But what about when they make it a single race for the title?
Still no extra cheese for the hotseat?
Double Dip or Single Set
- Thread starter SUPERSTAR
- Start date
But what about when they make it a single race for the title?
Still no extra cheese for the hotseat?
I could never see the sigle elem. in the finals unless the whole tournament was single elem. If the tournament is double elem then finals should be too. It's just not fair in any way that someone that hasn't lost a match loses one match like the one he's/she's playing in the finals and comes in second. To me that's at best a tie. Need to play a tiebreaker. But they won't change anything...they never do. Because it is what it is. Most everyone connected with pool has a motto, "After me you come first". Johnnyt
Will anyone please name a MAJOR sport that has a CHAMPIONSHIP determined by a DOUBLE Elimination tournament?
Double Elimination with a Single Race for the Finals is a prerogative of the promoter. They set up the format, entry fee, playing conditions, rules and prize money distribution.
The players only either pay to play or don't.
Double Elimination with a Single Race for the Finals is a prerogative of the promoter. They set up the format, entry fee, playing conditions, rules and prize money distribution.
The players only either pay to play or don't.
This format is common in baseball. For example, the College World Series is a double elimination tournament.
The AZBilliards think tank is strong folks!
Nicely stated sjm, I can appreciate your viewpoint and respect it as well. It's great to be able to disagree with someone without insults or mudslinging on here. I'm sure we could have some great discussions if we ever met in person. I look forward to reading more from you in the future.
I knew there would be a third or fourth side in this and Hu has brought up a very intriguing idea. I like it! :thumbup:
Nicely stated sjm, I can appreciate your viewpoint and respect it as well. It's great to be able to disagree with someone without insults or mudslinging on here. I'm sure we could have some great discussions if we ever met in person. I look forward to reading more from you in the future.
I knew there would be a third or fourth side in this and Hu has brought up a very intriguing idea. I like it! :thumbup:
I think Hu's idea is interesting. But do you think you could end up with weaker players placing higher in the money due to top heavy bracket draws?
I know draws already can play a part in tournament finishes, but seems to me this format could make it play an even larger part.
Woody <- just playing devils advocate.
I know draws already can play a part in tournament finishes, but seems to me this format could make it play an even larger part.
Woody <- just playing devils advocate.
Luck of the draw is just that, LUCK.
I'm not really into seeding.
If it's not meant to be, then it's not meant to be.
Draw those numbers out of a hat!
I think that if you're going to have a double elimination tournament, it should be double elimination for everyone.
Nice!
Beautiful, see now those extra sides are poppin' outta the woodwork! I dig it!
I'm gonna shut up now and see where this goes...
Beautiful, see now those extra sides are poppin' outta the woodwork! I dig it!
I'm gonna shut up now and see where this goes...
Single Elimination Format with Seeding. See Pro Sports championships.
For what it is worth, IMO, seeding and single elimination tournaments are the way to go for Professional events.
A player should be rewarded for being the best at what he/she does.
It shouldn't be easy for someone to knock off the best because of 'luck of the draw' or short races or double elimination without seeding.
If it were easy to be #1, what would be the point?
Double Elimination is, IMO, a very weak format, but it is one that the players agree readily.
IMO, like all the major sports professional championships, that run tournaments to determine a champion, it has always been single elimination with the top ranked team competing with the lowest ranked team in the first round.
It is only because POOL cannot agree who is the #1 let alone who is #32.
For what it is worth, IMO, seeding and single elimination tournaments are the way to go for Professional events.
A player should be rewarded for being the best at what he/she does.
It shouldn't be easy for someone to knock off the best because of 'luck of the draw' or short races or double elimination without seeding.
If it were easy to be #1, what would be the point?
Double Elimination is, IMO, a very weak format, but it is one that the players agree readily.
IMO, like all the major sports professional championships, that run tournaments to determine a champion, it has always been single elimination with the top ranked team competing with the lowest ranked team in the first round.
It is only because POOL cannot agree who is the #1 let alone who is #32.
I have typically been against seeding in pool tournaments, but thats not to say that there may be some upsides to it.
Of course it would stink if you were number 32. Would you really want to make the investment to get to a tournament if you knew you had to play the number one player every time in the first round?
How do the women do it? Seed the top 16 on the money list then let the other fall where the draw puts them?
Woody
Of course it would stink if you were number 32. Would you really want to make the investment to get to a tournament if you knew you had to play the number one player every time in the first round?
How do the women do it? Seed the top 16 on the money list then let the other fall where the draw puts them?
Woody
Yes it would suck to be #32 knowing you'd be playing #1 but, in the PRO ranks, 32 makes money by playing #1, where as #33 doesn't make any money because they don't make it to the money rounds.
The thing is, this is functionally not any fairer than reducing double elim to single.
It might help a little with time constraints but that's it. Compare the ideas:
Double elim:
It goes down one of two ways...
A: 1st place has no losses.
2nd place lost twice, once pre-finals and once in finals.
or
B: 1st place lost once, but then beat the previously undefeated hot-seat player twice.
2nd place lost twice, both times to the eventual winner.
It's fairest on paper because the winner always has fewer losses than 2nd place.
Double elim, but single race in the finals:
A: 1st place has no losses.
2nd place lost twice, once pre-finals and once in finals.
B: 1st place has 1 loss (pre-finals)
2nd place also has 1 loss, but it was in the finals so he's done.
This is seemingly unfair, but just half the time (situation B where the early loss guy beats the hot seat guy in the finals. In situation A it's not really different from a true double elim tournament). In situation B, both guys have only lost once but one gets the greater reward.
Hu's idea (the two winner's side guys will be the 1st and 2nd, with loser's side being 3rd)
This is effectively a single elim. tournament (losing once before the finals means you can't get first or second) with an extra 'hard luck' tournament where the best-of-the-rest can fight for 3rd place money. In this setup, the result is always the same:
First place has 0 losses.
2nd place has 1 loss (to the first place guy)
3rd place has 1 loss (he came out on top of the hard-luck mini-tournament)
So in this case, two guys with tied records are still getting different payouts, but at least the clear winner gets the first place cheese and the only 'unfairness' happens between the 2nd and 3rd place guys.
That seems better at first glance but it's not... because once you lose early, your hopes of both first and second are gone, while in the other formats still allow an early-loss guy to take home the grand prize. Might as well call it what it is, single-elim. And if we're ok with single-elim, then you might as well just go with the double-elim (but single finals set) tournament where everyone at least has a shot after one early loss.
But what happens if the player from the losers side, was put there by the guy in the hotseat.
Example: At the expo, Deuel and Schmidt's relationship in the tournament. John was beat once by Cory...Then he came back and fought his way for first, eventually beating Cory once.
At this point, I see both men have one loss to eachother. It shouldn't make one of them first and one of them second, based upon when in the bracket they played. It should be double elimination, or atleast the hotseat winners choice.
Someone mentioned that the hotseat winner, is probably going to be just as exhausted as the losers side winner. If you were in the hotseat, you would be thinking many different things:
"I beat this guy already."
"He's in dead stroke, since he's been playing constantly"
"When the hell am I going to play?"
"What if I am cold?"
This is why I think the hotseat winner should have the choice, personally. He has two choices, 1.) He plays one set....or 2.) They play two sets.
At this point, the hotseat winner can be given monetary supplement for either choice. If he picks to play two sets, then he will get x amount of money.
If he picks one set, then he will get x + a % of the losers potential money.
So if he wins one set, then he will win a greater amount of money, than if he vowed to play two sets.
This is the 4th side of the coin. What does everyone think of this??
Example: At the expo, Deuel and Schmidt's relationship in the tournament. John was beat once by Cory...Then he came back and fought his way for first, eventually beating Cory once.
At this point, I see both men have one loss to eachother. It shouldn't make one of them first and one of them second, based upon when in the bracket they played. It should be double elimination, or atleast the hotseat winners choice.
Someone mentioned that the hotseat winner, is probably going to be just as exhausted as the losers side winner. If you were in the hotseat, you would be thinking many different things:
"I beat this guy already."
"He's in dead stroke, since he's been playing constantly"
"When the hell am I going to play?"
"What if I am cold?"
This is why I think the hotseat winner should have the choice, personally. He has two choices, 1.) He plays one set....or 2.) They play two sets.
At this point, the hotseat winner can be given monetary supplement for either choice. If he picks to play two sets, then he will get x amount of money.
If he picks one set, then he will get x + a % of the losers potential money.
So if he wins one set, then he will win a greater amount of money, than if he vowed to play two sets.
This is the 4th side of the coin. What does everyone think of this??
I think this whole thing is one of the problems with pool. double knockouts wouldn't be around if the top guys couldn't get beat buy weaker players. What ever the format the best player for the week should win. That being said, if the event is true double or one long race, I still play. I think having the finals on the A side finishing 1st and 2nd would be good. You could play 3-4th and 1st - 2nd and the same time having events finishing earlier. Another option would be: winner of A side wins event the loser goes and plays the B side winner for 2nd.
same stat's but not really
Losing in the last round is not the same as losing in earlier rounds, maybe the first round. My idea would actually take care of several injustices. The hotseat player cooling his heels and a canny player manipulating the brackets. Right now in double elimination if I see that the winner of my next match is likely to play John Schmidt for example, I can drop the match and move over to the losers side ducking John unless I meet him in the finals where I am playing for at least second place money. In round numbers I think that second place payout should drop one-third from first and third drop one-third from second. That gives the gamer reason to think twice if ducking over to the losers side means he is now playing for third place and roughly 44% of first place money.
Single elimination or round robin with or without single elimination afterwards is probably fairest of all but double elimination is around because people like some sort of second chance. I don't know that it has to be a second chance at first place though.
Mine was just a casual thought but I see enough merit to it that I might try it some time down the road. I have already figured out a way to repackage it so it will be more palatable to all.
Hu
Losing in the last round is not the same as losing in earlier rounds, maybe the first round. My idea would actually take care of several injustices. The hotseat player cooling his heels and a canny player manipulating the brackets. Right now in double elimination if I see that the winner of my next match is likely to play John Schmidt for example, I can drop the match and move over to the losers side ducking John unless I meet him in the finals where I am playing for at least second place money. In round numbers I think that second place payout should drop one-third from first and third drop one-third from second. That gives the gamer reason to think twice if ducking over to the losers side means he is now playing for third place and roughly 44% of first place money.
Single elimination or round robin with or without single elimination afterwards is probably fairest of all but double elimination is around because people like some sort of second chance. I don't know that it has to be a second chance at first place though.
Mine was just a casual thought but I see enough merit to it that I might try it some time down the road. I have already figured out a way to repackage it so it will be more palatable to all.
Hu
Sadly, the promoters in pool do hold all the cards. That is why every pool tournament is different. Have there been three World 9 Ball Championships in a row that were played with the same format since Matchroom took over?
How about three US Opens in the last ten years?
I don't think so. But I'd bet that 99% of professional baseball games, football games, tennis matches, golf tournaments, and spelling bees were all run under the same established format from year to year.
And yes, the Spelling Bee is a sport. It's broadcast on ESPN......
Maybe we are all looking at this the WRONG way?
Maybe we should just chill out and think of our pool champions as the very BEST CHAMPIONS of any sport BECAUSE of all the changing conditions they have to fade each tournament. Having to adapt to so many variables and still coming out on top is amazing to me.
Think about it, we have more different professional level competitive games, we have more playing surfaces, the rules are different at each event, the prize money is differently divided amonst the places at each event, players have no guarantee that they will even get paid. What could be a tougher way to earn a living as a professional athlete?
I applaud our pros for showing up to entertain us in the face of all that. Thanks Corey, Thanks John, thanks to all of you!
Maybe we should just chill out and think of our pool champions as the very BEST CHAMPIONS of any sport BECAUSE of all the changing conditions they have to fade each tournament. Having to adapt to so many variables and still coming out on top is amazing to me.
Think about it, we have more different professional level competitive games, we have more playing surfaces, the rules are different at each event, the prize money is differently divided amonst the places at each event, players have no guarantee that they will even get paid. What could be a tougher way to earn a living as a professional athlete?
I applaud our pros for showing up to entertain us in the face of all that. Thanks Corey, Thanks John, thanks to all of you!