How much longer must we endure this insane format CSI is pushing

Fatboy

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Let’s go with Stu’s idea that I’m wrong. And I could be. Not arguing that at all, I’ve been wrong many times.

What’s the benefit of this format for the fans and players? Since the books are not part of the equation.

There’s a few,

High variance meaning that a weaker player has a chance to beat a stronger player because the race is shorter and it’s Alt break or a sudden death shoot out. That’s a attraction that might be more exciting to people who like to see less predictable matches. Who wants to watch me lose 11-3 playing SVB, ok 11-2?? I get it. It’s boring and predictable.

More matchups in round robins means you can watch your favorite player play more often. That has appeal as well. With the old format if you see SVB play 9 times it’s because he won the tourney. If I’m your favorite player in the old format you get to watch me go 2 & out-not good for my fans. Lol.

So the short form does have non gambling book positive aspects. See who you like play more often in high variance matches and follow and track players in round robin formats-something I personally do enjoy. It’s fun to look at a players performance after a large sample of matches

The old 2 & out format is what we are all used to. But arguably is it the best form of pool? It is for the winner, but what about the fans? I’m not sure. Thinking about it. Less predictable matches, seeing who I like play more often is kinda cool.

I’m not inflexible in my thinking. Maybe this is the way forward for pool. The 2 & out thing sure hasn’t produced much in the last 50 years.

New ideas deserve a fair shake.

So there’s my thoughts without the books in mind.

Best
Fatboy<———thinks deeply
 

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
I understand this, but I still would be interested in seeing the data to get a better understanding of how it works. I’m not math guy so I know I could be completely wrong in all my assumptions.

It makes sense that this would in theory be just like a race to 8, but the interesting wrinkle is that you can win 4-7 or something like that. I’m interested in how the shoot out influences the match outcome in these scenarios.

What is the probability of the better player winning a shootout and how does it compare to the probability of them winning a game or even a race to 4 set.
Skip100's post (#116) does a creditable job of summarizing some of the math behind the assessment that these matches are like a race to eight for the underdog.

As for the odds of a heavy underdog winning a shootout, I don't think we have enough data and need to use the eye test. My observation is that the heavy underdogs aren't doing well at all in shootouts, but perhaps at year end, we'll all have a better handle on it. Mike Page has restricted his analyses to the match level to this point, not drilling as deep as the probabilities on the shootout.
 

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
I’m betting it is!

Lol let’s see. I’m in the UK 4-6 times a year, except the last couple. That’s changing next month. Yay

IPT and Stanley Ho was all a fantasy of KT’s was never any meat on the bone. That was a airball.

Best
Eric
I was in the UK in December and will be there again in May. I'll pop into a couple of bookmaking shops to see if pool action has a legitimate presence.
 

Fatboy

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I didn't say you were wrong, only that the betting public's appetite for wagering on pool has yet to be established. You may end up being right.
Stu,

I know you didn’t.

But it’s possible I am wrong

So I wanted to examine it through a diffent lease, thought process.

This wasn’t about you, your my friend and very smart. You say something I have to think about it. And re-examine my own thoughts. I’m giving you that respect. Your knowledge about pool exceeds mine.
 

Fatboy

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I was in the UK in December and will be there again in May. I'll pop into a couple of bookmaking shops to see if pool action has a legitimate presence.
I’ll check too.

I’ll also ask drago to look in Malta-lots of books there
 

Fatboy

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
When Cardone says something about pool, that I’m unsure of or don’t know. Same thing I reassess my thoughts.

That’s how I learn. There’s a short list of people who I hold so much respect for that when they say something that I don’t know 100%, I keep digging and learning.

Your on that list Stu, you know pro pool, you have been around forever and seen a lot. I really respect that and I always will.

I’m proud to call you a friend,

And I don’t ever mind being wrong, I just learn when I am wrong. And my feelings don’t get hurt. I can take it!

I think that’s a growing process in life. With age comes wisdom to those with open minds. My ego is not important and learning is.

Warmest regards

Eric Petersen <——-full real name, very serious post!!!
 

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
When Cardone says something about pool, that I’m unsure of or don’t know. Same thing I reassess my thoughts.

That’s how I learn. There’s a short list of people who I hold so much respect for that when they say something that I don’t know 100%, I keep digging and learning.

Your on that list Stu, you know pro pool, you have been around forever and seen a lot. I really respect that and I always will.

I’m proud to call you a friend,

And I don’t ever mind being wrong, I just learn when I am wrong. And my feelings don’t get hurt. I can take it!

I think that’s a growing process in life. With age comes wisdom to those with open minds. My ego is not important and learning is.

Warmest regards

Eric Petersen <——-full real name, very serious post!!!
Thanks for the kind words, but I like comparing notes with the countless knowledgeable posters on this forum. We all approach things in a slightly different way, and each of us exhibits different hopes, values and expectations with respect to pro pool. None of us are quite sure how any of this will evolve in our sport. That said, it is all the great posts on this forum that give me the broadest possible perspective in the formation of my own opinions.

You add a lot to this forum, Eric, and exercise the kind of freedom that all posters should feel when they post. In this thread alone, many of the most capable posters on AZB have participated and have contributed greatly.

We are all united by our desire to see our sport grow and to see pro players earn a better living. Some of us, and I believe you and I are among them, also care very deeply about the economics of the event producers and sponsors in pool. I want to see them all thrive!
 

VVP

Registered
I don't think it's a question of a Cinderella winning the entire tournament, but a question if underdogs can create upsets that woulld cause "favorites" to be knocked out. No Cinderella will win any major tournament.

I think the format of the US Pro Billiards Series would allow for more upsets and is a main reason why top players do not like the format ...and the reason why the format should provide more entertainment for viewers. You could do a simple exercise to check this assumption if you have the time. Check how many Cinderellas won a match in the last US Pro Billiards Las Vegas Series against a 785+ Fargo and let's see how many will win a match against a 785+ Fargo in the current Predator World 10 Ball event. Anyone willing to guess which one will have more Cinderellas?
 

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
I don't think it's a question of a Cinderella winning the entire tournament, but a question if underdogs can create upsets that woulld cause "favorites" to be knocked out. No Cinderella will win any major tournament.
Cinderella, in this context, means a player not considered among the 50 best entering an event.

Cinderellas have won many major titles, To name a few:

At the US Open, we've seen Tommy Kennedy, Reed Pierce, Kevin Cheng, and Gabe Owen all snap it off. At the World Championships, we have seen Darryl Peach, Yukio Akagariyama and Kunihiko Takahashi win. At the All-Japan, we've seen Takeshi Okumura, Raymond Faraon, and Tomu Takano win the title. Both Troy Frank and Warren Kiamco have prevailed at the Derby City 9-ball. Not one of these would have been among the top fifty betting favorites in these events.

I don't think a Cinderella will win one of these CSI/Predator events, but perhaps they will.

In addition, it is not true that these events are providing more upsets than the usual formats seen in other tournaments. The elite, as a group, are having a very easy time of it in these events, and they are walking away with practically all of the money.
 

Fatboy

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Thanks for the kind words, but I like comparing notes with the countless knowledgeable posters on this forum. We all approach things in a slightly different way, and each of us exhibits different hopes, values and expectations with respect to pro pool. None of us are quite sure how any of this will evolve in our sport. That said, it is all the great posts on this forum that give me the broadest possible perspective in the formation of my own opinions.

You add a lot to this forum, Eric, and exercise the kind of freedom that all posters should feel when they post. In this thread alone, many of the most capable posters on AZB have participated and have contributed greatly.

We are all united by our desire to see our sport grow and to see pro players earn a better living. Some of us, and I believe you and I are among them, also care very deeply about the economics of the event producers and sponsors in pool. I want to see them all thrive!
As usual we share the same desires and beliefs. Very well said. I hope we get more players, bigger paydays and more pool to sweat. Gorst not being allowed to play is so BAD!

Have a great evening and thanks again😃👍💪
 

VVP

Registered
Cinderella, in this context, means a player not considered among the 50 best entering an event.

Cinderellas have won many major titles, To name a few:

At the US Open, we've seen Tommy Kennedy, Reed Pierce, Kevin Cheng, and Gabe Owen all snap it off. At the World Championships, we have seen Darryl Peach, Yukio Akagariyama and Kunihiko Takahashi win. At the All-Japan, we've seen Takeshi Okumura, Raymond Faraon, and Tomu Takano win the title. Both Troy Frank and Warren Kiamco have prevailed at the Derby City 9-ball. Not one of these would have been among the top fifty betting favorites in these events.

I don't think a Cinderella will win one of these CSI/Predator events, but perhaps they will.

In addition, it is not true that these events are providing more upsets than the usual formats seen in other tournaments. The elite, as a group, are having a very easy time of it in these events, and they are walking away with practically all of the money.
Obviously I do not know much about pool history as you do, but guaranteed that Tommy Kennedy was NOT a Cinderella per your definition in the US Open he won. Unless I see the rankings for each of the events mentioned I cannot accept your claims. Sorry.
 

Fatboy

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Obviously I do not know much about pool history as you do, but guaranteed that Tommy Kennedy was NOT a Cinderella per your definition in the US Open he won. Unless I see the rankings for each of the events mentioned I cannot accept your claims. Sorry.
TK wasn’t the favorite, but he played a hell of a match. I was happy for him, he’s a wonderful guy. Was a huge win and he deserved it.
 

VVP

Registered
TK wasn’t the favorite, but he played a hell of a match. I was happy for him, he’s a wonderful guy. Was a huge win and he deserved it.
He definitely was not a favorite to beat Archer TWICE in the same tournament, but he beat a hell of lot of big names in that tournament.

Can we say that Zielinski is a Cinderella because he is not a "well known" name?
 

nicksaint26

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Let’s go with Stu’s idea that I’m wrong. And I could be. Not arguing that at all, I’ve been wrong many times.

What’s the benefit of this format for the fans and players? Since the books are not part of the equation.

There’s a few,

High variance meaning that a weaker player has a chance to beat a stronger player because the race is shorter and it’s Alt break or a sudden death shoot out. That’s a attraction that might be more exciting to people who like to see less predictable matches. Who wants to watch me lose 11-3 playing SVB, ok 11-2?? I get it. It’s boring and predictable.

More matchups in round robins means you can watch your favorite player play more often. That has appeal as well. With the old format if you see SVB play 9 times it’s because he won the tourney. If I’m your favorite player in the old format you get to watch me go 2 & out-not good for my fans. Lol.

So the short form does have non gambling book positive aspects. See who you like play more often in high variance matches and follow and track players in round robin formats-something I personally do enjoy. It’s fun to look at a players performance after a large sample of matches

The old 2 & out format is what we are all used to. But arguably is it the best form of pool? It is for the winner, but what about the fans? I’m not sure. Thinking about it. Less predictable matches, seeing who I like play more often is kinda cool.

I’m not inflexible in my thinking. Maybe this is the way forward for pool. The 2 & out thing sure hasn’t produced much in the last 50 years.

New ideas deserve a fair shake.

So there’s my thoughts without the books in mind.

Best
Fatboy<———thinks deeply
Just an FYI it is winner break
 

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
Obviously I do not know much about pool history as you do, but guaranteed that Tommy Kennedy was NOT a Cinderella per your definition in the US Open he won. Unless I see the rankings for each of the events mentioned I cannot accept your claims. Sorry.
I believe you are mistaken. Tommy may even qualify as the greatest ever Cinderella at the US Open. In 1991, when he won over Archer in the final, he was primarily a top regional tour player on the South East Florida Tour. By about 1996 or so, he was a ranked player on the PBT, the primary men's tour at the time. I'd guess his ranking was about 25th at that point. Hence, you are, in a sense correct. In the perspective of history, he looks like less of an underdog than he actually was perceived to be in 1991, but his win really shocked us all. And yes, I remember the 1991 US Open well.

Of course, mine is just one opinion. Here's a link to a thread from 2010 in which Tommy's playing speed was discussed, and I think you'll enjoy it.

 

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
He definitely was not a favorite to beat Archer TWICE in the same tournament, but he beat a hell of lot of big names in that tournament.

Can we say that Zielinski is a Cinderella because he is not a "well known" name?
Zielinski had several wins on the Eurotour before his win at the LV Open, including one just about a month ago at the Lasko Open. He's a very well-known name, and his Fargo rate entering the LV Open already put him among the World's top 20 players. That's impressive for a 21 year old.
 

VVP

Registered
I believe you are mistaken. Tommy may even qualify as the greatest ever Cinderella at the US Open. In 1991, when he won over Archer in the final, he was primarily a top regional tour player on the South East Florida Tour. By about 1996 or so, he was a ranked player on the PBT, the primary men's tour at the time. I'd guess his ranking was about 25th at that point. Hence, you are, in a sense correct. In the perspective of history, he looks like less of an underdog than he actually was perceived to be in 1991, but his win really shocked us all. And yes, I remember the 1991 US Open well.

Of course, mine is just one opinion. Here's a link to a thread from 2010 in which Tommy's playing speed was discussed, and I think you'll enjoy it.

Lots of history in that thread. Thanks.

I went back an looked at the finals. They mentioned he defeated Parica, Jim Rempe, Archer and others to get to the finals and was ranked 31 by the Men Professional Billiards Association (MPBA) at the time. It might be good press at the time to call him a Cinderella, but obviously he was not.. Maybe they called a guy named Ceasar Morales, Cinderella in those days also 😆
 
  • Love
Reactions: sjm

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
Lots of history in that thread. Thanks.

I went back an looked at the finals. They mentioned he defeated Parica, Jim Rempe, Archer and others to get to the finals and was ranked 31 by the Men Professional Billiards Association (MPBA) at the time. It might be good press at the time to call him a Cinderella, but obviously he was not.. Maybe they called a guy named Ceasar Morales, Cinderella in those days also 😆
Nice bit of research there, VVP. Tommy was less of a Cinderella than I had suggested.

Glad you enjoyed that "trip down memory lane" thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VVP
Top