No manufactured close match here....
...the five-pack that shook the world
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&sour...aw0z6l-SgQ--gidTywXhGW0K&ust=1574573190566681
Ya wanna break?....earn it
5 games won in a row at the end, but a 4-pack of B&Rs.
No manufactured close match here....
...the five-pack that shook the world
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&sour...aw0z6l-SgQ--gidTywXhGW0K&ust=1574573190566681
Ya wanna break?....earn it
5 games won in a row at the end, but a 4-pack of B&Rs.
Would you go for a five-pack with an asterisk?
*************
Kuo is 41 now. How time flies.All because of a failed safety by Kuo. I bet he still thinks of that shot from time to time. I don't think Kuo has ever won a major tournament since then either. He's not that old, maybe mid 30's now.
I noticed the place was packed in Taiwan, not an empty seat to be seen.
Would you go for a five-pack with an asterisk?
*************
Some people like winner breaks, some like alternate breaks.
What do you think?
In almost EVERY case, the people I've met who have the ability to break and run packages OVERWHELMINGLY prefer winner break.
And, in reverse, the people who CAN RARELY break and run packages prefer alternate break
So most people you’ve met prefer alternate break?
Not a fan of alternate break as as player and especially as a spectator. Winner break adds to the flare of the game.I will not be watching this event at all, like a boring tennis serve.Will say the cost for entry fee,rooms,vendor spots being reduced will be the key getting more spectators. Cost has been issue for years at pool events.In fact i watch less than ever online since 95 with so many events going to alternate break. Just my input no offense.
So most people you’ve met prefer alternate break?
I decided to lower the entry fee to $500, increase the field, and announce alternate breaks. The purpose is to draw more players, which will draw more spectators, reserve more hotel rooms, and bring more traffic to our vendors.
If there were 96 good players at the tournament, I don't see how 32 more will add a significant amount of spectators. There are only a handful (or two) of players that people come to see anyway. The rest are just there so the players they come to watch will have an opponent to play.
I would venture that around half the field nobody cares about, not to mention the ones that no one has ever even heard of.
Spectator pool died many years ago. It's going to take something revolutionary to bring the masses back....not 32 extra players.
JMHO.
Maniac
No, what he's trying to say is that those who can't win are demanding the rules be changed to give them more chances at the table or they won't pay their entry fees to the bigger events, which is NEEDED in order for the better players to earn some kind of money to buy something to eat, because they can't earn a living off the added money.
Those same lesser players are the same ones that restrict the pros from playing, or handicap the hell out of them from competing in their smaller local tournaments.
So most people you’ve met prefer alternate break?
But.....32 more players throws another $16,000 into the prize fund, and that's the real morel of the story.
Dear Pat:
The just concluded All Japan Championship had a really good racking concept. Check it out on youtube.
I think the balls should all be random, including the 2. What they did is super easy, quick, and random.
Time stamp is 43.29 if the link doesn't take you there (or the beginning of every rack)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aHGHYm1pTM
"I decided to lower the entry fee to $500, increase the field, and announce alternate breaks. The purpose is to draw more players, which will draw more spectators"
He specifically stated on his post quoted above that the purpose was to draw more players which, in turn, will draw more spectators. Did you not read that part, John? My post was about the probability of getting more spectators. It had ZERO to do with prize funds.
And....where do mushrooms fit into all of this???
Geez Louise X 3
Maniac (done here)