Drivermaker Holiday Tournament coming soon???
- Thread starter chefjeff
- Start date
I'm new around here, but I'm In if ya'll have me.
Sounds like a lot of fun, and a great way to pratice at the same time....
Sounds like a lot of fun, and a great way to pratice at the same time....
Williebetmore said:
I'm torn on this one willie. After the options are understood there can easily be some advantage to the other placements. I took some low scores early last year because I chose the wrong option on some tough clustered-up racks. I don't think I used the 'within a triangle' option, but that too could make a big difference in some racks. I guess I'd prefer to see the rules stay as originally posted for the following reasons :
- if the rules don't change then anyone posting a lower score than DM's last years score won't have that agument when they are harassed (pre-emptive excuse elimination)
- the new players deserve to feel that awful feeling when they realize they made a tactical error in an early rack after they learn the power of the various options (this falls into the misery loves company category, I know I do)
- given that it was originally posted by DM, it makes perfect sense that there is a rule that demands attention, comprehension and understanding over-and-above the bashing level ... I always got the impression that DM hated when people didn't pay attention.
Of course I would be pleased to go with the majority on this one if there are any other opinions.
Dave
I would like to give it a shot as long as there are no hidden fees...Im not looking to win anything, 1. because Im garbage and 2. because there is no entry fee. A quick question...I play alot, can I do more than 50 racks or do 50 racks a few times not only to try to better my score but maybe we can all watch the averages change. I think AZbers should have a place to post a 50 rack score a month. Nothing to obligated to but could be interesting. thanks FWIW.
csf914 said:
This will be a fee free fun fracas, not to worry. The prizes are about the same as the entry fee, the experience is priceless.
Pay no attention to what Zeeder suggested, playing a bunch of racks and posting the best 50 is cheating
. The basic premise is to post the first 50 racks after the official start date and time. No muligans, no "oops, I'll start over", no "I'll just leave that rack out", just play, count, and post the scores.For general pratice and monitoring game improvement (this game, anyway), doing this test every once in a while is a good idea imo.
Speaking of the official start time, could someone please tell me when is Thanksgiving ? And while we're at it, why not set an official start and stop date/time (wbm, this may fall to you). I'll suggest midnight Dec 31, 2005 as the stop/all-scores-must-be-posted time, but as I mentioned, I don't know when Thanksgiving is, so I can't suggest a start time.
Dave
DougT
Illustrated Principles
keep the rules the same
Dave, I'm not torn at all.
By my way of thinking, this is a standardized set of rules, and I humbly agree that everyone deserves that lousy feeling of 0's and 1's when they could've moved the cueball to begin their runouts.
I'd agree that having a fixed stop and start is a good idea, altho I might extend into New Years Day just for the sake of another day off of work for some people.
I'd like to see us encourage the posting of scores by rack, not just total. I think part of the masochistic pleasure will be how many 1's and 0's I had compared to everyone else!
In any event, I began lurking in these parts after last year's DM got going, and didn't participate. I did however, try it out, and have used this as a skill drill off and on throughout the year, and have enjoyed it.
Dave, I'm not torn at all.
By my way of thinking, this is a standardized set of rules, and I humbly agree that everyone deserves that lousy feeling of 0's and 1's when they could've moved the cueball to begin their runouts.
I'd agree that having a fixed stop and start is a good idea, altho I might extend into New Years Day just for the sake of another day off of work for some people.
I'd like to see us encourage the posting of scores by rack, not just total. I think part of the masochistic pleasure will be how many 1's and 0's I had compared to everyone else!
In any event, I began lurking in these parts after last year's DM got going, and didn't participate. I did however, try it out, and have used this as a skill drill off and on throughout the year, and have enjoyed it.
DaveK said:
I did a few racks and got 16,2,20, and 20. Hopefully can improve on not getting that low score. My strategy is probably obvious, but I get rid of the clusters and leave the last balls spread out around the table for easy positional play.
Koop said:A note from beyond the forums
"I wanted me to let you know that a "Memorial" tournament isn't necessary since I'm alive and well. I could come on at any time under another screen name but choose not to because I'm sick and tired of the Shorty's of the world, the Marissa's, and the Mike Howerton's.
That having been said, I wish all of you a Happy Holiday and good shooting."
Disclaimer:
These are NOT my words. You can fire if you want to but I'm just the messenger of good will and shooting.
Thanks, Koop for dredging up the spirits of the past....ooooooooohoooohooo
Tell DM that he's welcome to play, too, after all it was his idea. If anyone doesn't agree, say so.
Jeff Livingston
DougT said:
I like the way you think
DougT said:
Ya, I recall this happening last year, and you are right, an end time of midnight on Jan 1 2006 makes more sense as people can play on New Years Day if they are not watching football or turkeys cooking.
And now for another tactic on the start time THANKSGIVING WAS ON OCTOBER 10TH, WAS IT NOT ?
DougT said:
This was the way scores were posted last year. Typically the participants replied in a 'scores thread', and edited these replys as they played more sets of 10 racks (10 sets to complete the 100 racks, 5 sets this time around). A set was posted with individual scores, such as one I recall playing which went something like : 20,20,20,18,14,12,16,7,2,4 (I remember this one as it made me vewy vewy angwy).
Dave
PS, I agree Jeff, DM should post-by-proxy a score this year ... I think he got lucky over and over and over last year ... no way he can play that well again, no way
Last edited:
pre-tourney qualifier
I tried out 10 racks to see how it would work.
That way I could get some of the public embarrassment factor dealt with right away, and also have somebody check my math and understanding of the scores...
I made the following # balls
12,9,3,2,4,7,10,15,8,15
so I make the scores to be:
14,9,3,2,4,7,10,20,8,20
which is a total of 97.
If I did this 10 times, that would be 970, which would be "Developing Pro" according to the scoring?
Geez, that seems a very liberal interpretation of my skills to me, particularly since I tossed in those 3 really bad racks (3,2,4), and would think I could do better (don't we all?).
Upon further review, there are 4 levels of "pro" in the descriptions, which seems like too many? I mean maybe I should be a "decent-player, Pro-Tem" or something...
So I came up with some alternate title schemes for the Rankings. I don't expect anyone to adopt these, nor would I propose them for a vote, but figure you all might want to debate them for fun....
Scheme One: (nice reasonable scheme won't offend anybody)
0-300 Recreational Player
301-600 Intermediate Player
601-900 Advanced Player
901-1200 Expert Player
1201-1600 Shortstop
1601-1800 Pro
1801-2000 Tour Pro
or
Scheme Two (more perjorative, harsher, demanding and realistic?):
0-300 Recreational Banger
301-600 Intermediate Banger
601-900 Shooter
901-1200 Skilled Shooter
1201-1600 Player
1601-1800 Skilled Player
1801-2000 Pro
Of course, I really have no reason to propose these schemes other than to divert attention away from my scores.
I tried out 10 racks to see how it would work.
That way I could get some of the public embarrassment factor dealt with right away, and also have somebody check my math and understanding of the scores...
I made the following # balls
12,9,3,2,4,7,10,15,8,15
so I make the scores to be:
14,9,3,2,4,7,10,20,8,20
which is a total of 97.
If I did this 10 times, that would be 970, which would be "Developing Pro" according to the scoring?
Geez, that seems a very liberal interpretation of my skills to me, particularly since I tossed in those 3 really bad racks (3,2,4), and would think I could do better (don't we all?).
Upon further review, there are 4 levels of "pro" in the descriptions, which seems like too many? I mean maybe I should be a "decent-player, Pro-Tem" or something...
So I came up with some alternate title schemes for the Rankings. I don't expect anyone to adopt these, nor would I propose them for a vote, but figure you all might want to debate them for fun....
Scheme One: (nice reasonable scheme won't offend anybody)
0-300 Recreational Player
301-600 Intermediate Player
601-900 Advanced Player
901-1200 Expert Player
1201-1600 Shortstop
1601-1800 Pro
1801-2000 Tour Pro
or
Scheme Two (more perjorative, harsher, demanding and realistic?):
0-300 Recreational Banger
301-600 Intermediate Banger
601-900 Shooter
901-1200 Skilled Shooter
1201-1600 Player
1601-1800 Skilled Player
1801-2000 Pro
Of course, I really have no reason to propose these schemes other than to divert attention away from my scores.
Last edited: