Great News For Tournament Operators

[Mark Griffin]

Modified Double Elimination

OK - Paul had his concept of the modified double elimination delivered to me at the Diamond booth at the SBE.

He left with me a full copy of a 64 man chart - and went beyond common courtesy in providing me the info I needed.

(BTW - Shayne was a real nice guy and very helpful).

Paul is also working on another 'edition' of modified flow charts that will also be interesting.

BOTTOM LINE: I find this concept to be pretty cool and I (with my staff) are going to punch some holes in it (if we can). But I am impressed.

BTW - this has nothing to do with the no conflist rules. That is a different topic!

Thanks Paul - I will be in touch with you.

Maark Griffin, CEO
CSI - BCAPL - USAPL

 

[The Renfro]

All the stats that I have shows that there is not even a 5% difference between a champion and a banger in making a ball on the break. (the banger has to at least have some kind of stroke and strength). I think the 5% difference is in the racking manipulation by the better players. If you sit back and take a look at how we start our favorite games: slamming the balls and slopping balls in, I will get rid of that in a minute if it will speed up play, and stop the players from cheating and fighting.

The real skill of the break is cue-ball and 1-ball control. Keep that.

My answer is the No Conflict Rules and a Modified DE format. My tournaments fly and the players get along better.

So the smart players just use the break as an actual opening shot not caring if they have to make anything....

I understand both players can do it but the break wasn't ever intended to be as such... Nothing down means you turn over the table or the option if you are playing pushout...

I keep coming back to this image of a young player getting beat on by the guys that had real breaks and then coming up with this plan on how they could have a shot at winning.... If someone walked up and wanted that spot I am pretty sure I'd still be telling that story... "let me tell ya about the spot this one guy wanted"..... Most every time I have ever seen someone try and adjust the rules it's always been about self interest...

Rack your own and winner breaks.... You can shoot when I miss or break dry......

 

[Paul Schofield]

.Rack your own and winner breaks.... You can shoot when I miss or break dry......

I am done with that in my events. The No Conflict Rules are superior in every way.

Another short story on the No Conflict Rules: I run a BCA combination Eight & Nine-Ball League with 5 man teams on bar tables where each man plays 5 games of Eight and 5 games of Nine on league night. There are a number of 100 ball runners in the league. Last Summer at the league meeting prior to the start of the league, the players voted to play under the No Conflict Rules this year. The league has never gone better.

 

[TheMarsMan]

If you want to send me a copy of your tournament chart I will scan it in and let everyone see it. I have a scanner that can scan a document 3' x any length.

I can also save it out as a PDF so you can print or view it on any computer.

 

[Paul Schofield]

Another short story on the No Conflict Rules: I run a BCA combination Eight & Nine-Ball League with 5 man teams on bar tables where each man plays 5 games of Eight and 5 games of Nine on league night. There are a number of 100 ball runners in the league. Last Summer at the league meeting prior to the start of the league, the players voted to play under the No Conflict Rules this year. The league has never gone better.

I would also add that previously, the league voted NOT to introduce the rules into play. Time and experience won out. Many of the players used the No Conflict Rules during their casual play and found out that the rules worked and they like them.

 

[APA Operator]

Here is some food for thought:

In a standard 64 man double elimination format, after the first round, 32 players need to win 6 straight matches to capture the event. The other 32 players have to win 12 straight matches.

In a standard 128 man double elimination format, after the first round, 64 players need to win 7 straight matches to capture the event. The other 64 players have to win 14 straight matches.

Is this equitable?

That's kind of a loaded question, isn't it? Only 1 of the 32 on the winners side might actually win it in just six more matches. Sixteen of them will lose the next match, then will have to win 10 straight (11 more matches total). Eight of them will win one then lose one, then have to win 8 straight (10 more matches total). So on a standard 64 player double elimination board, each match you win before your first loss cuts one match off the total you have to play to win the tournament with one loss. Is that equitable? If you believe you should gain something with each win on the winner's side (an incentive to actually win on that side), this is as equitable as it gets.

On the other hand, if you don't believe an early loss should cost more than a late loss, then you can draw up a bracket where it takes six matches to reach the finals with no losses and eight or nine matches to reach the finals with one loss, regardless of where you lose. For 128 players, the numbers are seven with no losses and nine or ten with one. Post #10 is one way to do it (almost), but you don't necessarily have to lump winner's side losers into their own loser's side bracket, you can spread them among the other loser's side players if you want.

So the question of equity really depends on your philosophy. The bracket used in my second paragraph does cut a couple of rounds off the loser's side so it could speed up the tournament a little. In the end though, you play the same total number of matches, it's just that the "shorter" bracket balances the total among all remaining players so there is less waiting and a shorter critical path.

 

[APA Operator]

Here's my guess at a modified double elimination.
After each round in the winners bracket, the losers drop into a bracket that is all their own. Nobody ever drops into their bracket. This creates a new bracket after each winners bracket round which avoids feeding the same losers bracket continually with new players, which is why they end up playing so many times in a standard format.

Here's a 16 player example to save typing!

After the first round there are two 8 player brackets.
After the second round, there are three 4 player brackets.
After the third round, there are four 2 player brackets.
After the fourth round, there are 4 players left, three of which have one loss.
They play out from here.
If I'm correct, an undefeated winner would play one less game than the second place finisher. If the eventual winner had two win twice, the two finalists would have played the same amount of games.

Is this how it's done?

You could do it this way, except after the fourth round there would be five players left, four with one loss and one with no losses. The four with one loss would play down to 1. So regardless of who wins, the player who reaches the hot seat will play two fewer matches than his/her opponent in the finals.

As the tournament size increases, so does the difference in matches played between the hot seat player and the other finalist. For 16 players, the difference is 2 matches. For 64 players, it can be 3. It can't get to 4 until you're on a 1024-player bracket.

 

[Paul Schofield]

You could do it this way, except after the fourth round there would be five players left, four with one loss and one with no losses. The four with one loss would play down to 1. So regardless of who wins, the player who reaches the hot seat will play two fewer matches than his/her opponent in the finals.

As the tournament size increases, so does the difference in matches played between the hot seat player and the other finalist. For 16 players, the difference is 2 matches. For 64 players, it can be 3. It can't get to 4 until you're on a 1024-player bracket.

I can get this to work for 16 players. I can't get this to work (on paper) for 32 and beyond without an inopportune bye.

 

[daddyfats]

You could do it this way, except after the fourth round there would be five players left, four with one loss and one with no losses. The four with one loss would play down to 1. So regardless of who wins, the player who reaches the hot seat will play two fewer matches than his/her opponent in the finals.

As the tournament size increases, so does the difference in matches played between the hot seat player and the other finalist. For 16 players, the difference is 2 matches. For 64 players, it can be 3. It can't get to 4 until you're on a 1024-player bracket.

Upon further thought I realized the issue. I don't think it's possible in most (if not all) cases to get a double elim down to equal games. It might work out if you pair winners against losers in certain rounds, but that would depend on results falling the right way. In more cases than not, there would probably have to be a bye given at some point.

 

[APA Operator]

I can get this to work for 16 players. I can't get this to work (on paper) for 32 and beyond without an inopportune bye.

It will work without (visible) byes for any size field where the number of rounds to reach the hot seat is a power of 2. That's 4, 16, 256, and unrealistic larger brackets (the next one is 65,536, which you could do in twelve hours with tournament software, a single-game format, and two thousand tables ).

I think we'll have to disagree on whether late-round byes are inopportune. I think they're no worse than "skips", where you get your first loss in the third round and enter the one-loss side in the fifth round. This method of double-elimination has no "skips", guarantees you won't see the same opponent a second time until possibly very late in the tournament, and minimizes the potential difference in matches played between the two finalists (I think). All for a couple of late-round byes.

(Added via edit) It's also a method that allows you to easily create the bracket by hand, without having to know how all of the "flips" work - bonus!

 

[Blue Hog ridr]

Was there a dress code or were Satanists, bikers, smokers, people who live in trailers, people who wear tee shirts and jeans allowed to play?

 

[Paul Schofield]

Was there a dress code or were Satanists, bikers, smokers, people who live in trailers, people who wear tee shirts and jeans allowed to play?

Sure. Everyone can play and does play. No one cares what you are. You only need to adhere to a dress code. Simple and fair enough.

Blue Hog ridr is referring to these threads:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=214081&highlight=schofield
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=259958&highlight=schofield

 

[Paul Schofield]

I think we'll have to disagree on whether late-round byes are inopportune.

I have been an observer on two occasions many years ago when there were surprise late tournament byes. Those TDs were almost lynched. I can tell you, that will never be me.

 

[APA Operator]

Ok, so don't put the byes on the board. By combining the separate brackets before they reach one player each and putting "skips" in the right place, you can produce a sequence of matches with no (visible) byes. On a standard board, that's all the "skips" are - byes in the rounds after the one in which you receive your first loss. They just aren't shown.

In the 32-player case, the loser of the hot seat match would skip two rounds on the loser's side before playing. Note that on a standard double-elimination board, that player would skip three rounds on the loser's side. If you put byes on the bracket, three of the final five on that side would skip one round each (and you can do it without explicitly showing the bye matches, if your concern is upsetting players who don't understand). If you're using a modified bracket for reasons of "equity", which choice makes the most sense?

 

[Maniac]

Why not have a bracket where the losers side does not cycle back into the winners side. Let the losers side play for a "consolation" prize (whatever that prize may be) and let the winners bracket have a winner, a runner-up, a 3rd/4th place payout, etc. Just make sure the consolation prize/payout isn't so high that it insults the winners side players that go deep into the tournament. Everyone is guaranteed two matches minimum.

My belief is that you would see better quality pool from the players if they knew their chances of winning the tournament depends on playing at their best in every match.

I have never been a fan of someone coming back from the losers side and winning the tournament by defeating the previously unbeaten player in a single match.

Just some random thoughts.

Maniac

 

[one stroke]

Does the no conflict rules take care of the payouts because thats where 95% of the complaints come from


1

 

[Paul Schofield]

Why not have a bracket where the losers side does not cycle back into the winners side. Let the losers side play for a "consolation" prize (whatever that prize may be) and let the winners bracket have a winner, a runner-up, a 3rd/4th place payout, etc. Just make sure the consolation prize/payout isn't so high that it insults the winners side players that go deep into the tournament. Everyone is guaranteed two matches minimum.

My belief is that you would see better quality pool from the players if they knew their chances of winning the tournament depends on playing at their best in every match.

I have never been a fan of someone coming back from the losers side and winning the tournament by defeating the previously unbeaten player in a single match.

Just some random thoughts.

Maniac

Many local tournaments are run that way just to cut down on time. We have run events this way in the past.

 

[APA Operator]

Why not have a bracket where the losers side does not cycle back into the winners side. Let the losers side play for a "consolation" prize (whatever that prize may be) and let the winners bracket have a winner, a runner-up, a 3rd/4th place payout, etc. Just make sure the consolation prize/payout isn't so high that it insults the winners side players that go deep into the tournament. Everyone is guaranteed two matches minimum.

My belief is that you would see better quality pool from the players if they knew their chances of winning the tournament depends on playing at their best in every match.

I have never been a fan of someone coming back from the losers side and winning the tournament by defeating the previously unbeaten player in a single match.

Just some random thoughts.

Maniac

Interesting thought. Cut it off at the final four, make it single-elimination from that point on and let the loser's side play for fifth and beyond. You'll still have some matches played discrepancies on the losers side that can only be handled with byes or skips, but the really big skips would be eliminated.

I don't believe in one-match finals, either, unless the undefeated player wins. Double-elimination should be played until there is only one player left with fewer than two losses.

 

[Paul Schofield]

I have been working on the 128 man for months. I wrapped it up tonight. Tomorrow it will go out for a tournament scheduled for this weekend.

 

[jamesroberts]

When is your next event?