7 matches to reach the finals undefeated, 10 to reach it with one loss for everyone except the hot seat loser, who needs 9?
Great News For Tournament Operators
- Thread starter Paul Schofield
- Start date
7 matches to reach the finals undefeated, 10 to reach it with one loss for everyone except the hot seat loser, who needs 9?
So there is no event?
In short order, the players quickly realize that all the cheating and manipulative tactics typically used in racking and breaking are now worthless. They just give it up and get on with it and play the match. Mission accomplished.
I wouldn't take it to that extreme, Neil. The breaker who separates all the balls well and controls the CB to get a shot on the lowest-numbered ball should do well. That's a skill shot, improvable with practice.
Last edited:
At a players meeting, one fellow asked about stopping players from tilting the rack. He did not think far enough. Tilting the rack can work against the breaker. If he pockets a wing ball, that ball could have been one of the balls that he needed to break the center string vertical plain.
One player got careless in his racking. Four balls went in the foot corners and only one ball broke the center string vertical plain. He had an easy out but his next shot was required to be a push out.
So a player has to give himself a good rack and he has to hit-em.
One player got careless in his racking. Four balls went in the foot corners and only one ball broke the center string vertical plain. He had an easy out but his next shot was required to be a push out.
So a player has to give himself a good rack and he has to hit-em.
JC
Coos Cues
All these rule manipulations are just a sad symptom of what's wrong with pool now days. Folks will tolerate just about anything to get a tourney with added money I guess. If you fund it, they will come.
Here's what I find telling. Five pages of discussion here over several weeks and not a single person who has participated in these things has come forward to stick up for the format. I guess it's like riding a moped.
Here's what I find telling. Five pages of discussion here over several weeks and not a single person who has participated in these things has come forward to stick up for the format. I guess it's like riding a moped.
The modified DE tournament chart is of interest to me as well as the No Conflict Rules.
I would like to obtain a PDF file of the 64 man & 128 man tournament charts. Someone created these charts in a graphic program and a pdf file should be easily provided, I hope.
I would like to see if the modified tournament charts can have a place in our weekly, handicapped, race to 1, DE tournament at Buffalo Billiards in Metairie, LA.
Thanks,
JoeyA
I would like to obtain a PDF file of the 64 man & 128 man tournament charts. Someone created these charts in a graphic program and a pdf file should be easily provided, I hope.
I would like to see if the modified tournament charts can have a place in our weekly, handicapped, race to 1, DE tournament at Buffalo Billiards in Metairie, LA.
Thanks,
JoeyA
Sent out 8 more charts yesterday.
DE charts
I have studied this new format and I think it has a lot to offer.
I am glad that 8 more people have requested the charts.
Mark Griffin
I have studied this new format and I think it has a lot to offer.
I am glad that 8 more people have requested the charts.
Mark Griffin
I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the No Conflict Rules speed things up and stop the players from cheating and fighting. I have proof.
Last edited:
64 Bracket
I got my 64 player, modified double elimination bracket today. In looking at it, I realized that, to my shock, you could play in the winner’s side final and end tied for 4th place. I didn’t like the idea of that. A person was always guaranteed 3rd if they got that far. I chewed on that for awhile, looked at the positives for his bracket and decided that I liked his thinking.
In fact, it got me thinking about many of different aspects that are “standard” in the pool world. Maybe we should step back, like Paul, and take a different view of those standards.
Suggestion: Maybe you don't need to start with the standard DE playing chart of 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256. The starting number could be based on the heart of your changes?
Good work Paul. I am anxious to see the other brackets to accomodate other amounts of players.
Thank you Paul.
I got my 64 player, modified double elimination bracket today. In looking at it, I realized that, to my shock, you could play in the winner’s side final and end tied for 4th place. I didn’t like the idea of that. A person was always guaranteed 3rd if they got that far. I chewed on that for awhile, looked at the positives for his bracket and decided that I liked his thinking.
In fact, it got me thinking about many of different aspects that are “standard” in the pool world. Maybe we should step back, like Paul, and take a different view of those standards.
Suggestion: Maybe you don't need to start with the standard DE playing chart of 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256. The starting number could be based on the heart of your changes?
Good work Paul. I am anxious to see the other brackets to accomodate other amounts of players.
Thank you Paul.
It is all give and take. A player who loses his first match, plays 3 less matches to reach finals. A player who loses late will have to play 1 more match to reach finals. I think that this is equitable.
thinking some more
Yes, the more I look at the chart and more I think about it, the better it gets. The pool culture "standards" need a shake up. Clearly what has been the "standards" for our industry is NOT working.
It is thinking out of the box that will help the industry.
Thanks Paul,
Yes, the more I look at the chart and more I think about it, the better it gets. The pool culture "standards" need a shake up. Clearly what has been the "standards" for our industry is NOT working.
It is thinking out of the box that will help the industry.
Thanks Paul,
Here are the actual time savings. All four events had 64 players, race to 7 in the WB, race to 6 in the LB, with 17 tables in use.
1 match finals:
02-26-11 Standard DE 15.50 hours
11-12-11 Modified DE 12.25 hours
Time saved 3.25 hours
2 match finals:
04-23-11 Standard DE 16.25 hours
02-25-12 Modified DE 13.25 hours
Time saved 3.00 hours
I will also add that all 4 of these events were played under the No Conflict Rules for racking and breaking. These rules easily saved 3 hours per tournament. That would mean that total time knocked off would exceed 6 hours. That works for everyone.
I am sending out another handful of charts tomorrow.
1 match finals:
02-26-11 Standard DE 15.50 hours
11-12-11 Modified DE 12.25 hours
Time saved 3.25 hours
2 match finals:
04-23-11 Standard DE 16.25 hours
02-25-12 Modified DE 13.25 hours
Time saved 3.00 hours
I will also add that all 4 of these events were played under the No Conflict Rules for racking and breaking. These rules easily saved 3 hours per tournament. That would mean that total time knocked off would exceed 6 hours. That works for everyone.
I am sending out another handful of charts tomorrow.
Last edited:
A week ago, we ran our 10th event with the No Conflict Rules. It was also the 4th event with the new modified double elimination format. I posted a picture below of the chart. The field was full with 64 players and we had to turn players away. This was a one day event with over $9000 in prizes. The full results are here: RESULTS
As with every other tournament we have run, there is never a hold up or an argument over racking and breaking. These tournaments move along at a good pace.
As with every other tournament we have run, there is never a hold up or an argument over racking and breaking. These tournaments move along at a good pace.
Attachments
There are a few things that can discount an innovative format. Repeat matches (particularly back to back), byes beyond the opening rounds (especially late rounds), half irrelevant matches (like in round robin). In a standard double elimination format, the first repeat match can take place in the final match in the one loss bracket. Even with this, the repeat match is not back to back so that seems to be OK. In the last event we had, there was 1 rematch in 127 matches. It is marked in red. There were no byes.
In this modified format, early on, there are spots where repeat matches can take place but there are always a minimum of 2 matches in between.
Here is my experience in the 4 tournaments:
tourney 1: 1 rematch
tourney 2: 0 rematches
tourney 3: 2 rematches
tourney 4: 1 rematch
From my perspective, this is acceptable.
Placement of one loss players was critical in building this chart.
In this modified format, early on, there are spots where repeat matches can take place but there are always a minimum of 2 matches in between.
Here is my experience in the 4 tournaments:
tourney 1: 1 rematch
tourney 2: 0 rematches
tourney 3: 2 rematches
tourney 4: 1 rematch
From my perspective, this is acceptable.
Placement of one loss players was critical in building this chart.
Attachments
Last edited:
So, what is the advantage? The best and most exciting format used in the world of sports is Single Elimination. SI is used in the playoffs for all of our major professional sports. They know what's good. In addition, the most exciting tournament in the world is the NCAA Basketball Tournament which is SI with 64 teams. The field gets to finals fast. It's spectacular.
Double Elimination reaches a point where there are too few players left with too many rounds to be played. People get tired of it and lose interest.
Check this out: What a tournament looks like with 16 players remaining in a 64 bracket:
Single Elimination: 3 rounds + finals (the best, I stay)
Double Elimination: 6 rounds + finals (the worst, I leave)
Schofield's Format: 4 rounds + finals (only 1 more round than SI)
Double Elimination reaches a point where there are too few players left with too many rounds to be played. People get tired of it and lose interest.
Check this out: What a tournament looks like with 16 players remaining in a 64 bracket:
Single Elimination: 3 rounds + finals (the best, I stay)
Double Elimination: 6 rounds + finals (the worst, I leave)
Schofield's Format: 4 rounds + finals (only 1 more round than SI)
Last edited: