Yes, single elimination in all those playoffs, but only with seeding.
Great News For Tournament Operators
- Thread starter Paul Schofield
- Start date
Yes, single elimination in all those playoffs, but only with seeding.
In addition, the one match finals for a double elimination tournament is smart for many reasons. That second match can be a killer.
So what am I saying? I am saying that the time savings is only a small advantage. The big advantage is getting to finals fast (or at least faster). Take a step toward holding everyone's attention (players and spectators alike).
Can you just imagine what a standard double elimination format would do to football, baseball, basketball, hockey, tennis, or golf?
Can you just imagine what a standard double elimination format would do to football, baseball, basketball, hockey, tennis, or golf?
As long as everyone is aware up front that the format is different, and everyone pays attention at the players meeting, it's all OK. We had one player that skipped the players meeting but made sure he was present for the player auction. As it turned out, two players that he bought were in the final eight and it was only then that he discovered that in the One Loss Bracket, his horses were going to have to play an extra match as compared to a standard DE format. He threw a fit and swore he would never be back. The next tournament he decided a little too late to enter and was blocked out. The field had already filled (64).
When there is no qualifying, and anybody with an entry fee can participate, it is difficult to make a case for seeding.
And, thus, difficult to make a case for single elimination.
Even if a handful of players came on here and disparaged the format, I would ignore it. I have always said to take lightly what people say and weight heavily how people spend their time and their hard earned money. That says so much more.
There are many tournaments every weekend in season in my area (within 125 miles) in Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, and more. They are very happy to get 20 to 32 players. Over and over, we fill at 64 and have to turn players away. What is even more interesting is that most of the tournaments add more money than we do. The last event we had was on the same weekend as another event that added $500 more than we did. We doubled the size of his field. The Joss Tour is in my area and that does not pull the players we do.
I think that the bulk of the players want to enjoy themselves at a good event. The No Conflict Rules and the modified format go a long way toward making these events worth the travel. These events move along quickly and without a lot of grief.
Last edited:
IMO
Even with this modified format, I am not a die hard fan of DE. Most of the players travel some distance. 25% of the field is eliminated after 2 matches. Drive for 4 or 5 hours and only get to play for and hour and a half. It does not seem worth it. I don't worry about the players that finish in the money. I concern myself with remainder of the field.
SE is really penalizing in this way but only worse. Half the field is gone after one match.
Round robin gives the players a decent play for their trouble but there are many pointless matches. Who wants to play a match in a tournament if you cannot win the tournament.
A perfect format is where every player gets a huge play for their money and travel effort. In addition, If they are still playing, they can still win the tournament. Finally, a perfect format progresses from many players to finals quickly within just a few rounds. This holds everyone's interest.
IMO
Even with this modified format, I am not a die hard fan of DE. Most of the players travel some distance. 25% of the field is eliminated after 2 matches. Drive for 4 or 5 hours and only get to play for and hour and a half. It does not seem worth it. I don't worry about the players that finish in the money. I concern myself with remainder of the field.
SE is really penalizing in this way but only worse. Half the field is gone after one match.
Round robin gives the players a decent play for their trouble but there are many pointless matches. Who wants to play a match in a tournament if you cannot win the tournament.
A perfect format is where every player gets a huge play for their money and travel effort. In addition, If they are still playing, they can still win the tournament. Finally, a perfect format progresses from many players to finals quickly within just a few rounds. This holds everyone's interest.
IMO
Last edited:
No. There is more said in this post than all of them put together (the last paragraph in particular).
Last edited:
That just so happend to be timed 5-7 days apart for over a month straight with zero other comments or discussion between them?
Uh huh. I believe you. I am sure thousands out there do not but I do.
Everytime I post on this subject I get phone calls, emails, and a PM here and there to request a sample chart. This thread continues to get plenty of hits without posted replies. People study the chart and try to figure it out. That is OK. I do want to spread the good word.
Last edited:
Which explains why this thread won't die!!!!! Props to you for making something viable but it's far from the right answer... Bump away but things will be changing soon enough.........
bump...How do you like traveling 800 miles and going two and out? If all players were about even, there is a 25% chance of just that happening. There would be a 37.5% chance of being done after three matches. Pro golfers get at least two rounds in or a minimum of 8 hours of play for their trouble. I know bowlers get a big play.
I have alway wondered about DE but it is the best that we have.
I have alway wondered about DE but it is the best that we have.
Below is the 128 man version. If a player loses his first match, he plays 4 less matches to reach finals as compared to standard DE. I have a tournament coming up and I hope to have 64 + 1 so that I can test the chart (even though there would be 63 byes). We had 37 players the first Summer and 52 players the second Summer. This is year 3. This would be the 5th event overall with this modified format and the 11th event with the No Conflict Rules.
Attachments
Last edited:
I got my wish. We had 68 players ($5000+ in total prizes) which ment we could test the 128 chart. I found 1 typo but no scheduling problems. This event flew. (race to 5 and race to 4). We had a players meeting followed by a player auction. The tournament itself was completed in 9 hours and 50 minutes.
There were 60 byes to start. The byes were all gone after round two in the one loss side. I wanted to be sure that a bye did not meet a bye in the 2nd round on the one loss side. It did not happen. There were 135 matches. There was only 1 repeat match (identified by the red dots). There were 6 matches in between the repeat. That was good.
This modified format is the nuts.
There were 60 byes to start. The byes were all gone after round two in the one loss side. I wanted to be sure that a bye did not meet a bye in the 2nd round on the one loss side. It did not happen. There were 135 matches. There was only 1 repeat match (identified by the red dots). There were 6 matches in between the repeat. That was good.
This modified format is the nuts.
Attachments
Last edited:
Here are the final results:
http://www.goldcrownbilliardseriepa.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Summer-2012-Report.pdf
Note that the place finishes are different than standard DE:
1st
2nd
3rd
4th-5th
6th-8th
9th-12th
13th-20th
This format has been well recieved (5 tournaments)....as long as everyone knows up front that it different and how it is different.
http://www.goldcrownbilliardseriepa.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Summer-2012-Report.pdf
Note that the place finishes are different than standard DE:
1st
2nd
3rd
4th-5th
6th-8th
9th-12th
13th-20th
This format has been well recieved (5 tournaments)....as long as everyone knows up front that it different and how it is different.
Last edited:
A fellow who is following all of this called me the other day and asked an intelligent question:
If there are the same number of matches in the modified format as there is in the standard format, how can there be a time savings?
The answer is: There are fewer rounds with more matches in each round. The result is that an event is able to use all of their tables far deeper into a tournament than they would with the standard format. The more tables an event has, the more time savings there is. Obviously, if the event only had one table there would be no time savings at all.
To put it another way: Let's say that in hour 6 of a standard formated tournament, the tournament has whittled down, only 6 tables are in use of the 12 started with. In the modified format, all 12 tables are in use in the 6th, 7th, and 8th hour. In the modified format, the event goes from many players to finals fast (at least much faster than the standard format).
This is a very good thing.
If there are the same number of matches in the modified format as there is in the standard format, how can there be a time savings?
The answer is: There are fewer rounds with more matches in each round. The result is that an event is able to use all of their tables far deeper into a tournament than they would with the standard format. The more tables an event has, the more time savings there is. Obviously, if the event only had one table there would be no time savings at all.
To put it another way: Let's say that in hour 6 of a standard formated tournament, the tournament has whittled down, only 6 tables are in use of the 12 started with. In the modified format, all 12 tables are in use in the 6th, 7th, and 8th hour. In the modified format, the event goes from many players to finals fast (at least much faster than the standard format).
This is a very good thing.
I guess you must have a lot of conflicts up there,, I have seen very very few in our area , the only thing I see contested is how much money the operater is pulling out ,,
1
Obviously you play in very few medium or high dollar events. Every event I attend where the racker is NOT the breaker, there is an argument over whether the rack is straight, tight or patterned. Even when the racker is the breaker, the opponent will challenge the rack as too loose, too crooked, too patterned ad nausium. Wish I lived where you are so I can avoid those conflicts. Till then, Paul's "No Conflict Rules" work just fine for me. Played in the last event. Had a great time. Only thing I wasn't 100% satisfied with was the bracketing. In most events when you get to the final four winners, you finish no lower than 5/6. Which I did. Due to Paul's brackets, I finished 6/8 instead. Not the end of the world but a small problem in my mind. Still going to return for his next event. You should try one!
Lyn