Double Elimination should be just that !!!

[gerard soriano]

I don't know if its just me but I think its crazy that in a double elimination tournament the player who goes undefeated all 3,4or 7 days his reward in the final set is a couple games longer I don't know if its always been this way or when it started but I think it's wrong . You should have to beat him/her twice JMHO

 

[miscrewed1989]

ditto

What he^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^said...

 

[BryanB]

Everyone knew the rules so it wasn't a surprise. If they didn't want to play then they had the opportunity not to. The guy on the winners side still had the advantage. Was it advertised as double elimination?

 

[nathandumoulin]

Keep in mind that the player who goes undefeated to the finals will play far fewer matches than the opponent who grinded up the one-loss side. As such true double elimination isn't fair to the player who had to play more matches. Either way you look at it, the format has it's drawbacks. In the end, if all players know the format going in, then it really doesn't matter.

 

[JC]

Everyone knew the rules so it wasn't a surprise. If they didn't want to play then they had the opportunity not to. The guy on the winners side still had the advantage. Was it advertised as double elimination?

What is the advantage exactly for the guy on the winners side?

 

[decent dennis]

Far fewer?

 

[CreeDo]

I think the whole idea of bracketed tournaments is basically to weed out everyone except the two best players, then have them play one set for the vast majority of the cheese.

Some facts of life that tournament players understand:

1. On any given sunday anyone can win, so it's about who's playing better today, not who is the best on some absolute level.

2. Even if you really want to know who's best, it's not practical because you need a long race to determine the best player at any stage of the tournament. But then it would take forever. So players accept that the races may be too short to be 100% fair, and sometimes the better player doesn't win.

3. The top two guys, if they both know they're close in skill, may arrange a saver, in which case it doesn't matter which is #1 and which is #2.

With those things in mind, a single race at the end makes sense. We want #1 and #2 to play each other in a short race to see who is playing better today, and that's what you get in modified double elimination. Yes, one guy lost on his way to the finals. But that doesn't mean he's an inferior player and now has to play a second set to 'prove himself'. It could have been bad rolls, a random skid, a miscue, etc. Both players understand that.

They also know that even if the undefeated guy loses, then goes on to win a final rubber match, it's still a bit of a tossup who deserved the bulk of the cash. Two short races is not the same as one long race.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I think double elimination is a really lousy format. There are other formats that are better for the players and better for the audience and are fairer. I guess it is the ignorance of the TDs that prevents them from being used.

As for the "far fewer" comment above, it is possible for the losers'-bracket winner to have played almost twice as many matches as the other finalist if he loses his first-round match and then wins all his matches on the losers' side. Typically it will be someone who made it farther through the bracket. Mika's long US Open and Jimmy Caras's US Open (14.1) win are examples of "many more".

 

[Island Drive]

I don't know if its just me but I think its crazy that in a double elimination tournament the player who goes undefeated all 3,4or 7 days his reward in the final set is a couple games longer I don't know if its always been this way or when it started but I think it's wrong . You should have to beat him/her twice JMHO

Yeah, and I prefer two shot roll out.....and no gang stas', but here we are....

 

[robsnotes4u]

other formats

I think double elimination is a really lousy format. There are other formats that are better for the players and better for the audience and are fairer. I guess it is the ignorance of the TDs that prevents them from being used.

As for the "far fewer" comment above, it is possible for the losers'-bracket winner to have played almost twice as many matches as the other finalist if he loses his first-round match and then wins all his matches on the losers' side. Typically it will be someone who made it farther through the bracket. Mika's long US Open and Jimmy Caras's US Open (14.1) win are examples of "many more".

Could you expand on other formats? I am curious.

 

[Runnintable]

I don't know if its just me but I think its crazy that in a double elimination tournament the player who goes undefeated all 3,4or 7 days his reward in the final set is a couple games longer I don't know if its always been this way or when it started but I think it's wrong . You should have to beat him/her twice JMHO

I understand your point, but I think it's difficult to make an already long tournament longer.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Could you expand on other formats? I am curious.

Sure. See the articles around the end of 2001 here: http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/BD_articles.html

My favorite format is single elimination with buy-backs. Players play in groups of 8 (or so) and the winner goes on to the finals (typically the next day for a two-day tournament). If you get knocked out, you can get back into another group. You stop taking signups when you run out of players who want to play. The entry fee can be about half of the entry for double elimination. There is a minimum amount of waiting around.

That would be for a "gambling" tournament. If you are running a championship, I think the best is round-robin prelims going into a single-elimination main tournament.

 

[oldzilla]

I don't know if its just me but I think its crazy that in a double elimination tournament the player who goes undefeated all 3,4or 7 days his reward in the final set is a couple games longer I don't know if its always been this way or when it started but I think it's wrong . You should have to beat him/her twice JMHO

I agree 100%.

Guess who thought of this ?

Not totally sure but I think it was done this way for TV coverage !!!

 

[NineBallNut]

"With those things in mind, a single race at the end makes sense. We want #1 and #2 to play each other in a short race to see who is playing better today, and that's what you get in modified double elimination. Yes, one guy lost on his way to the finals. But that doesn't mean he's an inferior player and now has to play a second set to 'prove himself'. It could have been bad rolls, a random skid, a miscue, etc. Both players understand that."

Ok but i don't see the equality of one person being able to have a bad match and still be the winner but not the guy who played well enough to get the hot seat. So if his bad rolls or match just happens to be in the finals, he gets screwed.

 

[ronscuba]

.... Either way you look at it, the format has it's drawbacks. In the end, if all players know the format going in, then it really doesn't matter.

Exactly. :thumbup:

I imagine a player could to go the one loss side intentionally if they really wanted.

 

[sjm]

The unpredictability in match length in pool is a big problem to start with.

This weekend, some matches took forty five minutes, and others took three hours. A true double elimination final, I'd suggest could take anywhere from forty five mnutes to over six hours. That's really unacceptable to attendees.

I'm OK with true double elimination when there are no fans watching the matches, but otherwise, as a fan, I'm not very keen on it.

As we know, Derby City plays true double elimination. I recall when an undefeated John Schmidt played one-loss Scott Frost (2009, I think) in the One Pocket finals. The conventional wisdom, into which some of the susperstars of one-pocket bought in, was that Freezer was still the favorite despite having to win two sets and that the match might take all night. Just over half an hour later, John Schmidt won the first set and it was over.

What I do like is the International Challenge of Champions method, in which if two players reach the point where each has lost one set, they play a single rack (not a full set) to break the tie. I'd happily sign up for that.

Fans deserve a match of reasonably estimable length.

 

[parvus1202]

The final should be just one set and that's that. They know the rules before the tournament starts so everyone has a chance. Besides this is better as every player will try their best not to lose, no one will take for granted any match. The reward is to wait for the championship match.

 

[trob]

Its idiotic! That's the point of double elimination you have to be beat twice. Trey do this bs every year at the sbe... Someone makes it to the final without losing a match and there reward is nothing. Just make the whole tournament single elimination and be done with it. If you chose to play in the tournament that way then don't cry about it I'm just saying it shouldn't be set up that way from the start.

Btw the best man wins comment is bs. If you already lost a match and I haven't apparently you weren't the best man in the tournament lol

 

[Donny Lutz]

Yes and yes

Sure. See the articles around the end of 2001 here: http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/BD_articles.html

My favorite format is single elimination with buy-backs. Players play in groups of 8 (or so) and the winner goes on to the finals (typically the next day for a two-day tournament). If you get knocked out, you can get back into another group. You stop taking signups when you run out of players who want to play. The entry fee can be about half of the entry for double elimination. There is a minimum amount of waiting around.

That would be for a "gambling" tournament. If you are running a championship, I think the best is round-robin prelims going into a single-elimination main tournament.

Great solutions! I've always like them both, though the first may be way too complicated for the average tournament director if he/she likes the sauce.

Donny L
PBIA/ACS Instructor

 

[Bob Jewett]

Great solutions! I've always like them both, though the first may be way too complicated for the average tournament director if he/she likes the sauce. ...

Well, yes, but... It is usually a lot easier over all because the scheduling is a lot simpler. You can start at 11AM but you can fit in people who don't arrive until 3PM. It's even possible to fit in people who don't arrive until the second day of a weekend tournament.