Two things that jumped out at me that I didn't like. First of all, I don't like how they pay everyone in the tournament. Golf tournaments don't pay the players that do not make the cut, and I think most tourneys for other sports are like that too. Furthermore if you don't pay the 97-200 ranked players that is $107,000 to redistribute throughout the field, which is five times many other prize funds.
Finally the match format. The players will be split up into four player brackets. Each player will play each other a total of 24 games with a total of 75 games played. Your score however is not compared against the rest of the group, rather it is compared against the rest of the field. The top 96 scores move to the next round.
This seems to be designed to create upsets and shockers. Lets say player A is in a group with Efren Reyes, Shane Van Boening and Dennis Orcullo. Player A wins 15 games and are just below the cut line. Player B is in a group with the cook, the dishwasher and the Butcher (assuming they don't play very strong of course). Player B wins 16 games, and just barely makes it through.
I don't see this as being very fair, Player A had an enourmously difficult group whereas Player B could barely win against nobodies however they make it through to the next round. In all fairness you should be judged in regards to your own group. You can't entirely eliminate the complaints of "Well, so-and-so never had to play such-and-such therefore they had an easy go of it". However that doesn't mean you need to exacerbate the situation.
The logic of this format is similar to that of the two set one rack tie breaker format. Don't get me started on that one.
I like the qualifier system and the $5000 entry fee though, it's about time someone tried that. I personally think all pro tournaments should have entry fees in the four digits, it should add more money to the prize fund.
I just don't think we should keep borrowing from other sports. Skins games, texas holdem 9 ball? And this format seems to borrow from golf, but in a golf tournament everyone plays the same course.
Finally the match format. The players will be split up into four player brackets. Each player will play each other a total of 24 games with a total of 75 games played. Your score however is not compared against the rest of the group, rather it is compared against the rest of the field. The top 96 scores move to the next round.
This seems to be designed to create upsets and shockers. Lets say player A is in a group with Efren Reyes, Shane Van Boening and Dennis Orcullo. Player A wins 15 games and are just below the cut line. Player B is in a group with the cook, the dishwasher and the Butcher (assuming they don't play very strong of course). Player B wins 16 games, and just barely makes it through.
I don't see this as being very fair, Player A had an enourmously difficult group whereas Player B could barely win against nobodies however they make it through to the next round. In all fairness you should be judged in regards to your own group. You can't entirely eliminate the complaints of "Well, so-and-so never had to play such-and-such therefore they had an easy go of it". However that doesn't mean you need to exacerbate the situation.
The logic of this format is similar to that of the two set one rack tie breaker format. Don't get me started on that one.
I like the qualifier system and the $5000 entry fee though, it's about time someone tried that. I personally think all pro tournaments should have entry fees in the four digits, it should add more money to the prize fund.
I just don't think we should keep borrowing from other sports. Skins games, texas holdem 9 ball? And this format seems to borrow from golf, but in a golf tournament everyone plays the same course.
Last edited:
