Double elimination, unless you're the undefeated player. Why?

arsenius

arsenius

Nothing ever registers...
Silver Member
It seems like lately there is a trend of having double elimination tournaments, but with only one final match. For a normal double elimination tournament the undefeated player would get a second chance if he loses the first time. But now they are playing only one finals match a lot of the time. Does this seem unfair to anyone else? To go so far in the tournament, getting what amounts to fewer chances than the other players?

Is this a result of TV matches, just general time constraints, or some other point I'm missing? For myself, I would not feel as proud if, having come from the B side, I beat the A side player only one time. I would feel cheated not knowing whether I would have won with the other guy having the same opportunities.
 
arsenius said:
It seems like lately there is a trend of having double elimination tournaments, but with only one final match. For a normal double elimination tournament the undefeated player would get a second chance if he loses the first time. But now they are playing only one finals match a lot of the time. Does this seem unfair to anyone else? To go so far in the tournament, getting what amounts to fewer chances than the other players?

Is this a result of TV matches, just general time constraints, or some other point I'm missing? For myself, I would not feel as proud if, having come from the B side, I beat the A side player only one time. I would feel cheated not knowing whether I would have won with the other guy having the same opportunities.
Click to expand...

It's mostly just for TV matches due to the time constraints but over the years many non-televised pro events have also used the single finals which has carried over to many local events. To me it's unfair, that's why all Viking Tour events (EXCEPT 1-POCKET) have true double elimination finals. Our percentage over the years may surprise you but 68% of the time the player from the 1-loss side ends up winning the tournament.

Respectfully,
 
surprised

MikeJanis said:
Our percentage over the years may surprise you but 68% of the time the player from the 1-loss side ends up winning the tournament.

Respectfully,
Click to expand...



That is a surprise. I would have guessed the losers bracket winner's chances of winning the overall at probably less than half that with true double elimination. Definitely a stat to lend heart to the folks coming from the loser's bracket.

Hu
 
Every single double elimination tourney I play in that has a 1-race final match, I complain. I've lost a few times in finals like that--- and I always leave a little upset. The guy who beat me already lost, and I just had my 1st loss--- shouldn't it go to a second set?

I agree-- it's retarded. How do you go home w/ 1 loss in a double-elimination tournament?
 
MikeJanis said:
Our percentage over the years may surprise you but 68% of the time the player from the 1-loss side ends up winning the tournament.
Click to expand...
That's REALLY surprising. I would have guessed 1 in 3 (33%) at best. I guess that lull between the winners bracket final and the final match really plays a big role. The player from the loser's bracket has been playing all day so they would be hot compared to the winner's bracket player sitting around for an hour and getting cold.
 
I think a good compromise is to have a singe race final but to give the player who won the hotseat some weight.

For example, if the matches are normally a race to 11, then the player coming from the winners' side gets 2 games on the wire. So he'd only have to win 9 games to win the match, while the player from the losers' side has to win all 11 games.

Is it a big advantage? Yes, but shouldn't the player that has gone undefeated deserve some advantage? And besides, I wouldnt' say it's a greater advantage than having a true double-elimination format where the person in the hotseat has to win only one race to 11 while the losers' side winner has to win two races to 11.

However, if there is no video production and time is not an issue, I say what's the point? Just have a true double-elimination format. It's clearly the most fair and logical.
 
I like what JSP said... not so sure it would be accepted though.

Just make the race longer. Tourny was races to 9 winner's side. 7 on the losers'. Then the final is is a race to 13-15?!
 
I can kinda see the whole loser's-side-player winning bit. They've been playing more and staying warm, they're motivated (lose, you're out!).

One of the big problems of going through the winner's side and sitting in the hotseat is, you have to wait for the loser's side to catch up. You can get cold that way.

You wanna hear a really weird final-match thing? There's a little bar tournament I play in now and again - a few bangers, but some decent shots. Since it's in a bar, they only have three barboxes, and sometimes get upwards of twenty folks playing. So they do race-to-two on the winner's side, and single-game matches on the loser's side. No biggie there.

But when it comes down to the final round - the loser's side player has to win three games to the winner's side player having to win but ONE game. How 'bout them beans? :P
 
it kinda depends on how you look at it. You can look at it as "the first and second best players are now going to shoot, and whoever wins is the best player, so we don't need another match". Or you could look at is as "I paid my entry fee with the understanding that I would have 2 shots at the title. If you only give me 1, you're robbing me and I want my money back".

I'm inclined to look at it the 2nd way. But if they say up front that the finals will be a single game I guess you can't complain. I've lost the first set of the finals and then won the 2nd, and I'd be annoyed if it ended right there.
 
The last 3 finals I have been in went like this.
Made it to the finals from the B-side. Won both sets
Made it to the finals from the A-side. Lost both sets
Made it to the finals from the A-side. Won first set

66% winners from the losers side.

BVal
 
arsenius said:
It seems like lately there is a trend of having double elimination tournaments, but with only one final match. For a normal double elimination tournament the undefeated player would get a second chance if he loses the first time. Does this seem unfair to anyone else? To go so far in the tournament, getting what amounts to fewer chances than the other players?
Click to expand...

You think that's unfair... The latest trend is to take the final 16 in a tournament, have a redraw, and play single elimination, depriving the 8 players on the winner's side their second bullet. IMHO no amount of honey would make that easy to swallow.

I never minded making the final match single elimination as long as the race was extended, which ironically doesn't happen, it becomes shorter. For some reason editing a race to 11 for TV is much more difficult than editing a race to 7 :rolleyes:
 
Losers Side

mosconiac said:
That's REALLY surprising. I would have guessed 1 in 3 (33%) at best. I guess that lull between the winners bracket final and the final match really plays a big role. The player from the loser's bracket has been playing all day so they would be hot compared to the winner's bracket player sitting around for an hour and getting cold.
Click to expand...

I think you are exactly right. The losers side is a tough road and you don't get much down time. You stay hot though. The winners side you have all kinds of time. I've had it several times where I was playing lights out and then made it to the finals and had to wait till the next day or several hours and just sucked when I finally got to play again.
 
Not sure it is a trend.

Scottster said:
You think that's unfair... The latest trend is to take the final 16 in a tournament, have a redraw, and play single elimination, depriving the 8 players on the winner's side their second bullet. IMHO no amount of honey would make that easy to swallow.

I never minded making the final match single elimination as long as the race was extended, which ironically doesn't happen, it becomes shorter. For some reason editing a race to 11 for TV is much more difficult than editing a race to 7 :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I don't know how many times this has actually happened. Only once that I can remember recently. I think it was the 10ball Championships. What other tourney's have done that? I am not arguing I just want to know what other ones have done it to consider it a trend. Thanks.

BVal
 
MikeJanis said:
It's mostly just for TV matches due to the time constraints but over the years many non-televised pro events have also used the single finals which has carried over to many local events. To me it's unfair, that's why all Viking Tour events (EXCEPT 1-POCKET) have true double elimination finals. Our percentage over the years may surprise you but 68% of the time the player from the 1-loss side ends up winning the tournament.

Respectfully,
Click to expand...

I'm surprised the statistics bear it out, but I always felt like the B-side player won more. They are in stroke, they've been focusing on what they have to do and the A side player is trying 'not to lose'.

I personally have won more tournaments from the 'b' side than undefeated.

Cheers,
RC
 
BVal said:
I don't know how many times this has actually happened. Only once that I can remember recently. I think it was the 10ball Championships. What other tourney's have done that? I am not arguing I just want to know what other ones have done it to consider it a trend. Thanks.

BVal
Click to expand...

WPC, WPBA.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
Every single double elimination tourney I play in that has a 1-race final match, I complain. I've lost a few times in finals like that--- and I always leave a little upset. The guy who beat me already lost, and I just had my 1st loss--- shouldn't it go to a second set?

I agree-- it's retarded. How do you go home w/ 1 loss in a double-elimination tournament?
Click to expand...

try losing during the early rounds, you might have some luck in the finals then. ;)
 
I believe this kind of dilemma would soon be dealt with. remember that tourneys before started out with no double elimination final. now we have them in some tournaments. it would be up to the organizers to create a new format to reward undefeated players in the final 4, 8 and 16.
 
Actually, it's not terribly uncommon in the New York area to have the finals be only one set. What will typically happen here is there will be a race to 7 unless the loser's side gets there first, then the race is extended to 9.

Regarding one set versus two, I have mixed feelings on it. If the Loser's Side Finalist wins the first set, he technically has a better record then the Winner's Side Finalist so declaring him the winner would not be inappropriate. Also, I would imagine the Winner's Side Finalist has a HUGE (almost unfair) advantage in a two-set format.

Regardless, everyone usually knows beforehand what the format is and if they don't agree, they have the right to not participate. From my own experiences, I'm usually happy to be in the finals and could care less what the format is.
 
If it is billed as a Double Elimination, then you have to have two losses to be eliminated.

I'm not opposed to a single match for the winner of the one loss side and the winner of the hot seat match. Usually it is the same two players that were in the hot seat match. Not always, but usually.

As long as the match of the finals is an extended race, giving the players and the spectators their monies worth.

I've never heard anyone complain about a single match for the finals,
 
Tom In Cincy said:
If it is billed as a Double Elimination, then you have to have two losses to be eliminated.

I'm not opposed to a single match for the winner of the one loss side and the winner of the hot seat match. Usually it is the same two players that were in the hot seat match. Not always, but usually.

As long as the match of the finals is an extended race, giving the players and the spectators their monies worth.

I've never heard anyone complain about a single match for the finals,
Click to expand...

an extended race is more appropriate, but will the tv matches and others allow it? the trend seems like the finals is cut short rather than extending it. ie. race to 9 or 11 becomes race to 7. just simply mind-boggling :confused: !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top