yeah, he just got done running a bunch of racks and his opponent didn’t get to one in the previous match. I knew the answer to the question before I even asked it. I also learned that Archer went off at the most in the calcutta. Needless to say and no big surprise that Harriman was lucky to get to 3 and the people who control the calcuttas got their money.
I had a friend who played at the Behrmans tournament in the mid-eighties. The tournament was down to the last 2 tables. My friend beats the guy that was Barry’s house pro at the time 11-1 after having him 10-0 and even though he was scheduled to play again(twice) on that same table, they never let him back on that table again. There’s a lot more going on than most of the spectators realize and it all comes down to who controls the tournament at a certain point. That’s one of the reasons you see the same faces in the end, winning the tournament and never the unknowns. There’s a lot more going on than just the draw. . ..
You may trivialize it as hanky-panky, but some people would consider it the lowest of the low, especially if you put up your money to make it to and play in a tournament. Canwin
 
canwin said:
Wally, No offense, but those who look don’t always see. .
Click to expand...

canwin,

No offense taken. I got there Friday at noon and was just reporting what I saw for the remainder of the tournament.

I understand what you're saying about the table assignments. If one of the top dogs gets his break down on a particular table he can dominate an opponent who might be just as good a shooter but doesn't know the sweet spot for the break.
 
Wally, I like the 10 ball with the ring game rules. That would help the situation and restore some kind of integrity and balance. canwin
 
Wally in Cincy said:
.. If one of the top dogs gets his break down on a particular table he can dominate an opponent who might be just as good a shooter but doesn't know the sweet spot for the break.
Click to expand...

Upon further thought this is exactly what Efren did to Jimmy Wetch Saturday.

...and Wetch should have kicked that 1-ball in :D
 
Didn't see that one but
when you ‘have’ to kick balls in , you know your in trouble.. . .
 
canwin said:
Didn't see that one but
when you ‘have’ to kick balls in , you know your in trouble.. . .
Click to expand...

It was on the tv table. Efren won the lag by 1/4" LOL

Efren broke and ran 5 racks. Maybe there was a 9-ball billiard thrown in there somewhere.

Efren came up dry on the 6th break. Wetch had a makeable kick on the 1-ball but chose to play safe. Efren could see a sliver of the 1 and played a lock-up safe on Wetch, sending the cueball 3 rails to jail.

Wetch fouled. Efren ran out that one and the next one. Shot 1.000 according to accu-stats.

I felt bad for Wetch. He had a bye the previous round and had been practicing for 2 or 3 hours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top