Double Dip or Single Set

[Travis Bickle]

Extra money for the hot seat seems good compensation for that player having to face a single-set final, to me.

The argument for double elim in pool is strong because of the rolls factor. But while it's great throughout the tourney to keep it all symmetrical like that, having a maybe-one-set-maybe-two-set final, throws the balance all out of whack again, at least for spectators, I think. And it surely degrades the value of the first set of the finals. It may be TRUE double-elimination, but it's not a TRUE final until the second set, when both players have something to lose.

Like others have said, the guy on the B side has had to play more matches, face more chances of being knocked out ... I think he's earned the right to be considered an equal in the finals. And it's better for the sport, too.

 

[CreeDo]

I haven't heard of players manipulating brackets that way, intentionally losing in order to duck a tough player. Do you know for sure this happens or is it just theoretical?

They will just have to face that same tough player or someone worse down the road if they plan on winning the tournament. Yes, it's better to face js for 2nd place money than mid-tournament, on the other hand why is a voluntary loss to joe unknown better than an involuntary loss to john, if your plan is to climb through the loser's bracket to face john again down the road? Also what if you duck john only to face corey?

I have nothing against your suggestion hu except that it feels so much like single elim that you might as well hold a single elim tournament (which I don't object to necessarily).

How about you must buy into the loser's bracket? It's single elim but you can buy in for a 2nd chance, upping the total winnings? The wait time might be shorter as some people won't opt to buy back and others may get byes if the loser's bracket has an odd number of people. If many people do choose to go for the 2nd chance, at least it'll be worth the wait as the prize fund increases. Once you're down to 2 finalists you can eliminate the buy-in option.

 

[SUPERSTAR]

After 5 pages of posts, it's about 50- 21 in favor of they system.
Maybe someone can solicit a pro on their opinion and why they adhere to it?

As for manipulation of brackets, I don't really see that happening at this level.
Especially if there isn't a calcutta or some outside force imposing itself on the ethics of the people involved.

Personally, i am for the double elimination.
Simply because of this.

Anyone can beat anyone in a game of pool.
Anyone that was watching the stream, and saw some of the rolls that were being dished out should be able to agree to that statement.

Everyone is capable of losing to some hack when the rolls are destroying them, and everyone is capable of having the rolls make a match that otherwise might be a sure win, completely lopsided.
Can anyone think of any other sport where the roll impact performance in such a huge way?

So given that fact that every player can lose to some scrub, to me, it makes perfect sense to allow all the players at least another chance to continue.
Hence the double elimination format and not agreeing with the one set final.

 

[ShootingArts]

it happens

I haven't heard of players manipulating brackets that way, intentionally losing in order to duck a tough player. Do you know for sure this happens or is it just theoretical?

I do know of this happening in some regional sized double elimination tournaments. This is back to a not all losses being equal thing even though they are equal in one regard. Some people don't want to fight a tough battle while they are out of the money and still lose that match. They would rather duck that match if it is midway or deeper into the tournament and take a little easier path to the finals if someone is on fire or simply the class of the event.

I am not too sure of the merit of this move however because so much of the game is mental if it is perceived as an advantage by the person doing it then it probably is an advantage for them. I have never pulled this move but like most of us I have studied brackets and figured I should be good until this round without too many worries, need to pull my hat down hard for this one, no picnic from here on out. Some folks just take it a step further and try to bend their path a bit.

Hu

 

[Black-Balled]

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.

What the...?

 

[SUPERSTAR]

Yeah, 32nd place is still going broke cause they are stuck all the expenses after the meager money that they get for barely cashing, IF they cash.

 

[Firecracker]

Most major sports, with a few exceptions, follow the single elimination format quite well. I think that pool could also use the similar format successfully if it wasn't for the fact that alot of players are fronting the bills themselves. If you look at other sports, they have sponsors paying all their expenses to compete. In pool, where many players are covering the bills, they obviously are going to want a second chance to redeem themselves if given the choice. A single elimination tournament would be harder to commit a large entry fee to, with no guarantee of any return and only one bad set could leave you out of the event. Remember, alot of athletes get paid just for showing up and being ranked....doesn't matter if they perform to their top level.

The WPBA have a decent format now that blends the two formulas, so that it works for TV and the fans. It is seeded with the top 32 ranked players randomly being drawn against rankings 32 and above to fill a 64 bracket. When it reaches the final 16, the losers sides redraws and becomes a single elimination event. It does lend an advantage to the players with one loss, but it evens out the money more between the top finishers outside of first and second. Personally, I am against seeding, but it helps keep your regular players out there in the spotlight.

 

[LPHooper03]

I personally, much rather see someone that isn't a 'known' big shot, in the finals. It just goes to show that you can't take anything for granted. It's not fun seeing Jeanette Lee and Allison Fisher in the finals all the time. I like seeing Jasmin Ouschan...lol.

This is why I don't agree to seeding. I'm not saying Jasmin is an inferior player in any respect, just stating that the usual top dogs shouldn't have a guaranteed spotlight.

 

[Celtic]

Just playing with ideas here but why should the winner of the winners side even have to wait around on the hotseat? I kind of like the idea of the two winners of the semi's on the winners side playing one set for first and second place. They don't get cold, they finish at a reasonable time and the spectators that have had enough fun get to go home. Losers side winners could not finish higher than third so the people with the best records for the longest time take home the most cheese.

I've got to find some brackets and play with this idea but I kind of like it. Seems like I have seen it done somewhere but maybe I am wrong.

Hu

I dont mind this but it is only feasable if pool did what tennis does and that is build a solid seeding system and then seed the players into the draw instead of randomly placing the players into the draw.

How would it be fair for the two best players to end up playing each other in the first match and then the loser of a tight match can get no better then 3rd? The reason for being able to come through the b-side and still win is to keep stuff like that from happening in a randomly placed drawsheet.

You would need to seed the event to make this fair, and it would help the sport to have a solid ranking system like tennis has.

That said, in a properly run event the a-side finals should be played after the match for 4th has already been played, so the loser of the a-side match can immediatly play the b-side final and thus the winner of the hotseat only has to wait a single match. This solves most of the problem, as for the fairness of each being beat once, the b-side person has actually won more matches to get back to the finals, they had a harder and more dangerous path. I don't care if it is double elimination or not, winning the a side final is a bonus, you guarentee yourself no worse then second while the guy who loses now risks bowing out in third.

The only problem I see in this event is the disparity in 1st and 2nd place. There is no way it should have been 20k and 7k. More reasonable would be 17k and 10k imo, making such a absurd disparity in the money just makes savers more likely to happen and then what is the point? 7k for getting second place in a tourney with a $1000 entry fee and that field sucks.