Double Dip or Single Set

How many would people would favor rewarding the person who wins the hotseat?

  • Yes I approve of this system

    Votes: 54 68.4%

  • No I don't approve of this system.

    Votes: 25 31.6%
  • Total voters
    79
SUPERSTAR

SUPERSTAR

I am Keyser Söze
Silver Member
Double Dip or Single Set or a HYBRID of both.

Ok.
For the longest time, i have heard the controversy over should a tournament be a true double elimination, or should the final match be a single set for the title.

I have always been a double dip kind of guy as i feel that it is the fairest to the players involved. The reasoning being that why should everyone else be entitled to a loss, but if the person that goes undefeated and wins the hot seat only to have to play one set for it all, why should they be denied that same opportunity.

PERFECT example is the tournament that just finished at the SBE, where hot seat winner Corey Deuel suffered his first loss, yet came in second in the tournament to John Schmidt, who he had already beaten.

So obviously, i was thinking that Corey kind of got the short end of the stick, but that it doesn't have to be that way for the hot seat guy should he lose a single race scenario.

What if we were to reward the person that wins the hotseat with a separate check?
THAT way, we could still have a tournament winner, but at the same time, the guy who wins the hotseat, would still take home a little extra something for being undefeated entering the final.

So in this instance, since the prize money was 20K and 7k respectively, what if it were something like

Hotseat winner gets 4k
First place and tournament winner gets 14k
Second place winner gets 9k

That way, in the instance that the person winning the hotseat should go on to win the final race and wins the tournament undefeated, they are getting a bonus for doing it, and if they should go and lose the tournament, they aren't getting totally shafted.

I mean, obviously my numbers are just off the top of my head, but to me, it just seems fair that the person who wins the hotseat, get the opportunity to maximize their potential profit.

Cause if you look at it, Schmidt won a total of 17 games against Corey in 2 sets vs Corey's 22, yet he almost tripled him in the prize money when after everything is said and done, they both only have one loss.

So for my poll question, knowing that there are die hard Double Dip guys, vs die hard Single Set guys, how many people, if you were in a tournament, would be in favor of something like i have proposed that rewards the hot seat guy for getting himself there?
 
Last edited:
They tried to do that at my tourney today. I refused, as they hadn't announced it before we started, even though I was the one who had a loss.

I failed to double-dip him :( but I'd feel like he got cheated if we'd played one set.

-s
 
steev said:
They tried to do that at my tourney today. I refused, as they hadn't announced it before we started, even though I was the one who had a loss.

I failed to double-dip him :( but I'd feel like he got cheated if we'd played one set.

-s
Click to expand...

i think they call that "character"
 
Your idea has some merit

A small bonus for the hotseat has some merit. However I prefer true double elimination and then don't see the need for a bonus for the hotseat.

To play devil's advocate for a minute though, someone coming from the one loss side often plays many more matches than the winner so while the person on the loser's side has one more loss than the player that went into the finals undefeated, they also have more wins.

In the end I don't think a longer single set as is often done is fair to the winner's side player unless the winner's side player is given extra consideration.

Hu



SUPERSTAR said:
Ok.
For the longest time, i have heard the controversy over should a tournament be a true double elimination, or should the final match be a single set for the title.

I have always been a double dip kind of guy as i feel that it is the fairest to the players involved. The reasoning being that why should everyone else be entitled to a loss, but if the person that goes undefeated and wins the hot seat only to have to play one set for it all, why should they be denied that same opportunity.

PERFECT example is the tournament that just finished at the SBE, where hot seat winner Corey Deuel suffered his first loss, yet came in second in the tournament to John Schmidt, who he had already beaten.

So obviously, i was thinking that Corey kind of got the short end of the stick, but that it doesn't have to be that way for the hot seat guy should he lose a single race scenario.

What if we were to reward the person that wins the hotseat with a separate check?
THAT way, we could still have a tournament winner, but at the same time, the guy who wins the hotseat, would still take home a little extra something for being undefeated entering the final.

So in this instance, since the prize money was 20K and 7k respectively, what if it were something like

Hotseat winner gets 4k
First place and tournament winner gets 14k
Second place winner gets 9k

That way, in the instance that the person winning the hotseat should go on to win the final race and wins the tournament undefeated, they are getting a bonus for doing it, and if they should go and lose the tournament, they aren't getting totally shafted.

I mean, obviously my numbers are just off the top of my head, but to me, it just seems fair that the person who wins the hotseat, get the opportunity to maximize their potential profit.

Cause if you look at it, Schmidt won a total of 17 games against Corey in 2 sets vs Corey's 22, yet he almost tripled him in the prize money when after everything is said and done, they both only have one loss.

So for my poll question, knowing that there are die hard Double Dip guys, vs die hard Single Set guys, how many people, if you were in a tournament, would be in favor of something like i have proposed that rewards the hot seat guy for getting himself there?
Click to expand...
 
ShootingArts said:
A small bonus for the hotseat has some merit. However I prefer true double elimination and then don't see the need for a bonus for the hotseat.

To play devil's advocate for a minute though, someone coming from the one loss side often plays many more matches than the winner so while the person on the loser's side has one more loss than the player that went into the finals undefeated, they also have more wins.

In the end I don't think a longer single set as is often done is fair to the winner's side player unless the winner's side player is given extra consideration.

Hu
Click to expand...


The only time the hotseat bonus would be implemented is if the finals was going to be a single race.

It would not apply to true double elimination tournaments.

To address your your point though, you are correct that the player coming from the losers side has more wins then the winners side player, but the only reason is that they were given the chance to CONTINUE PLAYING AFTER THEIR LOSS.

So while they do have more wins, it again addresses the point that the winners side player who has no losses who loses his/her first match IN THE FINAL MATCH, does not have the same opportunity as they do.

The only way that it would be the same opportunity is if the winners side player, AFTER losing the final match, had yet another opportunity to play for the title, or in other words, if it was a true double elimination event.
 
I don't disagree with you

I don't disagree with anything you have said other than the hotseat bonus size which you said might need adjusting. Just pointed out as the devil's advocate that the loser's side winner has already had a tougher path to the finals. I felt it was fair to look at both sides of the equation. I once thought that the losers side winner only played one more match than the hotseat winner however if they went to the losers side early they played a handful more matches.

I strongly feel that if the tournament is double elimination at any point then it should be double elimination all of the way through. However I have found that usually the hotseat winner is as tired as anyone and is often glad to shorten things up. If it isn't to be true double elimination I like your idea of a hotseat bonus but even after the bonus there should be a large gap between first and second place monies. First place should always have it's rewards.

Hu


SUPERSTAR said:
The only time the hotseat bonus would be implemented is if the finals was going to be a single race.

It would not apply to true double elimination tournaments.

To address your your point though, you are correct that the player coming from the losers side has more wins then the winners side player, but the only reason is that they were given the chance to CONTINUE PLAYING AFTER THEIR LOSS.

So while they do have more wins, it again addresses the point that the winners side player who has no losses who loses his/her first match IN THE FINAL MATCH, does not have the same opportunity as they do.

The only way that it would be the same opportunity is if the winners side player, AFTER losing the final match, had yet another opportunity to play for the title, or in other words, if it was a true double elimination event.
Click to expand...
 
I don't like the event being one race. The hot seat guy is now tied for loeses and gets second. This double dip thing is why I like my format for a tournament that I post here a couple times.

Example: 1000$ entry with 8 people single elim.

round 1 would have four people going home and 4 winning $1000
round 2 would have two people going home and 2 winning $1000
round 3 would have winner getting another $1000.

It wouldn't have the winner walking away with all the cash or a B-side guy with same number of wins. This would be like a skins game type format and the winner of each match could get paid after the win. Make it like poker during the TV matches. When they win the money is counted out on the table or even dumped on the table before the match begins. Lots could be done with this format.

People think we are all gamblers... pool didn't sell so lets try to sell the gambling. Dump the cash and let them see what we are playing for!
 
Last edited:
The person that played the best pool of the tournament is suddenly penalized. I no, you know this when you enter the tournament but the person you play in the finals is coming off a win and has been playing, while you sit and wait for them. The hot seat shouldn't be a disadvantage.
 
20K and 7K???????? That is so far out of line that it's not even funny. I hope they made a saver.

Corey was straight up robbed - if they want single elimination then make it a single elimination final 16 with longer races.

Single set finals when the whole tournament up til then are pure bullshit.

For one thing the guy coming from the loser's bracket is warmed up and has nothing to lose and all the pressure is on the winner of the winner's bracket.

Only in pool can we get such idiotic ways to run tournaments. Every other sport that is considered a serious sport is played the same way all over the world. Only in pool do we see so many different rules and tournaments.

No wonder pool will NEVER be big time.
 
another strong reason for two sets

tom mcgonagle said:
The person that played the best pool of the tournament is suddenly penalized. I no, you know this when you enter the tournament but the person you play in the finals is coming off a win and has been playing, while you sit and wait for them. The hot seat shouldn't be a disadvantage.
Click to expand...


Tom,

What you are pointing out here is another strong reason for two set finals. The losers side winner has been in constant play and is fired up and rolling while the person in the hotseat has cooled their heels for hours sometimes. After being fired up during play there is always a let down afterwards. It can be hard for the hotseat player to get back "up" for the finals if there is a big gap between their semi and the finals.

Hu
 
i think

I like double elimination also but corey knew the rules when he paid the 1000 to enter so now that he didnt win he cant be mad and after all everyone is talking like he lost he still got second in a major event great shooting goes out to corey and john
 
Win by two

I also favor the true double elimination format, but if for some reason the promoter chooses it to be a single race final, imo making it a win by two games format would be an improvement.
 
If you walked around and asked 'em if the could get to the finals, would the support a single, longer set, I am thinking the majority would say 10-4.
 
Last edited:
B-Rod said:
I like double elimination also but corey knew the rules when he paid the 1000 to enter so now that he didnt win he cant be mad and after all everyone is talking like he lost he still got second in a major event great shooting goes out to corey and john
Click to expand...

It's not like the pros have much of a choice these days but to accept whatever each promoter wants to do. Of course Corey knew what it was going in, this isn't about how he feels about it. It's about how WE feel about it and I feel that any tournament that is double elimination and has a single set final is cheating the guy on the winner's side and also cheating the spectators, otherwise known as fans.
 
I prefer a single elimination in a tournament and the finals being a longer race. If I beat a strong player, I want him out of the tournament right away. So I don't have to deal with him again later on. In this case, Corey had already beaten JS, but since it's double elimination John came back and beat him. Sux to be Corey.
BUT, in money games you can triple dip a guy for the cheese and it's 'ol good ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top